House Votes to Protect U.S. Troops From Globalist Court

House Votes to Protect U.S. Troops From Globalist Court Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com Wednesday, May 29, 2002 WASHINGTON – The House has passed an appropriations measure that contains the Servicemembers Protection Act. If passed by the Senate (a tough task, see below), it would write into law President Bush’s rejection of the right of the new International Criminal Court, which the U.S. has not ratified, to try American military people on charges trumped up by enemies of America. The measure, sponsored by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas, passed by a vote of 280-138 early Friday just before the lawmakers went home for the Memorial Day recess.

Fred Gedrich, senior policy analyst at Oliver North’s Freedom Alliance, has been tracking this legislation about as carefully as anyone in Washington. He tells NewsMax.com that the DeLay amendment has the support of the White House. Key people in the State Department have told him that the specific wording is crucial for President Bush’s support.

It might be assumed that because the Bush administration has bluntly told the United Nations it has no intention of honoring the court, of course it would back Capitol Hill’s support in the form of a law on the books and on the record, "the law of the land,” if you will.

But Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has been pushing for stronger language. He has complained that the House-passed measure "is silent on the ICC other than to prohibit funds authorized for international organizations from being used to advance the International Criminal Court.”

While Paul says "Hats off to DeLay” for making this important step in the right direction, he fears it "singles out one class of American citizens for protection from ICC jurisdiction (thus violating the doctrine of equal protection).” According to him, "it supposes that if the Senate ratifies the ICC treaty, [non-military] U.S. citizens would be subject to the ICC …”

Paul also has problems with that part of the DeLay amendment, which he interprets as committing the U.S. to go to the rescue of military people from other non-ratifying nations who are hauled before the new court. Paul sees this as encouraging international adventurism. So in one sense, he thinks the DeLay amendment doesn’t go far enough (doesn’t protect U.S. civilians), and in another sense (rescuing allies), he believes it goes too far.

But Gedrich of Freedom Alliance, who is solidly in the loop on this issue, says although he has worked with Paul’s staff and appreciates what they do, the Texas maverick’s proposal may not be able to get White House support "because of Executive Branch foreign policy prerogatives.”

That is a credible supposition. The Bush administration has gone about as far as any in recent history to fend off any erosion of presidential authority under the Constitution. One example of this is Attorney General John Ashcroft’s memo after Sept. 11 urging agencies to stall on Freedom of Information Requests and not to shy away from fighting such demands in court, if it comes to that.

Now, as reported by NewsMax this past week, prospects for the DeLay amendment’s getting through the Senate are not bright. Senate plurality Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., is gunning for it, and might be able to use his position to turn around December’s 78-21 vote in favor of a similar proposal.

The ICC, and its anti-sovereignty, anti-American structure, do not register on the radar screens of most of the good voters of the plains of South Dakota any more than the radar screens of most Americans in any state.

Perhaps the time has come to alert them. Daschle has a long history of talking one way back home and becoming a completely different person in Washington.

Here is the text of a bill by Congressman Ron Paul, the Whereas section explains a lot:

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. CON. RES. 23 Expressing the sense of the Congress that President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 8, 2001

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mr. DUNCAN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Congress that President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed otherwise.

Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty would establish the International Criminal Court as an international authority with power to threaten the ability of the United States to engage in military action to provide for its national defense;

Whereas former President Clinton's designee signed the International Criminal Court Treaty on December 31, 2000;

Whereas the term `crimes of aggression', as used in the treaty, is not specifically defined and therefore would, by design and effect, require the United States to receive prior United Nations Security Council approval and International Criminal Court confirmation before engaging in military action, thereby putting United States military officers in jeopardy of an International Criminal Court prosecution;

Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty creates the possibility that United States civilians, like United States military personnel, could be brought before a court that bypasses the United States Government;

Whereas the people of the United States are self-governing, and they have a constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the laws that their elected representatives enact and to be judged by their peers and no others;

Whereas the treaty would subject United States individuals who appear before the International Criminal Court to trial and punishment without the rights and protections that the United States Constitution guarantees, including trial by a jury of one's peers, protection from double jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against one, the right to confront one's accusers, and the right to a speedy trial;

Whereas the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and DeGeofrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 (1890) that the United States Government may not enter into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the United States Constitution because the treaty power does not authorize what the Constitution forbids;

Whereas the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that a party is not bound to a treaty unless it has consented to be bound;

Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty breaks substantially with accepted norms of international law because it extends its jurisdiction even to the nationals of countries that do not sign and ratify the treaty;

Whereas the International Criminal Court would be empowered unilaterally to investigate, try, and punish certain crimes, contrary to the current international norm of affording countries the primary responsibility for punishing these crimes;

Whereas approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths of the President and Senators, because the United States Constitution clearly provides that `[a]ll legislative powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States', and vested powers cannot be transferred;

Whereas each of the 4 types of offenses over which the International Criminal Court may obtain jurisdiction is within the legislative and judicial authority of the United States;

Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty creates a supranational court that would exercise the judicial power constitutionally reserved only to the United States and thus is in direct violation of the United States Constitution;

Whereas in order to make a treaty, the United States Constitution requires the President to obtain the advice and consent of the Senate and the concurrence of the Senate by a 2/3 vote; and

Whereas former President Clinton signed the International Criminal Court Treaty but expressed his intention not to submit the treaty to the Senate, thereby rendering his act procedurally inadequate and unconstitutional: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, undermines United States sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United States Constitution, contradicts customs of international law, and violates the inalienable rights of self-government, individual liberty, and popular sovereignty; and

(2) President George W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of former President Clinton to the treaty should not be construed otherwise.

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.