Posted on 05/04/2002 5:56:01 PM PDT by Pokey78
WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Bush administration has decided to renounce formally any involvement in a treaty setting up an international criminal court and is expected to declare that the signing of the document by the Clinton administration is no longer valid, government officials said today.
The "unsigning" of the treaty, which is expected to be announced on Monday, will be a decisive rejection by the Bush White House of the concept of a permanent tribunal designed to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity and other war crimes.
The administration has long argued that the court has the potential to create havoc for the United States, exposing American soldiers and officials overseas to capricious and mischievous prosecutions.
"We think it was a mistake to have signed it," an administration official said. "We have said we will not submit it to the Senate for ratification." The renunciation, officials said, also means the United States will not recognize the court's jurisdiction and will not submit to any of its orders.
In addition, other officials said, the United States will simultaneously assert that it will not be bound by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a 1969 pact that outlines the obligations of nations to obey other international treaties.
Article 18 of the Vienna Convention requires signatory nations like the United States to refrain from taking steps to undermine treaties they sign, even if they do not ratify them. As with the treaty for the International Criminal Court, the United States signed but did not ratify the Vienna agreement.
A government official said the administration planned to make its decision known on Monday in a speech by Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman in Washington and in a briefing for foreign journalists by Pierre-Richard Prosper, the State Department's ambassador for war crimes issues. Representatives of human rights groups also said they expected the decision, which was first reported by Reuters news service on Friday, to be announced then.
The pointed repudiation of the International Criminal Court, while not unexpected, is certain to add to the friction between the United States and much of the world, notably Europe, where policy makers have grumbled ever more loudly about the Bush administration's inclination to steer away from multinational obligations.
Despite the strong stance by the United States, the International Criminal Court will begin operations next year in The Hague. More than the required number of 60 nations had signed the treaty as of last month, and the court's jurisdiction will cover crimes committed after July 1 of this year.
It will become the first new international judicial body since the International Court of Justice, or World Court, was created in 1945 to adjudicate disputes between states. Until now, individuals were tried in ad hoc or specially created tribunals for war crimes like those now in operation for offenses committed in Rwanda and the countries that formerly made up Yugoslavia, both modeled on the Nuremberg trials of Nazi officials following World War II.
Harold Hongju Koh, a Yale law professor and a former assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration, said the retraction of the signature on the treaty would be a profound error.
"The result is that the administration is losing a major opportunity to shape the court so it could be useful to the United States," Mr. Koh said. "Now that the court exists, it's important to deal with it. If the administration leaves it unmanaged, it may create difficulties for us and nations like Israel."
He described the opportunity as similar to the United States Supreme Court's 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison that courts could subject the other branches of government to its jurisdiction, decisively defining its role in the new nation.
"This is an international Marbury versus Madison moment," he said.
John R. Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control, who has been a leading voice in opposing American participation in the International Criminal Court, wrote extensively about the subject before he took office, calling it "a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism" and "not just naïve, but dangerous."
Mr. Bolton, in an article in The National Interest in 1999, argued that the court would force the United States to forfeit some of its sovereignty and unique concept of due process to a foreign and possibly unrestrained prosecutor. He said that it was not just American soldiers who would be in the most jeopardy, but "the president, the cabinet officers who comprise the National Security Council, and other senior civilian and military leaders responsible for our defense and foreign policy."
Palitha Kohona, the chief of the treaty section for the United Nations, said it was unheard of for a nation that signed a treaty to withdraw that signature. David J. Scheffer, who was ambassador at large for war crimes and who signed the treaty for the Clinton administration, said that withdrawing the signature exceeded even the actions of the Reagan administration, which in 1987 decided it would not seek ratification of an amendment to the Geneva Conventions that the Carter administration had signed. The action concerned a document known as Protocol 1, which would have extended protections to soldiers of insurgent movements.
"There has never been an attempt to literally remove the document," he said.
Mr. Scheffer said the Bush administration's actions would not only undermine international justice but also damage American interests.
"The perception will be that the United States walked away from international justice and forfeited its leadership role," he said. "It will be a dramatic moment in international legal history."
One official said the Bush White House was prepared to say last September that it would withdraw the signature on the treaty, but the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that month delayed an announcement. Officials were not only occupied with the sudden fight against terrorism but also thought that renouncing the treaty would appear unseemly, the official said.
Most democratic nations and all European Union countries have ratified the treaty — except Greece, which is in the process of doing so — along with Canada, New Zealand and a number of African, Eastern European and Central Asian countries. Israel has signed it but not ratified. Egypt, Iran and Syria have signed. India, Pakistan and China have neither signed nor ratified. Russia has signed but not ratified.
CLINTON SIGNED THIS BEFORE BUSH WAS ELECTED ! So don't give me your silly blame game, Bush should have ... BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Timewise,
the president couldn't have done EVERYTHING on the first day, the first week, the first month, the first year. Your expectations are fantastical.
I thought we were in agreement that Clinton signed this before Bush was elected. Very astute of you to mention it again. Timewise, nobody stated that the President should have reacted on the first day. So I guess we're in agreement twice here. As for the first week, nope. We agree again. As for the first month, yep he could have stated that he intended to start the process of revoking Clinton's signature. He didn't have to do it immediately, but he could have expressed his intent early enough to help foster opposition to the intent to create the ICC.
President Bush didn't sign onto Kyoto, and that didn't stop the noise / other nations from doing so . Bovine excrement, that the Euros were waiting to see what we did !
Clinton signed on to it . Blame him, if you think that the Euros were playing " follow the leader "; whic they were NOT doing !
Hint. This discussion isn't about Kyoto, China downing our plane, my archiving of posts about Bush's handling of China or the color of my posts. What a world environmental treaty has to do with an issue relating to a world court is very tenuous.
There are enough African , Middle Eastern, and Asian countries, to have made up the required 60 , to pass this things, so please stop saying that without US, it would
have failed to come into existance.
The fact is that only about 62 or 3 nations signed on to the ICC. I never said that no nations would sign without us. What I said was that we could have influnced some of our allies to reconsider or refrain from signing. We never lifted a finger to oppose the ICC until now, after it was ratified. Do you consider it a duty of our President to help devlop world opinion and world policy? I do.
Gee, Doughty, did it ever occurr to you, that just maybe , should the ICC try to prosecute a nonmember ( the USA ) , they'd fail, because we wouldn't comply ? How
about trying to give credit, where credit is due, for a change ? Pesident Bush deserves to be cheered, by EVERYONE , for doing this !
As I have stated before, if Bush would have done this early on and initiated an opposition to the ICC, I would have been the first one in line to slap the guy on the back for having done so. What possible good does it do now, for Bush to withdraw Clinton's signature? The ICC is a fact. It is now a world body. We can't take that back. Bush is trying to have it both ways. He refrained from standing up on the issue when it counted.
You've become an unappeasable , and it isn't a pretty sight. Would you be happier if Gore had won and signed this as well as Kyoto ? Maybe , just maybe, you aren't
happy, unless you can moan and groan and heap scorn and calumny, deserved or not, on everyone. That's about what it's beginning to look like. You and I go back a
looooooooong way, my dear, and my esteem , for you, is falling; sorry to say.
I realize that in your mind I just hate Bush and am going to complain no matter what he does. So be it. You think this is a bold move on his part. I think that a bold move would have been to reject the idea of an ICC from the get-go. It's not bold to speak out after the ICC has been ratified.
You know, if it isn't one poor excuse for logic from you, it's another. What has this to do with Gore? I have addressed something a grown man did that I disagree with. I don't advocate or support Gore. Where do you come up with this stuff? You may not agree with my comments, but there is ample reason for me to take Bush to task for refraining from striking down Clinton's signature until after the ICC was ratified. You may not agree with my position, but it is a logical conclusion whether you wish to recognize it or not.
