Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Bush and the International Criminal Court
Find Law's Legal Commentary ^ | Monday, September 8, 2003 | Marjorie Cohn

Posted on 09/08/2003 2:48:43 PM PDT by I_Publius


   http://writ.findlaw.com/commentary/20030908_cohn.html

----
How the Bush Administration's Opposition to the International Criminal Court Has Put Peacekeepers and Others in Danger
By MARJORIE COHN

----

Monday, Sep. 08, 2003

Even after the recent, tragic attack on the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the U.S. was not willing to unreservedly support a U.N. Security Council resolution to help protect U.N. and other humanitarian workers. Instead, the U.S. greenlighted the resolution only when its reference to the International Criminal Court (ICC) was deleted.

It's not the first time that the U.S. has put its pigheaded opposition to the ICC before other important goals: Last year, in an unprecedented move, Bush withdrew the U.S. as a signatory to the ICC's statute, which has been ratified by all other Western democracies. But it ought to be the last.

The U.S. Government's Hypocritical Opposition to the ICC

The U.S. government frequently blasts other countries for human rights violations. It also frequently supports - or even, in the case of Iraq, seeks to initiate - war crimes prosecutions against other country's leaders. But, at the same time, it refuses to acknowledge that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Washington seeks to immunize U.S. leaders from war crimes prosecutions entirely, no matter what they may do. That is doubtless the reason Bush felt compelled both to refuse to become a party to the treaty, and also recently to withdraw the U.S. signature from the ICC statute.

And indeed, the Bush Administration has gone even further: It has demanded express immunity from ICC prosecution for American nationals. This demand delayed the passage of several peacekeeping resolutions in the Security Council - and in the end, the Security Council had to capitulate.

Thus, in 2002, it unanimously passed Resolution 1422 - calling for one year of immunity for peacekeepers from countries not party to the ICC statute, and providing that that immunity could be renewed in subsequent years. The resolution was renewed in June. But France, Germany and Syria abstained.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has reportedly extracted separate bilateral immunity agreements from 60 nations - primarily, they are either small countries, or fragile democracies with weak economies.

And if a country refuses to enter into such an agreement, the U.S. will often withdraw military assistance. Pursuant to the American Servicemembers Protection Act, it has done so with respect to a staggering 35 countries. As with the U.N. and other peacekeepers, the U.S. has put lives in danger by insisting on opposing the ICC treaty in every way possible.

The ICC's Provisions are Long-Established, and Unobjectionable

Why is the U.S. so upset about the ICC statute? The answer is this: Under the statute, the ICC can take jurisdiction over a national of even a non-party country if he or she commits a crime in a party country's territory.

The U.S. vehemently objects to this. But in fact, it's nothing new. Under well-established principles of international law, the crimes prosecuted in the ICC - genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression - are crimes of universal jurisdiction.

That means that an alleged perpetrator can - and always could - be arrested anywhere. Indeed, the United States itself has asserted jurisdiction over foreign nationals in anti-terrorism, anti-narcotic trafficking, torture and war crimes cases.

In addition, the ICC statute adds a special safeguard to the venerated principle of universal jurisdiction. It promises that the ICC will only prosecute when the alleged perpetrator's native country cannot, or will not, prosecute one of its nationals.

Thus, for instance, the U.S.'s decision to prosecute Lieutenant William Calley in connection with the My Lai massacre would - had the ICC statute been in force then - have ensured that the ICC would not itself have put Calley on trial.

The Bush Administration May Fear Prosecutions for the Crime of Aggression

In the end, though, it's not the rogue Lieutenant Calleys the Bush Administration is worried about - it's military personnel conducting what the Administration views as business is usual. For there is an argument that high-level military personnel who were in charge of the Iraq war committed the "crime of aggression" - which is punishable by the ICC.

So far, the crime of aggression, in this context, remains undefined. When the U.S. participated in the ICC Preparatory Commission (PrepCom) meetings, it consistently resisted broad definitions and broad jurisdiction. And the drafters of the ICC statute, unable to agree on a definition and process for prosecuting aggression, left that struggle to a later day.

How, then, would the ICC's reference to a "crime of aggression" likely be interpreted? Unfortunately for the Bush Administration, it would probably be in a way that would encompass the Iraq war.

