International Criminal Court Coming Into Being(And Ron Paul's Response)

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."

Rep. Ron Paul Introduces Anti-ICC Resolution:
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr020701.htm

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."

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:

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.

Bush is a globalist. He was on C-Span yesterday talking about the values of "free-trade", and he hinted at how America is losing out because we've only entered into three "free-trade" compacts, and that some European nations have entered into thirty.

Free Trade is NOT free. IT is good for noone but the globalists, and a few people atop multinational corporations. The people of all nations lose, particularly first world ones such as the United States.

Thus, free trade, the ICC, and continued economic interventionism= Global Government. Hence, I believe that we are in the end times.

Furthermore, look at all the garbage being rammed down our throats post September 11th. World Government has been shifted from medium speed to light speed within the span of seven months.

My goodness, the Constitution is being attacked through the Patriot Act, CFR, 245i, ICC, NATO warplanes, etc. Homeland Security is a sham, for it's turning our nation into a police state, instead of doing the work where it needs to be done: the borders. Furthermore, profiling needs to be going on. I heard it was, but I don't know.

Under the cover of the aftermath of September 11th, there is a lot of fishy things going on. It's sad, because our nation is falling apart, but so many people don't realize it.

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....

Senator Daniel Inouye WAS a brave American fighting man!

Second Lt. Daniel K. Inouye, who received a battlefield commission in November 1944, was one of those brave men [Japanese-Americans who fougt for us during World War II]. On April 21, 1945, while leading his platoon in an attack on enemy positions on Mount Musatello in Italy, Lieutenant Inouye was wounded in the right arm by an enemy grenade and in the right leg by another bullet. For his bravery in leading the attack while wounded, Lieutenant Inouye received the Distinguished Service Cross. His arm proved to be more seriously wounded than first realized and required amputation. Inouye was promoted to captain but not released from the hospital until February 1947.

That all goes to show you that ANYONE can become a dupe, or even a paid NWO operative, whatever his or her background. Even you or me!!!

Besides that, there are many idealistic people who support the ICC, because they believe that it will result in a more evenhanded justice throught the world, prevent atrocities, and make for peace. However, as you can see from my many posts about the ICC and the ICTY, I believe strongly that they are GROSSLY misinformed, especially by the NWO propaganda in places like the New World Order Times that passes for "news".

If some of them could be made to look through Serbian eyes, and if they are reminded what a precious thing our American system of jurisprudence is, they might well change their tune!!!!

"our American system of jurisprudence" will not be worth spit if the ICC comes into being because it will drag our Constitution for the United States stright into the New World Order toilet. That our President who "swore to uphold the Constitution for the United States" has not killed this deceitful measure is another sign that we are increasing the speed which all Liberty will be removed from American citizens.

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.