"Bush immediately withdrew the U.S. signature from the International Criminal Court," reports Mr. Lamb. While that statement is true, it is not the whole truth. Sereantdave, you said, "Mr. Bush is slowly rolling back the UN fascist executive orders signed by Clinton." That statement is not true, but you are going on what you read in this article and have not seen evidence to the contrary, so you are not to be faulted.
The whole truth on the International Criminal Court and the U.S. signature on it is that the Bush Administration pulled a 180 in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and withdrew its request for immunity.
Read the whole truth here: International Criminal Court Opens --"Meanwhile, the United States has withdrawn a proposed United Nations resolution that would have extended immunity for its soldiers from war crimes prosecutions until June 2005. The current exemption expires at the end of this month. The U.S. request for immunity for its peacekeepers had been adopted by large margins the past two years. This time, however, Council members said attitudes had shifted because of international outrage at the abuse of detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison." And here: U.S. Withdraws International Criminal Court Exemption, June, 2004.
Sargeatdave, you also are incorrect in this statement: "I don't believe a treaty can rightfully trump or erase the constitution." A prime and recent example of the trumping of the U.S. Constitution by treaty lies in the case brought before the International Court of Justice, an arm of the United Nations, of 52 Mexican nationals held in U.S. prison on death row. The International Court of Justice *ordered* the United States to review the cases and found that the U.S. justice system was in error in failing to notify the accused of their "international right" to be informed of Consular Assistance when detained in a foreign country. Quote: "It is important to note that the decisions of the ICJ are binding on all States, regardless of their governmental structure, given that they are based on an international treaty to which the States have voluntarily agreed to adhere. The legal basis of the binding nature of these decisions is contained in the United Nations Charter which, in the first paragraph of Article 94, states that 'each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party.'" That's us. We, the United States, are 'party' to the decisions of the ICJ because we have signed on to the Charter of the United Nations via treaty: "As a treaty, all signatories are bound by international law to obey the provisions of the Charter. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945, making that nation the first to join the new international organization." We are subject now as well to the International Criminal Court, because we have, this June, withdrawn our request for immunity from that Court's jurisdiction.
As Jed Babbin, author of Inside the Asylum, wrote in a recent article on NRO entitled, "Can the U.N. Save Florida?", discussing the actions of some lawmakers in Washington *requesting* U.N. oversight of U.S. Federal elections, ""we cannot tolerate any U.N. intervention, for to so do would be to surrender our independence and most basic freedom." I reqret to inform you all that we are not only tolerating such intervention, we've entreated it.
robertpaulsen: for reseach.
Mikey, El Gato, SauronOfMordor, Jim Noble, William Terrell, inquest, greasepaint: FYI.