|
Author
|
Topic: Kofi Annan's Press Confrence reveals power of World Court!
|
Trafield
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
but i have a question, seeing how the one world government and all this stuff, GOVERNMENT in general is just a group of Individuals, and these individuals in these end times prophecies don't even know what they're doing. BUT, could they still SOMEHOW realize what they're doing and Repent?
Absolutely, J4, if they believe in Jesus Christ. Without Him they are blinded to the Truth. Only in Christ can the scales of blindness be lifted so that the Light of the Truth can be seen.
Joel 2:32
32“And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the Lord
Will be delivered;
For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
There will be those who escape,
As the Lord has said,
Even among the survivors whom the Lord calls.
2 Corinthians 4:3-4
3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
4in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Acts 9:17-19
17So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”
18And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;
19and he took food and was strengthened.
IP: Logged | 
|
|
J4Jesus
unregistered
|
posted
hi. well, all that's crazy stuff. i hate it!!
but i have a question, seeing how the one world government and all this stuff, GOVERNMENT in general is just a group of Individuals, and these individuals in these end times prophecies don't even know what they're doing. BUT, could they still SOMEHOW realize what they're doing and Repent?
IP: Logged |
|
|
Trafield
unregistered
|
posted
Well it only took about 6 years, but finally the networks (at least CNN) are starting to give coverage to the debate over the International Criminal Court and the threat it poses to our national sovereignty.
Here is a transcript of the program which aired on CNN:
CNN INTERNATIONAL
INSIGHT 09:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
Transcript # 062500cb.k01
HEADLINE: Current Events at the United Nations
GUESTS: Larry Wortzel, Heather Hamilton
BYLINE: Richard Roth
HIGHLIGHT:
A look at current events worldwide concerning the United Nations.
BODY:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We believe it is wholly inappropriate then to subject
them to possible jurisdiction of a tribunal which cannot provide adequate
guarantees of due process.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My government is under particular pressure to give a
blank check to the United States for the behavior or their forces.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The bottom fell out of this resolution in the context of
mounting evidence of crimes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD ROTH, CNN ANCHOR: Look into the future. Let's say it's the year
2010. You're Donald Rumsfeld or perhaps a secretary of state in the Hilary
Clinton administration. You're vacation in a country which might not have
appreciated decisions made by the United States in war or peace time. You're
detained and held for the International Criminal Court.
Welcome to DIPLOMATIC LICENSE. I'm Richard Roth.
Likely to happen or just an American bad dream? It's at the heart of the
latest developments in the international immunity imbroglio. The United
States abandoned its drive this week for a third 12-month exemption for
diplomats and U.S. soldiers from any potential prosecution by this
International Criminal Court, a court the United States has not agreed to
join.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROTH (voice-over): The Bush administration got another sharp reminder of the
global impact of Iraqi prisoner abuse by American soldiers. The United
States suffered a stinging diplomatic defeat at the United Nations, unable
to persuade the Security Council to grant U.S. soldiers another year of
immunity from any prosecution by the International War Crimes Court.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The United States has decided not to proceed further with
consideration and action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a
prolonged and divisive debate.
ROTH: There was too much opposition from countries that grudgingly gave
immunity to U.S. troops the last two years and it was primarily because of
the Iraqi photos.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think that over the last few weeks, because of this
scandal of this mistreatment, this certainly had an impact on the thinking
of Council members.
ROTH: Wavering countries were emboldened by a blunt U.N. secretary- general.
KOFI ANNAN, U.N. SECY.-GEN.: And I think it would be unfortunate for one to
press for such an exemption given the prisoner abuse in Iraq.
ROTH: U.S. officials insist the two-year-old International Criminal Court
does not provide safeguards to prevent American troops or diplomats from
being hauled to the Hague and prosecuted by a biased legal system in a
poisoned political climate.
