U.S. confrontation with the U.N.: Henry Lamb predicts showdown over international court

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Sunday, April 14, 2002 | Henry Lamb

[JohnHuang2]

It will happen. It is inevitable. The International Criminal Court will seize an American somewhere on this planet, and the United States will be forced to choose whether it will uphold the U.S. Constitution or surrender its national sovereignty to global governance.

The global court, adopted at a Rome conference in 1998, entered into force April 11, when the last of the required 60 nations delivered instruments of ratification.

The United States was one of only seven nations to vote against the court in Rome, but in the final hours of eligibility, Bill Clinton signed the statute committing the United States to support the court until it is eventually ratified by the U.S. Senate.

The court's jurisdiction is limited to "the crime of genocide; crimes against humanity; war crimes; and the crime of aggression," which may be prosecuted in the territory of any "State Party, and by special agreement, the territory of any other state."

The ICC is different from the International Court of Justice, which is nothing more than a referee between disputing nations, and whose decisions are non-binding. The ICC prosecutes individuals, including soldiers, diplomats and even heads of state, with the power to confiscate property and impose jail sentences upon conviction.

Who defines the crime of aggression and crimes against humanity? Delegates from states who have ratified the statute, of course.

And what, exactly, is the crime of aggression, or a crime against humanity – in the view of the makers of the ICC? The official newspaper at the 1998 conference, Terra Viva, claimed that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 1991 was an act of aggression, and that with a little luck, the ICC would "herald the start of a court for Bush." (Daily reports from the conference can be found here.)

Delegates to the U.N. Climate Change conference in Buenos Aires accused the United States of "crimes against humanity" for allowing SUVs to pollute the atmosphere, causing global warming. Buenos Aires reeked with diesel fumes throughout the meeting.

There is no doubt that the U.S. action in Afghanistan, and in other nations in the war against terrorism, would be seen as aggression by the ICC. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights has already said U.S. detention of combatants in Cuba violate international law.

Can the U.S. ignore the ICC? Not likely. Nations that ratify the statute are bound to "cooperate" with the ICC prosecutor. England, Canada, France, Germany and many other allies have ratified the court, and must comply with the court's decisions.

When – not if, but when – CIA or FBI agents, or U.S. soldiers are captured while trying to rid the world of terrorists, they will be subject to the ICC. Much of the world eagerly awaits the opportunity to exercise collective international power over the United States. It's only a matter of time before the U.S. will be forced to confront the U.N.

It's too late to stop the ICC. The Clinton administration led in the court's creation, expecting the U.N. Security Council (where the U.S. has veto power) to have the final say in any prosecution. The delegates to the Rome conference rejected this provision, forcing the U.S. to oppose the court it had worked so hard to create.

"Since early 1995, we have spared no effort to draft and negotiate a statute for a permanent international criminal court that would serve the interests of international justice," said David J. Scheffer at the 1998 meeting in Rome. Scheffer was Clinton's chief negotiator in Rome, and now in a New York Times article is urging President Bush not to "unsign" the document. Instead, he says we should "secure agreements that prevent the surrender of Americans to the court, while still supporting the treaty's basic purpose."

What kind of ridiculous reasoning is this? He says we should remain a signatory but seek agreements that exempt Americans. Bush has inquired of the U.N. and found that the U.S. signature can legally be withdrawn.

We should withdraw the U.S. signature and exempt all Americans by universal declaration. We should withhold financial support and military defense from any nation that supports the court. Moreover, the U.S. should recognize the ICC to be one of the last mechanisms necessary for the implementation of world government by the U.N., and immediately suspend all payments to the U.N. and its various organizations.

Confrontation with the U.N. is inevitable; the longer we wait, the more difficult it will be.

[JohnHuang2]

Sunday, April 14, 2002

Quote of the Day by JimSEA

[GeronL]

Showdown?? Bush will give in. I have no doubt he won't stand up to the world and the UN, he can't even stand up to Arafat.

