Bill would keep U.S. out of world court

A Texas lawmaker has drafted a bill that would ban the United States from participating in the newly formed International Criminal Court.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, is set to introduce "The American Servicemember and Citizen Protection Act of 2002," which he said "repudiates ICC jurisdiction over American citizens." The bill essentially provides that "the International Criminal Court is not valid with respect to the United States," said a draft copy obtained by WorldNetDaily.

Paul said his bill seeks to protect "American citizens against the ICC by urging President Bush to rescind the foolish Clinton administration signature of the ICC treaty." It would also ban "the use of U.S. taxpayer funds for the court, and deems ICC actions against U.S. servicemen acts of aggression against America," said a statement issued by Paul's office.

"The ICC is completely illegitimate, even under the U.N.’s own charter," Paul said.

"We characterize this legislation as a counteroffensive at this point," Jeff Deist, a spokesman for Paul, told WorldNetDaily. "Congressman Paul has many findings in the bill that lays out the case against the legitimacy and authority of the (ICC)."

Among them, said the Texas lawmaker, is the fact that the world body's "charter gives neither the U.N. General Assembly nor any other U.N. agency lawmaking authority."

"In other words," he continued, "there cannot be U.N. 'laws,' and there is no valid law authorizing the establishment of the ICC. The ratification of the ICC treaty, whether by 60 nations or 1,000, does nothing to give the court any legal authority whatsoever."

The bill notes that that under the terms of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, "no nation may be bound by a treaty to which that nation has not consented."

"Therefore the United States, which has not consented" to the ICC "cannot be bound" by its terms, the bill says.

It notes that the ICC is "wholly unauthorized by the Charter of the United Nations." And, it says the ICC statute "also contravenes the principle of government only by the consent of the governed," which is "enshrined in the American national charter, the Declaration of Independence."

The ICC's authority, the bill notes, circumvents U.S. constitutional "principles of separation of powers, federalism and trial by jury that are guaranteed" to Americans.

Paul thinks the world court could be used as a tool against the global interests of the U.S.

"The ICC, like the U.N. itself, will be used for political purposes," he said. "Far from being neutral, the court will serve as a weapon against disfavored nations and leaders. Given the anti-American sentiment that pervades the U.N., we can only assume that the court will be used one day to prosecute Americans who offend our many enemies among U.N. member states."

As WND reported, the world court was officially instituted yesterday at the U.N.'s New York City headquarters. According to its charter, the ICC is a permanent tribunal established ostensibly to prosecute "crimes against humanity." Clinton signed the treaty on his last day in office, Jan. 20, 2001, but it has never been ratified by the Senate. But as late as Monday there were reports that President Bush had sought means to retract the signature of the former president.

Deist confirmed that Bush has talked of finding a way to withdraw Clinton's signature, but he said talk in Washington is sometimes cheap.

"The ICC cannot exercise legitimate jurisdiction over American citizens," Paul said. "Furthermore, the Senate cannot constitutionally ratify any treaty that attempts to surrender the judicial function to an international agency. Our Constitution guarantees every American citizen various rights before, during and after a criminal arrest and trial, and no valid treaty can deny our citizens those rights."

Deist told WND that the bill is similar to legislation introduced in the House and Senate last summer, but that the Texas lawmaker's bill "is more zesty."

He also said the measure had garnered at least 15 co-sponsors by midday yesterday but it is so new that it has yet to be assigned a number.

I said that I can find no information on Bush's position on global taxation. An article right here on FR is my source for his refusal to reveal his position and the 4,000 letters from concerned activists.

Hannity on Fox News quoted the U.N. as saying that "American citizens have forfited their right to control their natural resources because of their urban sprawl and SUV's, someone had to take charge".

Do a google search on the many faces of Agenda 21.

The following article can be viewed at http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/story.asp?storyname=7181

The United Nations' International Conference on Financing for Development, set to take place in Mexico this March, has set the cat amongst the pigeons with its proposed focus on the creation of an International Tax Organisation, which would enable nations to collect and disseminate information regarding their tax policies, assist governments in taxing emigrant workers, and compel members to share tax data.

Tim Hall, a spokesman for the United Nations, denies that this is on the agenda for the March meeting. 'This has nothing to do with taxing anybody,' he stated. 'That is specifically what this proposal is not about.' He asserted that the UN meeting in Monterrey will be more concerned with 'strengthened international tax cooperation through enhanced dialogue' than with the establishment of an international tax body.

Many in the US are not convinced, and New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith has written to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill to ask him some pertinent questions on the subject, and suggesting that he should block any proposal for an International Tax Organisation.

"A United Nations conference in mid-March" says Senator Smith, "will be considering proposals to boost foreign aid, including tax harmonization proposals such as information exchange, an International Tax Organization, and global taxes on energy and/or financial transactions. Can you assure me that the United States will block these proposals, all of which would undermine America's competitive advantage in the global economy?"

Senator Smith also asked the following three questions of the Secretary:

Do all nations have the right to determine their own domestic policies so long as they do not create a national security threat to other countries?
Do nations have the right to determine the tax treatment of income earned inside their borders?
Are European welfare states promoting tax harmonization policies that are inconsistent with conservative principles?
Here is a copy of the complete letter:

January 25, 2002

The Honorable Paul O'Neill
Secretary
Department of Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20220

Dear Secretary O'Neill,

The "information exchange" schemes proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and European Union pose a significant threat to America's competitive position in the global economy. Compared to Europe's welfare states, the United States is a low-tax economy, and this helps us attract jobs and capital.

I recognize that you have resisted these initiatives, but I am concerned that the Administration's opposition to tax harmonization is not sufficiently enthusiastic. To put my mind at ease, can you address the following issues:

The United States should never feel compelled to put another nation's laws above our own, and we should guard against international initiatives that create dangerous precedents. With this in mind, can you assure me that you agree that all nations have the right to determine their own domestic policies so long as they do not create a national security threat to other countries?

Do nations have the right to determine the tax treatment of income earned inside their borders? This question is important, as you will appreciate, because America is the world's largest beneficiary of international capital flows. Needless to say, the United States should determine how – and if – any resulting income is taxed.

A United Nations conference in mid-March will be considering proposals to boost foreign aid, including tax harmonization proposals such as information exchange, an International Tax Organization, and global taxes on energy and/or financial transactions. Can you assure me that the United States will block these proposals, all of which would undermine America's competitive advantage in the global economy?

As New Hampshire residents can attest, tax competition between states promotes fiscal responsibility and rewards free-market economic policy. But politicians from the European welfare states promoting tax harmonization argue that individuals should not be allowed to lower their tax bills by shifting resources to lower-tax jurisdictions. Isn't this mentality inconsistent with conservative principles?

I look forward to specific answers to these important questions. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.

Sincerely,

Bob Smith
U.S. Senator

More information at these sites: http://www.americanpolicycenter.org/un/globaltreaties.htm
http://www.newscorridor.com/columnnists/caruba/2002columns/carubacolumn031202.htm
http://wwwsyninfo.com/PRIVATE/2001/11/21/200112110543541.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/12/646434.shtml

And here is a United Nations report exploring what to tax and how to make global taxation more palatable to the suckers.

http:/www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/ffd/2001/wahlberg.htm

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.