As for your opinion of me, nobody want's to see someone make the statement you did with regard to me, but I don't make my comments to win friends. I try to make statements that reflect the impact dicisions will make on real world politics. Not fighting against the eventual ratification of the ICC was a huge error. It's an error that we will be having to face long into the future as the ICC gains strength.
47 posted on 5/5/02 12:56 AM Pacific by nopardons
You chose to start a thread, 13 or so months ago, on FR with your commentary about George W. Bush's malfeasance as Commander in Chief. I thought you were a
fraud then.
Could you post that commentary here? I'd like to see it again, if anything is true, I'll step up like a man and say I'm wrong.
I didn't think anything you posted that night was honorably presented, much less true. I probably was wrong ... ya think? How to judge ... how to judge?
I'll admit, the blue font kept me off balance ...
58 posted on 5/5/02 1:22 AM Pacific by ArneFufkin
Arne, you're having enough trouble confining yourself to and addressing the issue on this thread. I'm not sure what dredging up a thread from thirteen months ago is going accomplish for you. If we did that would you address that topic or when the going got tough would you demand that we dredge up other articles, say six months, one year or three years old? What would that prove other than that you can't deal with issues at hand without having to change the subject?
The only reason I post in blue is to differentiate my current comments from the former comments that I am refering to. I post them in gray.
Do try to get your facts correct , before making silly claims. SIXTY-SIX nations signed on, not 62 or 63. This, after it was well known, that President Bush was going to pull the plug, on our being a signatory. It didn't stop anyone from joining in; no a one.
There is a LOUD and vocifforous faction here, who would have gone ballistic, had President Bush tried to hustle other nations . You are angry, because he didn't do that. It isn't part of the president of the USA's job description, to do what you want. It isn't in the Constitution. President Bush was kept from being able to do much of the much needed work, prior to the Inauguration ( don't you remember ? ) and had to play " catch up " on a raft of immediately needed things, to just begin to run the country. I doubt that he was even made aware of this matter, that early on. We ALL know that he was just about to do this, and ... whoooooooooops, 9/11/01 happened. I guess that you would have grumbled about the tardiness of it all, had 9 / 11 never happened, and the president announced this then. Had that scenario worked out, IT STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIFIED ! Go back and read the thread, that named the SIX countries that jst put it over the top . They would have still signed it !
I know that you weren't for Gore. It's just by extrapolation, that it appears that you would have preferred that , so that your whinging, would be validated, instead of not.
Of course you may express your unhappiness , here. You'll just keep getting toasted , by meand others, when you're wrong ; as you are now.
I can only speak for myself. You are dishonest. The "Bushbot" nonsense is the most juvenile tactic I have ever encountered. You say that the "Bushbots" never criticize him. Hell why not? I see more "criticism” on FreeRepublic than I do on "smirking chimp". Your "criticism" does not stop with Bush it extends to anyone that does not join the lynch mob. I have some issues with Bush and I am too old to be a groupie. Bush is a hired hand that I paid" with my vote, to do a job and ,over all, he is doing what I hired him to do. I don't know if you voted for him or not, my guess is that you did not.
61 posted on 5/5/02 1:43 AM Pacific by Texasforever
Once again I am forced to ask some fundamental questions which you dismissed the first time around. Actually consider them this time. Was there ever any doubt in your mind that the ICC was bad? Should any President need more than a few minutes to figure out that a world body seeking to super-impose it's will over our sovereign nation is a bad thing? Shouldn't any President be expected to reject such an idea at once, and expend his energies as much as possible to avoid it from becoming a reality? Shouldn't Bush have announced his intention to object to the ICC in no uncertain terms long before it was ratified?
How am I being dishonest by stating that Bush should not be praised for avoiding his duty on this issue until it was too late to affect the outcome? I don't cast the "Bushbot" title around lightly. It is painfully clear that Bush should have rejected the idea of an ICC immediately. You state that you're glad he did it. If you are glad he did it, then you should wish the ICC had not been ratified. And if you wish it had not been ratified, it would stand to reason that you would want someone with Bush's visibility objecting to it on the world stage before the ICC was ratified. For the life of me I cannot understand you disagreeing with this logic, if you truly didn't like the idea of the ICC from the start.