Behind closed doors, Council ambassadors were told by the United States that
the rejection will have a chilling effect on United Nations peacekeeping
operations and perhaps U.S.-U.N. relations.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will have to take into account the lack of this
resolution as we look at our various obligations and the way we proceed
overseas.
ROTH: The lack of immunity does not mean U.S. soldiers will be prosecuted
for any crimes committed in Iraq.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Neither the government of Saddam Hussein nor the United
States took the decision to sign up for this treaty, thus this court has no
authority to begin with over events in Iraq.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ROTH: The U.N. secretary-general likes to stay out of the public eye on
major Security Council debates, but his spokesman said this week on matters
of principle, he will speak up. The International Criminal Court was one
such issue, and Friday the secretary-general, like a sports star after a
victory, declined to boast, stressing, he says, the importance of the
15-nation Security Council to stick together.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNAN: We are going to have to deal with lots of tough issues along the way,
and so I was concerned that the Council be divided on an issue like the one
before it on the International Criminal Court, and I hope everyone will see
it as a helpful decision and I hope the United States will not introduce
other (UNINTELLIGIBLE) or carryout its threat two years ago to withdraw from
peacekeeping operations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: In a related development this week, U.S. officials told reporters
Washington would like to shield American soldiers in Iraq from criminal
prosecution by Iraqi courts.
Immunity from prosecution on the battlefield and seats of power. Two people
on different font lines on the issue, unless one of the defects during the
program today. It has happened.
From Washington, Heather Hamilton, with the Citizens for Global Solutions.
She is also co-chair of the Washington Working Group on the International
Criminal Court. To sum it up, she wants the United States in the court and
doesn't like exemptions.
Also in Washington is Larry Wortzel, vice president, Foreign Policy and
Defense Studies at the Heritage Foundation. He served in the U.S. military
as an infantryman in Southeast Asia and elsewhere and his career included
several intelligence stints, including two at the U.S. embassy in Beijing.
He retired from the Army as a colonel after 32 years. Well, to sum up his
opinion, we'll let Larry do it for us. Larry, what do you think?
LARRY WORTZEL, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: Well, I've very reluctant to see the
United States surrender its sovereignty to any international regime and
especially the International Criminal Court.
Only less than half the nations are a party to the court. Less than half
the population. 90 nations have signed United Nations waivers. And we are
a nation of laws. We are a country that does take care of its people if
they break the law, so I don't think we need it.
ROTH: So you think the United States would handle it.
Heather, the people at the court say it's a last resort court, so what's
wrong with the U.S. view?
HEATHER HAMILTON, CITIZENS FOR GLOBAL SOLUTIONS: Well, I think fundamentally
the United States is turning away from the past 50 years of leadership on
ensuring that vicious war criminals are brought to justice. This court deals
only with the absolute worst violations of war crimes, genocide and crimes
against humanity, and then only when nations are unwilling or unable to
prosecute.
The United States needs to exert the same kind of leadership that we did in
bringing about Nuremberg, the ICTY for Yugoslavia, the Rwanda Tribunal,
Cambodia. We've left all of that behind and I think it's time that we
reassert that leadership and help bring the war criminals to justice,
particularly --
ROTH: The heart, though, this week, was this exemption. So, Larry Wortzel,
why should the United States, the big superpower, be exempt, and some other
would get to follow along, but the United States is the main driver for this
exemption. Why?
WORTZEL: Well, I think it is a major defeat diplomatically for the United
States. I think the Belgian case, where the Belgian courts tried to set up
their own right to prosecute anything anywhere around the world, which would
have forced NATO and the United States presence in NATO to leave Brussels is
a perfect example of overreach.
The United States, I think, is rightfully afraid, with its political
interests and security interests around the world that politically-
motivated legal action would be used to influence American foreign policy.
ROTH: Heather, you saw how inflamed public reaction was. Let's say the Iraq
war. What if Donald Rumsfeld was in the South of France? I mean, doesn't
Larry have a point?