Many of the countries at the PrepCom meetings favored the definition of aggression embodied in General Assembly Resolution 3314, passed in 1974 in the wake of the Vietnam War. It defines "aggression" as "the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition."

Plainly, invasions that are neither sanctioned by the Security Council, nor undertaken in immediate self-defense (as the U.N. Charter allows), would count as "aggression." And the Iraq war was just such an invasion.

The situation couldn't be clearer: Despite its vast power, the U.S. feels trapped. Because its invasion of Iraq violated the U.N. Charter and defied the Security Council, it opened itself to a potential war crimes prosecution. Now, to avoid such a prosecution, it is forced to lose allies or potential allies - such as the 35 countries it abandoned and alienated - and to delay or impede important goals such as protecting peacekeepers.

Meanwhile, the U.S.'s own soldiers are in danger, dying every day in Iraq, and the U.S.'s past decision to flout the U.N., and invade in the first place, is doubtless harming its ability to protect even its own. It needs U.N. help for political cover, even though it threatened the U.N. with "irrelevance" before the war.

The United States should apologize for its misguided Iraq war, end its occupation, allow the U.N. to take over with a multilateral peacekeeping force, and lend its wholehearted support to the ICC in the future. If it does not, it will only find itself repeatedly hamstrung by its own lawbreaking.


Marjorie Cohn, a Professor of Law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, is a criminal defense attorney, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild, co-chair of the Guild's international committee, and editor of Guild Practitioner. Professor Cohn co-authored Cameras in the Courtroom: Television and the Pursuit of Justice, and she publishes frequent articles and does media commentary about U.S. foreign policy, human rights, and criminal justice.

 


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; court; criminalcourt; global; globalism; hagueicc; icc; judicial; un; unitednations
Just another example of a college professor and the views they espouse. (Not that WE have any doubt!)

They are planning on pulling us into this, yet!!!

1 posted on 09/08/2003 2:48:43 PM PDT by I_Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
No foreign court should have jurisdictional power over any of us.
2 posted on 09/08/2003 2:54:18 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
Why is the U.S. so upset about the ICC statute?

Are these people for real? The US doesn't want US citizens tried by terrorists, which is what is gonna happen.

3 posted on 09/08/2003 2:57:04 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
Read the September 8 issue of The New Amerian, page 6:

"UN Favors Homosexual Agenda"
...
[During a panel discussion, Paula Ettrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGHLRC), discussed the coming "showdown with religion,]
...
[Princeton University professor Anthony Appiah suggested limiting religious freedom becuase of the numerous anti-homosexual religious groups.]


LIMITING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM??????
4 posted on 09/08/2003 2:59:00 PM PDT by VxH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild

Explicitly marxist organization.

5 posted on 09/08/2003 3:01:47 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
Where is the barf alert? This is just sickening!
6 posted on 09/08/2003 3:05:30 PM PDT by alwaysconservative (Have YOU actually heard anybody answer the Verizon guy?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
"The U.S. vehemently objects to this. But in fact, it's nothing new. Under well-established principles of international law, the crimes prosecuted in the ICC - genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression - are crimes of universal jurisdiction."


This is why I hate the liberals and thier twisted logic; they would sell America not the hands of worldwide dictators, madmen,liars, and fools and not even give a half damn ,until Gestapo I.C.C. agents took a person they loved in their family into custody for trial for being a soldier of the U.S. military and fighting in any of the countries we fight in.
Ignorance is bliss and the liberals are lala land dwellers.
7 posted on 09/08/2003 3:06:44 PM PDT by wgeorge2001 ("The truth will set you free.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wgeorge2001
"So far, the crime of aggression, in this context, remains undefined."

Uh, OK. We're supposed to sign something agreeing to allow ourselves to be prosecuted for something that's not even defined yet.

So let me paraphrase her argument:

"We just don't understand why the U.S. doesn't agree to let us work them over, and hand over their sovereignty so we can make them do what we want. Why doesn't the U.S. see that it's in their self interest to allow us to destroy them and everything they stand for and believe in? It's plainly pathological and irrational."
8 posted on 09/08/2003 3:18:02 PM PDT by jimbokun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: I_Publius
Hey Majorie, when the U.N. has tried, convicted, and executed Arafat, one of the biggest criminals on the planet, get back to me about its effectiveness.
10 posted on 09/08/2003 3:27:43 PM PDT by Russell Scott (Without massive intervention from Heaven, America doesn't have a prayer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
Maybe Marjorie's happy playing the part of the slobbering little happy puppy but I, personally, will never bow to a foreign power.