It wasn't your or Arne's habitual support of Bush that prompted my "Bushbot" comment. It's the seeming incongruity of your views voiced on this thread that made me use that term. I don't see how you can justify praise of Bush at this late date, if you truly objected to the ICC all along. Therefore it appears to me that your support of Bush supercedes your vocal objection to the ICC. When that happens, I condider someone to be a Bushbot, even if it is isolated to one issue. Therefore I do not consider myself to be dishonest. I think it is you who is being dishonest even to yourself on this topic.
As for advocating a lynch mob, it has been you and Arne that seem to think that one's necessary because my views were aired on this subject.
In 2000 I voted for Pat Buchanan. In 1996 I promised myself that Bob Dole was the last Republican I would vote for purely because he was a Republican. When the Republican leadership called Pat the next Hitler in March of 1996, I lost faith in the party. After Pat was knocked out of the race, I supported Dole. But I knew it was a futal effort. In 1992 Bush ran an invisible campaign. In 1996 the Republicans ran a man that didn't have the energy to campaign. Not only that, Dole had been an obstructionist to Conservative ideals for years, just like Trent Lott is today.
I had to do some real soul searching after November 1996. Number one, I came to the conclusion that I had betrayed my ideals by voting for Dole. I knew what he was. I knew what the party was after their tactics against Buchanan. I promised myself I'd never again vote for a man that didn't back the ideals I did. I never will.
In 2000 I voted for Pat Buchanan. My man didn't win, but I have a clean concience. I knew that Bush would waffle on values. I couldn't vote for him. After the election I helped organize four protests in Los Angeles that supported Bush. I felt that Gore was attempting a coup. I wouldn't stand for it. I still believe he was.
Doughty, it was your name calling, that has set my teeth so on edge. I am sick and tired of the " Bushbot " crap. Too bad. I could care less.
Do try to get your facts correct , before making silly claims. SIXTY-SIX nations signed on, not 62 or 63. This, after it was well known, that President Bush was going to pull the plug, on our being a signatory. It didn't stop anyone from joining in; no a one. So Bush shouldn't have tried to sway world opinion away from the ICC?
There is a LOUD and vocifforous faction here, who would have gone ballistic, had President Bush tried to hustle other nations . Which faction would that be? You are angry, because he didn't do that. It isn't part of the president of the USA's job description, to do what you want. It isn't in the Constitution. Oh give me a break. The nations of the world were having to make a decision. You don't think our President should have made an effort to sway world opinion? As I understand it, allowing an entity to supercede our own sovereignty is in the Constitution. President Bush was kept from being able to do much of the much needed work, prior to the Inauguration ( don't you remember ? ) and had to play " catch up " on a raft of immediately needed things, to just begin to run the country. I doubt that he was even made aware of this matter, that early on. We ALL know that he was just about to do this, and ... whoooooooooops, 9/11/01 happened. I guess that you would have grumbled about the tardiness of it all, had 9 / 11 never happened, and the president announced this then. Had that scenario worked out, IT STILL WOULD HAVE BEEN RATIFIED ! Go back and read the thread, that named the SIX countries that jst put it over the top . They would have still signed it ! You know, you really are in denial. What would it have hurt for Bush to speak out against the ICC before it was ratified? And since when do we know that Bush was about to move on this before 09/11? Because some article said so. LOL. Good one...
I know that you weren't for Gore. It's just by extrapolation, that it appears that you would have preferred that , so that your whinging, would be validated, instead of not. It is your defense of the defenseless that is not validated.
Of course you may express your unhappiness , here. You'll just keep getting toasted , by meand others, when you're wrong ; as you are now.
I am not wrong, but I can understand your reluctance to face reality at this late date.
67 posted on 5/5/02 2:17 AM Pacific by nopardons
How many nations signed on to this, BRFORE this president was even elected ? Go find out, and then come ack and attempt to argue this . You'll have egg all over your face.
