BUSH "UNSIGNS" ICC, BUT EMBRACES ITS OBJECTIVES

"Neither President Bush nor Secretary of State Colin Powell made the official ‘un-signing’ announcement. Instead, that task was delegated to a minor Foggy Bottom apparatchik – Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman, who made the announcement in a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. On the same day, Under Secretary of State John Bolton delivered a terse letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan announcing that the U.S. would ‘not become a party’ to the ICC treaty, and would recognize ‘no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000.’ "

TO PROTECT AMERICA, SENATE MUST VOTE TO REJECT RATIFICATION

"While the position stated in the Bolton letter is unambiguous, it failed to address the fact that the ICC institution claims ‘universal jurisdiction’ to prosecute war crimes and other crimes against humanity. Included within the scope of the ICC’s presumed powers would be citizens of nations whose governments have neither signed nor ratified the treaty."

GWB SUPPORTS U.N. TRIBUNALS IN PRINCIPLE

"Furthermore, despite the Bush administration’s rejection of the ICC treaty in its present form, it has not rejected participation in UN tribunals on a case-by-case basis. In his speech to the CSIS, Grossman reviewed the U.S. role in creating international tribunals ‘in Nuremberg, the Far East, and the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda….’ He insisted that ‘a properly created [international] court could be a useful tool in promoting human rights and holding the perpetrators of the worst violations accountable before the world – and perhaps one day such a court will come into being.’ (Emphasis added.) Thus the Bush administration, while objecting to the ICC for the moment, explicitly endorsed the ICC in principle."

DUBYA LAMENTS ICC’S UNDERMINING OF U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL

"While Grossman reverently invoked the UN Charter and its framers, he didn’t mention the U.S. Constitution even once. Grossman did mention, in passing, John Adams’ warning that ‘power must never be trusted without a check,’ and pointed out that the ICC treaty ‘places enormous unchecked power in the hands of the ICC prosecutor and judges.’ But Grossman insisted that the UN Charter intended for the Security Council to provide the necessary ‘checks and balances.’ Because the ICC prosecutor is independent of Security Council oversight, complained Grossman, ‘the role of the Security Council was usurped,’ and the ICC represents a departure ‘from the system that the framers of the UN Charter envisioned.’ …"

HAS BUSH EVER READ U.S. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?

"The most serious objection to the ICC treaty is the only one necessary. It represents an effort to destroy our Constitution and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson specifically protested in the Declaration that King George sought ‘to subject us to Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws … [and to transport] us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses….’ "

ORDINARY U.S. CITIZENS LOSE THE MOST WHEN THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC IS SUBVERTED

"Rather than cutting off U.S. participation in UN-sponsored international tribunals, Grossman promised greater involvement by the Bush administration. He endorsed future initiatives in which the UN would collaborate with national governments to create ‘hybrid’ judicial institutions to try those accused of violating international law. Grossman even promised that the Bush administration would work to create ‘a pool of experienced judges and prosecutors to serve in such international courts.’ " Source: William Norman Grigg, The New American, 6/3/02, p. 9

Excerpted from Howard Phillips Issues & Strategy Bulletin of June 15, 1998

THE U.N.'s PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

In behalf of The Conservative Caucus, I recently (6/12/98) joined Cliff Kincaid of the American Sovereignty Action Project (ASAP) in expressing opposition to U.S. participation in the proposed International Criminal Court:

"Approval of the proposed U.N. International Criminal Court by the President and Senate would be in fundamental conflict with their Constitutional oaths.

"The Constitution of the United States makes clear that ‘All legislative Powers shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.’ Powers which are vested cannot be transferred.

"Article III of the U.S. Constitution stipulates in Section 1 that ‘The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.’

"The proposed U.N. International Criminal Court is not under the Constitution of the United States, as is the U.S. Supreme Court and the various inferior courts, nor would it be structured to be subordinate to our Congress.

"For these fundamental reasons, the President should have refused to participate in negotiations to establish this court, and the Senate has a duty to peremptorily reject any treaty which would result in the diminution of our liberty and independence by casting aside the principle of Constitutional accountability and surrendering the sovereignty of our law system.

"The Biblical foundations of our Constitution and the protections it provides to our rights should not be sacrificed to promote an anti-Christian New World Order, with an International Criminal Court enforcing ‘laws’ enacted by the United Nations."

www.ConservativeUSA.org
Copyright © 2010 - 1998 Policy Analysis, Inc.  All rights reserved.