NWO! Obama To Endorse Int'l Criminal Court's Jurisdiction

President Barack Obama has made no secret of his love affair with international organizations and we-are-the-world handholding. Yet he has not been equally vocal in the defense of America - especially in instances when multinational bodies might transgress the nation's sovereignty and work against our self-interest.

These issues are now once again in the spotlight as the new administration provides a wholehearted endorsement of the world's first permanent tribunal, the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Some of the world's most egregious human-rights violators have called for indictments against a U.S. president, military leaders, corporate executives, and others under outlandish interpretations of "law."

In its February 6, 2009 editorial, The Washington Times warns that Obama has deviated from the positions of every previous administration in a move that may culminate in the compromise of American sovereignty and its first acquiescence to an outside judge of its internal conduct:

Mr. Obama and his representatives have now gone further than any other previous administration in empowering the ICC. On Thursday, top Obama administration officials offered support for implementing the war crimes indictment issued in July against Sudanese President Omar Bashir for his role in the genocide and war crimes - crimes that have resulted in the deaths of over 300,000 people and the displacement of 2.5 million. A panel of judges is deliberating whether to issue Mr. Bashir's arrest warrant.

In tandem, Ambassador Susan Rice's first speech to the United Nations Security Council signaled that the new administration would throw its weight behind the ICC. The ICC "looks to become an important and credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo, Uganda and Darfur," she said, winning accolades from other foreign envoys.

For the full story, see this link:
Wshington Times www.washingtontimes.com...


jw

Originally posted by jdub297
These issues are now once again in the spotlight as the new administration provides a wholehearted endorsement of the world's first permanent tribunal, the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Some of the world's most egregious human-rights violators have called for indictments against a U.S. president, military leaders, corporate executives, and others under outlandish interpretations of "law."

As if that were not enough, the UK has proposed an International Climate Court to enforce AGW concerns and regulations.

See thread:www.abovetopsecret.com...

Given Energy Secretary Chu's position and adoption of the AGW hypothesis hook line and sinker, can it be long before the U.S. submits to the Climate Court's jurisdiction as well?

See thread "GW Advocates Support U.N. Climate Court to punish polluters, including individuals:"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by jdub297


It's about time someone realized we SHOULD have international courts - Thumbs up for Obama!

Originally posted by troos1
reply to post by jdub297

 

It's about time someone realized we SHOULD have international courts - Thumbs up for Obama!

I say We do not need international courts bringing charges against any person for any reason in the USA. The sovereignty of the United States would be at stake, that is all there really is to it.



Love this quote from the article:

The former Republican president - less doe-eyed than Mr. Obama and more realistic about the potential for harm that international bodies can inflict - decided American tribunals are sufficient to ensure our wars are fought according to American laws and international conventions.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by ACEMANN]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by ACEMANN]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by ACEMANN]

[edit on 6-2-2009 by ACEMANN]

so state and federal courts arent enough, now we can go to international court...great. now if they cant pass a bill in america on the national level, they can go over our heads to the international level. that way they can infringe on all of our constitutional rights 100% and this is a good thing????

i love this hope and change thing

reply to post by invisibleman11


I doubt that the international courts would care about double jeopardy...or about unlawful search and siezure. Things just seem to get worse and worse on this rock...
The only comfort I'd have is that they probably wouldn't torture us to extract confessions...right?

this is a whole other court system independent of the american constitution. its easy to understand (for me at least) that it will be used to Prosecute people that couldnt be Prosecuted through an american court. its a sneeky and slimy way of Circumventing the us constitution and the peoples rights

Do you think the U.S. is the only Country that can produce law abiding "judges"?

Are we not a global community? Do you think protecting international criminals is something we should "continue" to be in the business of? How did that whole Shah thing turn out for us. Marcos?

How are we different than Argentina after WWII? Oh, yeah, we got people like Werner Von Braun rather than Sgt. Shultz.

Many of you don't trust our government as it is, so what are you complaining about?

What retard thinks that the ICC is going to have jurisdiction over you for a DUI?

If the world wants to, or decides they want to charge Dick Cheney...I say we do not fight extradiction...come get him, or pay for the postage at least.

We, the people of the United States, cry foul at these criminals but are too weak to demand equal treatment under the law for them....Nobody in a position to file charges, prosecute, or sit as a judge, wants to commit political suicide.

