Letter: U.S. Withdrawal from ICC

NewsMax.com ^ | Monday May 6, 2002 | NewsMax.com

[jgrubbs]

Letter: U.S. Withdrawal from ICC

NewsMax.com
Monday May 6, 2002

UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR
ARMS CONTROL AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
WASHINGTON

Dear Mr. Secretary-General:

This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty.

Sincerely,

John R. Bolton

The Honorable
Kofi Annan
Secretary General of the United Nations
The United Nations
New York

CLICK HERE TO SEE THE ORIGINAL LETTER

[sneakypete]

Does that not seem odd?

I'm more than a little suspiscious of it,too.

[sneakypete]

Now, Bush needs to follow this up by firing Powell and appointing Rummy as the Acting Secretary of State until a suitably conservative replacement for Powell can be found!

While it's probably safe to say I am not the biggest Bubba-2 supporter to be found on FR,firing Powell is something Bubba-2 CAN'T do. He could get away with firing Laura quicker than firing Powell. The most obvious reason for this is that Powell is black,but the real reason is that Bubba-2 can't afford to create a political martyr out of Powell. Powell probably has wet dreams about Bubba-2 firing him.

We could put Powell-protege Richard Armitage in a lower ranking

Armitage is not only a guy who CAN be fired,but a guy that SHOULD be fired.

[sneakypete]

How about shutting down the kangaroo tribunal in the Hague and releasing Slobodon Milosevic?

Nope,they are not gonna do this. They're not going to do it because the CAN'T do it without admitting they never should have arrested him in the first place,and admitting they made a mistake is impossible for gooberments.

[sneakypete]

After graduating in 1964, Milosevic joined the Communist Party,

And his options were what,to become a Goldwater Republican? Communism was the only game in town for him,and you HAD to play that game if you wanted any work above the menial labor level. You also had to play it if you wanted a place to live,hot water,health care,etc,etc,etc.

[skr]

I certainly didn't mind hearing this on the radio today, and I am extremely happy to see it confirmed here. And I'd just as soon the department spent the money on more important things than fancy stationery.

[Yellow Rose of Texas]

God BLESS and AMEN!!!!!!!!!

[skr]

Milosevic should never have surrendered to the Hague, and his own country should never, ever have considered anything else but trying him themselves. The world is conferring an inordinate amount of power to some unelected officials.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

"And his options were what"

His options were to fight the Communists, just like all those who did.
Many were killed, some escaped.
He made his choice, got rich off of his own people
and then when his own people got tired of him
they sent him to a Commie court to be tried by Commie judges.
Poetic justice.

[MistyCA]

Hiya, Meek! :)

[madfly]

I wonder why this announcement came from
John Bolton at the Office of the Under Secretary for Arms Control
and International Security
(and why all those words aren't on the letterhead)..

...instead of coming from
Pierre Prosper, Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues (S/WCI).
I remember Prosper getting a lot of press about the possible "unsigning" of this thing?

State Department Organizational Directory - Complete List
(Last modified 4/05/2002)

Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues (S/WCI)
AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE
Ambassador-At-Large  Pierre Prosper	7419A	202-647-6051
Deputy  Brent Blaschke	7419A	202-647-6751
Special Counsel  LTC Michael Newton	7419A	202-647-5093
Special Counsel  Christine Choi	7419A	202-647-5072
Special Counsel  Misti Rawles	7419A	202-647-5072
Special Assistant  Jonathan Crock	7419A	202-647-5201
Staff Assistant  Angela Gordon	7419A	202-647-5043
Office of the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security (T)
Under Secretary of State  John R. Bolton	7208	202-647-1049
Senior Advisor  Fred Fleitz	7208	202-647-0072
Special Assistant  Frances Bolton	7208	202-647-1522
Secretary  Janice Neal	7208	202-647-0060
Executive Assistant  Terry Godby	7208	202-647-1749
Secretary  Louis Archer	7208	202-647-4226
Senior Adviser  James Timbie	7208	202-647-4404
Special Assistant  Sherri Kraham	7210	202-647-0071
Special Assistant  Fred Fleitz	7208	202-647-0072
Special Assistant   Caroline Barnett	7208	202-647-0357
Special Assistant  Mark Groombridge	7208	202-647-0065
Special Assistant  David Wurmser	7210	202-647-0069
Special Assistant  Christian  Cullum	7208	202-647-0068
Special Assistant  Erica Tuttle	7208	202-647-7960
ARMS CONTROL NONPROLIFERATION ADVISORY BOARD (T/ACNAB)
Executive Director  (Vacant)	5844	202-647-4622

[July 4th]

That's some mighty fancy letterhead at the State Dept.

