Skip to comments.Obama May Place U.S. Under International Criminal Court
Posted on 02/16/2009 10:49:57 AM PST by shielagolden
Obama May Place U.S. Under International Criminal Court
Waterboarding. Abu Ghraib. Detaining terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Dissing Hans Blix. These, as seen by the Left, are the cardinal sins of George W. Bushs administration. Set aside the fraternity party-like nonsense that took place at Abu Ghraib and whats left are actions taken to protect U.S. interests.
But self-loathing Americans whose minds are confined in the cult of globalism dont see it that way. Each of these offenses has at least one thing in common: they hurt the feelings of foreigners. Insensitivity to the outside world, U.S. internationalists argue, is a stain on Uncle Sams reputation from which we must repent.
With that in mind, one more offense must be included in the list of Bushs sins. It occurred May 6, 2002, when John Bolton, on orders from the President, withdrew the U.S. from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Oh, there were terrible tantrums in Turtle Bay that day! Globalists were dismayed because Mr. Bushs rejection of the ICC was a vote for American sovereignty -- a refusal to cede authority to international government and a court that is not bound to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, far less our laws.
That could change under the Obama administration.
Two weeks ago, hope returned to the House of Hammarskjold when U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, in a closed Security Council meeting, voiced support for the ICC. She said it looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda and Darfur.
The mere mention of the International Criminal Court by the U.S. Permanent Representative drew her colleagues attention. What she said on human rights and international law I could have written myself, French ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert told Bloomberg News. Costa Ricas Jorge Urbina said Rices speech raises expectations that the United States will submit to the authority of the ICC.
Urbina is on point. Sen. Obama said little about the ICC during his campaign for the White House. But in his first weeks as President, his actions speak less to constituents in Peoria and the Bronx than to admirers in Paris and Brussels. Obamas trans-American constituent service includes his decision to shutter Gitmo and grant his first presidential interview with Al Arabiya television.
In his inauguration speech, Obama declared that America is ready to lead once more. He said American power does [not] entitle us to do as we please. In the parlance of the Left, these suggest submission to international authority, which was raised again last week when Ben Chang, spokesman for National Security Advisor General James Jones, echoed Rices comments about the Court. In the context of an ICC indictment for Sudanese President Omar Bashir, Chang told the Washington Times, We support the ICC in its pursuit of those whove perpetrated war crimes.
So, what will ICC engagement mean for the United States? To answer that, one must read A Strategy for U.S. Engagement with the International Criminal Court, written by David Scheffer and John Hutson and issued by the Century Foundation. Scheffer was instrumental in the formation of the ICC and served as Ambassador at Large for War Crimes in the Clinton administration. Hutson was the Navys Judge Advocate General from 1997-2000.
The report is stunning in its frankness, heartbreaking in its eagerness to sacrifice American citizens for some nebulous global good. The authors complaints begin with the Bush administrations unwillingness to subject Americans to ICC indictments. They explain:
Any path toward support of the ICC will require examining long-standing concerns about the exposure of U.S. military service personnel and American political and military leaders to the court, whether or not the United States is a state party to the Rome Statute. (emphasis added)
A cornerstone of the ICC is that its jurisdiction extends only to those nations that ratify the Rome Statute. By subjecting the U.S. to the ICC even as a non-participant, the authors have turned the Rome Statute into a living document. It should be noted that the ICC itself is doing the same. Last week, Lois Morena Oncampo launched an investigation to determine if Israel can be prosecuted for attacks on Gaza. Israel is not a party to the ICC.
Scheffer and Hutson continue, stating the implications to the U.S.
If the United States were to join the ICC, they write, one would have to accept at least the theoretical possibility that American citizens (particularly political and military leaders) could be prosecuted before the ICC on charges of committing atrocity crimes. And without the protections afforded by Constitutional and laws.
What do Scheffer and Hutson mean when they suggest U.S. political leaders can be prosecuted by the ICC for atrocity crimes"? See paragraph one.
I hope I'm wrong too, but have lost all faith in conservatives due to their inability to grasp politics 101.
Bought some shotgun shells for this spring turkey season. They only had maybe 10-15 small boxes on the shelve.
Went to the counter to look for some other ammo....Saw ONE lonely box of .270 ammo...and bought it. Asked for .243 and .38 ammo...No got! The shelves were nearly empty........
Today I ordered some ammo on-line...and can't get my order until March 2nd or so.....