And will never respect Americans who do.

11 posted on 09/08/2003 3:33:51 PM PDT by Psycho_Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
"Plainly, invasions that are neither sanctioned by the Security Council, nor undertaken in immediate self-defense (as the U.N. Charter allows), would count as "aggression." And the Iraq war was just such an invasion."

By this definition, so was the war in Kosovo, which she fails to mention.
12 posted on 09/08/2003 3:38:32 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle (uo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius

THE ENEMY IS WITHIN

13 posted on 09/08/2003 3:40:33 PM PDT by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
I am protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States why would I want to lose that protection?
14 posted on 09/08/2003 3:56:02 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Por La Raza Mierda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
has put its pigheaded opposition to

One would think a professor would open her argument with their strongest case for their posistion. If calling the opposistion names is the best argument a college professor is capable of making, then we are in trouble. Further, if this professor leads by example then I assume she gives A's on posistion papers which use the most name calling.

15 posted on 09/08/2003 3:56:33 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
Want to irritate the 20 million deer-rifle army?

Try to prosecute an American on US soil.

bangity bangity bump!

16 posted on 09/08/2003 4:00:28 PM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
If we ever let our country be judged by this amoral, hypocrites, I will leave this country forever. The fat lady will have sung.
17 posted on 09/08/2003 4:04:39 PM PDT by MontanaBeth (Born Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MontanaBeth
excuse me-judged by these-When I'm upset my fingers don't listen to me. That article really upset me.
18 posted on 09/08/2003 4:07:50 PM PDT by MontanaBeth (Born Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
The United States should apologize for its misguided Iraq war, end its occupation, allow the U.N. to take over with a multilateral peacekeeping force, and lend its wholehearted support to the ICC in the future.

You, Ms. Cohn, should start medication to reintroduce you to reality.

Idiot.

19 posted on 09/08/2003 4:10:08 PM PDT by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
No foreign court should have jurisdictional power over any of us.

What type of person would want this? It is unbelievable that there are Americans who dont put America first. There is no conceivable reason for an American to give up constitutionally guaranteed due process, to some America hating Euro. But they do! There are Americans who hate America so much, that the ICC doesnt faze them.

20 posted on 09/08/2003 4:13:18 PM PDT by cardinal4 (The Senate Armed Services Comm; the Chinese pipeline into US secrets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
HEY, Professor STUPID!.. HIS OPPOSITION TOOK OUR SOLDIERS OUT OF HARMS WAY!!

He protected our troops from being "tried" by an "International court" by NOT SIGNING THIS!

I say "BRAVO President Bush" "Thank GOD you are OUR COMMANDER IN CHIEF"!!

We have never shirked our duties if a troop did wrong. Just ask those who are doing duty at Levenworth! It is called being "COURT MARTIALED".

That this professor doesn't like it.. is just proof positive that President Bush did the right thing!!

Pass the barf bag Mable.. this idiot makes me want to PUKE! Someone needs to tell her that the Commander in Chief cares MORE about our troops, than SHE obviously does!

I can't believe she see's any correlation in President Bush NOT signing this HARMING peacekeepers.. give me a friggin break.
21 posted on 09/08/2003 4:21:09 PM PDT by Vets_Husband_and_Wife (CNN: where " WE report what WE decide!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
Over their dead bodies will they drag us into this farce!

Send all of these scumbags to Belgium or France Lite for a future target of opportunity in ridding the world of scumbags who back the Islamofascist terrorists.
22 posted on 09/08/2003 4:29:23 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (May our brave warriors kill all of the Islamokazis/facists/nazis to prevent future 9/11's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cardinal4
It is stupid, I know!
23 posted on 09/08/2003 4:31:46 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; All
How can anyone deny the fact that the Left is truly our nation's sworn enemy?

Something series needs to be done about these seditious losers.
24 posted on 09/08/2003 4:41:10 PM PDT by 11B3 (Communism is to the Democrats like lying, murdering, and treason is to the Clintons. Religion....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
CONSPIRACY!
25 posted on 09/08/2003 4:42:13 PM PDT by winker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 11B3
They are our worse sworn enemy.

I can't believe the so called every day rat in California and how they are attacking our President, Rummy and the military re the job they are doing.

