Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 04/30/2008 7:56:47 PM PDT by Coleus
A senior Bush administration official said Friday that the U.S. now accepts the "reality" of the International Criminal Court, and that Washington would consider aiding the Hague tribunal in its investigation of atrocities in Sudan's Darfur region. "The U.S. must acknowledge that the ICC enjoys a large body of international support, and that many countries will look to the ICC as the preferred mechanism" for punishing war crimes that individual countries can't or won't address, John Bellinger, the State Department's chief lawyer, told a conference in Chicago marking t
he 10th anniversary of the tribunal's founding treaty, the Rome Statute. More than 100 countries have ratified the treaty. Although it reiterated longstanding U.S. concerns about the court, Mr. Bellinger's speech represented a rhetorical turnabout for an administration that came to power determined to hobble the movement for a permanent war crimes tribunal.
"This is a meaty piece of work," said Richard Dicker, international justice director for Human Rights Watch. "It's impossible to imagine such a statement four years ago." Shortly before the court opened in 2002, the Bush administration "unsigned" the Rome Statute, which President Clinton had approved before leaving office. President Bush subsequently signed legislation authorizing military action, should the court arrest an American, and limiting U.S. dealings with the tribunal.
An architect of the White House's earlier policies dismissed Mr. Bellinger's remarks as "pabulum" from a State Department that is too solicitous of international institutions. "It would be a great speech in the first Clinton administration, and probably a great speech in the second Clinton administration," said John Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations who, as undersecretary of state, signed the letter repudiating Rome Statute. "It reflects the yearning the Rice State Department has for acceptance" by academics and foreign intellectuals, Mr. Bolton said.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Tell the UN to stick the ICC up its ass.
I would accept it as well if one person can point out where it gets its moral authority to judge anyone?
Is Bellinger f’n insane? State Dep’t always looking out for other countries at the expense of ours.
The internationalists at Foggy Bottom speaking for themselves?
It’ll be a cold day in.... Oh well, I’m just an American. I have a problem with this but that’s just me. It looks like the “sovereign nation” crap only applies to Indian reservations these days.
/piss
We need to hear more about this “accepting” business.
What is the ICC relationship with the US courts?? Will it have any effect on the sovereignty of the US?? etc.??
We can’t just jump off a precipice because other countries are doing so.
This requires a serious debate.
A senior Bush administration official said Friday that the U.S. now accepts the “reality” of the International Criminal Court,
Well, since the Bush administration has been nice enough to accept the ICC, maybe the ICC will return the facor and indict the Bush administration for ‘war crimes’.
Are politicians just born stupid or what?
Yet another reason why Bush isn’t a conservative.
Our highest law is the Constitution. Period.
The problem is, who decides what a “war crime” is, and for what political motivation?
sonofa.....................
Frankly, if the EU wants to use their ICC to prosecute war criminals that's fine.
What's unfortunate is that's where they'll stop. Just prosecute; no real punishment; maybe 30 days bad behavior charge.
The ICC doesn't execute anyone.
.
US Military Personel would be at risk or prosecution for obeying orders in a theater of war that are later portrayed by the press as " War Crimes."
Because our nation has a sense of morality, it can be used against us, and a soldier who is an alleged "baby killer" could actually halt or redefine US policy by virtue of action of the ICC and press coverage.
In other words the people would no longer have a sovereign nation.
The ICC could also effectively implement gun control laws enacted by the United Nations, in direct treaty superiority to the 2nd ammendment.
This is really horrible news, and if its an initiative at State, it needs to be halted and decapitated, forthwith!
There are plenty of anti-American folks, lots of them right here in the USA, who would gladly drag Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld before the ICC for “war crimes”. Lately they have been wanting to punish individual soldiers as well, since they enlisted and followed orders. You can bet that any preemptive war is viewed as a crime. Occupation is viewed as a crime. So where does that leave the USA and Israel in the ICC venue? We cannot allow our enemies and our “allies” to criminalize any actions we must take. We can save their butts time after time, and they will just prosecute us anyway.