Ammo supplier's can't keep up with demand here lately....
Yes, that is true, but the people can in a legal manner against the feds only through their states and the courts. If we are ever to create an effective pushback against federal bloat, it has to come from the people via the states.
If your eyes are so "open" then why are you still here? Shouldn't you be moved out of the country already?
If you truly have no faith that We The People can take back our government and our Constitution, then keep it to yourself. Otherwise you're doing the tyrant's bidding.
Tom Gresham of Gun Talk had the president of Remington Arms on his radio show this past week-end. The man said they are doing their best to keep up with the demand.
In Jesus’ Holy Name, Amen
...or Roe v. Wade, or "progressive" income taxes, or (fill in the blank with any other stupid federal gov't decision of the 20th century).
Boy, do you have misunderstoods.
The first three words of the US Constitution are "We The People".
Who do you think that refers to - the states? Think again.
This is Obama’s way of putting his predecessors in prison for “war crimes” and to criminalize political opposition. This as a direct and immediate threat to the liberty and life of every conservative and, for that matter, anyone who is not in lockstep with his black radical agenda to terminate the existence of the United States of America.
So that means Obama can be indicted for killing any civilians since he became POS. Excuse me POTUS.
Most of what I bought was in fact Remington.
Oh, I see what you’re saying now - and you are right.
Time to take back our Country, beginning at the Local and State levels. However, Local and State governments can be tyrannical as well, so We the People need to stand firm.
4th amendment - illegal search and seizure? go to an airport recently?
9th, 10th amendment - the federal government is limited to only those items listed in the constitution, the rest reserved to the people or the states. Perhaps I am wrong, be I do not see any right listed in the constitution for the government to take 12.4 of my salary and give it to old people. I do not see anything in the Constitution for Medicare. Education is not authorized by the constitution at the federal level. Go through the budget and probably 2/3 of it is not authorized. Limited property rights like wetlands rules..
1st amendment - freedom of speech? McCain Fiengold - limiting political speech during an election.
2nd amendment - if you live in Chicago
5th amendment - I hate drugs, but do not see how confiscation of property before trial and conviction is not a violation
Or New York, California, New Jersey, Washington DC, etc...
If you truly have no faith that We The People can take back our government and our Constitution, then keep it to yourself. Otherwise you're doing the tyrant's bidding.
Your attitude doesn't affect me a bit. I imagine you are cornered here with no way out if and when the sh*t hits th fan and you feel very vulnerable and trapped, as do we all.
First, we will move permanently to our vacation home outside the US when we feel the time is right and when and if we choose. I do no tyrants bidding. I refuse to accept and play his game. Fortunately, unlike some, we have options should we choose not to live under a Fidel like regime.
I never said the People couldn't take back the Republic, but I believe( and that is my choice) that you are daydreaming if you think in 4 or possibly 8 years that will be an option. I hope you are wrong. But the majority on here have no faith in the RNC or our Republican representatives, about half are RINOS.
Unless something drastic happens(BC exposes him or something) I think you are far too optimistic and don't realize these are NOT normal Clinton, Carter times. Time will tell who is right. This plan has been many years in the making with some powerful forces behind it from all corners of the world that have lived for the day that the US would fall from power. I hope you are, I doubt you will be.
take 2/3 of the states for ratification.
At what point do the 4 stars realize they took an oath ...against all enemies foreign and domestic....
Thanks! hanging head and sighing
just one more thing for the next President to rescind.
LOl. When? In 4 years? 8 Years? After he has changed the Constitution to make him our new Fidel. OPEN YOUR EYES. Everything isnt gonna be alright!
Dark, Dark Days ahead for America folks.
Best to put up funds for candidates for 2010. Too much bloodshed weakens the national resolve.
Also, at what point do they go en masse to Obongo and read him the Riot Act?
You cannot create a country based on freedom when millions live in slavery. Even the founders (some who owned slaves themselves) knew the hypocrisy of that.
Then leave us; who have no way out, and who would prefer to stand and fight for what is rightfully ours anyway.
In the meantime, do not insult those who would stand and fight, with your pessimism.
All this is the one world government movement. IE; Global warming. Collapse the world economy, only us ‘important’ people can fix the world. You laugh, hahaha, and the US would NEVER become Marxist. That cave in Idaho is looking pretty comfy.