I just ask did they cheer when 9/12 happened. If they say no, I ask why they want to see more 9/11's as per their goal to get us out of the middle east now.

With the 9/11 anniversary coming up, I have had zero tolerance with them.
26 posted on 09/08/2003 4:48:33 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (May our brave warriors kill all of the Islamokazis/facists/nazis to prevent future 9/11's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 11B3
They are our worse sworn enemy.

I can't believe the so called every day rat in California and how they are attacking our President, Rummy and the military re the job they are doing.

I just ask did they cheer when 9/12 happened. If they say no, I ask why they want to see more 9/11's as per their goal to get us out of the middle east now.

With the 9/11 anniversary coming up, I have had zero tolerance with them.
27 posted on 09/08/2003 4:48:50 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (May our brave warriors kill all of the Islamokazis/facists/nazis to prevent future 9/11's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
"Marjorie Cohn, a Professor of Law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law..."

It pains me to see this intellectual lightweight's name in the same sentence with Thomas Jefferson.
28 posted on 09/08/2003 4:50:19 PM PDT by avenir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
AAAARRRRGGH!

Reading commie crap like this makes me long for the good ol' days of burning at the stake!

The UN has no place in America. Eject it.

29 posted on 09/08/2003 5:07:47 PM PDT by LibKill (Will club baby seals for the heck of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
"Are these people for real? The US doesn't want US citizens tried by terrorists, which is what is gonna happen."
(Always Right)

Exactly. Isn't syria the head of the Human Rights Council at the UN? Or is it libya? Iraq, before the war, was about to be head of some sort of UN Weapons Council. What a croc o shxt. The ICC will never rule over AMERICA. I support GW Bush for opposing this court. Our actions as a country since 9/11/01 have been measured, just, and noble. How can this woman claim the war on Iraq was aggressive?

The ICC and the Bush Doctrine can not co-exist.

I favor the Bush Doctrine over the lame ass UN and the ICC.



30 posted on 09/08/2003 5:08:47 PM PDT by Imperialist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
Thanks for the post. I am always amused when useful idiots spout nonsense about "international law." You'd think most people would understand that "international law" has no legitamacy other than that which grows from the barrel of a gun. Some will recognize from whom the latter half of the statement derives, but he understood the practice of power very well.


-C.W.


31 posted on 09/08/2003 5:45:41 PM PDT by colderwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI

[Article. XI.]
[Proposed 1794; Ratified 1798]

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. ]
; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

32 posted on 09/08/2003 7:19:24 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The everyday blessings of God are great--they just don't make "good copy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
But, at the same time, it refuses to acknowledge that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

At the heart of all this is the fact that the Left considers the United States morally interchangable with any other nation. How the Left can hold this thought in its head and still get huffy when people question the Left's patriotism is beyond me.

Meanwhile, the U.S.'s own soldiers are in danger

Heaven forbid!

Sheesh...

33 posted on 09/08/2003 7:33:47 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
International Criminal Court, Unsafe in ANY form
International Criminal Court Index
Don't say that we weren't warned--Put "ICC" in the Search Engine and see what comes up
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
International Criminal Court to Be Launched This Year
Conference gears up for world court
Bill would keep U.S. out of world court, Call your Congressman
Drudge Report, Flash
EU urged to resist US on world court
International court readies to open

"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than f rom the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)
______________________________________

Under the U.N. Gavel
By Sen. Larry E. Craig, R-ID

August 22, 2001

At its founding, the mission of the United Nations, as stated in its charter, was "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." It made no claim to supersede the sovereignty of its member states. Article 2 says that the United Nations "is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members," and it may not "intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."

Since then, the United Nations has turned the principle of national sovereignty on its head. Through a host of conventions, treaties and conferences, it has intruded into regulation of resources and the economy (for example, treaties on "biological diversity," marine resources and climate change) and family life (hyping phoney liberalism while masculinity is scorned and western manhood is amputated - causing untold grief to the family unit) (conventions on parent-child relations and women in society). It has demanded that countries institute racial quotas and laws against hate crimes and speech (while the U.N. itself can jail someone for 30 years without trial). Recently the United Nations tried to undermine Americans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms (with proposed restrictions on the international sale of small arms).

