Boy, that's going to inspire a lot of volunteers.
Posted on 04/04/2002 10:44:59 PM PST by BigWest
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT COMING INTO BEING;
Senator Daniel Inouye Kills Anti-ICC Legislation
A last-minute decision to drop legislative protection for U.S. military personnel against an International Criminal Court (ICC) continues to generate controversy on Capitol Hill.
This has set the stage for the implementation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty, with jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel.
The ICC may become a reality on April 11, when the 60th country is expected to ratify the treaty. Legislation called the "American Servicemembers' Protection Act" had passed the House of Representatives by a 282 to 137 vote last May and the Senate by a 78 to 21 vote in December.
The bill went to a conference committee to iron out differences between the House and Senate versions and was going to be signed by President Bush. The bill was intended to protect members of the U.S. Armed Forces from unjust and illegal prosecution by the ICC. But the legislation was then dropped from the final Defense Appropriations bill.
The conference committee met in secret, but sources said that Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, removed the anti-ICC legislation.
"All the hard work and solidarity paid off," declared Human Rights Watch, a supporter of the ICC. The World Federalist Association, another ICC supporter, hailed the move, saying that the ICC "is going to happen" and that the U.S. will have to learn to live with it.
CNSNews.com reports that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) is sponsoring House Concurrent Resolution 23, calls on President Bush to declare that the U.S. has no intention of ratifying such a bill. In a letter Paul sent to other congressmen, he said the treaty "conflicts with the Constitution, American sovereignty, and individual liberty." Paul is also concerned that under the treaty, the fate of Americans overseas could be determined by representatives of nations that are unfriendly toward the U.S., like Cuba. (see below)
Meantime, the U.S. continues to insist that foreign leaders comply with the demands of U.N. criminal tribunals. But turning the tables on his accusers once again, former Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic has said that Serb troops in Kosovo were fighting Muslim terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden.
At a recent hearing before the U.N. court that is trying him, press reports said that he "brandished what he said was an FBI document concerning Al Qaeda-backed Muslim fighters in Kosovo as he insisted…that ethnic Albanian separatists were the true villains there." Milosevic said, "This is a congressional statement of the FBI. That's what this is."
Press reports in the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, and other papers said that Milosevic declared that the report was dated December 18th. But stories added, "The authenticity of the document could not be independently confirmed, and he gave no details of how he obtained it. But witness Sabit Kadriu said he knew nothing of activity by Osama bin Laden in Kosovo, where a Serbian crackdown on ethnic Albanians triggered North Atlantic Treaty Organization airstrikes in 1999. 'It's not true there were mujahideen in Kosovo. This is a fiction of your mind,' the 41-year-old ethnic Albanian said."
There's nothing controversial about the claims of Milosevic, and there's no excuse at this late date for the press to question charges that bin Laden was active in Kosovo against the Serbs. This is a well-established fact. It is not a fiction of anyone's mind. Bin Laden himself issued statements condemning the Serbs.
There is also nothing mysterious about the FBI document alluded to by Milosevic.
It is a statement by J. T. Caruso, the Acting Assistant Director of the CounterTerrorism Division of the FBI , and is available on the Internet. Although his prepared statement didn't specifically mention Kosovo, Caruso did cite Albania, where some of the Muslim terrorists that attacked Serbia were based The FBI statement was delivered before the Senate Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism of the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The American Forces News Network, which is distributed by the Pentagon, had documented Al Qaeda's operations in Kosovo and many other countries.
Its story said, "Al Qaeda has cells in Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Burma, Indonesia, the Philippines, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Uganda, Ethiopia and in the West Bank and Gaza."
The New York Times noted last December that NATO had raided the offices of an American charity in Kosovo as part of an investigation that linked two large Muslim charities based in Illinois to fund-raising for bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network.
NATO said its raids targeted two offices of the Global Relief Foundation, and the soldiers acted "after receiving credible intelligence information that individuals working for this organization may have been directly involved in supporting worldwide international terrorist activities."
So Milosevic is really on trial for fighting terrorism?
Rep. Ron Paul Introduces Anti-ICC Resolution:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr020701.htm
Paul Introduces Resolution Opposing International Criminal Court
Washington, D.C.- Congressman Ron Paul today introduced HCR 23, a resolution calling for Congress and the President to renounce U.S. support for the United Nations international criminal court (ICC).
Paul has been an outspoken critic of the UN in general and the ICC in particular, pointing out the threat to U.S. sovereignty posed by a court with international jurisdiction.
A Clinton administration ambassador quietly signed the ICC treaty on December 31st, despite strong opposition to the proposal from both parties in Congress and even some administration officials.
Although the Senate has not yet ratified the treaty, UN observers and international law experts warn that UN officials view the signature as tantamount to American support for the ICC.
Paul's resolution calls for President Bush to declare that the U.S. does not intend to ratify or assent to the ICC treaty.
"UN bureaucrats don't care whether our Senate ratifies the ICC treaty or not," Paul stated. "The Clinton administration signed the treaty, and the UN views the signature as final.
It arrogantly announced that signatures from 60 nations will suffice to authorize creation of the international court.
