Bush sells out American troops to World Court

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
Anyone hear about this? I am absolutely incensed at this.

No administration has ever done this....until now.

Our military is now subject to some 3rd or 4th world or whoever it may be -- American hating world court.

Bush is close to losing Dr. Freeze's vote. But then again....i look at Kerry.

:mad: :mad: :mad:
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
And what Saudi do today. Offer amnesty to Murders and Terroest if they come forward in next 10/15 days? What the hell you do with them when they do come forwad. Say be good boys now.
 

bubbas1

Registered User
Forum Member
Jan 7, 2003
974
1
0
59
Wisconsin
Is there a link to this anywhere? I didnt find one.but then again I didnt look very hard.

If our troops mess up they should be subject to the UCMJ and thats all. World court my ass. If this is true I think Bush just handed Kerry a victory.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer

UNITED NATIONS - Facing global opposition fueled by the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal, the United States on Wednesday dropped its attempt to renew a U.N. exemption shielding American troops from international prosecution for war crimes.


AP Photo

U.S. Drops U.N. Bid for War Crime Shield
(AP Video)



The U.S. move raised concern that Washington might carry out its threat to shut down or stop participating in U.N.-authorized peacekeeping operations.


State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters that every request would be examined "both in terms of voting for a peacekeeping mission" and providing Americans to participate. A key factor will be "what the risk might be of prosecution by a court to which we're not party," he said.


While the United States won praise for not pushing for a vote that would have deeply divided the U.N. Security Council, the Bush administration suffered a defeat in its lengthy battle against the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal.


William Pace, head of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, which represents more than 1,000 organizations supporting the tribunal, called the U.S. decision "a victory for international justice."


The court can prosecute cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after it was established on July 1, 2002.


But it is a court of last resort and will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves, a condition proponents say makes it highly unlikely an American would be prosecuted.


Washington has also signed bilateral agreements with 90 countries that bar any prosecution of American officials by the court.


The court's chief prosecutor announced its first investigation on Wednesday ? of war crimes in Congo.


When the court was established ? the culmination of a campaign for a permanent war crimes tribunal that began with the Nuremberg trials after World War II ? Washington threatened to end its involvement in U.N. peacekeeping operations if it didn't get an exemption for Americans.


President Bush (news - web sites)'s administration argues that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of American troops.


After lengthy negotiations, the Security Council agreed to a one-year exemption, which was renewed a year ago. The court started operating last year.


The 94 countries that have ratified the 1998 Rome Treaty creating the court maintain it contains enough safeguards to prevent frivolous prosecutions and insist that nobody should be exempt.


Last month, the United States circulated a resolution that would have authorized a new one-year exemption after the current one expires on June 30.


But it put off a vote to work on a resolution endorsing the June 30 handover of power in Iraq (news - web sites), which was unanimously adopted on June 8.


One council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Washington probably would have gotten the minimum nine "yes" votes in the 15-member council if it had called for a vote immediately after introducing the resolution.


But over the past five weeks, the scandal over the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison has grown, and last week Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) made a rare intervention into council affairs. He urged members to oppose the resolution, questioned the legality of an exemption and warned against dividing the council.





Several council members said the prisoner abuse and Annan's opposition were factors in their refusal to back the original resolution and a last-minute U.S. attempt at compromise that would have made this one-year exemption the final one.

France, Germany, Spain, Brazil, Chile and China had said they would abstain on the original resolution, and Romania and Benin had indicated they were likely to join them.

When Spain and China ? key nations the U.S. needed to change their votes ? announced before Wednesday's council meeting that they wouldn't support the compromise, the United States knew the resolution would be defeated, so Washington decided to abandon it.

"We believe that our draft and its predecessors fairly meet the concerns of all. Not all council members agree, however," U.S. deputy ambassador James Cunningham told reporters after informing the council of the decision.

"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," he said.

He stressed that the United States is "the largest contributor to global security and has special well-known interests in protecting our forces and our officials."

Cunningham said the United States will "continue to negotiate bilateral agreements" to protect Americans.

Both Spanish and Chilean envoys said Annan's opposition had great influence on the outcome.

Annan said the U.S. decision "will help maintain the unity of the Security Council at a time when it faces difficult challenges," his spokesman, Fred Eckhard, said in a statement.

China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya said the prisoner abuse scandal was paramount in ending China's support for an exemption.

"China is under pressure because of the scandals and the news coverage of the prisoner abuse" and it couldn't give the United States "a blank check," he said.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
thats the best link i can provide....nevermind the spin put on by the pro-UN anti US sovereignty press

Bush and the administration are caving in like a weak minded wussy and tossing our troops and our sovereignty right into the trash can
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
and what is REALLY amazing is that.....exactly that fact....you do not hear about stories like this

instead you hear about some "insurgent" as the press calls them (refusing to refer to them as barbarics) setting off a car bomb in Iraq murdering innocent men, women, and children day after day
 

auspice

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 19, 2001
334
1
0
Ohio
Do you really think a president that tried in February of 2004 to get fast food jobs (slinging burgers) reclassified as manufacturing jobs for his annual economic reports, really has the interest of the American people at heart or himself? You catching on Freeze?