[MJY1288]

"Showdown?? Bush will give in. I have no doubt he won't stand up to the world and the UN, he can't even stand up to Arafat."

What a loser mentality, the game is only in the first quarter and you have quit already. Are you from France or just easily influenced by the talking heads who can't see past their last column? Thank God you are here on FR and not in command of any of our troops.

[11B3]

He has no choice - there are way too many of us out here that won't stand for this abomination, and we have both the US Constitution and even the UN Charter which makes this "court" illegal.

When I say I won't stand for this: I mean that there are many of us out here that would feel that in order to perform our duty as Americans we would gladly take up arms against those who would enforce any law which directly subjugates the US Constitution or so blatantly removes the sovereignty of America. And I'd like to see any law enforcement officer inside this nation who would lift a finger to stop us from doing what their oath of office requires them to do: Defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies - both foreign and domestic. (Yes, you can call that naive or foolhardy, but this is one of those times where real Americans need to once again become patriots. Regardless of "popular" opinion or the consequences.)

[GeronL]

I'm being a bit sarcastic. Maybe if we keep saying it, the administration will see how weak they are starting to look and decide to lash out and bomb the UN. we can hope.

[GeronL]

bump

[MJY1288]

A bit sarcastic? Well, If I hadn't seen at least 10 comments by you, like the one above splattered over the last 20 articles JohnHuang2 has posted tonight, I might believe you.

Have you ever considered what would happen if the middle east was to become a regional conflict that would require us to come to the defense of Israel. The Arab world would unite against us and halt all oil exports to the United States. This would cripple us because we import 50% of our energy needs from this region and because of the past administration ignoring it's duties by not having an energy policy. If the Arabs cut the flow of oil to the U.S. we would be in a world of doo doo. I expect the President of the United States to look out for our best interest, and to handle the middle east as if their problems could be compared to our efforts in eliminating terrorist organizations with "Global Reach" is absurd and would undermine our national security. It's in our best interest not to see the situation between Arafat and Sharon go global, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

[antidemocommie]

BUSH WILL GIVE IN TO THE INTERNATIONALISTS!

The insanity of global rule is well on the way, and no Bush has ever stood in the way of it!

"NEW WORLD ORDER", President Bush sr.

[antidemocommie]

My cat box contains many gifts for the supporters of the international court, and the new world disorder.

[MJY1288]

Can you name me one example of THIS president caving in to the U.N.?

I just read an article that said George W. Bush will undo Clinton's signature on this U.N. treaty. Your New World Order fears were justified with GHW Bush, but I challenge you to show me any facts that back up your paranoia that this President will allow the U.N. to undermine our soveriegnty

[Mariner]

"Import 50% of our energy needs"

Inaccurate. We import 30% of our oil from the arab states......not 50% of our energy.

In fact, upon the imposition of an arab oil embargo one could expect the ecomnomic impact would reduce our oil consumption in a relatively equal fashion.

Assuming the arabs continue to export to europe and Japan etc., the impact on the world economy would be limited to the time it took for prices to stabilize and new buyer-supplier relationships to be formed.

However, the US could CRIPPLE BOTH the arabs and europe with an oil blockade.........a strategic weapon best left unbrandished unless the embargo emerges.

The impact of a blockade would be to crush the economies of all who are in opposition to us today...........at some considerable, but recoverable, domestic economic disruption. After the election in Nov, all bets are off.

Save money and reduce debt.

[fire_eye]

When – not if, but when – CIA or FBI agents, or U.S. soldiers are captured while trying to rid the world of terrorists, they will be subject to the ICC.

That is not going to sit well with Oprah-and-football-watching Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sikspak - any self-assured opinions to the contrary of the American Left, about how well their media running dogs have succeeded in drugging the Sikspaks into senselessness, notwithsatanding.

If the U.N. actually tries a stunt like that, it very well might set a chain of events in motion that *will* result in the U.S. withdrawing from the U.N. - or just withholding funds for its support, either of which will send it into its final tailspin.

