Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. withdraws from treaty on International Criminal Court: [Bush confounds his critics]
Washington Times ^ | Tuesday, May 7, 2002 | By David R. Sands

Posted on 05/06/2002 9:54:17 PM PDT by JohnHuang2

Edited on 07/12/2004 3:53:16 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

The Bush administration yesterday pulled out of the U.N.-backed effort to create a permanent international court on war crimes, saying it recognized "no legal obligations" to the court.

The administration said it was acting because the court could become a tool for politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. servicemen and officials serving abroad.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
Tuesday, May 7, 2002

Quote of the Day by Miss Marple 5/2/03

1 posted on 05/06/2002 9:54:18 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
A good decision by President Bush.

He deserves a round of applauds, high praise.

2 posted on 05/06/2002 10:00:35 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Just a pull out that article of the Serbs wanting to try former President Bill Clinton under the ICC and see how fast the liberals change their mind on this position.
3 posted on 05/06/2002 10:09:12 PM PDT by chudogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The decision was hailed by conservatives long skeptical of the ICC but was immediately attacked by leading human rights groups and many of the 66 nations — including almost all of America's NATO allies — that had ratified the treaty.

Are these some of the same NATO allies that will not release terrorists or evidence against terrorists to the US because we have the death penalty?

We'e just being up-front about not stripping any of our citizens of their constitutional rights in a leftie kangaroo court.

4 posted on 05/06/2002 10:15:13 PM PDT by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Reagan Man
Yes, President Bush deserves high praise for withdrawing from the the court no matter what our so called allies say. Do you think they are secretly pleased? Have they thought of what it would be like to have a totally biased,third world terrorist supporting organization judging and punishing.
6 posted on 05/06/2002 10:22:12 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man;chudogg;Mike Darancette;Scratch shooter;dalebert
Well, so much for George W. Bush, The-Globalist, New-World-Order-Socialist-Traitor flap-doodle gobbledygook.

No difference between Gore and Bush, eh? The President's spunky decision to yank the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court -- already the move has sparked a cacophony of 'outrage' from all the usual, sniveling suspects -- illustrates with glaring clarity the rank fallacy in that argument. The pullout comes as a 'shocking surprise', alright -- to quibbling naysayers who don't know diddley-squat about George W. Bush, the man. For those who know him, Bush is unflappable, unflinching and unblinking, and there was never any question mark. For skeptics, his gutsy decision to junk Kyoto early on should have been the tip-off. Dittos his scrapping the ABM "accords".

The "treaty" at issue, lest we forget, was signed with wild enthusiasm by (none-other-than) Bill Clinton, Bush's predecessor -- a Democrat, last I checked. A 'president' Gore, corrupt and globalist in his outlook as X42, wouldn't dare overrule him, as this President has decided to do.

To Bush, the I.C.C. is an abomination, a mockery of justice, an affront to U.S. sovereignty, to our constitution. It would open the floodgates for politically-driven prosecutions and harrassment of Americans.

To every two-bit I.C.C. windbag "prosecutor" with a grudge, this 'court' is, in every respect, a wet dream come true. No American would be safe from these parasites, nor from the clutches of this Kangaroo "court".

At a more fundamental level, Bush sees the IC.C. as a brazen assault on our core values -- our bedrock conception of basic jurisprudence, specifically. The I.C.C. charter imbues this world tribunal with unfettered supremacy, functioning as Criminal, Appallete and Supreme Court, all rolled up into one. Checks and balances? Due-process? Fuggedaboutit. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see how this Draconian 'court', unchecked and uncorked, becomes the spawning ground for arbitrary, crotchety decisions and egregious abuse. Justice and the U.N.: To Bush, that's an oxymoron.

But Washington's decision to reject I.C.C. is more than just fancy footwork, or demarche: The United States will actively seek to undercut I.C.C. by simultaneously repudiating the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Bush administration asserts the U.S. will not be restricted by the 1969 pact, which obligates all nations to comply with international treaties, despite being a signatory. Article 18 forbids signatories from 'undercutting' treaties they sign, whether or not they are ratified.

