I don't understand why

we must honor this Presidents "executive orders" or his "signing statements"or any legislation he signs....when he refuses to honor the Constitution, the Geneva Convention, the Bill of Rights or even the Declaration of Independence.....

by Susan Nelsen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 252 comments) on Wednesday, October 3, 2007 at 1:13:42 PM
 

Stolen myths

Zoroastrian myths pre-date the Greeks and the desert religions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity and contain many elements that have obviously been borrowed by later peoples.

The question remains however: why do modern people still cling to the idea of a heavenly avenger?  Many religious leaders including Christ have rejected this vengeful spirit....to little effect.

by Laudyms (0 articles, 759 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 378 comments) on Wednesday, October 3, 2007 at 1:59:01 PM
 

Off the Hook? Not QUITE yet

WITH ALL DUE REPECT KAREN FISH:

I do not think Bush is off the hook. Even after resigning one year must pass before the complete culpablity is rescinded and the war began months short of that time. Further, the rest of the world can prove Expost facto and premeditated withdrawal with prejudice. In addition, it would not be difficult for a group of nations to prove the plan to attack was in process before the resignation. The trick would be if the USA would givethe Bushites up. Below are the pertinanet Articles of the ROME STATUTE displaying his continued culpability. Moreover there are also a variety of debates by other nation into the same argument I would make were I porosecuting the case and many other proofs of culpability.

More than that, ROME STATUTE or no, the world could still go afgter him just as he is going after Bin Ladin. More? A decision by other nations or even our own, using the same expost facto and other prosecutorial tools could go after the Bushites. That is one reason why many of us believe the Bushites will attempt to declare Martial Law after feigning an attack against America themselves using either mercenaries or their allged partner in crime Bib Ladin himself.

This Date in History: Invasion of Iraq

This Date in History: Invasion of Iraq, , March 19, 2003: American and British ground forces invade Iraq via Kuwait in the second.
atheism.about.com/b/a/071702.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

RESIGNING FROM THE ROME STATUTE IS NOT THE END OF CULPABILITY
The aftermath of the Buishite self-incriminating arguments after the fact dispaly his fear of culpability and will help incriminate him at some point.

United States President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ('Rome Statute') on December 31 December 2000, the last day that the Rome Statute was open for signature. Shortly after the Bush Administration entered office and just before the 1 July 2002 entry into force of the Rome Statute, US President George W. Bush "nullified" the Clinton signature on 6 May 2002. Since 2002, the United States has launched a full-scale multi-pronged campaign against the International Criminal Court, claiming that the ICC may initiate politically-motivated prosecutions against US nationals.

For an overview of the United States' opposition toward the ICC, please consult our factsheet on this issue.

This section provides information, analysis and documents on these US efforts to undermine the Court, including:

Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs)
As part of its efforts, the Bush administration has been approaching countries around the world seeking to conclude Bilateral Immunity Agreements, purportedly based on Article 98 of the Rome Statute, excluding its citizens and military personnel from the jurisdiction of the Court. These agreements prohibit the surrender to the ICC of a broad scope of persons including current or former government officials, military personnel, and US employees (including contractors) and nationals. These agreements, which in some cases are reciprocal, do not include an obligation by the US to subject those persons to investigation and/or prosecution.

Many governmental, legal and non-governmental experts have concluded that the bilateral agreements being sought by the US government are contrary to international law and the Rome Statute. This section provides legal analyses, a list of signatories of these agreements, and other useful documents on BIAs.

Below are the end of Article 126 and all of article 127

2. For each State ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to this Statute after the deposit of the 60th instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, the Statute shall enter into force on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

Article 127Article 127
Withdrawal

1. A State Party may, by written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, withdraw from this Statute. The withdrawal shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the notification, unless the notification specifies a later date.

2. A State shall not be discharged, by reason of its withdrawal, from the obligations arising from this Statute while it was a Party to the Statute, including any financial obligations which may have accrued. Its withdrawal shall not affect any cooperation with the Court in connection with criminal investigations and proceedings in relation to which the withdrawing State had a duty to cooperate and which were commenced prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective, nor shall it prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which was already under consideration by the Court prior to the date on which the withdrawal became effective.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1310 comments) on Wednesday, October 3, 2007 at 4:58:25 PM
 

Ratification

The United States never ratified the Rome Statute and therefore President Bush is immune from it. However, you raise many helpful and interesting points. If the treaty was never ratified, given official sanction, and if the President has always been immune from it, and he unsigned the non binding signature of President Clinton, why is he running around the world getting countries to agree not to deliver Americans to the court?  

by Karen Fish (55 articles, 12 quicklinks, 28 diaries, 52 comments) on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 8:15:54 AM
 

Immunized?

However he is counting on not being sent to the Hague by his own countrymen. What better way to dispose of a traitor then to have him tried, convicted and sentenced by an international  court thereby reliving the courts of the homeland from being involved. Also the U.S. could attack anyone they want but in this case they would be attacking the EU not the Netherlands. Look what happened when they attacked a poor third world country? Do you think they are foolish enough to attack 300 million people? Oh, sorry of course they are.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 967 comments) on Thursday, October 4, 2007 at 2:43:07 PM