It's that special "Centered Times New Roman" letterhead. I'm glad you recognized it.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads ups!

[MeekOneGOP]

Mornin'! :O)

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

This is scrolling headline news on the UN web page

[GretchenEE]

I thank you for the ping.

Can't help but wonder why x42 signed the thing with one hand while saying he would never send it to the Senate for confirmation. Now, that's real leadership.

Not.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

U.S. Officially Withdraws From International Criminal Court

Monday, May 06, 2002

WASHINGTON  — The United States said Monday it wants nothing to do with a treaty creating the first permanent international war crimes tribunal, a decision immediately criticized by human rights groups and some lawmakers. Others welcomed the move.

"We believe that states, not international institutions, are primarily responsible for ensuring justice in the international system," Marc Grossman, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in announcing the Bush administration decision.

As constituted today, Grossman said, the international criminal court "claims the authority to detain and try American citizens, even though our democratically elected representatives have not agreed to be bound by the treaty."

That threatens U.S. sovereignty, he said.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the tribunal's planned July 1 start-up "means that our men and women in uniform — as well as current and former U.S. officials — could be at risk of prosecution.

Particularly in the midst of the war against terrorism, Rumsfeld said, the flaws in the treaty are "particularly troubling."

Although nations have the authority to try non-citizens who commit crimes against their citizens or on their territory, "the United States has never recognized the right of an international organization to do so" without its consent or without a U.N. Security Council mandate, Grossman said.

The International Criminal Court gained the necessary international backing to come into being last month when 10 nations joined 56 others in ratifying the treaty, negotiated in Rome in 1998.

President Clinton signed the treaty, but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. The Bush administration has made its opposition clear.

Pierre-Richard Prosper, the U.S. ambassador for war crimes issues, said the United States has no intention of ratifying the treaty and now considers itself "no longer bound in any way to its purpose and objective." The declaration was contained in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan delivered to U.N. headquarters in New York.

Grossman, in a speech Monday in Washington, said President Bush wanted to formally renounce the treaty to avoid creating expectations of U.S. involvement in the future.

Instead, the United States favors working with nongovernment organizations, private industry and universities and law schools to help individual countries set up tribunals when needed, officials said.

But Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he was dismayed by the decision.

"Beyond the extremely problematic matter of casting doubt on the U.S. commitment to international justice and accountability," Feingold said, "these steps actually call into question our country's credibility in all multilateral endeavors."

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said Bush "sent a clear message we do not support this rogue court ... an institution of unchecked power that poses a real threat to our men and women fighting the war against terror.

Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said, "We simply cannot accept an international institution that claims jurisdiction over American citizens."

But Human Rights Watch, an advocacy group, described the decision as an empty gesture that will further estrange Washington from its allies.

The Washington Working Group on the ICC, a coalition of organizations that support the tribunal, said the decision "signals to the world that America is turning its back on decades of U.S. leadership in prosecuting war criminals since the Nuremberg trials."

The coalition includes human rights organizations such as Amnesty International-USA and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

The court, to be formed this summer, will fill a gap in the international justice system first recognized by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948 after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials for World War II's German and Japanese war criminals.

Tribunals have been created for special situations — like the 1994 Rwanda genocide — but no mechanism existed to hold individuals criminally responsible for serious crimes such as genocide.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

This is good news but I am still concerned about the U.N.

Last night during the airing of Letterman,right after an Emergency Broadcast TEST, for a few seconds on the screen was the U.N. symbol saying The United Nations.I saw this as sure as the sun rose this morning,it was strange.

[Sal]

Thank you for bookmark info. Below is the UN's ominous news story on this action:

US says it will not become party to Rome Statute of International Criminal Court

6 May – The United States has formally advised United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan that it does not intend to become a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a UN spokesman said today.

Accordingly, the US Government maintains that it has no obligations arising from its signature of the Statute on 31 December 2000, spokesman Fred Eckhard told the press in New York.

