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

To: Sal
Right ABOVE the first post
Bookmark Discussion
47 posted on 05/06/2002 2:29:32 PM PDT by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]


To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
All this time, and I never noticed the bookmark option was there. Thanks! :-)
58 posted on 05/06/2002 4:57:27 PM PDT by kaylar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub; kaylar
Thank you for bookmark info. Below is the UN's ominous news story on this action:

US says it will not become party to Rome Statute of International Criminal Court

6 May – The United States has formally advised United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan that it does not intend to become a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a UN spokesman said today.

Accordingly, the US Government maintains that it has no obligations arising from its signature of the Statute on 31 December 2000, spokesman Fred Eckhard told the press in New York.

"The Secretary-General, as the depositary of the Rome Statute will, consistent with normal practice, circulate the US notification to all States concerned," Mr. Eckhard said. "The effect of the notification is a matter for the parties to the Statute to decide."

Responding to questions, the spokesman called the action by the US "unique and unprecedented."

By withdrawing its signature, the US sought to free itself of obligations that a signatory would have, the spokesman noted. "But the Statute has come into force; the court will come into being," he stressed.

Several evil connotations:

...the US Government maintains that it has no obligations arising from its signature of the Statute on 31 December 2000,... Attention globalist scum--the US did NOT sign this POS "Statute". The POS, treasonous, scumbag Clinton did and he has--and had--no authority to commit the US to this. We don't "maintain" we have no obligations; we're telling you we have no obligations and we don't give a flying xxxx what YOU "maintain" to the contrary.

"The effect of the notification is a matter for the parties to the Statute to decide." Well you just go ahead and decide what the effect is gonna be on all of you, but you better understand the parties to the Statute are NOT gonna decide what the effect of this notification is to US. This kind of sounds like a threatening little hint that all you parties will decide whether or not you'll "let" us out of it. Hah!

...the US sought to free itself of obligations that a signatory would have, the spokesman noted. "But the Statute has come into force; the court will come into being," he stressed. We didn't "seek" to free ourselves from signatory obligations. We freed ourselves from obligations WE never took on and we don't need your permission, agreement, or acceptance. We are a sovereign nation and your evil little Statute and piss ant court can come into being and force, but it has NO jurisdiction over US and never will.

78 posted on 05/07/2002 4:15:19 AM PDT by Sal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

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