Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (268637)	6/30/2002 7:16:09 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

US Pushes to Keep Its Troops Exempt From World Court by Elizabeth Neuffer UNITED NATIONS - The Bush administration, facing a July 1 deadline when war crimes could be prosecuted by a new world criminal court, is stepping up efforts to exempt American troops and other US officials from the tribunal's jurisdiction. Preparing for a battle likely to play out in the United Nations, world capitals, and the US Congress, administration officials and key Republican allies say they are pursuing a range of approaches to ensure the United States, which opposes the International Criminal Court, will not be subject to it. All US ambassadors were told last month by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to explore whether other nations were open to creating mutual agreements that would protect their ''nationals'' from the ''reach of the ICC,'' according to a copy of a diplomatic cable obtained by the Globe. Meanwhile, the US mission at the United Nations is seeking support for a resolution that would keep all UN peacekeepers from being prosecuted, and it has threatened to withdraw Americans from UN peacekeeping missions if they are not shielded from the court's reach. Should these diplomatic efforts fail, congressional Republicans are ready to block US funds to UN peacekeeping missions . And a bill that would ban the US from cooperating with the new court is part of a homeland security appropriations bill that is expected to be voted on by the House this week. Although the United States has announced it will not be bound by the court, it is undertaking these strategies to avoid a situation in which an American could be brought before it. ''When the ICC treaty enters into force this summer, US citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unacceptable to the American people,'' said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld when Washington announced on May 6 that it would not be a party to the treaty that created the court. The idea of a world court that could bring dictators to the dock has been supported by several countries since the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. The idea gained momentum after the creation of two UN war crimes tribunals in the mid-1990s for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. But US officials - led mostly by the Pentagon - have always opposed such a court, fearful that it would not protect American troops and officials from politicized prosecutions, and that there were insufficient checks and balances on its prosecutors' powers. A treaty establishing the court was adopted in Rome in 1998 over American objections. Intended as a court of last resort, the ICC, which will sit in The Hague, Netherlands, is intended to prosecute alleged war criminals when their own country does not do so. Former President Clinton, who had serious reservations about the court, signed the treaty creating it in the final hours of his second term. He recommended further protections for soldiers be added before it was ratified. The Bush administration has chosen to oppose the court rather than change it further. Earlier this month, Washington notified UN Secretary General Kofi Annan it would ''unsign'' the treaty, meaning the US no longer had any legal obligations to abide by it. The administration's tactics have already frustrated some allies, who say Washington's fears are unreasonable. ''There are enough guarantees in the treaty to accommodate American concerns,'' said Hanns Schumacher, Germany's acting permanent representative to the United Nations. ''The US is chosing the wrong target.'' Germany is among the 66 countries that have ratified the 1998 treaty. Tempers flared last week when the United States tried to offer an amendment to a UN Security Council resolution on a peacekeeping mission to East Timor that would extend criminal immunity to all former or current UN personnel. The measure was soundly defeated amid arguments that it would undermine the world court. ''The whole point of the court is that it is to be universal,'' said one UN commondreams.org

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (268637)	6/30/2002 7:30:17 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Well, now the eggs on my face. In fact, I did say use the word 'original Constitution' later on, but you are right. I misquoted myself, and I apologize. Let's get back on solid footing. The founding fathers were afraid that the Constitution would allow the Federal government to make laws that restrict religious freedom. Therefore, the First Amendment was crafted specifically to make sure that the Federal government had no ability to interfere at all in religious affairs. Given that the states were embroiled in their own internal strife over religious statutes, it is impossible to believe that they would have ratified this amendment if the interpretation were not such. So, do you have an historical argument that counters this view? Or are you just gonna toss some more 'lefty loons' and 'vacant liberal' nifties?