Posted on 05/05/2002 9:05:41 AM PDT by RCW2001
Sunday, May 5, 2002
©2002 Associated Press
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/05/05/national1155EDT0467.DTL
(05-05) 08:55 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
The United States will tell the United Nations this week it is renouncing formal involvement in a treaty creating the first permanent war crimes tribunal, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday.
Powell said the Bush administration will notify U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan that the United States has no intention of ratifying the treaty and now considers itself "no longer bound in any way to its purpose and objective," Powell said on ABC's "This Week."
The International Criminal Court gained the necessary international backing to come into being when 10 nations joined 56 others last month in announcing their ratification of the treaty negotiated in Rome in 1998. President Clinton signed the treaty, but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. The Bush administration has made its opposition clear.
A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Saturday that that opposition was expected to be formalized Monday in a speech by Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman and at news briefing by Pierre-Richard Prosper, the State Department's ambassador for war crimes issues.
The United States fears the impact on American citizens, arguing that safeguards against frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. soldiers and officials are not sufficient.
The court, to be formed this summer without U.S. participation, will fill a gap in the international justice system first recognized by the U.N. General Assembly in 1948 after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials for World War II's German and Japanese war criminals.
Tribunals have been created for special situations -- like the 1994 Rwanda genocide and war crimes in former Yugoslavia -- but no mechanism existed to hold individuals criminally responsible for serious crimes such as genocide.
"We are the leader in the world with respect to bringing people to justice," Powell said. "But ... we found that this was not a situation that we believed was appropriate for our men and women in the armed forces or our diplomats and political leaders."
©2002 Associated Press
Here's futher proof that there's not a dimes worth of difference btween Bush and Clinton.
The first step to making this court permanent is having a specific nation "SIGN IT".
Saying that we dont consider ourselves bound [a statement] and removing our signature from it [a legally observable action] are two different things...
I didnt hear Powell confirm that we would remove Bill Clinton's signature.
Sorry if I am not being "sophisticated" enough about this whole thing.
The ICC supports dictators around the world as does the United Nations. As an American, I resent the implication that my country is as the Clinton's saw and want it...Third World.
First line of the ICC preamble... Conscious that all peoples are united by common bonds, their cultures pieced together in a shared heritage, and concerned that this delicate mosaic may be shattered at any time. Verbatim in Bill Clinton's speech in Georgetown!
For all the Bush Bashers ........he fooled you again!!!.....
RCW...this isn't directed at you ..
Chess not checkers!!!!!
The UN is allowed to "play" war only in places where there is no war, and they are allowed to "play" war judge when it means nothing. No power, no consequence, no authority, no stomach, no morality.... remind me, what was the UN good for again?
Here's futher proof that there's not a dimes worth of difference btween Bush and Clinton.
Dubya also told "To whom it may concern" to stuff Kyoto, also. That bears Algore's signature.
More proof that there's not a dimes worth of difference between Bush and Algore.
Sorry if I am not being "sophisticated" enough about this whole thing.
Well, far be it from me to judge your degree of sophistication.
But NO treaty is binding unless and until RATIFIED by the United States Senate. That's what the Constitution says.
The framers called for formal Senate "Advice and consent" so that one branch cannot unilaterally bind the United States by a treaty.
Something to do with "checks and balances".
And this has never been submitted for ratification. And won't be.
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.