"The Secretary-General, as the depositary of the Rome Statute will, consistent with normal practice, circulate the US notification to all States concerned," Mr. Eckhard said. "The effect of the notification is a matter for the parties to the Statute to decide."

Responding to questions, the spokesman called the action by the US "unique and unprecedented."

By withdrawing its signature, the US sought to free itself of obligations that a signatory would have, the spokesman noted. "But the Statute has come into force; the court will come into being," he stressed.

Several evil connotations:

...the US Government maintains that it has no obligations arising from its signature of the Statute on 31 December 2000,... Attention globalist scum--the US did NOT sign this POS "Statute". The POS, treasonous, scumbag Clinton did and he has--and had--no authority to commit the US to this. We don't "maintain" we have no obligations; we're telling you we have no obligations and we don't give a flying xxxx what YOU "maintain" to the contrary.

"The effect of the notification is a matter for the parties to the Statute to decide." Well you just go ahead and decide what the effect is gonna be on all of you, but you better understand the parties to the Statute are NOT gonna decide what the effect of this notification is to US. This kind of sounds like a threatening little hint that all you parties will decide whether or not you'll "let" us out of it. Hah!

...the US sought to free itself of obligations that a signatory would have, the spokesman noted. "But the Statute has come into force; the court will come into being," he stressed. We didn't "seek" to free ourselves from signatory obligations. We freed ourselves from obligations WE never took on and we don't need your permission, agreement, or acceptance. We are a sovereign nation and your evil little Statute and piss ant court can come into being and force, but it has NO jurisdiction over US and never will.

[Sal]

Your post #76 had a couple of unsettling statements from Marc Grossman, the undersecretary of state for political affairs and some unidentified "officials":

Although nations have the authority to try non-citizens who commit crimes against their citizens or on their territory, "the United States has never recognized the right of an international organization to do so" without its consent or without a U.N. Security Council mandate, Grossman said.

This sounds like it might be OK with us if the UN Security Council says so. NOT! especially with all the trial balloons we've seen over the last couple years about removing the veto power from individual members of the Security Council and/or not having permanent seats on the Council etc.

Instead, the United States favors working with nongovernment organizations, private industry and universities and law schools to help individual countries set up tribunals when needed, officials said. NGOs, private industry, universities and law schools?! IOW Globalist princes are going to run more kangaroo tribunals like the ICTY monstrosity in the future that we would favor "working with". I suspect that this statement was just slipped in by the article's author with the hope that his saying so would make it happen. I almost didn't notice that the worst statement in there was attributed to anonymous "officials" because it was sandwiched in with sourced quotes from a couple of actual state department people.

I was also spooked by your description of the UN symbol in the emergency test...

[rightwing2]

While it's probably safe to say I am not the biggest Bubba-2 supporter to be found on FR,firing Powell is something Bubba-2 CAN'T do. He could get away with firing Laura quicker than firing Powell. The most obvious reason for this is that Powell is black,but the real reason is that Bubba-2 can't afford to create a political martyr out of Powell. Powell probably has wet dreams about Bubba-2 firing him. Armitage is not only a guy who CAN be fired,but a guy that SHOULD be fired.

Well, obviously the best course of action would be to make life so difficult and otherwise unenjoyable for Powell that he resigns himself. Then Bush steps out and makes a magnanimous statement that "it is with great regret that I accept Colin Powell's resignation." The way you do that is by getting Bush to reject most of Powell's advice and go with the recommendations of the Rummy faction. Unfortunately, Bush is not that sophisticated. The problem with Powell is not so much that he is Secretary of State, but that he is able to persuade Bush to do the wrong thing and pursue policies of Communist and terrorist appeasement when Bush would have otherwise been pressured by the recommendations of his other advisors like Rumsfeld to take a forceful stand against Communist tyranny/terrorism. That said, I would certainly like to see Armitage replaced by Bolton as the Deputy Secretary of State because then Bolton, a closet member of the Rummy faction himself, could takeover from Powell when Powell is on international travel and urge Bush to make all the right decisions in line with Rumsfeld. The problem is that you kind of got to wait for a suitable pretext to get rid of Armitage. Once Armitage was gone, Powell, a good friend of his, would scream bloody murder and then resign soon after.