Has anyone been following events involving the passage of the 1998 Rome Treaty in the U.N., which created the International Criminal Court (ICC)? The Washington Times offers a good synopsis: US Withdraws from Treaty on International Criminal Court

I find the idea of an international court troubling. I don't like the idea that our leaders could be brought up on war crimes charges at the discretion of other nations.

The ICC disenfranchises Americans. For example, there was talk that Clinton and his aides could have been brought up on war crimes charges for a 1995 military offensive in Croatia (see the Times again: Balkans Tribunal Turns to Clinton).

Only American citizens have any business charging our president with any crime. Section IV of Article II of the Constitution clearly states: Further it is solely up to the House of Representatives to impeach the President and solely up to the Senate to try the impeachment.

What would be the point of voting for our representatives if they were powerless to do their job because the ICC came in and superceded their authority?

I am pleased that the President refused to sign the treaty and that congress supports him.

While I’m of the mindset that any charges being brought up against Clinton is a good thing, the whole idea of the ICC is ridiculous. How many Americans died so that no other nation could tell us what to do? We are a independent and should never be under subject of another authority. Besides the people who make up that court are all American hating anti-Semites. Why should we listen to a bunch of bigots.

Somehow, Clinton got it in his head that giving our sovereignty to Europeans was a great idea. What an *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.

Can I call him an *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***? Well, anyone who gives up power to cheese eating surrender monkeys (The French) and people who wear wooden shoes (The Dutch) is an *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.

While I don’t think Mike wants us using that word I do agree with you. Clinton wanted to insure that his vacationing to Europe would be in style so he teamed up with his socialist buddies in Europe and just like you said, gave them our sovereignty.

Since you brought up the French or the frogs as I like to call them, I thought I’d add my two cents.
Not only did they surrender at the first sign of war during WWII, but when American entered the war we had to FIGHT the French before we could get to the Germans.
Another thing is that more anti-american protest occur in France then in all arab nations combined. Then again I’d be *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** if I ate snails and had to wear one of those berets too.

Anything they say on prime-time network tv should be fine.

All I'm asking is that you respect others, and always keep in mind that kids may be reading your post.

No "F" word. Replacements like "wtf"? Fine.

No "S" word. Use shoot, ship, spit, what ever, but no "S" word.

No "a-hole". Use "a-hole", but don't write out the whole word. The kids can ask their parents what it stands for. Call someone an "*** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***" all you like, just don't call other members one.

No slang for sexual organs. It's just not appropriate.

No descriptions of sexual acts. "bj" is fine, but don't spell it out.

No calling someone a "b", but you can "bitch" about something.

I know, these rules are not concrete.

What is concrete, though, is that you are required to be relatively polite.

I'm not going to ban anyone for swearing, but I will request they edit their post if it's offensive/crude.

But then again, you all should know better than to swear.

Please read this post for more information on my position.

Mike

Lemme revive this debate: a lawyer was debating Bill O'Reilly over the detention of POW's. His argument: if we do not try them in US courts, we should HAND THEM OVER TO THE ICC. I can't say much other than: if the international community is so concerned with the war, GET INVOLVED.

Let's put it this way, if most of the nations in UN were one big collective member of this board, Mike & I would be telling them that they are nothing but name-calling complainers who can't suppport their arguments nor do they come up with logical, negotiable solutions.

Lately, I've taken a liking to the UK. I used to have problems with their colonialism, but I have changed my mind since the Eleventh of September. I'll post a poem done by Rudyard Kipling to emphasize that point.