Posted on 02/19/2003 2:30:50 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Has former President Bill Clinton hit the campaign trail again?
That's the word according to a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review columnist who reports a "major international move" is afoot to help install the ex-CEO of the most powerful nation as the CEO of the most powerful world body – the United Nations.
Sunday's "Dateline D.C." column, which the paper says is written by a Washington-based British journalist and political observer, named no names but cited reports that Clinton had already lined up support for his candidacy for the secretary-general position from Germany, France, England, Ireland, New Zealand, a handful of African states, Morocco and Egypt. The Tribune-Review also reports Russia has made it known it would not object and added that China is also a big fan of the former president.
According to the Tribune-Review columnist, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan is "under pressure to resign before the end of his second term in 2006." Should he do so, the General Assembly would select his replacement, on the recommendation of the U.N. Security Council. This may come as early as this Fall.
"This is the first I've heard about it and it's certainly not true," Annan's deputy spokesperson Hua Jiang told WorldNetDaily. "As far as we know, he has the full trust of all the members."
Jiang said Annan, who took over as U.N. chief in 1997, intends to fill out his entire term through 2006.
A PBS documentary, which aired earlier this month, offered highlights of Annan's U.N. career. A low point came in 1994 with the genocide in Rwanda. Annan calls it "the greatest catastrophe the U.N. ever faced." High points include the independence of East Timor and accepting Norway's Nobel Peace Prize in 2001.
Odds favor an American secretary general next time around because there has never been one from North America.
Clinton's fund-raising prowess, according to the Tribune-Review, is also viewed as just what the doctor ordered for the 50-year-old U.N. headquarters building on 42nd Street in New York, that is in need of a serious overhaul.
A rested and refreshed Clinton recently appeared on CNN's "Larry King Live" program, a customary pit stop for modern-day political campaigns. He made repeated references to the U.N. throughout the interview.
Responding to King's query about Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation on Iraq to the Security Council, Clinton sounded more like a U.N. diplomat than a former U.S. president.
"The most important thing [Powell] said from the point of view from the United Nations is that we had intelligence and photographs which seemed to prove that Iraq was almost taking these chemical stocks, at least, out of the backdoor while the inspectors were going through the front door, that they were moving things. And if that's true, it means Mr. Blix and his inspectors might never get to do the job that they were appointed to do. So I think that we need to listen to Blix, listen to Secretary Powell and I still hope the United Nations can act together on this and I think there's still a chance we can," he said.
"And, you know, there's still a chance that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and disarm," he added.
Clinton stressed the need for abiding by international law and making sure action taken against Saddam Hussein is coordinated through the global body.
"We're trying to get rid of the chemical and biological storehouse in the hands of a tyrant ... The second thing we're trying to do is to build a global alliance for peace and freedom and security. So if we can do it with broad support within the U.N., it would be much better," Clinton said. "If we can get, based on this evidence, and letting the inspectors do a little more work if we can get an agreement with the French and the Germans and the others who are skeptical and who think that we've been too eager to do this all along, that would be better and it might give us a chance to resolve this peacefully. I think the greatest victory of all would be if Saddam Hussein saw the whole world arrayed against him and thought, you know, the jig was up."
Throughout the duration of the interview, the 42nd American president took credit for keeping a lid on the nuclear showdown with North Korea, now threatening to bubble over and for giving the approval for the first Israeli astronaut to go into space aboard the space shuttle Columbia.
"On the day that he went up, former Prime Minister Barak called and thanked me and reminded me that he and I had done this deal to allow this remarkable human being to go into space," Clinton recalled.
In addition to increasing his visibility in the media, Clinton is taking a cue from his Democratic predecessor former President Jimmy Carter and conducting international diplomacy. He is slated to participate in the World Economic Forum in Davos next week. The forum is part of the U.N.'s effort to mediate a solution to the North Korean nuclear issue.
He also has been promoting his William J. Clinton Foundation, which has collaborated with the Harvard AIDS Institute, Columbia University Medical School and other organizations, to help countries battling AIDS develop better systems to deliver care. Clinton also co-chairs the International AIDS Trust with Nelson Mandela.
A call and e-mail seeking comment from Clinton's press office in New York have not been returned. A spokesperson told WorldNetDaily that the staff needs two weeks' notice to respond to press inquiries.
Two words: Jimmah Carter!
This life is not all there is. They may do well in this life - but there is an eternity coming - and that is straight from God's Word to them.
Here are some answers:
Psalm 12:8 The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.
Psalm 17:
8 Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings
9 from the wicked who assail me,from my mortal enemies who surround me.
8 Keep me as the apple of your eye; hide me in the shadow of your wings
9 from the wicked who assail me, from my mortal enemies who surround me.
10 They close up their callous hearts, and their mouths speak with arrogance.
11 They have tracked me down, they now surround me, with eyes alert, to throw me to the ground.
12 They are like a lion hungry for prey, like a great lion crouching in cover.
13 Rise up, O LORD , confront them, bring them down; rescue me from the wicked by your sword.
14 O LORD, by your hand save me from such men, from men of this world whose reward is in this life.
I know that, my excellent friend. I was merely referring to how things seem to work IN this life. Be a murderously corrupt slimy no-good scum of a politician, a hideous threat to humanity, and nothing bad will ever happen to you. It's an excreble axiom, but all the bloodthirsty tyrants seem to be able to dodge all possible threats.