HAMILTON: I think the fundamental question is whether we're going to judge
it against the predictions or judge it against the reality of the court.
The reality of the court is that, yes, of course, as there is in any
situation, there have been complaints made to the court. The question is
what has the court done with those.
In September, the prosecutor publicly said that he did not intend to take up
complaints against the United States in Iraq because he didn't have
jurisdiction but, more importantly, he chose not to take up or even look at
complaints against the United Kingdom, where he did have jurisdiction,
because fundamentally there was a legal system in the United Kingdom that
was able to deal with these things, and he said therefore it is not
appropriate for him to even look at them.
ROTH: The prosecutor says the first case will be on Congo. Then maybe
Uganda.
Larry, you've been in the military -- go ahead.
WORTZEL: The prosecutor says this time. One doesn't know what the
prosecutor would say next time. So, again, if you're going to deal in
international law and the rule of law, don't surrender your sovereignty to
an international regime, and particularly to the rule of man and one person
that decides.
HAMILTON: I think it's really important that we help bring to justice the
people who are in Uganda and in the DRC, enslaving children, committing mass
rape, and the United States has a really big role to play there. And if we
were on the inside of this court, not only would be able to better monitor
its actions and influence its actions as a state party, but we could help
bring justice to the world, and that's a role the United States should be
playing these days.
ROTH: What kind of role is the United States playing, Larry, when it really
still is the one global power and it seems to be choosing these treaties and
agreements on an a la carte basis, sometimes based on --
WORTZEL: I don't think it does choose on an a la carte basis. Again, 90
countries have already signed Article 98 waivers or non-surrender waivers
saying they will not turn U.S. troops over to the ICC. And, Richard, it's
analogous to the sorts of agreements that the United States signs with every
country where U.S. troops visit and exercise and train. There's a Status of
Forces and the American justice system will handle American cases, and in
most cases other countries agree to that.
ROTH: Heather, you have to love that the United States seems to be signing
these agreements, 90 of them, with other countries --
HAMILTON: Yes.
ROTH: -- some in the loophole, though, in the agreement reached by the
parties, though, isn't it still fair and legal to do this?
HAMILTON: Under threat of losing all military assistance from the United
States, including countries that have troops in Iraq, countries are being
coerced into signing agreements that exempt not just American soldiers,
which I agree, there are Status of Forces agreements and if it were a
question of Status of Forces agreements, the court would be obligated to
respect that Status of Forces agreement.
What the United States is asking for, and unfortunately getting, is
exemptions not only for soldiers and officials but exemptions for any random
U.S. citizen or even a contractor who is a foreign citizen, from the court.
Now, that is like saying that if a U.S. citizen went to Germany and
committed massive crimes, really crimes that shocked the conscience of all
humanity, if the U.S. citizen were to do that we'd say, oh, no, Germany,
you're not allowed to deal with it. That's what this is the equivalent of.
It's not about protecting our troops.
ROTH: Larry.
WORTZEL: Well, every example that Heather has given has to do with sovereign
states, not quasi-world governments and international regimes that are setup
to act as though we were all states in a world government. Sovereign states
have a right to and will take care of their citizens and the breaches of
legality by their citizens.
ROTH: Heather --
WORTZEL: And I'm proud the United States is using pressure.
ROTH: Heather, are you proud?
HAMILTON: Well, I'm not proud. In fact, I think it's a right shame.
The International Criminal Court is not setup to deal with situations where
sovereign states can deal with the issues on their own. In fact, that is
written into the statue, into this court's founding treaty, throughout it.
It can't take action if states are acting.
This court is for when states can't or won't. Look at Sudan. Look at
Rwanda. Look at the Holocaust.
ROTH: Heather, should U.S. soldiers have immunity in Iraq from the
government there, the interim government?
HAMILTON: Well, I think it's a pretty -- apart from a value judgment, I
think it's pretty standard that when we go abroad, we negotiate agreements
that give U.S. soldiers, that gives the United States the first right to
trial.