"We The People" through the states. At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, people thought of their STATES as their countries. The people of the several STATES ratified the Constitution through their STATE legislatures, not through popular votes. Amendments to the Constitution must be ratified by the STATES, not directly by the people. The delicate separation of powers formula the Founders came up with was intended to reassure the small STATES that their interests would be protected in a federal system.
The Civil War drastically changed the relationship between the states and the federal government they created. In the 144 years since the Civil War ended, the federal government has increasingly stomped all over states rights. As a consequence, we now have a fed that is bloated beyond anything the Founders would have recognized or sanctioned.
First, we will move permanently to our vacation home outside the US when we feel the time is right and when and if we choose. I do no tyrants bidding. I refuse to accept and play his game.
If this US goes in this direction, how long before the country where your vacation home is located follows the US ?
Believe me, The Global Poverty Act will soon make it's reappearance. Then gun control. Economic collapse and how 'bout some new currency after the dollar collapses. Add a few islamic 911's in our cities. We will be more than ready for the new order.
Badabing... One world government.
It's been in the works for years. Little by little, piece by piece. Everything you've witnessed in the past few weeks has been orchestrated and paid for by nefarious masters. Obama is just their 'sock puppet' and his rise to power just accelerated the process. It wouldn't surprise me if the next move would be to meld what's left of our gutted military with the UNs. and join up with the confederation to nix Israel. The bad moon has risen. Is the caliphate and sharia law that far away too? Obama even said he would side with the muslims if it got ugly.
One of the first clues, in this quick move towards globalism, was that we can't even see President Hussein's birth certificate and that viewing is protected by our very own courts.
Things are moving at breakneck speed. If I had read this post a decade ago, I would say it was good fiction. But then again, it was all posted eons ago in the Bible.
Yes, but you miss the point. In the legal framework established by the U.S. Constitution, the people act on the federal level through the states. Since 1860, much has happened to cloud and diminish states rights, but a genuinely real conservative never loses sight of the fact that the federal government is supposed to serve the states, not the other way around. And to serve the people through the states.
I hope this guy keeps going with this nonsense. It will bring things to a boil quicker than the Clintoon small cuts approach.
I won't argue with your legal interpretation of how the Constitution is administered, or what the relationship of the states is to the federal government, but the Preamble to the Constitution is as clear to me in its meaning as the 2nd Amendment is.
That document is mine. It binds the earth together under my feet. I will treat it as mine, and will defend it at all costs, if necessary.
Great move for Obama. Then the One could prosecute anyone daring to oppose his policies or to run against him for various “hate” crimes or “crimes against humanity.”
Also see Article II. A treaty needs consent from 2/3rds of the Senate, which is even more than the super-majority required for cloture.
Will Obama get 67 Senators to comply?
Obama cannot do that via sole executive action.
I believe that this would have to be by treaty, and congress has to ratify it ( 2/3 majority)before it would be effective. But read on, the wacko lefties are working out a way to circumvent the constitutional 2/3 vote requirement in the senate.
Secondly, the CIA and the Military would campaign in Congress against it, on the basis that US soldiers could refuse orders, or would cause enlistments to decline in our all volunteer military.( which leftist wackos want to have happen BTW.)
The " Bush is a War Criminal" leftists would prevent America from projecting power with its Air Craft Carrier Task forces for example, because they could not act without US sanctions, and such action would be criminal, with the Task Force Commander being arrested and tried at the Hague.
The purpose is to weaken military power of the USA and denude the USA of its hard earned sovereignty.
I do not believe that either China or Russia are signatories.
Time to stop this WHACKO leftist drivel.
It emboldens the World Caliphate Enemy and its US supporters to abuse our Republican system of government.
ALSO THE WHACKOS ARE WORKING OVERTIME ON THIS:
Liberals Propose Fast-Tracking Treaties
AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | February 3, 2009
Translated into common language, this means that the treaty process takes too long and the treaty may ultimately be rejected by Senators reacting to popular pressure.
The liberal Brookings Institution has come up with a controversial way to get costly and unpopular treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate. Their answer is to bypass the constitutional requirement that treaties obtain two-thirds of the vote of the Senate before passage by redefining the treaties as statutes. Then, they would only need a bare majority for passage in both Houses of Congress, which just happen to be controlled by Democrats.
Such an approach would mean quicker and easier passage of controversial and expensive measures that, if debated as treaties in the Senate, might take too long and upset and alarm too many Americans (sic).
