 UN_List: for United Nations articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register Don't forget:
|
Posted on 04/05/2002 1:59:28 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
President Bush has only a few days to decide whether to "unsign” a treaty that enables strangers in far-off lands to try Americans on any number of charges. This time bomb against the constitutional rights of American citizens is one of many booby traps the lame-duck Clinton administration left behind for President Bush.
The Bush administration has rhetorically rejected the so-called International Criminal Court. The State Department’s Ambassador Pierre Prosper has said the U.S. "is not and will not be part of the ICC.”
All very reassuring. But it’s not official until the president takes the next step and removes the U.S. signature from the treaty. And Prosper indicates that just might happen.
But time is running short. And you can be certain that the internationalists and America-Lasters will bring tremendous pressure on the president to leave the U.S. signature on the document because - all together now — "the eyes of the world are upon us.”
The United Nations reports that the 60th ratification of the treaty will occur on April 11. A big ceremony is planned to celebrate the birth of this step toward ultimate world government.
A Call to Action
"President Bush must rescind the United States’ signature from the ICC treaty,” warns American Policy Center (APC).
"Without U.S. participation,” says APC President Tom De Weese, "the U.N. court will be dead on arrival. We must make sure that happens!”
APC urges Americans to phone or fax the White House without delay.
Bill Clinton signed the treaty just before the deadline on New Year’s Eve, 2000, just 20 days before he was to leave office.
Ah, you say, but the U.S. will never be a party to something such as this. The Senate would never ratify a treaty that would scuttle constitutional protections guaranteed American citizens. Isn’t that why neither Presidents Clinton nor Bush submitted the treaty to Senate? They knew there were so many senators opposed to it that it would never be ratified.
Besides, even as he signed the document, Clinton acknowledged the treaty was flawed and lacked precise definitions or protections. And President Bush takes a dim view of getting the U.S. entangled in this web. So we have nothing to worry about, do we?
Wrong! The court claims jurisdiction over Americans even though the U.S. has not ratified the treaty.
You may have thought you learned in school, before history classes became "social studies,” that the U.S. is not bound by any international treaty until and unless it is ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.
His Abuses Never End
But that overlooks the fact that Clinton tore yet another hole in an already badly tattered Constitution when he signed Executive Order No. 13107. That document implements U.N. treaties even if they are unratified.
Last year, there was an effort to combat this piece of mischief, as Congress considered the Servicemembers Protection Act. That bill would have cut off U.S. military aid to countries that ratified the ICC. It would have prohibited U.S. forces from participating in U.N. "peacekeeping" operations unless they are exempted from jurisdiction of the ICC. Further, the president would have been authorized to take whatever means necessary to free U.S. service members from ICC control.
But the measure failed to reach President Bush’s desk. The International Coalition lobbying for the ICC expresses undisguised glee on its Web site that the bill, sponsored by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., was pigeonholed in the congressional rush to adjournment last December.
Like Something out of Kafka
Let there be no mistake about what the ICC would mean to Americans. U.S. service personnel stationed overseas would be at the risk of prosecution on trivial or malicious charges. The ICC says it plans to prosecute war crimes, genocide or other "crimes against humanity” that have not been defined.
The ICC is not to be confused with the World Court, which has been around for years. That body merely tries to settle disputes among nations. The ICC goes several giant steps beyond that. It can try individuals.
That is why it is urgent that President Bush hear from Americans who want him to unsign the treaty. On Thursday there will be what is being advertised as a "solemn ceremony,” at United Nations headquarters in New York, celebrating the 60th signature on the treaty. At that point, the new court will be created. Senior U.N. officials will participate in the ceremony.
If President Bush unsigns the treaty before then, there can be no doubt. In this time of all-out war on terrorism, the world will know that the U.S. will not betray the young men and women in your town who put on that uniform to defend our country.
With a stroke of the pen, our wartime leader would let the world know we will not abandon our men and women to a court that can strip them of constitutional protections and try them on trumped-up charges before America-hating foreign judges.
Let your voice be heard. Only a few days remain.
And, of course, we must not confuse it with the UN Tribunals either. Sheesh!
I'm fairly confident GWB will unsign this treaty, but I won't take any chances and will let them know I'm against it. Thanks for the post.
1. There is no provision in the Constitution for a President to "unsign" a treaty. Once it's signed, it's signed.
2. A treaty signed by the President means nothing until ratified in the Senate. This one never will be.
How can you be so sure? Whoever thought that the people we send to Washington to look out for our interests would kick our First Amendment rights to the curb without a second thought?
Never say never. I think it's safe to say that our elected representatives have vastly different interests and goals than we do.
Unsigning a treaty would, in itself, be unconstitutional. That's a fact.
One point -- since when does that document pose more than an inconvenience be it signing, enacting or enforcing?
Oh yeah? Well, President Bush "unsigned" the Kyoto Treaty last year. How did he do it?
Clinton could not sign it on behalf of the United States. Prior to its confirmation by the Senate, the treaty is merely a proposal, and the signature merely a sign that it's a final draft.
UN_List: for United Nations articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register Don't forget:
|
Judge Lloyd Williams of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda adjusts his headphones, April 2, 2002. Prosecutors opened the first trial of senior army officers accused of plotting Rwanda's 1994 genocide on Tuesday, but the four defendants stayed in their cells to protest alleged unfair treatment. Lawyers said Colonel Theoneste Bagosora, the alleged driving force behind the massacres, and his co-accused had ordered Hutu militia to kill hundreds of thousands of ethnic Tutsis in 100 days of slaughter. Photo by George Mulala/Reuters
You can always withdraw from a treaty. It does have the risk of damaging your credibility on future agreements.
WFTR
Bill
How can Clinton get away with this since it conflicts with the constitutuion? Can't the Supreme Court throw out an EO if it is unconstitutional?
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.