Fortunately, many of these have been dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate, successive presidents have refused to endorse others, and in any case the United Nations had little power of enforcement. But in 1998, one mechanism of global government (there it is in the Washington Post folks) came to life with the so-called "Rome Statute" establishing a permanent International Criminal Court (and abolishing the Magna Carta in Britain). Once this treaty is ratified by 60 countries, the United Nations will wield judicial power over every individual human being -- even over citizens of countries that haven't joined the court.

While the court's stated mission is dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity (what about their own crimes against humanity when they committed widespread genocide in the Balkans and East Timor? Dare I say they are hypocrites?) -- which, because there is no appeal from its decisions, only the court will have the right to define -- its mandate could be broadened later. Based on existing U.N. tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which are models for the International Criminal Court, defendants will have none of the due process rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution, such as trial by jury, confrontation of witnesses or a speedy and public trial (that's a communist court system!).

President Clinton signed the Rome treaty last year, citing U.S. support for existing U.N. war crimes tribunals. Many suppose the court will target only a Slobodan Milosevic or the perpetrators of massacres in Rwanda, or dictators like Iraq's Saddam Hussein. But who knows? To some people, Augusto Pinochet is the man who saved Chile from communism; to others he is a murderer. Who should judge him -- the United Nations or the Chilean people?

In dozens of countries, governments use brutal force against insurgents. Should the United Nations decide whether leaders in Turkey or India should be put in the defendants' dock, and then commit the United States to bring them there? How about Russia's Vladimir Putin, for Chechnya? Or Israel's Ariel Sharon? Can we trust the United Nations with that decision (the more evil these premieres are - the more the U.N. loves them)?

The court's critics rightly cite the danger to U.S. military personnel deployed abroad. Since even one death can be a war crime, a U.S. soldier could be indicted just for doing his duty. But the International Criminal Court also would apply to acts "committed" by any American here at home. The European Union and U.S. domestic opponents consider the death penalty "discriminatory" and "inhumane." Could an American governor face indictment by the court for "crimes against humanity" for signing a death warrant?

Milosevic was delivered to a U.N. court (largely at U.S. insistence) for offences occurring entirely within his own country. Some say the Milosevic precedent doesn't threaten Americans, because the U.S. Constitution protects them. But for Milosevic, we demanded that the Yugoslav Constitution be trashed and the United Nations' authority prevail. Why should the International Criminal Court treat our Constitution any better (they're already destroying the 2nd amendment with their gun grab and the 1st with their phoney 'hate crime' nonsense)?

Instead of trying to "fix" the Rome treaty, the United States must recognize that it is a fundamental threat to American sovereignty. The State Department's participation in the court's preparatory commission is counterproductive. We need to make it clear that we consider the court an illegitimate body, that the United States will never join it and that we will never accept its "jurisdiction" over any U.S. citizen or help to impose it on other countries.
____________________________________________________

Wake Up! Enemy forces are usurping control!

Paul Joseph Watson

"'It can't happen here' is number one on the list of famous last words"
David Crosby
__________________________________________________

We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995)

THAT quotation and the following - and many others like them - clearly demonstrate that the words "new world order" are deadly serious and furthermore, have been in use for decades. They did not originate with President George Bush in 1990. The "old world order" is one based on independent nation-states. The "new world order" involves the elimination of the sovereignty and independence of nation-states and some form of world government. This means the end of the United States of America, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as we now know them. Most of the new world order proposals involve the conversion of the United Nations and its agencies to a world government, complete with a world army, a world parliament, a world court, global taxation, and numerous other agencies to control every aspect of human life (education, nutrition, health care, population, immigration, communications, transportation, commerce, agriculture, finance, the environment, etc.). The various notions of the "new world order" differ as to details and scale, but agree on the basic principle and substance.


"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."
Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991.

"The idea was that those who direct the overall conspiracy could use the differences in those two so-called ideologies [marxism/fascism/socialism v. democracy/capitalism] to enable them [the Illuminati] to divide larger and larger portions of the human race into opposing camps so that they could be armed and then brainwashed into fighting and destroying each other."
Myron Fagan

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations

"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interest, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press....They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers.
"An agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers."
U.S. Congressman Oscar Callaway, 1917

"The world can therefore seize the opportunity [Persian Gulf crisis] to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind."
George Herbert Walker Bush

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."
Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent."
Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950

"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
Benjamin Disraeli, first Prime Minister of England, in a novel he published in 1844 called Coningsby, the New Generation

