U.S. Backs Down From Immunity Demand

abc ^ | 7/10/02

[McGavin999]

So they just won't ever be able to travel outside the US again huh? That stinks.

No, they'll be brought home, tried, and found innocent.

[altair]

Really?? When did he do that??

I don't remember exactly and my self-search appears to be severely truncated. It was at least a few weeks ago. There were several articles about it posted here.

[Starwind]

This fox stoy has identical text, probbaly picked up form the same reporter/wire...see it here on Fox website

[goldstategop]

Thanks but no thanks. Time for Congress to move in and send a very pointed loud NO to the ICC.

[goldstategop]

Its not enough. A future President sympathetic to the ICC can simply cease asking for an exemption. Congress has to write a ban of the ICC's jurisdiction on ANY American into law so another President won't be able to claim that America's abeyance from the ICC Treaty was just a policy decision of his predecessor.

[Lancey Howard]

re: your post #120

Yeah, after I posted I noticed, too, that the mice had regrouped after post #100. Good catch!

The funny thing is that at this point they are basically talking only to each other, LOL!

Regards,
LH

[Starwind]

Assuming, best case, this is the outward appearance of sumkina negotiating tactic, can someone explain:

1) What is the target position the US is really expecting to achieve?
2) How does this tactic advance that goal?
3) Why does this "cave" not encourage the UN to hold out for more?
4) Who is advising Bush on this stuff?

[Jeremy_Reaban]

Oh yes, some refutation on your part. Do you even understand the ICC?

It makes no difference whether or not the ICC is signed or ratified by the US. Now that the ICC exists, anyone in the world, including Americans, can be tried before it. And once they are, they can be grabbed as soon as they are in a country that has signed the ICC.

Since some of the crimes the ICC has jurisdiction over are such things as 'Agression', basically anyone the court doesn't like can be tried (since agression is however the court defines it. And since the course is run by our enemies - anti-american socialists in Europe and anti-american islamists in the middle east, it's now open season on our troops anywhere.

And it's not like our courst could opt to try them instead. That is technically a first option, but only if it's satisfied to the ICC's whim. If not, then the ICC will do it.

[steve50]

Maybe we should wait to see exactly what happens before we start criticizing GW. Man, you people are so transparent

Aren't you apologists getting tired of saying that by now. Face up to it, we better find a real conservative for 04. If anything resembling America is left by then.

[OldFriend]

Did you bother to actually READ the proposal?

[Cachelot]

it's now open season on our troops anywhere.

Not only on the troops, I'm afraid. "Aggression" is a very handy definition. Any politician who speacks out against islamism thought in schools? Aggression. Any parent who doesn't like "gay living" thought to 4th-graders? Aggression. You can basically go after anyone, anytime.

Remember: Verbal Terrorism is a crime in America. It is, in fact, one of the "crimes" listed by the US administration in the case of the JDL.

[Guillermo]

Hey you better watch it, those types of anti-Wubya remarks may get you banned...

[chemainus]

Write them !!! This is outrageous...and yes Bush has no balls at all...

[Twodees]

[Im beginning to notice a patern with Bush. Act conservative then cave into the
liberals at the end. ]


That runs in the family. Wobbly was the same way, caving in when there hadn't even been any pressure on him to do so. Real bigshot "conservatives" in that family, don'tcha know.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Point taken. Republicans are NOT conservatives, just sociaists-lite.

[Twodees]

Ahhhh, yessssss. The number one rule of the 'bots: Watch not what he said but what he does

Rule number two is :

In case Bush DOES something stupid, reverse rule #1 to read: 'Nevermind what he just did, remember what he SAID'.

Y'all need to post the whole rule to avoid confusion.

[bok]

Alex Jones of infowars.com said he would cave on this and the UN tax.

[demlosers]

"The new draft U.S. resolution asks the court for a 12-month exemption from investigation or prosecution of peacekeepers and "expresses the intention to renew the request ... for further 12 month periods for as long as may be necessary."

Your right terilyn
This clause, "The further 12 month period for as long as may be necessary" is another way of veto'ing the ICC forever with what we may not agree with. In essence, Bush hasn't given anything to the U.N., he just giving those Globalist a way of saving face.

The knee-jerkers on this thread should withhold judgement until the fat lady sings.

[NMC EXP]

is there nothing that mr. bush doesn't cave on? he's a globablist. ============================================================

Black and white.

Either/or.

There is no middle ground.

Which will it be, mr. bush?

Regards

J.R.

[Woodman]

Well the deal with giving minorities grants to buy homes didn't go over to well either, but that's politics as usual.

knak, please read the actual proposal. Minorities may benefit from it, but it is geared towards the poor. Also it is not a direct grant program; it is a cost reduction and easier lending program. You have fallen hook, line and sinker for the anti-Bush spin on the subject. I had a link to the actual Bush statement on another thread, but the article is now not at that link anymore. I'm sure it has to be on FR somewhere.