Now in a lot of places, it is an agreement that if it is something -- if it
is a crime that is not committed in the course of their military duties,
then it is worked out with that country. So I don't think this is actually
that extraordinary. Again, that's a bilateral agreement. And it's not that
extraordinary.
ROTH: Larry, what is the -- we heard how the Council took the photos at Abu
Ghraib Prison into deep consideration there. What do you think the impact
is for the United States being able to say, hey, we don't want to deal with
the Criminal Court because we can handle justice, we know what's fair, and
we're the beacon of liberty and justice for all?
WORTZEL: Well, I think our legal system and our military legal system will
take action on this, and I think in the end the world community will be
satisfied. But it's a terrible, terrible breach of military discipline.
It's a terrible breakdown. You know, there is a very simple principle: you
don't use prisoners of war as sex toys, and that's it. And it's going to
damage our credibility in that area for a long time.
ROTH: I mean, I'm curious. You've been there in the military for 32 years,
what do you think happened? Military intelligence was give -- what do you
think?
WORTZEL: No. I think it was a genuine breakdown of unit discipline, where
small unit leaders were just out doing crazy things and at the top, it looks
like a bad interpretation, frankly, on the Geneva Conventions on the
treatment of prisoners, and I don't think it only happened at the lower
levels. I think there's a certain amount of senior leadership and influence
that created a climate. But it was a terrible command climate within that
military police brigade, and it reflects bad training and poor training for
the people that were assigned those duties.
ROTH: Very briefly, Larry, I mean, the United States is threatening to
impact U.N. peacekeeping operations. Should they carry out that threat to
perhaps not fund or finance certain operations? In other words, getting
very angry at the Council for not giving it its exemption on the court?
WORTZEL: Well, I don't think we should do it out of anger. I think we
should do it because, again, on principle, you don't send your troops or
your officials over where they can be subject to what might be frivolous
legal action. Yes, we should withdraw support if we don't get the waivers.
ROTH: Heather, the final word with you on that or any other issue related to
immunity.
HAMILTON: Sure. I think the fact that Henry Kissinger's own legal advisor
was satisfied with the international community, thought that it had the most
complete list of due process protections ever promulgated, that Robinson
Everett (ph), former chief judge, U.S. Court of Military Appeals, thinks the
United States should ratify. I mean, there's no shortage of people saying
that this is -- that its standards are up to what we could trust. And the
United States should be trusted to do these things within our system, as we
are with Abu Ghraib, and I think the real question is, what is our role in
the world and should we be helping with the court's first cases in the
Democratic Republic of Congo, in Uganda, where these really horrific
atrocities are. And I say yes.
ROTH: All right, we're going to have to leave it there. Larry Wortzel, vice
president of the Heritage Foundation, retired U.S. colonel, thank you. I
saw Larry 15 years ago in China when he was serving at the U.S. mission
there. And Heather Hamilton, with the Citizens for Global Solutions,
co-chair Washington Working Group, International Criminal Court. Both of you
receive an exemption and are welcome back any time.
HAMILTON: Thank so much.
WORTZEL: Thanks a lot.
ROTH: The veiled threat by the United States to review its stance on U.N.
peacekeeping operations because of the immunity opposition doesn't scare the
Security Council by and large, but does give ambassadors, including Heraldo
Munoz of Chile, something to think about this weekend.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HERALD MUNOZ, U.N. AMB. FOR CHILE: I hope there is no impact whatsoever.
That would be my hope. Because peacekeeping operations are extremely
important to the essence of the work of the Security Council to, I think,
peace and security, so that would be my hope, but every country is sovereign
to contribute or not to those peace operations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN NEGROPONTE, U.S. AMB. TO IRAQ: Don't you have representatives in
Baghdad?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: John Negroponte, after he was asked at the United Nations if he was
happy to be rid of the press corps there.
