Bill S. 1346 is fast moving forward and so is the Obama world order. An order in which we are the world and they are us….kumbaya and all that crap.
The bill is all about the left’s thirst for Cheney/Bushitler blood and in the end will diminish are already diminished status as a world power.
Introduced by Democratic Senators Durbin, Cardin, Feingold, Feinstein, and Leahy in June ‘09 and considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee May 6th, the Crimes Against Humanity Act would more than just ”[open] the door to demands of reciprocity from other nations that seek to prosecute US military personnel and government officials for alleged criminal acts committed anywhere in the world” by establishing “universal jurisdiction,” as Heritage argues.
This piece of legislation would also:
- domesticate all crimes against humanity as defined by the UN – including terrorism on American soil — making these crimes punishable by federal prosecutors and judges
- afford reciprocity in other countries, subjecting our military and elected officials to – not just The Hague — but to the ”Crimes Against Humanity” laws of other countries
- tie the hands of our elected officials and military, as every plan of action to defend our country must comply “with all of the foreign nation’s applicable laws“
- limit any foreseeable way for America to ever utilize its nuclear arsenal in retaliation to strikes against our homeland
- exacerbate instability in the Middle East by signaling the non-existant threat of US retaliation in defending allies (such as Great Britain or Israel)
Not only would we not retaliate, we could not. Our nuclear posture would be eliminated by institutionalizing international law.
This would be the domino effect for nuclear disarmament, absent a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, through the pretense of protecting human rights.
Under Obama, the nuclear option is off the table for America, as would be expected for our allies. Under this scenario, a swift end to World War II would not have been possible, without subsequent prosecution for war crimes. We would have been standing right next to Hitler’s men at The Hague.
And just as Obama has done over the last year, when he can’t get his way via Congress he just goes about it another way. This one is no different, I mean who needs Senate ratification of the treaty when this bill will do it all on its own without the need for a 2/3rd’s vote.
All the hub bub about mirandizing terrorists? Well now every terrorist across the globe would have those US citizen rights. US leaders and soldiers will be subject to prosecution in other countries.
The International Criminal Court will trump our Supreme Court.
Last week Spanish authorities charged Baltazar Garzon—an investigative judge famous for crusades against foreign leaders—with abuse of his authority. Mr. Garzon will stand trial for opening an investigation into atrocities committed under Franco’s dictatorship, which ended in 1975. He won’t go to jail; at worst, he’ll be stripped of his powers for a period of time. But whatever the outcome, this trial marks the end of a failed experiment in international justice.~~~
Universal jurisdiction arose centuries ago to give states a means for fighting pirates. In recent years, idealistic lawyers have tried to convert it into an all-purpose instrument for promoting international justice. But supporters of this law turned a blind eye to the diverse and often incompatible notions of justice that exist across countries. Everyone can agree to condemn arbitrary detention, for example, but in practice people disagree about what the term means. Whether an amnesty should be issued so that a transition can be made to democracy (as in Chile or as in Spain), or exceptions to some rules should be made for the sake of national security are not questions for a foreign judge.
When Mr. Garzon indicted Pinochet, riots erupted in Chile. No matter, thundered the champions of international law: Let justice be done though the heavens fall. But when Mr. Garzon turned his sights on his own country, the gates of justice slammed shut. Spain’s establishment was not willing to risk unraveling its own transition to democracy, and rightly so. But then on what grounds should Spanish courts pass judgment on Chile?~~~
The ICC’s small group of employees are supposed to pick and choose what to investigate among an infinite variety of international criminal activity all over the world. With limited resources, it must select only a few crimes for its attention. When domestic prosecutors make these choices, they rely on common values and must ultimately answer to the people. But because nothing like this exists at the global level, the ICC’s choices are inherently political.~~~
One cannot solve the perennial problem of “who will guard the guardians” by handing over authority to prosecutors and courts. But that is what the universal jurisdiction agenda boils down to. Mr. Garzon’s comeuppance should be a warning to those who place their faith in the ICC to right the world’s wrongs.
Hey, some nutcase is fixated on global warming….bring it up as crimes against humanity!
A campaign to declare the mass destruction of ecosystems an international crime against peace – alongside genocide and crimes against humanity – is being launched in the UK.
The proposal for the United Nations to accept “ecocide” as a fifth “crime against peace”, which could be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), is the brainchild of British lawyer-turned-campaigner Polly Higgins.
The radical idea would have a profound effect on industries blamed for widespread damage to the environment like fossil fuels, mining, agriculture, chemicals and forestry.
Supporters of a new ecocide law also believe it could be used to prosecute “climate deniers” who distort science and facts to discourage voters and politicians from taking action to tackle global warming and climate change.
You see where this is going right?
And Obama’s naiveté will bring us all down with him.