Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Enemy or ally benchmarks?
Washington Times ^ | Saturday, July 13, 2002 | Bruce Fein

Posted on 07/12/2002 10:27:20 PM PDT by JohnHuang2

Edited on 07/12/2004 3:55:27 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

President Bush renounced his predecessor's signature on the 1998 "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court" because it hung like a Sword of Damocles over United States military operations. Both the president and Congress have vocally declared noncooperation with the ICC as touchstones of United States national security policy. At present, Mr. Bush is seeking blanket immunity for the United States from ICC jurisdiction as a condition of participation in international peacekeeping forces. Bosnia and Afghanistan stand at the front of the queue.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: nwo; unlist
Saturday, July 13, 2002

Quote of the Day posted by Dead Corpse

1 posted on 07/12/2002 10:27:21 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"Mr. Bush is seeking blanket immunity for the United States from ICC"

Stick to your guns, George. If the rest don't like it....tough.

2 posted on 07/12/2002 10:31:56 PM PDT by brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *UN_List; *"NWO"
.
3 posted on 07/12/2002 11:38:10 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madfly
.
4 posted on 07/12/2002 11:38:27 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
So, they are, in effect, enfranchising the idiotic political decision-making that lost us the Vietnam War. Anyone wanna make a bet on Bush getting the whole Iraq issue out of the way before that one year of immunity is up?
5 posted on 07/13/2002 12:49:10 AM PDT by Blackyce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blackyce
After the year of immunity, what then? Enslaved for the rest of your life to the ICC. You should take a longer view than Iraq.
6 posted on 07/13/2002 1:08:26 AM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: seamole; Fish out of Water; Carry_Okie; 2Jedismom; 2sheep; 4Freedom; Aliska; Alabama_Wild_Man; ...
ping
7 posted on 07/13/2002 5:49:23 AM PDT by madfly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"Asking" the ICC for immunity is acknowledging an authority it has not been granted by the people of this sovereign nation. It is not the ICC's decision because they are illegitimate. If they move on our people or our commerce, they are engaging in a criminal act and should be dealt with appropriately.
8 posted on 07/13/2002 6:00:03 AM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The ICC, a wonderful idea, who's time has come....and gone.
9 posted on 07/13/2002 6:16:34 AM PDT by Valin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
It is not the ICC's decision because they are illegitimate. If they move on our people or our commerce, they are engaging in a criminal act and should be dealt with appropriately.

More likely an act of war.

10 posted on 07/13/2002 6:44:10 AM PDT by Euro-American Scum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Euro-American Scum
How much military capability does the ICC have to enforce any judgements it makes? How about some counts of military aircraft, AFV's, naval vessels, etc.
11 posted on 07/13/2002 7:36:10 AM PDT by FreedomPoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
The article concentrates on Afganistan (Bush) but it is lots more interesting to consider how"

"Article 8, section 2(b)(iv) makes criminal the planning or launching of "an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated."

Might better apply to the filmed bombing of a civilian train, blanketing entire electricity grids with carbon and shorting out most of a small nation, dropping the bridges across the Danube and closing down commerce to the entire region, seizing then shutting down a nation's single largest mine complex, then selling it off, chasing an entire ethnic group away from their homes and handing them over to a foreign invader.

The foregoing recently carried out in large part simply to cover Bill Clinton's sorry butt when he got caught playing doctor with one of his tax dollar bought party girls ....
That sounds like it fits "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage..." to me!

12 posted on 07/13/2002 7:38:43 AM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blackyce; norton; FreedomPoster

13 posted on 07/16/2002 12:42:00 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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