Skip to comments.
Presidential candidates diverge on U.S. joining war crimes court (McCain may favor joining)
SF Gate ^
| Tuesday, January 1, 2008
| Bob Egelko
Posted on 01/01/2008 10:26:39 PM PST by ellery
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
The SF Gate is a must-excerpt. From the article:
"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."
1
posted on
01/01/2008 10:26:42 PM PST
by
ellery
To: Politicalmom; jellybean; 2ndDivisionVet; Josh Painter
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.
2
posted on
01/01/2008 10:28:58 PM PST
by
ellery
(I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
To: ellery
One of about 45 things that disqualifies that rank idiot.
3
posted on
01/01/2008 10:31:44 PM PST
by
pissant
(Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
To: pissant
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.
4
posted on
01/01/2008 10:38:25 PM PST
by
ellery
(I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
To: ellery
Hunter, a congressman from San Diego, who has denounced "treaties that infringe on basic U.S. sovereignty." ANOTHER excellent reason to vote for DUNCAN HUNTER in 2008!
5
posted on
01/01/2008 10:38:48 PM PST
by
Just A Nobody
(PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
To: ellery
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?
6
posted on
01/01/2008 10:41:42 PM PST
by
pissant
(Duncan Hunter: Warrior, Statesman, Conservative)
To: ellery
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."
Huh? I guess he never read Article VI of the Constitution.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..."
Joining the ICC would be wrong, but it would not be unconstitutional.
7
posted on
01/01/2008 10:43:46 PM PST
by
The Pack Knight
(Duty, Honor, Country.)
To: ellery
This man attempts to play all sides of any issue and then expects people to think he has a strong stance.
To: The Pack Knight
But it would mean that any treaty that differed from our laws would not be enforcable.
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.
To: The Pack Knight
Joining the ICC would be wrong, but it would not be unconstitutional. 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.
To: ellery
Yet another reason to not support McCain.
11
posted on
01/01/2008 10:55:27 PM PST
by
Kozak
(Anti Shahada: There is no god named Allah, and Muhammed is a false prophet)
To: pissant
Oh, but he’d get “guarantees” of “protection” first.../rolls eyes
12
posted on
01/01/2008 10:57:23 PM PST
by
ellery
(I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
To: The Pack Knight
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.
13
posted on
01/01/2008 11:01:18 PM PST
by
ellery
(I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
To: ellery
His statement seemed a bit more sweeping than that. If he simply meant "international law" as a synonym for the International Criminal Court, then I agree with him.
If he meant that the United States could not endure as a constitutional republic if subject to any international law, then his statement is ridiculous in the extreme.
To: ellery
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.
15
posted on
01/01/2008 11:09:18 PM PST
by
NRA2BFree
("The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves!")
To: ellery
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.Ain't that the truth...
To: pissant
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.
17
posted on
01/01/2008 11:29:48 PM PST
by
mvpel
(Michael Pelletier)
To: ConservativeMind
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.
To: ellery
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.
19
posted on
01/01/2008 11:31:14 PM PST
by
Lexinom
(Build the fence and call China to account. GoHunter08.com)
20
posted on
01/01/2008 11:33:34 PM PST
by
niki
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson