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!
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 |
|
|
|