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


1 posted on 05/06/2002 10:13:46 AM PDT by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: jgrubbs
That's some mighty fancy letterhead at the State Dept.

Does that not seem odd?

2 posted on 05/06/2002 10:17:41 AM PDT by StriperSniper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jgrubbs
this is why we elected george w. bush.
3 posted on 05/06/2002 10:18:11 AM PDT by contessa machiaveli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jgrubbs
Here's some more info on John R. Bolton
This looks like it's just the fist step in the process. Great news.
5 posted on 05/06/2002 10:23:56 AM PDT by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jgrubbs; ALL
SQUEEZE HERE.
6 posted on 05/06/2002 10:24:32 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jgrubbs
Sounds excellent. I can not believe there is not an editoral to go along with the release of the letter. The lib pres must be so dumbfounded they cant find words.

We don't need to get out of the UN, just neuter it and put all the whining, anti-western culture, "give us a handout while we bomb and protest against you", third world nations back on a short leash.

8 posted on 05/06/2002 10:27:08 AM PDT by Magnum44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jgrubbs

9 posted on 05/06/2002 10:27:24 AM PDT by P8riot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Snow Bunny; Billie; FallGuy; JohnHuang2; Mama_Bear; Victoria Delsoul; daisyscarlett; Iowa Granny...
Dear Mr. Secretary-General:

This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty.

Sincerely,

John R. Bolton
10 posted on 05/06/2002 10:28:55 AM PDT by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jgrubbs, sonofliberty2, HalfIrish, NMC EXP, OKCSubmariner, Travis McGee, t-shirt, DoughtyOne, SLB
This is just one more victory to chalk up for the conservative "unilateralist" Rumsfeld led faction of the Bush Adminstration against the liberal globalist Powell faction! Now, Bush needs to follow this up by firing Powell and appointing Rummy as the Acting Secretary of State until a suitably conservative replacement for Powell can be found! Bolton would do a fine job I should think. We could put Powell-protege Richard Armitage in a lower ranking less policy sensitive position. Once Bolton became Secretary of State, he could demote all the other Powell appointees which were mostly career diplomats, who tend to be more liberal and Communist dictator/terrorist appeasing, rather than political appointees. Powell has led Bush to make some very bad foreign policy decisions. Firing his butt would do wonders for US foreign policy except for Iraq where the Rummy war faction has got it 100% wrong in pushing for yet another US invasion of that hapless country.

MR. PRESIDENT, WE CONSERVATIVES HEREBY REQUEST, NAY DEMAND THAT YOU FIRE COLIN POWELL FOR POLICY PRESCRIPTIONS UNBECOMING AN AMERICAN POLICYMAKER AND APPOINT JOHN BOLTON TO REPLACE HIM AS YOUR SECRETARY OF STATE!!!
14 posted on 05/06/2002 10:35:39 AM PDT by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jgrubbs
How about shutting down the kangaroo tribunal in the Hague and releasing Slobodon Milosevic? I mean, I've never yet read anything which described hypocrisy as a good thing...
28 posted on 05/06/2002 11:24:27 AM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jgrubbs
Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000.

IOW, we just "unsigned" the treaty.

Or put another way, "the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature conducted at the behest of a lying, perjurous, adulterous, traitorous, masagonistic criminal that was occupying the White House at the time."

29 posted on 05/06/2002 11:29:42 AM PDT by Chairman_December_19th_Society
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jgrubbs
Where did this letter come from? It looks completely phoney, who is John Bolton, why is his title not with his signature? By what authority does John Bolton inform the U.N. of anything?

This is bogus.

