Posted on 01/01/2008 10:26:39 PM PST by ellery
The International Criminal Court isn't discussed much in the presidential campaign, but few issues are more revealing of a candidate's perspective on the United States' legal and political relations with the rest of the world.
-snip-
Unlike the rest of the Republican field, Sen. John McCain has said he would like to see the United States join the international court, although he would first require more protections for U.S. personnel.
-snip-
At the other end is Ron Paul, a Republican congressman from Texas, who said in 2002 that both the court and the United Nations "are inherently incompatible with national sovereignty. America must either remain a constitutional republic or submit to international law because it cannot do both."
McCain, who has expressed more willingness than other Republicans to consider court membership, also has spoken up for international law in other contexts, notably the nation's duty to follow the Geneva Conventions on the humane treatment of foreign prisoners.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has condemned the abuse of prisoners. But he has not responded to The Chronicle's inquiries about the international court and seems unlikely to support it, if his comment on another pending treaty is any indication: He referred to the Law of the Sea Treaty, a less-controversial pact that Bush supports, as a "crazy" plan that would "give away our sovereignty."
Other Republicans who haven't answered queries about the court are former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has criticized the United Nations; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has suggested that the United States look for alternatives to the United Nations; and Hunter, a congressman from San Diego, who has denounced "treaties that infringe on basic U.S. sovereignty." Former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee opposes U.S. membership in the court.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
"Unlike the rest of the Republican field, Sen. John McCain has said he would like to see the United States join the international court, although he would first require more protections for U.S. personnel. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have taken similar wait-and-see positions, while most of the other Democratic hopefuls have called for full U.S. membership."
ping — Thompson opposes joining the International Criminal Court.
On the other hand, McCain would like to see us join if we can get some additional protections for our personnel.
One of about 45 things that disqualifies that rank idiot.
Everytime I start thinking that McCain could occupy my number three spot, despite his many faults (just because of how awful the rest of the field is), he himself reminds me why I cannot support him under any circumstances.
ANOTHER excellent reason to vote for DUNCAN HUNTER in 2008!
The way I look at it: He’s a hawk like Bush, without the backbone or charm. And an incessant need for approval from libs and independents.
Bush lined his birdcage with the ICC treaty, and McCain wants to revive it?
This man attempts to play all sides of any issue and then expects people to think he has a strong stance.
For instance, we can’t both follow a Constitutional amendment allowing women to vote and follow a treaty that would claim to remove it.
Our laws remain supreme.
It might be.
It is generally held that the Senate has no power to ratify any Treaty that is not in accord with the Constitution, for that would empower the Senate to Amend the Constitution by menas of a Treaty Ratification, something that is repugnant to the Constitutuion and to the nature of a Federal Republic.
Yet another reason to not support McCain.
Oh, but he’d get “guarantees” of “protection” first.../rolls eyes
I didn’t read Paul’s statement as claiming that joining the ICC was unConstitutional. I read it as a statement that if we join the ICC and like institutions, it will destroy our Constitutional Republic (i.e., it’s ultimately anti-Constitutional, even if entering into treaties isn’t unConstitutional).
I agree with Paul here.
McCain is a traitor. He will never become President because too many Americans hate him. He’s sold Americans out to Mexico and anything else that will put a few dollars in his greedy hand.
Ain't that the truth...
Yeah, it’s bad enough that our soldiers can be prosecuted for refusing to violate the UCMJ by wearing insignia and uniform elements of the United Nations while serving under a foreign commander, this would just open a legalistic shooting gallery for all the thugs and tyrants around the world aching for a chance to stick it to America.
That’s true to an extent. The treaty would probably be unenforceable where it directly conflicted with the Constitution, such as the ICC’s relative lack of due process protections for the accused, but the court’s jurisdiction itself would not necessarily violate the Constitution.
On this:
Paul and Hunter will be rock solid. Neither is in the CFR, and both love America and her sovereignty.
Thompson will probably be solid.
Romney and Giuliani are unknowns and will probably need polling data before they respond.
Huckabee probably does not understand the issue yet and will need to consult with experts before forging a position.
McCain is the least trustworthy and the most likely to stab America in the back.
bump
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.