Good, dismiss my contempt for you ; doesn't bother me in the least what someone , who is without esteem thinks. You've just well and truly lost it, now. As for the rest of your reply, like you, it isn't worth the bother. I only made these few points, to inform those, who may not know the facts I've stated.
Oh, and BTW, usless fringer when one votes for an unelectable nut job, one is only giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Sleep well..............
Your memory is failing. We knew that he was planning on getting us out if this prior to 9/11; it was posted on FR. If you think that the nations , around the world didn't also know that, you are mistken.
Perhaps you could provide a link to the Bush speech prior to 09/11 where he stated that we would be withdrawing Clinton's signature. Better yet, try to find one mention of it on his foreign trips where he was going to make it a point to bring it up with another world leader.
How many nations signed on to this, BRFORE this president was even elected ? Go find out, and then come ack and attempt to argue this . You'll have egg all over your face.
If I were President and I didn't make my feelings known on this issue from day one, I'd feel that I hadn't done my job. If I'm going to hold myself to this standard, why would I hold Bush to less of one? It there were 59 nations that had signed when Bush was elected, I would still think it critical for him to make his feelings on the subject known. You seem to be arguing that it would have been bad for him to, or at best a wash. What's up with that?
Good, dismiss my contempt for you ; doesn't bother me in the least what someone , who is without esteem thinks. You've just well and truly lost it, now. As for the rest of your reply, like you, it isn't worth the bother. I only made these few points, to inform those, who may not know the facts I've stated.
Okay, we're even. Nanny Nanny Nah Nah. Heh heh heh, that esteme crack was another bit of levity. Look, it may seem to you that I obviously have no esteem if you disagree with me and I'm not crushed over it, but I think that's another area where we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Oh, and BTW, usless fringer when one votes for an unelectable nut job, one is only giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Sleep well..............
You know what, I don't dump on you for voting for Bush. I don't dump on people for voting for Howard Phillips. I advocated people not vote for Bush because I suspected where we might be headed if they did. Now we're on that road, I'm sad to say. As I've stated a number of times before, the Bush voters are some of the least gracious winners I've ever seen. It still gauls you to think that anyone could possibly reject him. You won, try to act like it.
71 posted on 5/5/02 2:57 AM Pacific by nopardons
You know what ? YOU ARE JUST BLOWING SMOKE ! We didn't know that Clinton signed this ; when he did. It wasn't posted on FR and it didn't make any news on radio nor T.V. !
There was actually a lot of talk about this at the time. On some of those threads it was intimated that it was a good thing Bush had been elected, this way he could act to undo Clinton's signature. Here's one article that addressed the issue, and a link to it's location on the forum.
Note the area highlighted in red below. When Bush was inaugurated about half the necessary nations had ratified the ICC.
Clinton Signs ICC Treaty, Handcuffing His Presidential Successors.
Crime/Corruption News Keywords: CLINTON, ICC
Source: EWTN
Published: 01/05/01
Posted on 01/05/2001 09:12:43 PST by marshmallow
With only eight hours to go before the midnight deadline on New Year’s Eve, representatives of President Bill Clinton met with UN officials on the 32nd floor of UN headquarters in New York and signed the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court. The US thus became the 139th country to sign a document to establish a permanent criminal tribunal.
While signing the treaty, President Clinton said he was not forwarding the treaty to the US Senate for ratification and was urging his successor George W. Bush also to withhold the document for approval. He said he signed the document so that the US could maintain its negotiating position while the document is finalized in the weeks ahead. And also so that the US could participate in future deliberations of the Assembly of States Parties which the treaty will bring into existence.
Sources within the US State Department, speaking on conditions of anonymity, contest President Clinton’s claims. They insist the US can now and will always be able to participate in court action. Because the ICC document is being negotiated in a series of preparatory committee meetings within the General Assembly, any member of the GA can participate, even those who never sign the treaty. They also point out that as a signatory to the 1998 Rome conference that initiated the ICC process, the US is guaranteed a seat at the court as an observer, even if the US never ratifies the treaty.