Such a " Brookings" approach would destroy democracy and put the treaty function into the hands of those enemies of US policy who would act to bind Americas sovereignty as it has been exercised traditionally beyond political partisan machination. The International crime Tribunal is a Liberal Fascist court whose laws depend on political correctness, and the diminution of a nations right to self defence and sovereign right to wage war, by attacking individuals inside government, the military, and intelligence agencies.It would weaken America, and give the MSM power to report and define" crimes" of US military personnel to the Tribunal.
IN TRUTH, THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL IS MERELY A TOOL OF THE FASCIST EURO LEFT AND US FASCIST LEFT WHACKOS WHO DENY U.S. SOVEREIGNTY:
The precise wording of only one oath of office is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. It is the presidential oath. It reads "to preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution, not merely support it. Most other federal, state and local oaths of public office incorporate that phrase. Tragically, few politicians at any level appear to take that oath seriously. Which brings me to the second part of your reply to me:
The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties...
It's critical to grasp the correct -- and plain -- meaning of Article VI, Section 2.
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...
Any treaty duly signed by a U.S. president and ratified by the Senate is, together with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Without question, conflicts in the language of a particular treaty and the language of the Constitution can occur. Such conflicts would have to be addressed in the legislation passed by Congress to enable executive action for the provisions of any treaty.
The whole thing can become a legal quagmire, especially with something as explosive as the ICC treaty. This is why it's absolutely critical to try to stop ratification of the ICC treaty in the Senate. And issues like this are exactly why I'll repeat as long as necessary that ELECTIONS HAVE THOUSANDS OF CONSEQUENCES.
I love that. Did you make it yourself?
I think you cleared that up for me in a previous post. I defer to your explanation!
That document is mine, also. I am not arguing against your broad point that the Constitution belongs to "the people." What I am doing is trying to get people here to grasp what we have lost and what we need to try to get back if we are ever going have the Constitution mean anything other than to be a butt wipe for federal politicians.
So how does that happen? I'm thinking a walk across America, THE AMERICANS, millions of us, 'storming the Bastille', ousting the senate and congress; visualize tar, feathers, pitchforks, and Jimmy Stewart. We 'hired' them, let's 'fire' them.
I'm willing to take over the congress, but there are to many keyboard warriors who are comfy behind their computers. Of course, I'd start walking, and 4 people would join me. People, this isn't a game anymore. Guess what? Marxim's here, it's now and it's real.
I'd organize this is a nanosecond if there was the will of real constitutional Americans. Everyone talks and talks, and types and types. When the rubber hits the road, excuses range from my job, my family, my whatever is foremost, I cannot be bothered with a the simple concept as freedom and liberty. Taking for granted our country and way of life. We assumed it would be there forever and this would never happen to us. That was our biggest error, we got comfy.
Well, it's here, it's now, and it's happening. Want a revolution? Want to live by the constitution? Typing on a web site doesn't work, actions do. Anyone willing to explore this? Anyone willing to say, enough is enough? Anyone want to fight? Anyone willing to put their money where their fingers are? Actions are what's needed. A million people ousting congress, and restoring our country is what's needed. Or will YOU wait until someone else does it? Aren't you tired of waiting for that someone to do something? Hey everyone, WE ARE THAT SOMEONE! I'm ready to rumble, and I'm dead serious. Someone has to start something, I'm willing to start the effort.
We can go in 'backrooms' and figure out the details. I prefer to lay it right out here, let them know, we're coming. No more secret legislation, no more queens and kings and royality!
WE NEED ACTION NOW!
Yes, they are, as subject to the treaties with the countries they are serving in.
Why is the idea of U.S. military personnel being subject to the ICC more controversial than them being subject to the laws of the British Parliament?
This is because countries with malaise towards the US like Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea could use the ICC to bring up false charges against US servicemembers and politicians.
Very true, PJ, although it's better to never allow a monstrosity like the ICC treaty to be ratified than to fight a rear guard action if it is.
President George W. Bush, to his everlasting credit, understood this. The Republican Congress of the late 1990's didn't ratified the thing after Clinton signed it. To avoid having later senates even consider it, President Bush revoked Clinton's signature. But as sure as night follows day, it was a lock that Obama and his Leftist crowd would bring it back up ASAP.
Tough for now, but the Left is so close now that they can smell victory. If they succeed in getting this ratified, it will, in effect, bring the U.S. under the heel of the embryonic world government the international Left has been slowly constructing in Europe. Not only must this monstrosity be defeated, we must find a way to put a stake through it's heart and kill it permanently.
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.