Once the court is in place, the UN will have the mechanism it needs to enforce its global edicts against American citizens.
What about rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens by the Constitution, such as due process, jury trials, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition against unreasonable searches?
The ICC represents the next step toward global government: first the UN created its unconstitutional laws, and now it needs an international court to give teeth to the laws.
President Bush should act now to revoke any symbol of U.S. support for this terrible treaty."
Paul plans to seek support for the resolution among his colleagues on the International Relations committee.
"This is not a partisan issue," he concluded. "This is an issue of American sovereignty. American citizens have a right to Constitutional protections. Congress must insure that no American ever faces trial before an unconstitutional international court."
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 8, 2001
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mr. DUNCAN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Congress that President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.
Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty would establish the International Criminal Court as an international authority with power to threaten the ability of the United States to engage in military action to provide for its national defense;
Whereas former President Clinton's designee signed the International Criminal Court Treaty on December 31, 2000;
Whereas the term `crimes of aggression', as used in the treaty, is not specifically defined and therefore would, by design and effect, require the United States to receive prior United Nations Security Council approval and International Criminal Court confirmation before engaging in military action, thereby putting United States military officers in jeopardy of an International Criminal Court prosecution;
Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty creates the possibility that United States civilians, like United States military personnel, could be brought before a court that bypasses the United States Government;
Whereas the people of the United States are self-governing, and they have a constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the laws that their elected representatives enact and to be judged by their peers and no others;
Whereas the treaty would subject United States individuals who appear before the International Criminal Court to trial and punishment without the rights and protections that the United States Constitution guarantees, including trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against one, the right to confront one's accusers, and the right to a speedy trial;
Whereas the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) that the United States Government may not enter into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the United States Constitution because the treaty power does not authorize what the Constitution forbids;
Whereas the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a party is not bound to a treaty unless it has consented to be bound;
Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty breaks substantially with accepted norms of international law because it extends its jurisdiction even to the nationals of countries that do not sign and ratify the treaty;
Whereas the International Criminal Court would be empowered unilaterally to investigate, try, and punish certain crimes, contrary to the current international norm of affording countries the primary responsibility for punishing these crimes;
Whereas approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths of the President and Senators, because the United States Constitution clearly provides that `[a]ll legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States', and vested powers cannot be transferred;
Whereas each of the 4 types of offenses over which the International Criminal Court may obtain jurisdiction is within the legislative and judicial authority of the United States;
Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty creates a supranational court that would exercise the judicial power constitutionally reserved only to the United States and thus is in direct violation of the United States Constitution;
Whereas in order to make a treaty, the United States Constitution requires the President to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate and the concurrence of the Senate by a 2/3 vote; and
Whereas former President Clinton signed the International Criminal Court Treaty but expressed his intention not to submit the treaty to the Senate, thereby rendering his act procedurally inadequate and unconstitutional:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, undermines United States sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United States Constitution, contradicts customs of international law, and violates the inalienable rights of self-government, individual liberty, and popular sovereignty; and
(2) President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of former President Clinton to the treaty should not be construed otherwise.
Ron Paul is RIGHT ON for opposing the ICC in toto, not going along with it or merely trying to "protect US servicemen". The ICC--as well as the ICTY--negates our 1,000-year-old system of jurisprudence, with its safeguards of the rights of the accused. America needs to stand FIRM for fair, civilized, and democratic standards of jurisprudence throughout the world.
As the ICC nears implementation, the traitor chorus of "human rightsers" and world "federalists" are coming out of the woodwork, claiming "victory for humanity". However, the ICC's implementation would mean JUST THE OPPOSITE !!!!
The evil "genius" behind the ICC (and the ICTY), M. Cherif Bassiouni--is after victory for something else--making islamic sharia law equal to the American system of jurisprudence, and putting muslim "judges" on the international bench, to rule on cases involving "infidels" and "disbelievers" as defendants, where they are considered guilty even beofre the "trial" begins. This is already happening in the ICTY!!!
Someone who gives a damn about our troops and America should kill Senator Daniel Inouye! These Goddamn Communists think that Freedom is free, well ask the men and women who died fighting for America's freedom what the price was for them. The ultimate....DEATH. THAT'S WHAT THEY PAID FOR US TO BE FREE!
Boy, that's going to inspire a lot of volunteers.
Clinton, by signing the UN treaty, allowed the UN Court to be born, according to the UN charter. Permanent member of the UN Security Council have veto powers and can stop any amendment. The Court was not inevitable until Clinton signed the treaty.
As long as we are in the UN, this part of the Constitution:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur
is superceded by this part:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The balance created by our founding fathers is negated. The president has power to create any law he wishes through the UN regardless of the Senate's wishes.
Get the US out of the UN.
"UN bureaucrats don't care whether our Senate ratifies the ICC treaty or not," Paul stated. "The Clinton administration signed the treaty, and the UN views the signature as final. It arrogantly announced that signatures from 60 nations will suffice to authorize creation of the international court. Paul's resolution calls for President Bush to declare that the U.S. does not intend to ratify or assent to the ICC treaty.
Bump.
May God save the Republic!
Government is not the solution to our problem,
Government is the problem.
-Ronald Reagan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.