Prior to this there was the 'no child left behind' program in Texas which was exposed as a total sham with phony numbers because of reclassifications, and now I guess this was the 'no factory worker left behind' program huh?
 
Last edited:

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Will wait till I see lowdown on world court issue.

On the Saudi Amenesty deal---You might want to no a little more about it--rather than take it from those who would make it appear they are going to give terrorist that have killed amnesty and let them go free.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20040624/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_terrorism

I figured the left would be swinging away from economy issue, but evidently there are a few stragglers :)

"Prior to this there was the 'no child left behind' program in Texas which was exposed as a total sham with phony numbers because of reclassifications, and now I guess this was the 'no factory worker left behind' program huh?"

I would like to read more on this myself.Do you have any supporting facts--or did you read it on Move.org or America Coming Together????

and while on the topic of left wind orgs you might find this of interest---class acts aren't they ;)


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/ap/20040624/ap_on_el_ge/voter_drive_felons
 

Yelajakitz

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 15, 2003
38
0
0
41
Austin, TX
dr. freeze said:
and what is REALLY amazing is that.....exactly that fact....you do not hear about stories like this

instead you hear about some "insurgent" as the press calls them (refusing to refer to them as barbarics) setting off a car bomb in Iraq murdering innocent men, women, and children day after day

Dr.,

If the press was so anti-US, these forces would be called the 'opposition' or something of those sorts(though this would be more politically correct than anti-American.) Insurgents is a neutral term at best, barbarics would put a right wing extremist view on it.
 

auspice

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 19, 2001
334
1
0
Ohio
Dogs

I'm assuming (probably wrong as usual) that you're wanting info on the jobs reclassification thingy I mentioned. The 'no child left behind' reclass fuzzy numbers thing happened came to light about
6-8 months ago.

Building Blue-Collar ? Burgers?

NEW YORK, Feb. 20, 2004



"Mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing. However, if that activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service."
The report


Gregory Mankiw, the president's top economic adviser, is under fire for other aspects of the report. (Photo: AP)


Jobs are set to be a major issue in the presidential race. (Photo: AP)



(CBS) Manufacturing jobs making things like airplane engines, cars and farm equipment are disappearing from the American economy.

Or are they? According to a White House report, new manufacturing jobs might be as close as your nearest drive-thru.

The annual Economic Report of the President has already stirred controversy by suggesting the loss of U.S. jobs overseas might be beneficial, and predicting that a whopping 2.6 million jobs will be created in the country this year.

As first reported by The New York Times, the fast food issue is taken up on page 73 of the lengthy report in a special box headlined "What is manufacturing?"

"The definition of a manufactured product," the box reads, "is not straightforward."

"When a fast-food restaurant sells a hamburger, for example, is it providing a 'service' or is it combining inputs to 'manufacture' a product?" it asks.

Manufacturing is defined by the Census Bureau as work involving employees who are "engaged in the mechanical, physical, or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products."

But, the president's report notes, even the Census Bureau has acknowledged that its definition "can be somewhat blurry," with bakeries, candy stores, custom tailors and tire retreading services considered manufacturing.

"Mixing water and concentrate to produce soft drinks is classified as manufacturing," the president's report reads. "However, if that activity is performed at a snack bar, it is considered a service."

The report does not recommend that burger-flippers be counted alongside factory workers.

Instead, it concludes that the fuzziness of the manufacturing definition is problematic, because policies ? like, for example, a tax credit for manufacturers ? may miss their target if the definition is overly broad or narrow.

But reclassifying fast food workers as manufacturing employees could have other advantages for the administration.

It would offset somewhat the ongoing loss of manufacturing jobs in national employment statistics. Since the month President Bush was inaugurated, the economy has lost about 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. That continues a long-term trend.

And the move would make the growth in service sector jobs, some of which pay low wages, more appealing. According to government figures, since January 2001 the economy has generated more than 600,000 new service-providing jobs.

The annual economic report ? most of which consists of charts and statistics ? has been the focus of unusual scrutiny this year, perhaps reflecting the presidential campaign and concern about the lack of job creation despite an ongoing recovery.

The report first touched off a furor with a statement regarding the "outsourcing" of U.S. jobs overseas, where wages are lower.

"When a good or service is produced at lower cost in another country, it makes sense to import it rather than to produce it domestically. This allows the United States to devote its resources to more productive purposes," the report read.

The statement, which reflects standard economic theory about the efficiencies of trade, was denounced by Democrats and Republicans alike.