"The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, kings and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments' plans. "
British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, 1876

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
Woodrow Wilson,The New Freedom (1913)

"What is important is to dwell upon the increasing evidence of the existence of a secret conspiracy, throughout the world, for the destruction of organized government and the letting loose of evil."
Christian Science Monitor editorial, June 19th, l920

"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen....At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties."
New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922

"From the days of Sparticus, Wieskhopf, Karl Marx, Trotsky, Rosa Luxemberg, and Emma Goldman, this world conspiracy has been steadily growing. This conspiracy played a definite recognizable role in the tragedy of the French revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their head and have become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
Winston Churchill, stated to the London Press, in l922.

"We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world."
Professor Arnold Toynbee, in a June l931 speech before the Institute for the Study of International Affairs in Copenhagen.

"The government of the Western nations, whether monarchical or republican, had passed into the invisible hands of a plutocracy, international in power and grasp. It was, I venture to suggest, this semioccult power which....pushed the mass of the American people into the cauldron of World War I."
British military historian MajorGeneral J.F.C. Fuller, l941

"For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advanced by the Council on Foreign Relations-One World Money group. Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support.
"The UN is but a long-range, international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power.

"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market....The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank."

Curtis Dall, FDR's son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."
A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, l933

"The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes."
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, 1952

"Fifty men have run America, and that's a high figure."
Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK, in the July 26th, l936 issue of The New York Times.

"Today the path of total dictatorship in the United States can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen and unheard by the Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government - a bureaucratic elite."
Senator William Jenner, 1954

"The case for government by elites is irrefutable"
Senator William Fulbright, Former chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, stated at a 1963 symposium entitled: The Elite and the Electorate - Is Government by the People Possible?

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system ,they will rule the future."
U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater in his l964 book: With No Apologies.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups."
Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,) Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University, highly esteemed by his former student, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

"The Council on Foreign Relations is "the establishment." Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also announces and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitutional Republic into a servile member state of a one-world dictatorship."
Former Congressman John Rarick 1971

"The directors of the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) make up a sort of Presidium for that part of the Establishment that guides our destiny as a nation."
The Christian Science Monitor, September 1, l961

"The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault."
CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs.

"The planning of UN can be traced to the 'secret steering committee' established by Secretary [of State Cordell] Hull in January 1943. All of the members of this secret committee, with the exception of Hull, a Tennessee politician, were members of the Council on Foreign Relations. They saw Hull regularly to plan, select, and guide the labors of the [State] Department's Advisory Committee. It was, in effect, the coordinating agency for all the State Department's postwar planning."
Professors Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, writing in their study of the CFR, "Imperial Brain Trust: The CFR and United States Foreign Policy." (Monthly Review Press, 1977).

"The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for "the purpose of promoting disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government."
Harpers, July l958

"The old world order changed when this war-storm broke. The old international order passed away as suddenly, as unexpectedly, and as completely as if it had been wiped out by a gigantic flood, by a great tempest, or by a volcanic eruption. The old world order died with the setting of that day's sun and a new world order is being born while I speak, with birth-pangs so terrible that it seems almost incredible that life could come out of such fearful suffering and such overwhelming sorrow."
Nicholas Murray Butler, in an address delivered before the Union League of Philadelphia, Nov. 27, 1915

"The peace conference has assembled. It will make the most momentous decisions in history, and upon these decisions will rest the stability of the new world order and the future peace of the world."
M. C. Alexander, Executive Secretary of the American Association for International Conciliation, in a subscription letter for the periodical International Conciliation (1919)

"If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands."
Dr. Augustus O. Thomas, president of the World Federation of Education Associations (August 1927), quoted in the book International Understanding: Agencies Educating for a New World (1931)

"... when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people."
H. G. Wells, in his book entitled The New World Order (1939)

"The term Internationalism has been popularized in recent years to cover an interlocking financial, political, and economic world force for the purpose of establishing a World Government. Today Internationalism is heralded from pulpit and platform as a 'League of Nations' or a 'Federated Union' to which the United States must surrender a definite part of its National Sovereignty. The World Government plan is being advocated under such alluring names as the 'New International Order,' 'The New World Order,' 'World Union Now,' 'World Commonwealth of Nations,' 'World Community,' etc. All the terms have the same objective; however, the line of approach may be religious or political according to the taste or training of the individual."
Excerpt from A Memorial to be Addressed to the House of Bishops and the House of Clerical and Lay Deputies of the Protestant Episcopal Church in General Convention (October 1940)

