It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: dashen
dashen, I think POTUS slow then fast descent of the "slippery slope" was indicating the beginning of the avalanche!
Build into that the shaking holding the glass, which also indicates a tremor, as you would get at the beginning of an avalanche?
In a rare break with its US ally, London has expressed its support for the ICC, stressing that the legal body should be allowed to work impartially and without fear of sanctions in investigating international criminal activity.
"The UK strongly supports the International Criminal Court in tackling impunity for the worst international crimes," Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said in a statement Saturday.
Raab's comments follow Thursday's announcement by the Trump administration that it has authorized sanctions and travel restrictions against ICC officials investigating the activities of US military and intelligence personnel in Afghanistan for possible war crimes. In a statement to the media following Trump's signing of the executive order to that effect, Attorney General William Barr claimed that the US had substantial, credible information about alleged 'financial corruption' in the ICC that "calls into question the integrity of the ICC's investigations."
Honestly? The fact that Hollywood thinks I’m an asshole is a badge of honor You wouldn’t be tweeting about me if my message weren’t true & effective. Threatens your wokeness. How triggered will you be when @realDonaldTrump is re-elected? More or less than when crooked lost?
History has taught us that People Will Rise...against the Rulers.
From Pharaohs to Kings to Elected Officials.
The Bush administration, with the backing of Congress, has made sustained international efforts to keep the International Criminal Court ("ICC") from attaining any functional jurisdiction over the United States or its citizens.
The Rome Statute remained open for signatures only until December 31, 2000. In characteristic fashion, President Clinton waited until exactly that day to sign it. The statement he released in conjunction with the signing showed continued ambivalence: he sought to "reaffirm our strong support for international accountability," but without "abandoning our concerns about significant flaws in the treaty."
He recommended that his successor [Bush] work to fix this problem and wait until satisfied that the ICC was a well-functioning body before submitting the treaty for ratification.
Though willing to make recommendations to his successor, President Clinton did not seek to consult him. David Scheffer had instructions not to brief Congressional staffers or Bush administration transition team members during the last weeks of December.
Bush's spokesperson, Ari Fleischer, released a statement saying the incoming administration would not seek ratification in its current form. Senator Jesse Helms's spokesperson suggested that the incoming President unsign the treaty.16 John R. Bolton, soon to become Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security in the Bush administration, wrote an op-ed piece in the Washington Post titled "Unsign That Treaty."
On May 6, 2002, John R. Bolton, now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, sent the following communication to the U.N. Secretary General: "This is to inform you, in connection with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, that the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000. The United States requests that its intention not to become a party, as expressed in this letter, be reflected in the depositary's status lists relating to this treaty."
Like the Clinton administration, the Bush administration has worked energetically to extract the United States from the reach of the ICC. Here the similarities end. The Clinton administration focused its efforts on multilateral engagement, seeking to achieve its objectives by influencing the shape of the ICC. By contrast, the Bush administration, with the support of Congress, has pursued a strategy very similar to the "Three No's" approach endorsed by John R. Bolton, 102 and it has backed its opposition with the threat of force.
In September 2018, President Donald Trump criticized the Court before the United Nations. In his speech condemning globalism and the over reach of international agencies, he drew parallels between the court and the United Nations Human Rights Council.
"So the United States took the only responsible course: We withdrew from the Human Rights Council, and we will not return until real reform is enacted. For similar reasons, the United States will provide no support in recognition to the International Criminal Court. As far as America is concerned, the ICC has no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority. The ICC claims near-universal jurisdiction over the citizens of every country, violating all principles of justice, fairness, and due process. We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy."
originally posted by: RelSciHistItSufi
a reply to: PilSungMtnMan
I wonder what the impact on the election would be of POTUS/Q not getting at least one major scalp on the points board before November?