"These people, what planet do they live on?" asked Democratic presidential candidate and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

Even Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert wrote to the White House protesting at the claim.

The president's top economic adviser and the lead author of the report, Gregory Mankiw, replied to Hastert that "My lack of clarity left the wrong impression that I praised the loss of U.S. jobs."

Critics of the White House also seized on a chart in the report that suggested the administration expects 2.6 million new jobs by the end of the year.

"I've got a feeling this report was prepared by the same people who brought us the intelligence on Iraq," said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

The White House insisted the figure was just an estimate.

?MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,485
161
63
Bowling Green Ky
Thanks Auspice
While its looks a bit slanted I believe in the adage ,where there's smoke there's fire, so would say the possibilty of cooking the books is probable.

Been reading a bit on the issue of world court and doesn't look like there was a choice in matter--I am more concerned on what I am seeing in the North Korea arena. If Bush gives in and gives monetary aid to NK on a promise to give up nukes I'll have severe case of the red ass. We found out once how stupid that idea was and to not learn from mistake would moronic.

What I hate about election years from both sides is compromises they make for votes.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
At Lowes, Home Depot, Wall Mart. The folks that shake your hand and say welcome at the front door. Those are mfg jobs. You must be able to breath and talk at same time.
Korea. Back to same thing. It's what last 3/4 presidents have done. You could see this comeing after the tough talk was over.
 

spibble spab

NEOCON
Forum Member
Apr 16, 2004
657
0
0
47
Concord, Michigan
But it is a court of last resort and will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves, a condition proponents say makes it highly unlikely an American would be prosecuted

this news info taken from auspice's post lead me to believe that the presidents move was more for world politics but to be honest i dont know that much about the whole thing. i skimmed
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
i could care less about what politicians say "might or might not happen" or what is "likely to happen"


I say this.....I KNOW what will happen

there will now come a day when US troops and maybe even citizens will now be under jurisdiction of the "World Court".....

this is what happens when you start entering foreign agreements as strictly forbidden by the Constitution.....

Bush should be ashamed of himself....we do not need France and other strong countries to push us around
 

Penguinfan

Thread banned
Forum Member
Dec 5, 2001
10,393
190
0
Vanished into vortex
Mjolnir said:
i doubt our president will let the court do anything to us.

It is beconing increasingly obvious this man is capable of anything and everything. It is beyond me how anyone can vote for him a second time.

Penguinfan
 

ctownguy

Life is Good
Forum Member
Jul 27, 2000
3,065
16
0
SoCal
Right penguin, please don't take this wrong as I'm not trying to start anything with you, but to answer your point.

I'm not thrilled at some of the things this President has done, but definitely agree with him more than not, but that being said with only 2 choices I can not for the life of me see how a conservative or even a moderate could possible entertain the thought of voting for kerry and his agenda for the country. His economic views are those of the left wing extreme and that is nothing short of socialism and I will never vote for that no matter what else he stands for.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, in this country unless you are filthy rich like the hollywood types where they can afford to be elitists we should be able to keep as much money as possible in our own pockets and believe me the democrats have NEVER EVER WENT DOWN THAT ROAD EXCEPT FOR JFK WHO WAS THE LAST DEMOCRAT WHO HAD A CONSERVATIVE VIEW FISCALLY FOR THE COUNTRY.

With only 2 realistic choices it has to be Bush not kerry and his minions like kennedy,dashle and michael the big fat stupid white man moore.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
i don`t see how

i don`t see how

anyone in this country can want any international body deciding anything for our government or it`s citizens....


the u.n. is a mess...rife with corruption.....and i wouldn`t trust any world court regarding anything american.....not with all the anti-american bias around the world...

everything`s political....there is no altruism...or justice....it`s not about doing the right thing...

right now in the sudan,there is genocide taking place....right under kofi anan`s nose....the radical sharia muslims are basically exterminating the western sudanese who don`t subscribe to the radical taliban like religious law of the sharia.....

30,000 dead already.......predictions are that this will easily hit as high as 500,000 deaths...

another rwanda on anan`s watch..another cambodia.....this has been going on for over a year....nothing`s been done....

and it`s not the u.s.`s fault....we already provide far more aid to sudan than any country on the face of the earth...

why hasn`t the u.n. stepped in?....

the reason is because the member states, many of these thuggish governments who belong, control in large ways voting blocks in the u.n....and anan knows who butters his bread...... he knows that if he rocks the boat too much they will not keep him by unanimous acclamation as they did last time.


the organization of islamic states, along with russia,china and european countries who have oil interests in sudan, are trying to cover this up. ....so,many countries could vote against anan keeping his cushy job,if he took action that they didn`t like in sudan....

sound familiar?.....

all i`m saying is that it`s absolutely ludicrous to leave the fate of any american....even criminals.... in the hands of international justice....
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top