US ambassador speaks

[BUG_EAF322]

About the subject USA invading International court

This man litterly said USA is only responsible to GOD

I had to go toilet and puke

He sounded just like a fanatic moslim i hope u amercians understand  that religion and politics shouldn't work together

This seriously sounds as dangerous as taliban.

Anyway if america invaded holland all nato countrys should help holland that's the rule.

So

America better think before saying something.

[Ripsnort]

LOL, sure, just "shoebox" all religions into the Taliban (Oh the agony of the uneducated like yourself, I feel sorry for you)

Anyway, stew on this for awhile.

                                 To prohibit United States economic assistance for countries that ratify the treaty known as the
                                 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a treaty that provides for the establishment of an
                                 International Criminal Court, an illegal and illegitimate institution that violates the principles of
                                 self-government and popular sovereignty, as well as accepted norms of international law, and for
                                 other purposes...

                                 The Congress finds the following:

                                 (1)(A) A treaty is a contract between sovereign nations and, like a private contract, cannot force
                                 a nation to be subject to its terms if that nation has not agreed to be bound by its terms.

                                 (B) The treaty known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted in Rome,
                                 Italy on July 17, 1998, by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment
                                 of an International Criminal Court (hereinafter referred to as the `ICC Treaty'), by claiming the
                                 unprecedented power to investigate and try citizens of any nation--even the citizens of nations
                                 that are not party to the treaty--based upon events taking place in the territory of a nation party
                                 to the treaty, is entirely unsupported in international law.

                                 (2)(A) Under the terms of the ICC Treaty, an institution, to be called the International Criminal
                                 Court (hereinafter referred to as the `Court'), is to be established upon the ratification of the ICC
                                 Treaty by 60 nations.

                                 (B) The creation of this permanent, supranational Court, with the independent power to judge and
                                 punish elected officials of sovereign nations for their official actions, represents a decisive break
                                 with fundamental United States ideals of self-government and popular sovereignty.

                                 (C) The creation of the Court would constitute the transfer of the ultimate authority to judge the
                                 acts of United States officials away from the people of the United States to an unelected and
                                 unaccountable international bureaucracy.

                                 (3)(A) In its design and operation, the Court is fundamentally inconsistent with core United States
                                 political and legal values.

                                 (B) For example, a defendant would face a judicial process almost entirely foreign to the traditions
                                 and standards of the United States and be denied the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers,
                                 reasonable bail, a speedy trial, and the ability to confront witnesses to challenge the evidence
                                 against the defendant.

                                 (4)(A) A prosecutor under the ICC Treaty would be able to appeal a verdict of acquittal, effectively
                                 placing the accused in `double jeopardy'.

                                 (B) Such appeals are forbidden in the law of the United States and have been inconsistent with the
                                 Anglo-American legal tradition since the 17th century.

                                 (5) Because the guarantees of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution would not be
                                 available to those individuals prosecuted by the Court, the United States could not participate in,
                                 or facilitate, any such court.

                                 (6)(A) If the United States were to join the ICC Treaty, United States citizens could face removal
                                 to jurisdictions outside the United States for prosecution and judgment, without the benefit of a
                                 trial by jury, in a tribunal that would not guarantee many other rights granted by the United States
                                 Constitution and laws of the United States, and where the judges may well cherish animosities, or
                                 prejudices against them.

                                 (B) These are among the very offenses of the King and Parliament listed in the Declaration of
                                 Independence that required separation from England, revolution, and war.

                                 (7) The Court would be able to prosecute any individual United States citizen, including the
                                 President, military and civilian officers and officials, enlisted personnel, and even ordinary citizens
                                 who were involved in any action the Court determined to be within its jurisdiction.

Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.2381.IH:

[Udie]

I have a better idea.  Why don't you kiss our collective tulips  Because it's been America that has kept most of the world from destroying itself for the past 60+ years! The world better hope that they don't piss us off enough that we stop with the aid we give to THE WHOLE diddlyING WORLD!


 Name another country in history that has helped as many countries as we have?  Name another country in history that has conquered another country then set the people free with their own democracy?  I won't hold my breath....

[BUG_EAF322]

I have nothing to america

but i hate the arrogant thinkin they are closer to god than others

that is not stupid.

Politicians using religion in their speeches miss some intelligence

to explain theirselfes without using god's word

Who are we miserable people to think were closer to god than others.

PUNT

[Ripsnort]

Well, until you post a link for us to analyze what WE think he said, this is all rhetoric.

[BUG_EAF322]

It's so typical

[Ripsnort]

And, I might add, here is yet ANOTHER example of the non-believers always starting a religious thread pointing fingers at believers...you really ARE insecure, aren't you?  Poor boy....

[AKSWulfe]

BUG, you are reading too much into it.

"We only answer to God" means, we don't answer to anyone else... not that we are actually closer to God than any other country.
-SW

[Swoop]

Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
It's so typical

We dont care what you think cos you didnt qualify for the world cup.  






P.S.  j/k.  Chill out Bug, you're REALLY in need of a joint.

[BUG_EAF322]

no link it was on tv yesterday

yes USA did some very good thinks

so now they have the right to nuke the world

[Sikboy]

I'm curious but lazy. Do you have a quote or a link Bug?

-Sikboy

[BUG_EAF322]

I'm originally roman catholic

so what?

Thanks to the pope milions dieing to aids because condoms are not allowed by the pope

Some how i do believe there is something

but no man can describe it
and especialy use it

with all respect

BUG

[BUG_EAF322]

BUT what i really mean this threaty will crash on the NATO threaty


something to think about

[popeye]

Wonder if Jose Padilla has read paragraph 6A.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Sikboy
I'm curious but lazy. Do you have a quote or a link Bug?

-Sikboy

Edit, sorry you already addressed the link issue. My bad. This thread is moving way too fast lol.

Edit, damnit, then instead of editing, I quote my self... So much for American Superiority, at least before noon.

Anyhow, I too think you are reading WAY too much into that statement. Even if he came right out and said "We answer only to God" I don't see how this can be taken to mean that the US is any "closer" to God than any other nation. It seems to me that it is a (badly worded imho) appeal to the sovereignty of the State. That is any state. Euros are much quicker to loosen sovereignty because of efforts like the European Union, where an international organization is promoting increased conformity to rules and standards between the member nations. Think about the growing pains of the EU over the past 30 years. Think about the reaction when you suggest that German should be the official language of the EU (or english, or french or esperanto, just pick any language) Think about the reation 10 years ago when you suggested a common currency (what? get rid of the Franc? are you mad!) The US doesn't have the same experience, and frankly we don't trust anyone, just like you didn't trust each other 30 years ago. And until you guys all get on the same page, and the EU becomes a single powerfull entity, the US will have the power to make these statements, and will have the ability to act unilaterally.

Of course, I think we should play nice, because someday you will figure it out, then we'll have to deal.
-Sikboy