"In the first public declaration on the Jewish question since the outbreak of the war, Arthur Greenwood, member without portfolio in the British War Cabinet, assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of 'justice and peace.'"
Excerpt from article entitled "New World Order Pledged to Jews," in The New York Times (October 1940)

"If totalitarianism wins this conflict, the world will be ruled by tyrants, and individuals will be slaves. If democracy wins, the nations of the earth will be united in a commonwealth of free peoples, and individuals, wherever found, will be the sovereign units of the new world order."
The Declaration of the Federation of the World, produced by the Congress on World Federation, adopted by the Legislatures of North Carolina (1941), New Jersey (1942), Pennsylvania (1943), and possibly other states.

"New World Order Needed for Peace: State Sovereignty Must Go, Declares Notre Dame Professor"
Title of article in The Tablet (Brooklyn) (March 1942)

"Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles tonight called for the early creation of an international organization of anti-Axis nations to control the world during the period between the armistice at the end of the present war and the setting up of a new world order on a permanent basis."
Text of article in The Philadelphia Inquirer (June 1942)

"The statement went on to say that the spiritual teachings of religion must become the foundation for the new world order and that national sovereignty must be subordinate to the higher moral law of God."
American Institute of Judaism, excerpt from article in The New York Times (December 1942)

"There are some plain common-sense considerations applicable to all these attempts at world planning. They can be briefly stated: 1. To talk of blueprints for the future or building a world order is, if properly understood, suggestive, but it is also dangerous. Societies grow far more truly than they are built. A constitution for a new world order is never like a blueprint for a skyscraper."
Norman Thomas, in his book What Is Our Destiny? (1944)


"He [John Foster Dulles] stated directly to me that he had every reason to believe that the Governor [Thomas E. Dewey of New York] accepts his point of view and that he is personally convinced that this is the policy that he would promote with great vigor if elected. So it is fair to say that on the first round the Sphinx of Albany has established himself as a prima facie champion of a strong and definite new world order."
Excerpt from article by Ralph W. Page in The Philadelphia Bulletin (May 1944)

"Alchemy for a New World Order"
Article by Stephen John Stedman in Foreign Affairs (May/June 1995)

"The United Nations, he told an audience at Harvard University, 'has not been able--nor can it be able--to shape a new world order which events so compellingly demand.' ... The new world order that will answer economic, military, and political problems, he said, 'urgently requires, I believe, that the United States take the leadership among all free peoples to make the underlying concepts and aspirations of national sovereignty truly meaningful through the federal approach.'"
Gov. Nelson Rockefeller of New York, in an article entitled "Rockefeller Bids Free Lands Unite: Calls at Harvard for Drive to Build New World Order" -- The New York Times (February 1962)

"The developing coherence of Asian regional thinking is reflected in a disposition to consider problems and loyalties in regional terms, and to evolve regional approaches to development needs and to the evolution of a new world order."
Richard Nixon, in Foreign Affairs (October 1967)

"He [President Nixon] spoke of the talks as a beginning, saying nothing more about the prospects for future contacts and merely reiterating the belief he brought to China that both nations share an interest in peace and building 'a new world order.'"
Excerpt from an article in The New York Times (February 1972)

"If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis ... In short, the 'house of world order' will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."
Richard N. Gardner, in Foreign Affairs (April 1974)

"The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new world order or is doomed to await collapse in a passive posture. We believe a new order will be born no later than early in the next century and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species."
Richard A. Falk, in an article entitled "Toward a New World Order: Modest Methods and Drastic Visions," in the book On the Creation of a Just World Order (1975)

"My country's history, Mr. President, tells us that it is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity, that common action is possible despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see here in this chamber. Progress and peace and justice are attainable. So we say to all peoples and governments: Let us fashion together a new world order."
Henry Kissinger, in address before the General Assembly of the United Nations, October 1975)

"At the old Inter-American Office in the Commerce Building here in Roosevelt's time, as Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs under President Truman, as chief whip with Adlai Stevenson and Tom Finletter at the founding of the United Nations in San Francisco, Nelson Rockefeller was in the forefront of the struggle to establish not only an American system of political and economic security but a new world order."
Part of article in The New York Times (November 1975)

