International Criminal Court

D

Dennis

Staff Emeritus
Does anyone have any info on this?

(Mods: If this is a duplicate thread, please delete.)

American Justice for Americans
No International Criminal Court for Us

April 4, 2002

Dear friend of liberty,

The International Criminal Court (ICC) will soon become a reality. The United Nations will hold a celebration for their new world court on Thursday, April 11, 2002 in New York and Rome.

The International Criminal Court will claim judicial supremacy over the United States and its people. We are asking President Bush to make it clear to the International Criminal Court that the supreme law of our land is the Constitution of the United States -- not the ICC. Rescinding the American signature to the ICC treaty that former President Bill Clinton authorized would clearly express that conviction.

If you haven't signed the petition to President Bush, please do so now. We are in the process of preparing the petitions for delivery to the White House.

Link to Petition: http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/icc_petition_online.htm

Also, please tell a few friends about this petition.

If you are one of the 100,000-plus people who have already signed the petition, thank you!

Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org
 
A

ahenry

New member
Well here are a few items for your perusal.

http://www.igc.org/icc/
More specific: http://www.igc.org/icc/html/country.html
The pertinent information from the above site:
On Wednesday, November 28, President Bush signed into law H.R. 2500, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002. This legislation contains an amendment, Section 630 proposed by Senator Larry Craig (the "Craig Amendment"), that prohibits the use of appropriated funds for cooperation with, or assistance or other support to, the International Criminal Court (ICC) or its Preparatory Commission. However, the provision restricting the use of funds for the ICC or the Preparatory Commission applies solely to a particular allocation of funds, approved for a particular fiscal year. It must be adopted again next year to continue to have a further effect. Upon signing, President Bush issued a signing statement which contained the following paragraphs on Section 630 (the Craig Amendment) and on other sections of the act: "While section 630 clearly reflects that the Congress agrees with my Administration that it is not in the interests of the United States to become a party to the ICC treaty, I must note that this provision must be applied consistent with my constitutional authority in the area of foreign affairs, which, among other things, will enable me to take actions to protect U.S. nationals from the purported jurisdiction of the treaty. In addition, several other provisions of the Act unconstitutionally constrain my authority regarding the conduct of diplomacy and my authority as Commander in Chief. I will apply these provisions consistent with my constitutional responsibilities."...The previous administration...fundamental objections...to the Rome Statute were therefore reduced to a single key concern. The United States wants to be able to exempt its military and political officials and personnel from the jurisdiction of the Court until the United States has ratified the treaty. Attempts to obtain such an exemption were a priority for the previous administration at the Preparatory Commission for the ICC; nevertheless, former President Bill Clinton signed the Statute just before the 31 December 2000 deadline. Upon signing, former President Clinton said the treaty was "signficantly flawed", by which he was referring to this ongoing concern about the Court's jurisdiction.... The new Bush administration has been even more hostile to the ICC as a result of this potential for the Court's jurisdiction to apply to nationals of the U.S. before it had ratified. At the time of the September 11th attacks a policy review was underway and the options under consideration included "unsigning" and a global "anti-ratification" campaign. (emphasis mine)
Click to expand...


And one more site: http://www.usaforicc.org/index.html
 
D

Dennis

Staff Emeritus
Thanks, AHenry.
- - -

Bush signed it. But no problem, it won't apply to us. :rolleyes:

Presidents who follow will say they "have no choice" but to comply.

Just as the counties succumbed to the states,
just as the states succumbed to the feds,
now nations must succumb to global rule.

Inch by inch, step by step,
rights turn into privileges
or simply disappear.

Before we are permitted to take our newborn children home,
they are numbered by our government and their footprints go on file.

Ostriches, dogs, swine and horses have imbedded chips,
the line for us is forming.

With increasing success, the powers that be turn us into chattel.

We'll be so much safer....
 
A

ahenry

New member
Bush signed it. But no problem, it won't apply to us.
Click to expand...
No, no. I think you misunderstand. Bush signed a law outlawing it (more or less, it really just restricted funds). Clinton signed the treaty but congress passed a law restricting funds, which Bush signed (the Craig Amendment, above). According to the last web site I provided the current administration has even talked about “unsigning” the treaty. From that same web site:
President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Treaty on December 31, 2000, just before leaving office, but his administration was never supportive. President George W. Bush has been unwilling to consider the ICC as a worthwhile foreign policy commitment. There has even been talk of "unsigning" the Rome Treaty. Never in United Nations history has a country "unsigned" a treaty. Such an action would be largely symbolic and would alienate U.S. allies in search of human rights protections. The current administration has not, however, released an official policy position on the ICC; rather, powerful individuals within the administration have voiced objection.
In Congress, opposition to the ICC is led chiefly by Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX). Helms and DeLay, among others, have sponsored numerous anti-ICC amendments to bills that would cut funding for U.S. involvement in the court; end military aid to countries that have ratified the Rome Treaty (including Switzerland, Argentina, and New Zealand); and authorize the use of force to free an American from the court.
Click to expand...
 
S

schild

New member
Eventually the US WILL belong to the ICC, only a matter of time. Once the ICC has jurisdiction over the US it won't be hard for a UN imposed tax to be shoved down our throats.
 
B

Bulldog44

New member
From what I understand, after a "magic number" (66, I believe) of member states sign the treaty for the ICC, it will be considered binding on all member states, whether or not they signed it.
 
C

C.R.Sam

New member
From what I understand, after a "magic number" (66, I believe) of member states sign the treaty for the ICC, it will be considered binding on all member states, whether or not they signed it.
Click to expand...
And yet another valid reason for becoming a NON MEMBER state.
 
B

Bulldog44

New member
Now that Switzerland finally joined the U.N. too, are there any other nations that are not members of the "Dead Horse Club"? If there are, it couldn't be more than one or two.
 
W

westex

New member
All it really means is that someday we may have a blue helmet season to go along with deer, quail, turkey and dove.:cool:
 
L

LonWilson

New member
If I was President, I'd tell the ICC (and the United Nation) this:

"Any attempt by any nation to kidnap any of our citizens would result in the full military power of the United States against such a nation or group of nations. We will devote our defense forces to protect our citizens against kidnapping, and we will strike back against any nation that violates our sovreignty.

"This will not only include conventional warfare, but also the consideration the use of tactical nuclear missles against the capitals and major cities of the nations that make up any such invasion force."

"In other words, don't do it unless you want your entire country to be a glass crater where only the roaches are still surviving."

-Signed,

Lonnie Wilson
President
United States of America
 
4

40ozflatfoot

New member
"If I was President, I'd tell the ICC (and the United Nation) this:"

Not bad. Then declare all gun control laws null and void, disband the ATF, eliminate FFL licensing fees, and make FFLs optional for gun dealers..a sort of "US approved gun dealer" document the way the USDA is supposed to rate beef.
 
D

Dennis

Staff Emeritus
Well, this thread has taken a truly cheerful turn (even if we ARE dreaming). :D

Thanks, folks! I needed that! :D

Lon,
When are you and Flatfoot running for President? So far, you have six votes (my family listens to me ;) ).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top