[RippleFire]

international justice

Oxymoron

[Clara Lou]

I'm sure there wil be NYT editorial on this in the morning. Russert, et al., will be thoroughly scandalized, as well as Jennings, Blather, Brokaw, yada, yada, yada.

[RippleFire]

Nominally, the ICC is "separate" from the UN, sort of like its bastard child; but I am indexing it for the UN_List anyhow.

UN_List: for United Nations articles. 

Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register

Don't forget:

• Special Session on Children in NYC, May 8-10

• World Food Summit in Rome, June 10-13

• World Summit on Sustainable Development
  in Johannesburg, Aug. 26 - Sept. 4

[kitkat]

What can I say? What can I say? Oh...wait a minute, I've got it.

YEA! YEA! YEA!

Why should we give up our precious rights to a fair trial under our Consitution just because those Euroninnies want us to?

[American Soldier]

Howdy International Criminal Court, and welcome to History's graveyard. We've got a nice plot for you right next to the League of Nations. Enjoy your stay!

[MarkM]

This is great news. It helps keep the US free and independent. It also prevents a collection of 3rd world socialist dictators from taxing and controlling us.

[RobFromGa]

President Bush once again proves that there is a difference between him and Algore. Any supra-national system above the sovereign powers of the US is un-Constitutional. And, our liberties (as of 2002) are still much better than any other UN member.

America can only lose by letting America-haters judge Americans.

Brave, President Bush for this stand.

[Goldi-Lox]

If you confer with a GOOD lawyer who UNDERSTANDS the Constitution, you'll find out the Marbury v. Madison decision is NOT what it is portrayed to be. Any law that is in violation of the Constitution is "null and void" without the force of law.

[jadimov]

What will the United States government do when the first American citizen is captured, convicted, and jailed by the ICC. Will it go to war or send an armed force to extract him?

[Cicero]

Good news. Bush is very wise to renounce this treaty now, and not wait until the court tries to bring an American citizen into the dock, when it would have looked like special pleading if we backed out.

The Constitution clearly states that treaties are not binding in U.S. law unless they are properly ratified. Moreover, with proper notice to the other parties, even ratified treaties can be abrogated if the U.S. determines that they are contrary to our national interest. Such is the case with the ABM treaty.

[demlosers]

President Bush is no NWO globalist, despite all the contrary posts you see here on FR. But he does believe free world trade, which some people get confused thinking he supports a U.N. type world government. This guy is not going to give up U.S. sovereignty.

[Texasforever]

This makes the Kangaroo court's wet dream of indicting Sharon on war crimes a bit dicey. LOL

[Balding_Eagle]

Just like everyone says, not a dimes worth of difference between Clinton and Bush. /sarcasm

[DoughtyOne]

With the smartest advisors since the twelve died some two thousand years ago, this "most brilliant of presidents" took over fifteen months to figure this one out. I'd contratulate him if it weren't for the fact that other nation states signed on since Clinton did, and we didn't show any leadership. Now the ICC is a reality, and there's a strong likelihood it didn't have to be. Yeah, thanks for nothing Chicken George.

[TLBSHOW]

BUMP

[brat]

Thank God! I was beginning to think he wasn't going to do it! TYL!

[brat]

"The result is that the administration is losing a major opportunity to shape the court so it could be useful to the United States," ...................yeah, right! With the Arabs voting as a block on virtually everything, our influence would be ZERO!

[JFoxbear]

Finally some good news from the NY Times.

Maybe next week (wishfull thinking) we give a swift kick to the UN ?

That Bolton guy ? I guess at least HE respects US Sovereignty, Aye?

[pariah]

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.

YIPPIE!!! This is great news! Of all the dangerous, despicable, overweaning ideas to come out of the Euro-bureaucracy, this has got to be the worst, and it makes my day to hear that not only has Bush had the estones to give it a definite NO, but that we won't have to hear its (de)merits debated on C-Span, cause (sorry Euro-weenies) IT AIN'T EVEN GOING TO THE SENATE FLOOR!!!

(btw, try saying 'euro-bureaucracy' ten times, real fast...)

[Timesink]

This is a New York Times article, yet nowhere within it does it make the basic, elephant-in-the-living-room point: This idea is so wildly unconstitutional it wouldn't matter if Bush sent it to the Senate and they DID ratify it! How stupid do they think we are?