35 posted on 05/06/2002 12:29:44 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jgrubbs
BUMP!
40 posted on 05/06/2002 1:15:31 PM PDT by Tauzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jgrubbs
If I was writing that letter, the phrase "Get bent" would be in there somewhere.
53 posted on 05/06/2002 3:58:28 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jgrubbs
I certainly didn't mind hearing this on the radio today, and I am extremely happy to see it confirmed here. And I'd just as soon the department spent the money on more important things than fancy stationery.
65 posted on 05/06/2002 7:26:42 PM PDT by skr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jgrubbs
This is scrolling headline news on the UN web page
74 posted on 05/07/2002 3:17:10 AM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: UN_List;"NWO";Ripple Fire;Jeff Head;brat;Alamo-girl;amom;Mercuria;AnnaZ;EOD GUY;JMJ333

U.S. Officially Withdraws From International Criminal Court

Monday, May 06, 2002

WASHINGTON  — The United States said Monday it wants nothing to do with a treaty creating the first permanent international war crimes tribunal, a decision immediately criticized by human rights groups and some lawmakers. Others welcomed the move.

"We believe that states, not international institutions, are primarily responsible for ensuring justice in the international system," Marc Grossman, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in announcing the Bush administration decision.

As constituted today, Grossman said, the international criminal court "claims the authority to detain and try American citizens, even though our democratically elected representatives have not agreed to be bound by the treaty."

That threatens U.S. sovereignty, he said.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the tribunal's planned July 1 start-up "means that our men and women in uniform — as well as current and former U.S. officials — could be at risk of prosecution.

Particularly in the midst of the war against terrorism, Rumsfeld said, the flaws in the treaty are "particularly troubling."

Although nations have the authority to try non-citizens who commit crimes against their citizens or on their territory, "the United States has never recognized the right of an international organization to do so" without its consent or without a U.N. Security Council mandate, Grossman said.

The International Criminal Court gained the necessary international backing to come into being last month when 10 nations joined 56 others in ratifying the treaty, negotiated in Rome in 1998.

President Clinton signed the treaty, but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. The Bush administration has made its opposition clear.

Pierre-Richard Prosper, the U.S. ambassador for war crimes issues, said the United States has no intention of ratifying the treaty and now considers itself "no longer bound in any way to its purpose and objective." The declaration was contained in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan delivered to U.N. headquarters in New York.

Grossman, in a speech Monday in Washington, said President Bush wanted to formally renounce the treaty to avoid creating expectations of U.S. involvement in the future.

Instead, the United States favors working with nongovernment organizations, private industry and universities and law schools to help individual countries set up tribunals when needed, officials said.

But Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he was dismayed by the decision.

"Beyond the extremely problematic matter of casting doubt on the U.S. commitment to international justice and accountability," Feingold said, "these steps actually call into question our country's credibility in all multilateral endeavors."

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said Bush "sent a clear message we do not support this rogue court ... an institution of unchecked power that poses a real threat to our men and women fighting the war against terror.

Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., chairman of the House International Relations Committee, said, "We simply cannot accept an international institution that claims jurisdiction over American citizens."

But Human Rights Watch, an advocacy group, described the decision as an empty gesture that will further estrange Washington from its allies.

The Washington Working Group on the ICC, a coalition of organizations that support the tribunal, said the decision "signals to the world that America is turning its back on decades of U.S. leadership in prosecuting war criminals since the Nuremberg trials."

The coalition includes human rights organizations such as Amnesty International-USA and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

The court, to be formed this summer, will fill a gap in the international justice system first recognized by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948 after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials for World War II's German and Japanese war criminals.

Tribunals have been created for special situations — like the 1994 Rwanda genocide — but no mechanism existed to hold individuals criminally responsible for serious crimes such as genocide.

76 posted on 05/07/2002 3:47:12 AM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jgrubbs
This is good news but I am still concerned about the U.N.

Last night during the airing of Letterman,right after an Emergency Broadcast TEST, for a few seconds on the screen was the U.N. symbol saying The United Nations.I saw this as sure as the sun rose this morning,it was strange.

77 posted on 05/07/2002 3:53:23 AM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: backhoe;UN_List;"NWO";Ripple Fire;Alamo-Girl;amom;brat;Mercuria;Rowdee;EOD GUY;AnnaZ;freedomnews...

81 posted on 05/07/2002 8:43:11 AM PDT by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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