US/Israeli terrorism---exempt from the Int'l Crimes Court?
All Posts post a reply | post a new topic

AuthorTopic: US/Israeli terrorism---exempt from the Int'l Crimes Court?
topic by
TheAZCowBoy
7/13/2002 (22:15)
 reply top
Another anniversary to be celebrated in the future for July 1. This day marked the beginning of the International Criminal Court. This U.N.-sponsored court is described as a court to 'prosecute war crimes, genocide and other crimes against humanity.'

Clinton loved this thing. He signed the treaty. Signing the treaty wasn't enough to subject the United States to the jurisdiction of this court – Senate ratification was still needed. But Clinton's signature gave the ICC legitimacy. President Bush undid that damage – or part of it – by removing the U.S. signature from this hideous document.

Now Bush is going even further. He is stating that it is the position of the United States that neither our private citizens nor our military nor our elected officials are subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

He's even going further than that! He has instructed our delegation to the United Nations to veto the extension of any U.N. peacekeeping missions. Yesterday the U.S. vetoed the extension of the Bosnia peacekeeping mission.

Bush's position is that the U.S. will not participate in any further U.N. peacekeeping missions unless and until American troops participating in those missions are officially recognized as being exempt from any actions that may be brought before the ICC.

It's very simple. President Bush is putting the interests of American citizens and our men and women in uniform – and American sovereignty – above the sting of world opinion.

Here's an example. Have you ever heard of the United Nations Genocide Treaty? The full name is Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It was adopted by the U.N. in 1948.

I have provided a link here to the Genocide Treaty so that you will know I am not trying to put one over on you. Go read for yourself: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

Now, everyone would probably agree that genocide is a crime, right? Genocide is almost certainly a violation of human rights, right? We would all expect that crimes of genocide would be tried before this nifty new World Criminal Court … right?

Look at the treaty. I want you to pay particular attention to Article 2, which defines the crime of genocide, and Article 4, which tells you who may be punished for the crime of genocide.

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 4
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Now ... in this wonderful world of political correctness which we inhabit today, can you imagine all of the acts that might be considered to be an act of genocide?

Let's consider a few examples. Remember, the United Nations is NOT our friend. U.N. operatives and certain member nations would absolutely LOVE to be able to drag American elected officials, military personnel and private citizens before this World Kangaroo Court to answer charges of genocide.

Example A. An American B-52 accidentally drops a 2,000-pound bomb on an Afghan wedding party, killing about 40 people. A leftist anti-American 'human rights' group says that the bombing was an attempt to 'destroy part of a national group.' They want the B-52 pilots tried before the World Court.

Example B. A nationally syndicated radio talk show host sings the song 'Allah loves the little children' on the radio and prints it on his Web page. A 'human rights' group says that the singing of this song by this individual (see Article 4) was intended to and did indeed cause severe mental harm (See Article 2(b)) to certain devout Muslims. They want the talk show host tried before the World Court for the crime of genocide.

Enough. I've delivered the knockout punch. End of argument. Even you leftist, hate-America bedwetters out there know that I've nailed this one.

The Genocide Treaty is just one of hundreds of international treaties that could be used to drag hated, evil Americans, politicians and soldiers before this U.N.-sponsored court.

Why are so many people upset with Bush's position on this? Easy! Because this ICC could be the one instrument that could bring the United States down to size … knock us off our high horse, so to speak. This was the way to teach those haughty Americans a lesson!

Thank you, President Bush, for fighting this monstrosity! Let's pause and give thanks that Al Gore or some other Democrat is not running the show on this one.

********************************************

TAC: Well folks, with all the massacres and pogroms being committed by the US & Israel, as we speak, I guess we can call this chapter in DIM BULB's career as president; 'JUSTICE DENIED.'

TheAZCowBoy,
reply by
Lynette
7/13/2002 (23:15)
 reply top
TAC- I am betting that not one Western government will ever face this so called criminal court for any future crimes........

As usual it will be third world dicators and despots that face the judging panels, but never our own....

Somehow we don't seem to equate our military forays in bombing the shit out of countries like Vietnam or Iraq with massive non-combatant casualites as a 'war crime'.........

Whatever happened to the good ol` days when two armies lined each other up and got downright mean and dirty with each other ....mano on mano.


King George will wage his war on Saddam.......but the Iraqi civilians will die by the bushel in his attemps to get that bastard. It gives me no joy to face what is coming.....these poor people have suffered enough for the meglomania of one man's vision. Saddam has convinced his people that they are the target and not him personally.
Pity someone couldn't place a radio-active markers on that bastard and his henchmen take them out 'surgically',huh?
reply by
SAMSON
7/14/2002 (3:39)
 reply top
Dear TAC, and Lynette,
The USA through out history have participated, and many a time carried the leading role, in enhancing International Justice. The Zionists after WWII have infiltrated gradually the political machine of the US. From Then on the worst political stances taken by the US were usually the effect of the Jewish decision makers. Nowadays, these ppl have reached their peak of influance. The US is now in its lowest international stance.