"A New World Order"
Title of article on commencement address at the University of Pennsylvania by Hubert H. Humphrey, printed in the Pennsylvania Gazette (June 1977)

"Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order."
Mikhail Gorbachev, in an address at the United Nations (December 1988)

"We believe we are creating the beginning of a new world order coming out of the collapse of the U.S.-Soviet antagonisms."
Brent Scowcroft (August 1990), quoted in The Washington Post (May 1991)

"We can see beyond the present shadows of war in the Middle East to a new world order where the strong work together to deter and stop aggression. This was precisely Franklin Roosevelt's and Winston Churchill's vision for peace for the post-war period."
Richard Gephardt, in The Wall Street Journal (September 1990)

"If we do not follow the dictates of our inner moral compass and stand up for human life, then his lawlessness will threaten the peace and democracy of the emerging new world order we now see, this long dreamed-of vision we've all worked toward for so long."
President George Bush (January 1991)

"But it became clear as time went on that in Mr. Bush's mind the New World Order was founded on a convergence of goals and interests between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, so strong and permanent that they would work as a team through the U.N. Security Council."
Excerpt from A. M. Rosenthal, in The New York Times (January 1991)

"I would support a Presidential candidate who pledged to take the following steps: ... At the end of the war in the Persian Gulf, press for a comprehensive Middle East settlement and for a 'new world order' based not on Pax Americana but on peace through law with a stronger U.N. and World Court."
George McGovern, in The New York Times (February 1991)

"... it's Bush's baby, even if he shares its popularization with Gorbachev. Forget the Hitler 'new order' root; F.D.R. used the phrase earlier."
William Safire, in The New York Times (February 1991)

"How I Learned to Love the New World Order"
Article by Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. in The Wall Street Journal (April 1992)

"How to Achieve The New World Order"
Title of book excerpt by Henry Kissinger, in Time magazine (March 1994)

"The Final Act of the Uruguay Round, marking the conclusion of the most ambitious trade negotiation of our century, will give birth - in Morocco - to the World Trade Organization, the third pillar of the New World Order, along with the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund."
Part of full-page advertisement by the government of Morocco in The New York Times (April 1994)

"New World Order: The Rise of the Region-State"
Title of article by Kenichi Ohmae, political reform leader in Japan, in The Wall Street Journal (August 1994)

"The new world order that is in the making must focus on the creation of a world of democracy, peace and prosperity for all."
Nelson Mandela, in The Philadelphia Inquirer (October 1994)

The renewal of the nonproliferation treaty was described as important "for the welfare of the whole world and the new world order."
President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, in The New York Times (April 1995)

EU deal to exempt US from new world court

34 posted on 09/08/2003 9:46:18 PM PDT by Coleus (Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I_Publius
She is a prime example of the maggot infested mind set of what passes for liberal logic. These people are dangerously mentally ill, are a threat to themselves and others, and need serious attention.
35 posted on 09/08/2003 10:01:23 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: everyone
I have a question: was this article posted here only to be bashed? what about a serious discussion about the united nations and its power? it seems that there is only one type of legitimate in the minds of all who have posted here: American power. What about the rights of others? Do you not know about the horrors inflicted by Americans on other people and nations??? Do you know how many people have been killed or made to suffer because of an American poltical agaenda? It is important to recognize the humanity of all people, and realize that in order for life to be safe and free for any of us, it must be safe and free for all of us. It is suicide to be isolationist, imperialist, and basically selfish, because security, peace, and life can never come from such behaviour. Please, I ask you to look inside yourselves and ask whether or not you feel pain when someone you love dies- and then, for a moment, realize that every other human being on the planet loves someone too, and does not wish their death. I am certain someone will reply about suicide bombers, but I dare whoever tries that argument to contemplate what could possibly drive someone so mad as to want to die and take others with them- perhaps we must look to ourselves as the perpetrators of this evil, by denying them their right to freedoms that we take for granted. I really am not sure what to say, except that I am horrified that a group of people from a nation that has experienced such great and terrible loss as on 9/11 have not gained a scrap of humanity from the devastating experience. i have long believed that everything happens for a reason, and i had hoped that we would as a nation and as a planet, would unite against violence, instead of continuing to perpetrate it and hatred around the world.
36 posted on 11/29/2003 12:04:18 PM PST by wonderwherethelionsare (hopeful for the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson