Submit your comments on this article |
International-UN-NGOs |
UN Signs Pact with New World Court |
2004-10-05 |
The United Nations signed a cooperation agreement on Monday with the new International Criminal Court, despite objections to the tribunal from the United States. When are we going to pull the plug on the UN?, this nonsense is growing tiresome. The pact that would encourage "greater cooperation and consultation" on administration and judicial matters was signed by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Reimbursed?, why in the world would the US contribute one thin dime to this? Some 97 countries, including the entire European Union, have ratified the 1998 statute creating the court. The last three nations to ratify two weeks ago were Burundi, Liberia and Guyana. The Bush administration is bitterly opposed to the new court and rescinded former President Bill Clinton's signature to the tribunal's statutes, arguing that it would expose U.S. soldiers and officials to frivolous law suits. Agreed. But supporters of the court say the ICC steps in only when a country is Don't make me laugh, this whole charade is designed as a tool of the UN to try and reign in the US. |
Posted by:JerseyMike |
#15 Back away from the Cabra, Frank... |
Posted by: mojo 2004-10-05 9:47:56 PM |
#14 en espanol: no quiero "biting" - 'Chupa Me Nacionales Unidos' |
Posted by: Frank G 2004-10-05 7:40:58 PM |
#13 UN, Kofi : Take this "World Court" and stuff it up your quiche! |
Posted by: BigEd 2004-10-05 7:38:47 PM |
#12 Hey, that's great, Kofi. Does this mean we've got a venue for those Oil for Palaces trials that'll be coming up soon? Think your kid will like the Netherlands? Hello? Hello? |
Posted by: tu3031 2004-10-05 3:16:58 PM |
#11 Bite Me! Dutch = Bijt me German = Beißen Sie mich Greek = Με δαγκώστε Italian = Mordalo Russian = Сдержите меня And last but not least… French = Mordez-moi |
Posted by: RN 2004-10-05 3:12:35 PM |
#10 How do you say 'bite me!' in European? |
Posted by: SteveS 2004-10-05 3:01:09 PM |
#9 Amen Mojo, Amen! How many nano-seconds do you think it will take before some LLL files some stupid charge against any number of U.S. citizens if they were bound by this Kangaroo Court. No offense meant toward our Australian cousins. |
Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2004-10-05 12:28:48 PM |
#8 What part of "bite me" didn't you monkeys understand? |
Posted by: mojo 2004-10-05 11:27:23 AM |
#7 ABA Journal: The International Criminal Court has been in existence for more than two years. Under what circumstances would you ask the Senate to ratify the 1998 Rome Statute that created the ICC? Short of ratification, what should the relationship between the ICC and the United States be? Bush: Submission to the jurisdiction of the ICC would put our troops and officials at unacceptable risk of politically motivated prosecutions. For this reason, when President Clinton signed the ICC treaty, he explicitly stated that the treaty would have to be altered significantly before the United States could consider joining it. The reforms necessary to protect our troops have not yet been instituted, and until they are, no president should consider sending the treaty to the Senate for ratification. I believe that every country is obligated to take action against persons subject to their jurisdiction who violate fundamental forms of international law. Where countries are not able to do so, specific international tribunals can be formed to hold individuals to account, like in The Hague tribunal that is now hearing the prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic. We are now working with countries around the world to sign Article 98 agreements. These agreements, allowed under the Rome Statute, would protect U.S. nationals by not allowing them to be surrendered to the ICC without the consent of the U.S. government. I believe this solution will provide needed protections for our personnel while respecting other countries’ desire to join the ICC. Kerry: The Bush administration needlessly alienated our friends and allies by its ham-handed approach to the issue of the International Criminal Court. My administration will carefully consider the full range of U.S. interests at stake with respect to the court as we review our policy and fashion a more constructive approach. On one hand, there's a well thought out response from GW. Then there's Kerry's position...bent over kissing our collective ass good bye! |
Posted by: RN 2004-10-05 9:50:55 AM |
#6 Tom, Level the building then salt the earth upon which it stood. Then use it for a sewage treatment plant. My guess is that Kerry would sign onto the ICC in a heartbeat (global test and all). We need to tell people that this would remove the bill of rights. |
Posted by: CrazyFool 2004-10-05 9:45:39 AM |
#5 just guessing that, while a fair and accurate description, 'Kofi "America hating bunghole" Annan' may not have been in the original CNN article... |
Posted by: Frank G 2004-10-05 9:39:37 AM |
#4 I used to advocate moving the U.N. out of New York and into Paris. No more. Now I advocate rounding up all U.N. officials/diplomats/workers with foreign passports and deporting them to their countries of origin, then leveling the buildings. No transition plan. |
Posted by: Tom 2004-10-05 9:35:02 AM |
#3 That's why the leaders of Sudan, the perpetrators of one the world's worst ongoing massacres and ethnic cleansing, are under indictment by the UN and ICC. What? Only silence from the ICC, support from the UN and the models of justice France, China, and Russia? Nevermind. |
Posted by: ed 2004-10-05 9:32:42 AM |
#2 1 U.S. citizen are entitled to a jury trial. Not a trial by a pannel of judges. Fark Kofi and the horse he rode in on. The ICC is incompatable with the US Bill of Rights. No US money to support fixed |
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-05 9:18:01 AM |
#1 U.S. citizen are entitled to a jury trial. Not a trial by a pannel of judges. Fark Kofi and the horse he rode in on. The ICC is incompatable with the US Bill of Rights. No US money to support iut not one dime. |
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-05 9:16:51 AM |