Thats easy to do, you go to war.
No need of a court to do it.
Consensus (fashion)
Good point. The Constitution before any other court.
Perhaps the ICC’s first case will be against Iran.....[hysterical laughter]
Remember, the winners write the history and punish the criminals.
There goes the old guns and it has been aided by a republican I was dumb enough to vote for.
I’m open to correction on this, but I thought it was ALWAYS US policy to accept the ICC, but not as the final word on Americans. I seem to recall past support for its application to third world criminals in lands lacking their own functioning judicial system. Therefore I don’t think this new statement is anything special.
One of the things we were all proud of President Bush for...opposing the ICC.
Oh, well.
ping
“The ICC doesn’t execute anyone.”
No, they just keep a phony trial going for years until you drop dead of a heart attack.
Good point. For example, had WW2 turned out differently in the South Pacific, General Curtis LeMay would most certainly have been treated as a "war criminal."
And, if I remember correctly, I believe he said something along those lines to Robert McNamara - during the war.
I would consider the trial of ANY American citizen in the ICC to be one of the top 5 go signals.
Good idea; then why not also accept the 'reality' of the Mafia, Triads, and Yakuza -- after all they all enjoy a measure of support? /s
A lot of people are going to be shocked at the level of Bush’s treachery between now and the end of his term. He’s a NWO guy through and through.
Maybe you’re thinking of the ICJ, The International Court of Justice. But then what do I know?
...I don’t like where this is going...
I think the drunkard skipper who crashed the Exxon Valdez is now piloting the U.S. ship of state.
And we’re about to run aground...
What kind of absolute fool would allow a foreign entity to have the first say in how we conduct our affairs? If this madness represents those we have working “on our behalf” in Washington, we’re already a failed nation.
I sure miss John Bolton.
File a claim against Janet Reno for carrying out the murder of almost 100 people in Waco. Include the rino minster senator who broomed the congressional review.
Actually, this International Criminal Court is be based on the ICTY which, in turn, was based on the Nurenberg Trials. And former Nurenberg Prosecutor, Walter J. Rockler, gave Clinton an earful about the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia and made comparisons that are useful:
"At Nuremberg, the United States and Britain pressed the prosecution of Nazi leaders for planning and initiating aggressive war. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the head of the American prosecution staff, asserted "that launching a war of aggression is a crime and that no political or economic situation can justify it." He also declared that "if certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."
He blasted the ICTY and if he were still alive (he died in 2002), would probably be going nuts on this.
It’s a technique they adopted from us ~ beat the other side to death with lawyers. I think one of the fellows down at Gitmo said he’d rather die now than go to trial ~
Me, too. But if McCain gets into office, you can bet that Bolton will be nowhere to be found!
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed freepmail me or post a message here.
The State Department needs a major purge of the UNELECTED careerists.
It has become like the 1950’s and 60’s agriculture department, a bastion for communists and solcialists.
/Sarcasm
a ping to sadness
One is vanilla bean, the other is French vanilla.
Jeez, what are the other 4 signals?
Correctomundo, and so is his old man.
The leading Democrats are also one worlders, more so in fact, and a majority of the American sheeple won't be hard to convince that an all powerful global government is necessary after a disastrous nuclear war, probably between Iran with Russia's backing and Israel with US backing.
This is just conjecture of course, and I certainly hope I'm wrong.
Whatever.
It's not an Article III court, it has no power or right to issue rulings that pertain to the People of the United States, and what assorted eurotrash, hottentots, and chinamen think about it concerns me not in the least.
Its' moral authority, or lack thereof, is beside the point.
THIS is the point:
Article. III. Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
This "court" does not partake of the judicial power of the United States, and therefore is a nullity, as far as we have any right to be concerned.
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.