Posted on 05/07/2002 2:25:59 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
WASHINGTON, May 6 — Bush administration officials said today that the new International Criminal Court should expect no cooperation from the United States, and that its prosecutors would not be given any information from the United States to help them bring cases against any individuals. Continues.
=====================================================================
President Says No to Global Kangaroo Court
Well, so much for George W. Bush, The-Globalist, New-World-Order-Socialist-Traitor flap-doodle gobbledygook.
No difference between Gore and Bush, eh? The President's spunky decision to yank the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court -- already the move has sparked a cacophony of 'outrage' from all the usual, sniveling suspects -- illustrates with glaring clarity the rank fallacy in that argument. The pullout comes as a 'shocking surprise', alright -- to quibbling naysayers who don't know diddley-squat about George W. Bush, the man. For those who know him, Bush is unflappable, unflinching and unblinking, and there was never any question mark. For skeptics, his gutsy decision to junk Kyoto early on should have been the tip-off. Dittos his scrapping the ABM "accords".
The "treaty" at issue, lest we forget, was signed with wild enthusiasm by (none-other-than) Bill Clinton, Bush's predecessor -- a Democrat, last I checked. A 'president' Gore, corrupt and globalist in his outlook as X42, wouldn't dare overrule him, as this President has decided to do.
To Bush, the I.C.C. is an abomination, a mockery of justice, an affront to U.S. sovereignty, to our constitution. It would open the floodgates for politically-driven prosecutions and harrassment of Americans.
To every two-bit I.C.C. windbag "prosecutor" with a grudge, this 'court' is, in every respect, a wet dream come true. No American would be safe from these parasites, nor from the clutches of this Kangaroo "court".
At a more fundamental level, Bush sees the I.C.C. as a brazen assault on our core values -- our bedrock conception of basic jurisprudence, specifically. The I.C.C. charter imbues this world tribunal with unfettered supremacy, functioning as Criminal, Appallete and Supreme Court, all rolled up into one. Checks and balances? Due-process? Fuggedaboutit. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see how this Draconian 'court', unchecked and uncorked, becomes the spawning ground for arbitrary, crotchety decisions and egregious abuse. Justice and the U.N.: To Bush, that's an oxymoron.
But Washington's decision to reject I.C.C. is more than just fancy footwork, or demarche: The United States will actively seek to undercut I.C.C. by simultaneously repudiating the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The Bush administration asserts the U.S. will not be restricted by the 1969 pact, which obligates all nations to comply with international treaties, despite being a signatory. Article 18 forbids signatories from 'undercutting' treaties they sign, whether or not they are ratified.
This President is a trailblazer: Palitha Kohona, U.N. treaty section chief, denounced the move to dump I.C.C. as unprecedented. Never before has a signatory nation unilaterally removed its signature, he griped.
These actions, I submit, are not the deeds of a coward: It takes spine, it takes grit, it takes fearless courage to go in-your-face against this mother-of-all-sacred cows, unilaterally, with no friends, nor allies. Bush knows the media will savage him for this: The attacks will be vicious, cruel, unrelenting. But in George W. Bush, you don't have your typical, 'stick-a-moist-finger-in-the-wind' politician. He doesn't need polls, he doesn't need focus groups to tell him what to do, what to say, what to think. He's a patriot who puts America First -- to heck with the media, the U.N., the E.U., the Democrats.
Nor is this the portrait of a timid, spineless, pusillanimous milksop, as some of Bush's conservative critics depict him. ('Bush will cave', they wrongly predicted.) Even President Reagan never went this far: Rather than zapping Carter's signature to Protocol 1, an amendment to the Geneva Conventions broadening 'protections' to members of guerilla movements, instead the Reagan administration opted in 1987 to not seek formal ratification.
Make no mistake: With this action, the I.C.C. treaty becomes a corpse, a veritable dead-letter. But....but...but, haven't all European Union countries signed and -- with only one temporary exception -- ratified I.C.C.? Haven't many nations throughout Asia, Africa and the Mideast also signed and ratified? (For the record, a total of sixty-six countries have signed and/or ratified I.C.C., six more than needed to activate the treaty, set to go into effect on July 1, 2002.)