American politicians of all stripes are *not* going to like having to explain to their constituents why they're standing by and letting American soldiers and government officials be tried by foreign governments for defending American interests.

I really don't think this is going anywhere... but I almost hope it is. In the words of a German philosopher whose name I wish I could remember, "Better a horrible end, than a horror without end".

[MJY1288]

Since I am only relying on what I have seen on the mainstream news and uttered by our politicians who want us to drill in ANWAR, I can't debate your figures and will stand corrected on the exact figures.

But I still feel it's in our best interest not to have the middle east turn into a regional conflict involving the Arab nations. I do not expect this president or any other president of this country to apply the standards in which we fight terrorism to anyone other than us. I feel it is wrong to say that Bush is waffling on his stand against terroism and I feel it was wrong for Israel to compare what happened on Sept 11th to their struggle.

[Uncle Bill]

Socialist/Communist Students Bringing Us Closer To One World Government

U.S. confrontation with the U.N. - The International Criminal Court
"Bush has inquired of the U.N. and found that the U.S. signature can legally be withdrawn"

Bush to delete Clinton's signature from the list

President Signs Commerce Appropriations Bill - Statement by the President on H.R. 2500
"Section 630 prohibits the use of appropriated funds for cooperation with, or assistance or other support to, the International Criminal Court (ICC) or its Preparatory Commission. While Section 630 clearly reflects that Congress agrees with my Administration that it is not in the interests of the United States to become a party to the ICC treaty, I must note that this provision must be applied consistent with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs, which, among other things, will enable me to take actions to protect U.S. nationals from the purported jurisdiction of the treaty."

U.S. to Back Out of World Court Plan

World court now a reality

World court now a reality: Will supersede national sovereignty

Welcome to the New World - Court

UN: Effort To Create International Court Reaches Milestone Amid U.S. Opposition

Sneak preview of world court: New Yugoslav war-crimes law mirrors ICC's likely powers

Bill would keep U.S. out of world court

[House] Bill would keep U.S. out of world court

War Crimes Court Pits United States Against World, Rome Statute ICC
"The ICC is NOT A WAR CRIMES COURT. It is a global in scope legal system that can and will exert it's authority over every nation state on the planet. All the UN has to do is declare something a crime against humanity and the court swings into action.

What constitutes a crime against humanity? Does Israel's current actions? Would a church entity that spoke out against abortion? Would a church entity that spoke out against homosexuality? Would a nation that used up more resources than a poor nation be guilty of a crime against humanity? Would a nation that refused to manage it's land in accordance with UN dictates be committing a crime against humanity? What about a nation that emitted too much carbon emissions? What that be a crime against humanity?

Folks, this court is the Devil's fondest desire. It is pure evil. It's activities are inevitably going to turn toward the dark side. Ignore this at your own risk."
8 posted on 4/11/02 12:00 PM Pacific by DoughtyOne

-----

"Dear Doughty One,

I have attended negotiations sessions for the ICC. I am very familiar with the statute, and with the anti-religious, anti-family, radical leftist and feminists groups who promoted it, and sat in national chairs negotiating it. You are exactly right."
9 posted on 4/11/02 12:05 PM Pacific by lady lawyer

World Crimes Tribunal Could Have Long-Term Affect on US Peacekeeping

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

International Criminal Court becomes legal reality

UN Poised To Ratify International Criminal Court

An unjust international court

International Criminal Court to be established

A Trap for President Bush

World Criminal Court Could Limit U.S. Military

• Who Is Michael New?

• New's military appeal ends

POPE COULD FACE CHARGES UNDER INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Israel and the International Criminal Court
Note: Calls begin for war crimes trial for Israelis

Not-So-Supreme Court: The problem of an international criminal court

WORLD GOVERNMENT:...UN Proposal:...Finger Print Every Person

Tell The U.N. To Stuff It

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[madfly]

ping

[madfly]

ping

[jslade]

bttt

[madfly]

ping

[madfly]

ping