If you believe nobody in the United States is above the law then you have to believe that the law is what those in power say it is. You have to view the Constitution as a pretty cool piece of history to go look at in the museum. Thats fine if you are at least consistent with that line of thinking...after all its a free Country.

But...if you believe in the Constitution and you are powerless to enforce or protect it....get out of the way and allow justice to be served by someone else.....Yes, why should "out sourcing" be limited to customer service and making things.....nobody here is interested in doing that job!

...If you are a bad boy in the world community don't expect to come running home to mama to protect you.

...If Obama nuked Iceland right now, who would prosecute him? Who has jurisdiction? ....his affirmative defense is...well I got word that Iceland was about to launch a pre empted strike on Greenland...Congress says uhhh, ok, if you say so.....then what? Do the rest of the world just shrug it off?

Really? paranoia here, way too much, they wouldn't care about anyone too much, mostly international criminals like terrorist, or criminals scaping to other countries or like ^ he said.

The scariest part about this is how huge a step for the NWO is.


[edit on 6-2-2009 by Arsenis]

Originally posted by troos1
reply to post by jdub297

 

It's about time someone realized we SHOULD have international courts - Thumbs up for Obama!

Are you ready to submit to Sharia law? Sudanese and Congolese norms?

The U.S., and any other nation that desires to be called one, gives up control of its own affairsa by submitting sovereignty to outsiders.

When the ICC, the Climate Court, or any other UN or "international" law enforcement comes for you or your Governor there will be no recourse in the U.S. Good luck.

Reply to post by Res Ipsa

If you believe nobody in the United States is above the law then you have to believe that the law is what those in power say it is. You have to view the Constitution as a pretty cool piece of history to go look at in the museum. Thats fine if you are at least consistent with that line of thinking...after all its a free Country.

Except that "those in power" will be people who may not agree with a secular, capitalist system. Or even democratic or republican forms of government.

At that point, the Constitution will be a museum piece.

Why not just abandon "nationality" altogether and agree that the U.N. will govern us? Look how well they've done with "Oil for Food," "peacekeeper" rapists and butchers, WHO and other failures.

The NWO will be the end of our civilization and many dems/libs/progressives cannot wait for it any more than they couldn't wait for the "change" and "hope" that will never be borne out.

Deny Ignorance!

jw

reply to post by jdub297



Right, you are looking at it as the absolute worse, everything has it's pros and cons, it's a double edge sword, there are many things as it has been pointed.

first of all, in no way this is gonna override countries laws, this is only for international subjects, I'm not saying it needs to be done but it would help, as for laws from other countries applying to you, please don't be naive, there would have to be something that everyone involved agrees with not what laws they come with.

Like I said before, this is a good idea if used for purposes that benefit us the people, but we all know that people in power will abuse this and seems like a huge step for the NWO.

Originally posted by Arsenis
reply to post by jdub297

 

first of all, in no way this is gonna override countries laws, this is only for international subjects, I'm not saying it needs to be done but it would help, as for laws from other countries applying to you, please don't be naive, there would have to be something that everyone involved agrees with not what laws they come with.

"Something that everyone involved agrees with?" Are you serious? 'Everyone involved' have never agreed on every action by the U.N.! Why do you think there's veto power on the Security Council?

"No way it will override countries' laws?" Wrong. Milosevic didn't violate any of his own country's laws and he was prosecuted. Many countries have not signed on to many treaties that will be enforced thru these "Int'l Courts." The U.S. did not sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, yet that is precisely what the Climate Court will use until the Copenhagen Convention overrides it.

There are dozens of "conventions," "resolutions," "treaties," and "protocols" that the U.S. does not agree to or is not a signatory to, yet they are "in effect" and considered "laws" by the U.N.

Don't be naive.

Deny Ignorants.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Just like the federal court against a state or county, but only when the case cannot be handled by said county or state.

So you are saying; once an international court is place forget about the rest?

I would follow your own last two sentences.

Originally posted by Arsenis
reply to post by jdub297

 

Just like the federal court against a state or county, but only when the case cannot be handled by said county or state.

So you are saying; once an international court is place forget about the rest?

1st, Federal Courts step all over state and local authorities all the time. There's a reason Federal Judghes are referred to as "god" in the legal community. It doesn't matter if the locals "can't handle" a situation that the Feds think is wrong! How do you think segregation was abolished?

And yes, once a country submits it's sovereignty to an international tribunal, it it subservient.

How long have you wanted to be subservient?

jw