The new U.S. ambassador to Iraq is a well-traveled diplomat, but whether he
surfaces much in Baghdad for reporters there is an open question.
Remember the name April Glasby (ph)? She was the U.S. ambassador to Iraq in
1990. Glasby (ph) went on vacation the day before Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Negroponte will become the first U.S. ambassador to Iraq since then. His
close friend and boss, Colin Powell, enjoyed their swearing in ceremony.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLIN POWELL, U.S. SECY. OF STATE: I, John D. Negroponte --
NEGROPONTE: I, John D. Negroponte --
POWELL: -- do solemnly swear --
NEGROPONTE: -- do solemnly swear --
POWELL: -- that I will support and defend.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Negroponte's replacement at the United Nations is John Danforth, who
was confirmed this week by the U.S. Senate. A former U.S. senator and
Episcopalian minister, Danforth played a diplomatic role in attempting to
settle the North-South war in Sudan.
At his confirmation hearings in Washington, Danforth made clear Sudan and
the humanitarian crisis in Western Sudan is a top priority for him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN DANFORTH, U.S. AMB. TO U.N.: The more attention on Sudan, the better.
The more attention on Sudan from the United States and from the rest of the
world. If this matter in Darfur is not correctly quickly, and I mean very
quickly, then this will be an issue before the Security Council.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Secretary-General Annan will be in Darfur in a few days. Colin Powell
will also visit there next week. They hope to increase the pressure on the
Sudanese government to stop militias from attacking civilians in Darfur and
to allow greater access for aid groups and equipment.
U.N. relief workers have called it ethnic cleansing there, but Annan on
Friday said he isn't ready to send in the cavalry to protect Sudanese
civilians. Of course, the U.N. does have its own army and Annan said
countries should consider sending troops if the government in Khartoum
doesn't relent. Some countries are reluctant to squeeze Sudan because of
progress made towards settling the North-South war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNAN: We also have to make clear to all of those who are involved in the
peace process in Sudan, yes, we've made progress on the North-South track,
but you cannot have comprehensive peace in Sudan if the West continues to
bend, so we have to settle Darfur to be able to talk of a comprehensive
peace in Sudan and for the Sudanese to hope to see their peace dividends and
serious engagement by the international community.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: Sudan was a rough job for the incoming U.S. ambassador at the United
Nations, John Danforth. He is an heir to the giant Ralston Purina Food
Company fortunes. He has investigated the Waco shootout for Attorney
General Reno. He was a senator and more recently presided over the funeral
services for former President Reagan in Washington.
Danforth told his former Senate colleagues why then return to public
service.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANFORTH: I was sitting in my office in St. Louis three weeks ago today,
having a perfectly fine life, and I got a call from the White House asking
me if I would be interested in doing this, and as soon as I got that call, I
knew that I've got a problem here, because it was something that I couldn't
say no to.
I think this is really an important job and I think it is a really critical
time for our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ROTH: How many times do I wish someone at the Security Council would yell
during a heated debate, "Let's take it outside."
Well, though Saturday nights are all right for fighting, according to Elton
John, there was music, but serenity, on First Avenue in front of United
Nations headquarters last weekend.
The reason: someone was carrying a torch. Not a love-sick diplomat though,
but a runner. Tony Jones, from Liberia, carrying the Olympic flame. The
torch is burning up on a 35-day run around the world leading up to the
Olympic Games in Athens which start August 13.
Fitting that the torch took a pit stop at the United Nations since the
General Assembly has been reviving the ancient Greek tradition of an Olympic
truce.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNAN: I call on all of those engaged in armed conflicts of any kind of
observe the Olympic truce and to use the opportunity to promote peace,
dialogue and reconciliation. May the serenity of the Olympic flame silence
the sound of warfare.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROTH: The flame passed through the U.N. Geneva headquarters on Thursday,
Paris on Friday. Left behind in its wake, people like me, still holding a
torch.