Yes, and so what?
Memo to Globalists: Put this in your pipe and smoke it: America is, and shall remain, the world's sole superpower. No other nation even comes close. America is, and shall remain, a sovereign, self-governing free republic. No despotic global tribunal shall have jurisdiction over citizens of this free republic.
Moreover, terrorists who commit crimes against the United States, will be tried by the United States, not by the U.N., the I.C.C. nor Kofi Annan. A 'global treaty' without us isn't worth the paper it's written on.
Any questions?
In this clash between globalism and sovereignty, between the U.S. and the U.N., the U.S. will win out, mark my words.
Two more points:
1) Bush's 'unsigning' of the I.C.C. treaty constitutes the sharpest reprimand of Mr. Clinton to date. This action is a humiliating defeat for X42, who signed the treaty as one of his last acts of defiance (December, 2000).
2) In adamantly endorsing this treaty, the American left stands revealed for the liars and hypocrites they are. Liberals, who feign 'concern' over 'due-process' and courtroom fairness, who wail and moan over military tribunals for al-Qaeda terrorists, are all a ga-ga for the I.C.C., where checks-and-balances are non-existent and prosecutors are answerable to no one. In effect, lefties care more for the 'rights' of Osama Bin Laden than they do for fellow citizens.
Surprise, surprise.
Thank God Al Gore is not President.
Anyway, that's....
My two cents....
"JohnHuang2"
Now to bolster the majority in the house, creat a majority in the senate, and get Lent Trott a set of gonads or out. Some of the domestic crap that has gone on could get mitigated.
DUMP THE U.N. NOW ! !
I hope that everyone in the media who criticizes this move on this country's part is taken to task extremely harshly by all of us....
By 537 votes were we spared the embarrassing site of liberals digging up the body of Richard Nixon and shipping him off for trial by the ICC for the crime of being Richard Nixon.
If you are an Anti-American (leftie), then Osama IS one of your fellow citizens, and regular Americans are your enemy. Make sense now? They are consistent.
Thanks for your essay about this, which speaks my mind! Those who are perpetual critics will, of course, never remember this event when we have to hear about how President Bush is a NWO globalist. I will remember, however. Thanks!
It is ironic, though, that he displays the grit to do this at the same time he says he'll sign the abomination which is the farm bill.
Politics at work......the constituency for the ICC is tiny compared to that for the farm bill, or the education bill, or CFR, or.....
Bush has done a pretty good job on foreign policy, domestic policy is another story.
The decision was a victory for a faction of policy makers in the administration who had argued that the treaty was flawed and dangerous. The group, led by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Mr. Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, contended that the treaty would require the United States to cede some of its sovereignty to an international prosecutor who would be answerable to no one and could initiate capricious prosecutions of American officials and military officers.
For those who are beginning their study of media bias ---although I don't think too many of John Huang's readers need this---
Main Entry: fac·tion
Pronunciation: 'fak-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from Latin faction-,
1 : a party or group (as within a government) that is often contentious or self-seeking : CLIQUE
2 : party spirit especially when marked by dissension
This writer is inserting his view of "dissent" to continue promoting the negative propaganda against Secretary Rumsfeld and the whole "War Department."
These New York Times fools live in the same city as UN Headquarters and apparently have no problem with the UN taking over the world. How can they expect readers to believe a word they write!
Oh John john john, Don't you realize this is all just part of a giant nefarious plot(and there the worst kind) to lull us into a false sense of security. Then when we leave our bunkers, BANG, down swoop the blackhelicoppters like giant birds of prey and snatch us up and take us to their secret "reeducation camp" they have built under downtown Toledo. Once there they are going to torture us by forcing us to watch reruns of "My mother the car", and "Waterworld".
And one more gutsy step in the right direction for President Bush. I keep feeling like I have awakened from a bad dream - indeed, from an eight-year nightmare.
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.