|
Author
|
Topic: A great, must-read article about Kerry and the World Court
|
Ripp
unregistered
|
posted
Niedziejkore wrote:
quote:
unfortunately, kerry's not liberal enough
Wow, that's a big statement considering Kerry voted left of Ted Kennedy! What other liberal ideas would you like to see implemented? Orgies? Sex changes at tax payers expense (my lost father believes in this doozie.) ![[Frown]](frown.gif) Communism or a dictatorship? I'm guessing you want to give reign to the UN like Kerry has said.
quote:
Feb 18, 1970: “I’m an internationalist. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”
web page
Wow, I'm not sure how much more left we can go before God says enough and drops a huge asteroid on D.C.
God help us! MARANATHA!
IP: Logged | 
|
|
Niedziejkore
Advanced Member
Member # 2773
|
posted
quote:
We do need to be careful who we vote for this year.
unfortunately, kerry's not liberal enough and Bush is too conservative. In fact, the guy's so conservative that if Nixon were running against him, Nixon would be considered the "liberal" candidate.
--------------------
Worker bees can leave
Even drones can fly away
The queen is their slave.
Posts: 346 | From: Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Ripp
unregistered
|
posted
Thanks for the post Traf.
We do need to be careful who we vote for this year.
web page
web page
IP: Logged |
|
|
Trafield
unregistered
|
posted
Kerry shifts on global court
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041022-090856-1351r.htm
By Terence P. Jeffrey
John Kerry was for the International Criminal Court before he was (sort of) against it, and he will likely be for it again after Nov. 2.
But try tracking down where he stands today and you will run into his fixed political modus operandi before you find his fixed policy position. That M.O. consists of issuing carefully qualified statements designed to obscure, while not necessarily contradicting, his basic underlying stance — in this case, support for a global tribunal that would trump our Constitution. ![[1zhelp]](graemlins/1zhelp.gif)
In their first two debates, President Bush attacked Mr. Kerry for supporting the ICC. Yet Mr. Kerry never said a word in rebuttal. This was particularly odd because between the two debates, the Boston Globe ran an article titled "Kerry opposes role in tribunal/U.S. concerns not yet met, he says."
It quoted Kerry spokesman Mark Kitchens: "George W. Bush once again chose to mislead the American people about John Kerry's position [on the ICC]."
So, what precisely is Mr. Kerry's position? The Globe conceded it had a hard time prying it out of him: "Kerry's statement on the court, e-mailed to a Globe reporter Saturday night, came after repeated inquiries over the past six weeks and two days after another request the morning of the [first] debate."
"My No. 1 priority is to protect the servicemen and women who protect America from harm," Mr. Kerry told the Globe. "Therefore, I don't believe the United States should join the International Criminal Court until our concerns are addressed and the court develops a solid track record of fair prosecutions of the world's worst criminals." However, the Globe said, Mr. Kerry added (with ellipses inserted by the Globe): "I will not continue the obsessive and self-defeating campaign President Bush has waged against the ICC and the close American allies that support it. ... All he's done is to alienate our closest allies and diminish his own authority in the world."
What campaign did Mr. Bush wage against the ICC? "In his statement to the Globe," the paper said, "Kerry criticized Bush's attempts to pressure countries, many of which have ratified the treaty, into bilateral arrangements that would prevent them from turning over U.S. citizens to the court. The administration has so far signed such pacts with 94 nations."
Why would Mr. Kerry resent this excellent defense of U.S. sovereignty? In 1993, he was one of only eight cosponsors of a resolution proposed by Sen. Chris Dodd, Connecticut Democrat: "A joint resolution calling for the United States to support efforts of the United Nations to conclude an international agreement to establish an international criminal court."
In a Jan. 28, 1993, Senate speech explaining the resolution, Mr. Dodd clearly suggested this court should be able to prosecute Americans. "We cannot push for the establishment of an international tribunal and pretend at the same time that we are exempt from its reach," he said.
On Dec. 21, 2000, just 10 days before the deadline for signing the Rome Treaty establishing the ICC, Mr. Kerry joined 17 other senators in a letter urging President Clinton to sign it. The letter (http://www.amicc.org/docs/Senate12?00.pdf), posted online by the American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court (whose members include the United Methodist Church), assumed the court would try Americans and rebutted fears they would be tried unfairly.
"The ICC represents an historic step forward in the international effort to punish and deter war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide," the senators wrote. "Throughout the years of negotiations on the ICC, the United States has secured significant safeguards to ensure that American soldiers are not subjected to politically motivated actions by the court. ..."
Mr. Kerry and the others fretted that the flocking sparrows of this peeping tribunal might clip the wings of the American eagle. "The ICC will have jurisdiction over nations that are not party to the treaty whether or not the U.S. signs," they warned Mr. Clinton. "If we do not sign, or even worse, if we seek to undermine the ICC's authority, there is a strong possibility that the court's prosecutors and judges will see themselves in opposition to the U.S. and our official personnel."
Mr. Clinton caved and signed the treaty. In 2002, Mr. Bush rescinded that signing.
This year, Mr. Kerry responded to a questionnaire from the group Peace Action: "I support U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court, but also believe U.S. officials, including soldiers, should be provided some protection from politically motivated prosecutions."
So, here we have the great debater's bottom-line on an International Criminal Court whose members already include Venezuela, Cambodia, Colombia and Niger: It can prosecute Americans as long as it is not politically motivated in doing so.
Terence P. Jeffrey is a nationally syndicated columnist.
Daniel 7:23-27
23“Thus he said: ‘The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it.
24‘As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will subdue three kings.
25‘He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.
26‘But the court will sit for judgment, and his dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyed forever.
27‘Then the sovereignty, the dominion and the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the Highest One; His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all the dominions will serve and obey Him.’
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