If you would like to send us a flaming hot e-mail, please do so. We
received one before show time from the Cotecna Company mentioned in the Oil
For Food story for something I said on last week's program. We will look
into that e-mail, but for the rest of you, put your hands together and start
typing. Here is the e-mail address. Diplomatic.License@cnn.com.
That's our show. I'm Richard Roth in New York. Thanks for watching.
TO ORDER VIDEOTAPES AND TRANSCRIPTS OF CNN INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMING, PLEASE
CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE THE SECURE ONLINE ORDER FROM LOCATED AT
www.fdch.com
IP: Logged |
|
|
Trafield
unregistered
|
posted
Amen, Whitesands! ![[thumbsup2]](graemlins/thumbsup2.gif)
Come Lord Jesus!
IP: Logged |
|
|
whitesands777
Advanced Member
Member # 3424
|
posted
Trafield,
You are on top of things my brother....Most don't believe it but we are in world goverment as we speak...Yeah we have leaders of our country, but they are subject to the UN....
The global government is here and its just going to get more countrol until our Saviour Jesus Christ comes back...
When you read stuff like what you posted...It snaps you back into the reality of what is really going on and makes you realize that bible prophecy is coming true right in front of us...
Posts: 501 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Trafield
unregistered
|
posted
I am pasting the experpts from the press conference at tthe UN Headquarters June 25th where the Rome Statute and International Criminal Court were discussed:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sgsm9388.doc.htm
Question: You have just said that everyone agrees that serious humanitarian crimes have been committed in Darfur. Do you think in that case that the International Criminal Court could possibly play a future role in dealing with this? And, secondly, how would you compare the international community’s response to Darfur thus far with what happened in Rwanda 10 years ago?
The Secretary-General: Let me say that the Sudan has signed the Rome Statute but has not ratified it. So it is morally bound to live by the provisions of the Statute. I would also say that the crimes being committed in Sudan are universal crimes, and so even if the ICC does not have a jurisdiction, the culprits can be arrested and tried anywhere in the world if they step out of Sudan, and so they may not be able to hide.
Question: Mr. Secretary-General, I would like a quick follow-up on Sudan. When you say that in Sudan, if the Government cannot protect its people, it should allow the international community to do so; what specifically are you thinking about? Are you thinking about having some kind of multinational force come in, or whatever?
My real question was on the International Criminal Court. You took a very outspoken stand. Your stand prevailed. Are you now concerned that the United States might follow through with the threats that it made initially, two years ago, to block peacekeeping operations and to make great difficulties for those missions authorized by the United Nations?
The Secretary-General: On Sudan, I don’t think we are ready to send in the cavalry, and I am not sure I have that many countries ready to go. So the Council will have to think. If it becomes necessary to take concrete action, the Council will have to decide what to do. Someone has suggested sanctions, and there is also a series of actions the Council can take. It will be up to them to decide.
We have had other situations where the Government concerned has failed to protect its people and the international community has gone in to help. East Timor is a case in point. When Indonesia couldn’t do it, a force did go in to help them do it. I was on the phone almost night and day with President Habibie, saying, if you cannot do it, let international community come in and help. But that willingness to go in and help must also be there and be demonstrated, and I think we should all begin thinking about that.
On the question of the International Criminal Court, I hope that this is the end of the -- well, let me step back. Let me say that I think the outcome was a good one for the Council, and I think also for the Americans. We should not forget that the Council, after divisions, just came together on Iraq. The unity of the Council is extremely important -- it is not form; it’s substance. When they are united and they work well together, they have greater impact and their decisions are usually sound. We are going to have to deal with lots of tough issues along the way, so I was concerned that the Council be divided on an issue like the one before it on the ICC. I hope everyone will see it as a helpful decision, and I hope the US will not introduce other threats or, as you say, carry out this threat made two years ago to withdraw from peacekeeping operations.
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
