For Constitutionally interested people only

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

This is from Newsmax and is posted for your information only...

Thought it might be a good idea to get cracking on emails to the Bush administration about this. King Bill strikes again.....

Americans May Be Hauled Before International Court

Wes Vernon Saturday, Jan. 6, 2001

WASHINGTON Ė You may not know it, but as of now, a treaty signed by President Clinton empowers an international court made up of strangers from foreign lands who have no concept of protections afforded U.S. citizens by their Constitution to reach out and try Americans for any number of charges.

The charges, moreover, donít have to have any basis in fact. The servicemen and servicewomen in your town who put on that uniform to defend their country, on the assumption that the country will protect them, may find instead that their country is helpless to do anything about it.

As Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly writes, "Ö Bill Clinton stuck his finger in the eye of all who care about American sovereignty and constitutional rights by signing the International Court Treaty on New Yearís Eve Ö"

There is a widespread assumption among the relatively few who even pay attention to this that, well, it wonít matter because the Senate hasnít ratified this treaty. And there are so many senators opposed to it that it will never happen.

Wrong! You may have learned in school, if you attended school before history and civics became "social studies," that the U.S. is not committed to any treaty unless and until it is ratified by two-thirds of the United States Senate.

But national security specialists in Washington tell NewsMax.com that "international law" will not wait until the Senate elected by the American people decides to take this up.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) treaty that President Clinton signed sets up a tribunal with power to try individuals. This is not to be confused with the World Court, which has been around for a long time. That body is restricted to trying to settle disputes among nations. The new International Criminal Court, by contrast, can try individual citizens.

For starters, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protections would not apply here. U.S. service personnel stationed overseas would be at risk of prosecution on trivial or malicious charges. The ICC plans to prosecute war crimes, genocide or other "crimes against humanity" that have not been defined.

Moreover, the court claims jurisdiction over Americans even though the U.S. has not ratified the treaty. When Clinton signed the document, he acknowledged that it was flawed and lacked precise definitions or protections. That did not stop him from putting this monkey on the back of President-elect Bush.

You might say that, of course, the idea that "international law" trumps the Constitution and Bill of Rights is something that can be challenged in U.S. courts.

But then, your case may be hindered by Executive Order No. 13107, signed by Clinton, which implements U.N. treaties even if they are unratified.

Schlafly advocates congressional action. She supports the American Servicemembersí Protection Act, written by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms. That measure would cut off U.S. military aid to any country that ratifies the International Court treaty. The senator would also prohibit U.S. forces from participating in U.N. "peacekeeping" operations unless expressly immunized from ICC jurisdiction by a U.N. Security Council resolution. Further, it authorizes the president to undertake any means "necessary and appropriate" to free U.S. soldiers from ICC captivity.

Pass that legislation "in this Congress? Forget it," says a discouraged national security expert. With the Senate split 50-50 and a GOP holding a thin majority in the House, and a public that is blissfully unaware of whatís going on, the Helms bill is not likely to get anywhere.

The security specialistís solution?

Bush is going to have to publicly renounce the treaty and declare the U.S. will neither cooperate with it nor participate in any of its provisions.

While it is true that the U.S. Constitution does not permit our government to delegate its authority to a foreign court, only a president with backbone can make that stick.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 06, 2001

Answers

There are several problems with this article and I am only going to briefly mention two. 1) The President has the right to enter into treaties, BUT Congress must ratify before they are deemed in effect by the courts of this country. There is little chance of that happening even if Bush submits it to Congress, which he will not do. 2)Our constitutionally rights have NEVER applied when an American is in a foreign country. The power of the USA is used to coerce other countries.

The statement, "The ICC plans to prosecute war crimes, genocide or other "crimes against humanity" that have not been defined." Sound like they think Americans should be immune to these types of crimes.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), January 07, 2001.


hey JLS! You're up early, too!

The thing is it's not US Courts, but International courts and the ratification by Congress isn't necessary because of an EO.

The other thing is the 'other crimes to be SPECIFIED...now what the heck does that mean? This treaty could effectively negate the Constitution via un Constitutional but provided for by precedent legalities. (EO's carrying the weight of law if they are uncontested inside of 6 months) Of course war crimes are generally considered to be international in jurisdiction.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 07, 2001.


Hi Doreen, EO's have no power as a foreign treaty, they are only internal. (Supposed to be Executive branch only, but Presidents have been overstepping their power lately and Congress is to chicken to step in.) Read Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. (The President makes treaties with the advice and consent of 2/3's of the Senate) This treaty is not about law abiding people, but those that have committed "war crimes" if I recall correctly.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), January 07, 2001.

Hi JLS, I am kind of a "rabid" Constitutionalist and I know the references you made, however, what has been happening with the EO's is essentially legislation without the approval of Congress. At least since FDR. Clinton has been signing EO's as fast as he can since Bush was determined to be the "winner". The EO sited above is where the potential problem with this treaty signing comes in. Also, once something is signed by the President in International Courts which are different from the supposed Constitutional courts we are supposed to have here, the laws are much different from our oown, with no 5th ammendment, or "presumption" of innocence until proven guilty. In essence, if this treaty signing isn't challenged by Dubya and/or the EO situation isn't challenged by Congress it will effectively nullify the Constitution.

So what is being done here is an end run around the Constitution. I hope that it is challenged and comes to naught as this treaty wasn't even complete from what I hear, although I have no way to check that out so it could be a panicky allegation, but if that's the case there is I suppose the chance to nullify the treaty on thos grounds.

Believe me, I am not for protecting people from being prosecuted for war crimes. However you do have to be a member of a government or coup government group to qualify for prosecution for war crimes. I am uncertain as to whether this treaty changes that status requirement. But from the inference above that the treaty takes preeminence over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I assume that it would make us subjects of the UN, instead of cizens of the united States.

-- Doreen (animalwaitress@excite.com), January 08, 2001.


I will not yet get into the pros and cons hereof. Let me only state that Despicable Bill is a "Major League Clymer"! If you disagree, please state your reasons for disagreement thereto! GL!

-- Brad (homefixer@SacoRiver.net), January 12, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