The State Department sources point out the real effect of President Clinton signing the document is to handcuff incoming President George Bush and all future presidents. Under the 1969 Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, a signatory to a treaty should do nothing that is inconsistent with the “object and purpose of the treaty.” If incoming president George W. Bush, or any future president, decides to attempt to prevent the controversial court from coming into existence, the US would be in violation of the Vienna Convention.
It is well known that large numbers of the US Senate oppose the treaty, especially Senator Jesse Helms, the powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Opposition also comes from the US military. Unwilling to cross swords with the Pentagon, early on President Clinton ceded negotiations of the treaty to high-ranking members of the US armed services working in the Pentagon. Their strategy from the beginning was to negotiate the best treaty possible and then urge the Senate to kill it.
The treaty is on the fast track to full implementation. An aggressive NGO campaign has generated 27 ratifications already, leaving only 33 before the court is born. Even so, the court is not widely loved. Even usually liberal France, no doubt fearing prosecution for actions in Africa, is nervous about the ICC. During negotiations over the past two years, its negotiators frequently offered and accepted what many perceived as the most radical ideas for the court, including the elimination of the privilege that allows the matter of sacramental confession to remain secret. Other negotiators believe the French wanted the most radical document possible so the new court would be discredited from the very beginning.
Here are a couple more articles on the subject that are located on the forum. It was a big deal just a few weeks before Bush took office. I would hope he know about it. It'd hate to think he didn't know what was going on with regard to a topic like this one, especially when they it was as visible as this was just prior to him taking office.
CLINTON NEWSPEAK THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Clinton Embraces International Criminal Court
I'm no damned drooling sycophant, and no, I don't agree with everything the president has said or done. I never said you did. Unlike YOU and the bloody unappeasables, I don't come here and demand that the president be impeached, hung from a tree, nor call him silly names. I haven't asked that the President be impeached or hung from a tree either. I may call him a silly name once in a while, big deal. No president is going to do or say 100 % of what I want him to. I never expected Bush to do or say 100% of what I wanted. When he does do the right thing, he should be praised for it. Yes he should, and when he procrastinates on an issue until it's too late to sway opinion against it, he should be called on it. Calling anyone, sycophant or not, names, for saying a " well done, Mr. President " , when he does something we like, is childish, offensive, and makes YOU look stupid ! No, Doughty, it doesn't help you one bit; nor does it make the name called, wrong / bad / or sycophantic. I did not use the term sycophant. I used the word Bushbot. When a person defends the indefensible because they support someone, that's being robotic about support. It's evidence that support is automatic no matter what.
Let's contrast my reaction to some of Buchanan's comments about the current Israel/Arab conflict. I disagreed with him and said that his comments made him look like an ignorant boob on the subject. I'll bet you don't see any difference with your actions regarding support for Bush do you.
What it IS doing, is turning your old friends against you. You've lost me ; I'm now your sworn enemy.
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but it doesn't change my opinion of you. I disagree on this topic and have expressed why. If you wish to disagree that's your right. If you wish to consider me your enemy, that's something I can't and won't attempt to change. You will either like me or dislike me based on my views, I'm not going classify you as anything other than a person debating the opposite opinon on Bush's actions and the issue of being a Bushbot or not. In this instance I still feel that you are. But you know what, I could never declare you a sworn enemy over it. Perhaps that's because I've not attained the moral high ground that you have.
50 posted on 5/5/02 1:07 AM Pacific by nopardons
This is some very important news for those concerned over US sovereignty.
Simply put, just about all other nations are incompetent to the point where they can barely run themselves. It's not likely I'd submit to their opinion on anything. Also the "Napoleonic Code" of justice and overall attitudes on what justice comprises of in sh*tty little European Socialist nations is incompatible with American interests (you'd have thought they'd have learned after their last great experiment with Socialism of the National variety.) Finally, I'm not inclined to respect the opinions of nations where the populace has yet to prevail over the dark mysteries of personal hygeine. Yep, been there and seen it. You couldn't convince me it was otherwise.
Mean *ss rant BUMP
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.