The day of reckoning, of course, WILL come. Just not soon enough.
Michael
If Bubba Klintoon moved against the United States and pushed for UN troops to be deployed within our borders? Would this not be an act of treason against the United States?
If you can add anything to this or against this, I would greatly appreciate it.
On another similar subject, an American who takes on a second citizenship of another country also cannot have his/her U.S. citizenship revoked by the U.S. government. In this instance, the 14th amendment would have to be amended stating that as law.
Oh don't know about that. It seems that was the entire reasoning behind the Civil War. If Bubba Klintoon wants to rule the world, wouldn't the forces within the US government have a bit of a problem with that.
What is strange is that we even are having this dicussion. The good thing is that if he becomes Secretary General, try as he might, the UN will complete its march (sprint) towards irrelavence.
Can John Walker Be Stripped of His U.S. Citizenship?
Eugene Volokh
UCLA School of Law
December 21, 2001
Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., says "American Taliban" John Walker should be stripped of his citizenship. Can they do that?
Maybe. A federal statute says that a citizen loses his citizenship by "serving in the armed forces of a foreign state if such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States" but only if he does so "with the intention of relinquishing United States [citizenship]."
At one time, just fighting in an enemy army was enough to "expatriate" you (that's the technical term). But in 1967 and 1980 the Supreme Court held that a U.S. citizen "has a constitutional right to remain a citizen . . . unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship," so in 1986 the statute was changed.
So, Walker is still a citizen so long as he never formally told the U.S. government, "I quit"? Not so easy: The Supreme Court has held that the intention to give up citizenship could be inferred from a person's actions. Though voting in a foreign election or fighting in an enemy army can't be "treat[ed] . . . as conclusive evidence of the indispensable voluntary assent of the citizen," it can be "highly persuasive evidence in the particular case of a purpose to abandon citizenship."
And the one lower court case that most directly applies this test is pretty bad (or, as we'll see, good) for Walker. In United States v. Schiffer (1993), a federal trial judge concluded that a U.S. citizen voluntarily surrendered his citizenship by fighting in the Romanian army in World War II, when Romania was at war with the United States.
"[N]o conduct," the court said, is "more demonstrative of an intent to relinquish American citizenship than voluntary service in the armed forces of a country at war with the United States." A federal appellate court case, Breyer v. Meissner (2000), supports this approach. So does a formal 1969 opinion by Attorney General (and noted man of the Left) Ramsey Clark.
In any case, the question is one of fact, left to the judge or jury: Did Walker continue serving in the Taliban army, while the Taliban was at war with the United States, with the intention of abandoning his U.S. citizenship? This is an odd sort of inquiry — people generally don't think in terms of "I am fighting in this war with a purpose to abandon my citizenship" — but that's what the law requires.
(Walker could argue that the Taliban wasn't a foreign state, but this probably wouldn't work: It was the de facto government of Afghanistan, even if the U.S. didn't officially recognize it. Nor is a declaration of war required; actual hostilities are enough.)
But wait! Walker may actually want to claim he lost his citizenship. Right now, the nastiest charge Walker is facing seems to be treason. But only citizens (and residents) can be guilty of treason. Walker can claim he lost his citizenship as soon as the Taliban and the United States started fighting — there's precedent saying that "loss of nationality occur[s] immediately upon the commission of expatriating acts" — so he never had an opportunity to commit treason. In 1952, the Supreme Court seriously considered a similar theory, though it found the theory inapplicable to the particular facts of that case.
Of course, if Walker was an al-Qaida member or participated in terrorist attacks, then denying his citizenship would just get him out of the frying pan of a treason trial and into the fire of a military tribunal. Not so smart!
But if all he did was fight for the Taliban against the United States, then he wouldn't be covered by the tribunal order. Simply making war on the United States can get you killed on the field of battle, but it itself is not a crime: Once you surrender, you're a prisoner of war, and when the war is over, you get released. It only becomes a crime — treason — if you do it while a U.S. citizen.
Bonus question: Does it matter that Walker joined the Taliban before war broke out between it and the United States?
Not necessarily, because he did continue fighting for it when the United States engaged them in war. But he might avoid both loss of citizenship and a treason conviction by showing that he acted under duress.
Once the United States and the Taliban became enemies, he would argue, he had no choice: He'd be shot as a deserter or a spy if he tried to quit then. According to D'Aquino v. United States (1951) — the "Tokyo Rose" case — such a defense would work, but only if Walker could show that he "manifest[ed] a determination to resist commands and orders until such time as he is faced with the alternative of immediate injury or death. . . . The person claiming the defense of coercion and duress must be a person whose resistance has brought him to the last ditch."
Not an easy burden to satisfy, but at least possible — if Walker did indeed want to quit (a big if) but couldn't. The showing that Walker would have to make to avoid loss of citizenship is probably less demanding.
Note: Your author thinks Walker is a really bad guy, even for joining the Taliban in the first place, no matter when he did it; and thinks that Walker should have the book thrown at him.
The question, though, is exactly what the book allows.
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.