This President is a trailblazer: Palitha Kohona, U.N. treaty section chief, denounced the move to dump I.C.C. as unprecedented. Never before has a signatory nation unilaterally removed its signature, he griped.

These actions, I submit, are not the deeds of a coward: It takes spine, it takes grit, it takes fearless courage to go in-your-face against this mother-of-all-sacred cows, unilaterally, with no friends, nor allies. Bush knows the media will savage him for this: The attacks will be vicious, cruel, unrelenting. But in George W. Bush, you don't have your typical, 'stick-a-moist-finger-in-the-air' politician. He doesn't need polls, he doesn't need focus groups to tell him what to do, what to say, what to think. He's a patriot who puts America First -- to heck with the media, the U.N., the E.U., the Democrats.

Nor is this the portrait of a timid, spineless, pusillanimous milksop, as some of Bush's conservative critics depict him. ('Bush will cave', they wrongly predicted.) Even President Reagan never went this far: Rather than zapping Carter's signature to Protocol 1, an amendment to the Geneva Conventions broadening 'protections' to members of guerilla movements, instead the Reagan administration opted in 1987 to not seek formal ratification.

Make no mistake: With this action, the I.C.C. treaty becomes a corpse, a veritable dead-letter. But....but...but, haven't all European Union countries signed and -- with only one temporary exception -- ratified I.C.C.? Haven't many nations throughout Asia, Africa and the Mideast also signed and ratified? (For the record, a total of sixty-six countries have signed and/or ratified I.C.C., six more than needed to activate the treaty, set to go into effect on July 1, 2002.)

Yes, and so what?

Memo to Globalists: Put this in your pipe and smoke it: America is, and shall remain, the world's sole superpower. No other nation even comes close. America is, and shall remain, a sovereign, self-governing free republic. No despotic global tribunal shall have jurisdiction over citizens of this free republic.

Moreover, terrorists who commit crimes against the United States, will be tried by the United States, not by the U.N., the I.C.C. nor Kofi Annan. A 'global treaty' without us isn't worth the paper it's written on.

Any questions?

In this clash between globalism and sovereignty, between the U.S. and the U.N., the U.S. will win out, mark my words.

Two more points:

1) Bush's 'unsigning' of the I.C.C. treaty constitutes the sharpest reprimand of Mr. Clinton to date. This action is a humiliating defeat for X42, who signed the treaty as one of his last acts of defiance (December, 2000).

2) In adamantly endorsing this treaty, the American left stands revealed for the liars and hypocrites they are. Liberals, who feign 'concern' over 'due-process' and courtroom fairness, who wail and moan over military tribunals for al-Qaeda terrorists, are all a ga-ga for the I.C.C., where checks-and-balances are non-existent and prosecutors are answerable to no one. In effect, lefties care more for the 'rights' of Osama Bin Laden than they do for fellow citizens.

Surprise, surprise.

Thank God Al Gore is not President.

Anyway, that's....

My two cents....

7 posted on 05/07/2002 1:49:21 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Memo to Globalists: Put this in your pipe and smoke it:

Whether W was elected, selected or appointed by the Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote some power was watching out for America at the end of the millennium.

America dodged three bullets (Kyoto, ICC and ABM) aimed at the Heart of our republic and it's ability to remain a force for good in the world.

8 posted on 05/07/2002 7:05:22 AM PDT by Mike Darancette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I love your "two cents." Your analysis relative to both this issue and others is consistently incisive and articulate (not to mention 'right' on) -- you literally take the words out of my mouth!!

I hope you are forwarding your pithy comments to Rush, Hannity, and Savage. They desparately need the perspective that your reasoned discourse would provide!!
9 posted on 05/07/2002 6:50:54 PM PDT by DrDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
I never had any doubts that Bush would pull out of this kangaroo court.
10 posted on 05/07/2002 6:52:37 PM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson