USA! Opens Door To Invasion Of Netherlands

Quoting from an article on Lew Rockwell yesterday;

“It was not long, however, before the public mood in Europe began to turn. A pivotal factor was openly voiced U.S. threats in a law that had been passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the U.S. Congress that could eventually result in an invasion of the Netherlands by United States army forces.

When this was learned outrage was expressed not only within the Dutch government, but also among the population of the country. According to the law, if it should ever happen that American citizens are brought before the International Criminal Court (ICC) and accused at The Hague, Washington would exercise the preemptive right to invade the country in order to prevent prosecution.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/no_author/has-germany-finally-had-it/

.

The above article link references an article in the German magazine, Spiegel Online. It’s in German, and there’s no English version. So, let me give you the headline and the summary under the headline.

“US Congress Threatens Netherlands With Invasion: Parliament and Government in the Netherlands are outraged: Both houses of Congress have approved a law that if American citizens are indicted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, even providing for the invasion of NATO partner country.”

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/internationales-strafgericht-us-kongress-droht-niederlanden-mit-invasion-a-200430.html

 

The text of the Act is below.

— most of the verbiage condemns the International Court as illegitimate

— there is no mention of invading the Netherlands.  However, it does consider any trials of Americans “an act of war”.

 

Hey …. I actually like this Act !!  Yes, America passes laws that violate the sovereignty of other countries  (goodbye Swiss banking privacy laws) but that doesn’t mean they should do the same to us.

They want to able to yank any American off American soil and try them in some court in The Hague? Yeah, well, fuck you!!  Why are some conservative blogs up in arms about this? Am I missing something?

============================

============================

American Servicemember and Citizen Protection Act of 2002 (Introduced in House)

HR 4169 IH

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4169
To provide that the International Criminal Court is not valid with respect to the United States, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 11, 2002
Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. BARR of Georgia, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. PETRI, Mr. GOODE, Mr. WAMP, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. KERNS, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. CRANE, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. ROHRABACHER, and Mr. TANCREDO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

——————————————————————————–

A BILL
To provide that the International Criminal Court is not valid with respect to the United States, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `American Servicemember and Citizen Protection Act of 2002′.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) In December 1997, the General Assembly of the United Nations called for the convening of a diplomatic conference in Rome, Italy, from June 15 through July 17, 1998, to adopt a Convention on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court .

(2) Pursuant to this call, the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court convened in Rome, Italy, and on July 17, 1998, proposed the Statute of the International Criminal Court for `ratification, acceptance, or approval’ by the member states of the United Nations.

(3) According to article 127 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court , the Statute of the International Criminal Court shall take effect upon the `ratification, acceptance, or approval’ of 60 member states.

(4) As of April 1, 2002, 57 member states have ratified, accepted, or approved the Statute of the International Criminal Court .

(5) According to articles 12 and 25 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court , the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court shall extend to individual United States citizens even if the United States does not `ratify, accept, or approve’ the Statute of the International Criminal Court .

(6) As of April 1, 2002, the United States Senate has not ratified the Statute of the International Criminal Court , and although a designee of former President William J. Clinton has signed that statute on behalf of the United States, President George W. Bush has indicated that he will not submit the Statute of the International Criminal Court to the United States Senate, as provided for in article II, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

(7) According to article VI of the Constitution of the United States, the Statute of the International Criminal Court , bearing only the signature of a person authorized by the President of the United States, cannot be the supreme law of the land because the statute, since it has not been ratified by the United States Senate pursuant to article II, section 2 of the Constitution, has not been `made under the authority of the United States’.

(8) According to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, no nation may be bound by a treaty to which that nation has not consented; therefore the United States, which has not consented to the Statute of the International Criminal Court in the manner prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, cannot be bound by the Statute of the International Criminal Court even if 60 countries ratify, accept, or approve it.

(9) The Statute of the International Criminal Court is an ultra vires act, wholly unauthorized by the Charter of the United Nations, since it was enacted by a Conference of Diplomats convened by the United Nations General Assembly in contravention of the powers of the United Nations Security Council which, under the Charter of the United Nations, alone has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.

(10) The Statute of the International Criminal Court also contravenes the principle of government only by the consent of the governed that is enshrined in the American national charter, the Declaration of Independence, because the International Criminal Court claims jurisdiction over citizens of the United States without their consent or without the consent of the United States Government.

(11) The Statute of the International Criminal Court also contravenes the principles of separation of powers, federalism, and trial by jury that are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, because the International Criminal Court has been endowed with legislative, executive, and judicial powers and with criminal jurisdiction without regard to the jurisdiction of the United States and the several States.

(12) The International Criminal Court , by design and effect, is an illegitimate court , established contrary to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the American Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States, and as such, puts United States citizens in jeopardy of unlawful and unconstitutional criminal prosecution, with members of the United States Armed Forces placed especially at risk of politically motivated arrests, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonments for acts engaged in for the protection of the sovereignty and independence of the United States.

(13) United States citizens generally, and members of the United States Armed Forces in particular, deserve the full protection of the Constitution of the United States–the very body of law the members of the Armed Forces risk life and limb to protect.

SEC. 3. RESCISSION OF SIGNATURE.

The President of the United States should formally rescind the signature approving the Statute of the International Criminal Court made on behalf of the United States and should take such steps as are necessary to prevent the establishment of the International Criminal Court .

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF FUNDS.

No funds appropriated or otherwise made available by the United States Government for any purpose may be used in any manner for the establishment or operation of the International Criminal Court .

SEC. 5. PROTECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AND UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND NATIONALS.

(a) ACTIONS AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES- Any action taken by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court against any member of the United States Armed Forces shall be considered to be an act of aggression against the United States.

(b) ACTIONS AGAINST UNITED STATES CITIZENS OR NATIONALS- Any action taken by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court against any individual who is a citizen or national of the United States shall be considered to be an offense against the law of nations.

SEC. 6. PENALTIES.

Any person who knowingly violates section 4 shall be fined not more than $50,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Author: Stucky

I'm right, you're wrong. Deal with it.

14
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Tucci78

Well, here’s yet another example of the absolutely “whacky” Dr. Ron Paul insisting on enforcement of the U.S. Constitution to obstruct the enlightened forces of transnational progressivism.

Boy, aren’t we lucky that the wise and responsible establishment of the Republican Party prevented Dr. Paul from even so much as speaking at their national convention in 2012?

TeresaE
TeresaE

@Stuck, I think he was using sarcasm to try to make a point.

I think he may have the wrong article, unless I missed the quotes about Dr. Paul?

And I hope he is using sarcasm, but he should try to remember that this medium is flat, we can’t *hear* inflection, see eyebrows, or know that you are joking – if you are.

Which is why I try to add my /sarc (coding shorthand, sarcasm off) tag if I think it may be vague.

Or, I am way off base and he can come back and tell us both why we are too stupid to understand his message.

Morning Stuck!

TeresaE
TeresaE

Well, I am partially stupid, I see that “Mr. Paul” was listed as one of the senators that brought the bill to the floor.

And the bill is the declaration that we won’t suck international tribunals dick and allow the judgement of our citizens.

Which is kinda ironic seeing as how we are acting as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to other countries citizens.

No wonder we didn’t sign it, we wouldn’t want to dismantle our drone programs or wars to allow an international court to rule over the “crimes” we kill people for.

Tucci78

At 9:27 AM on 28 August, TeresaE writes:

Well, I am partially stupid, I see that “Mr. Paul” was listed as one of the senators that brought the bill to the floor.”

Not “senators.” The bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by “Mr. Paul” (which, in the Britspeak convention, is okay if you’re talking about a knife-artist; ’cause Dr. Paul – being an ACOG guy – would always sit with the rest of the surgical side in any hospital medical staff meeting).

Was there another U.S. representative in 2002 named “Mr. Paul”? No? Well, then….

GilbertS
GilbertS

No, I think if you read the law, what they’re saying isn’t a threat against Belgium. Since this is the International Court, representing the world, the US would have to declare war on the entire world to seek justice.
comment image

TeresaE
TeresaE

Tucci, I don’t bother differentiating between the house and senate, they are both screwing us, so it really doesn’t matter. And most were lawyers and most have been politicians for life. Little to no difference. Representative or Senator, it no longer matters much.

The “Mr. Paul” is because Ron Paul is a doctor, so, it is not “Mr.” it is Dr. Paul.

And, I was sticking up for you once I figured out what you were saying, hence the “stupid” me part.

TeresaE
TeresaE

@Stuck, I did see your smoothie recipe. I need to get a new blade for my smoothie/blender, then I will be in business.

I’ve read lots of good things about them too, haven’t done much. For some reason I’ve never been able to grow aloe/cacti, and I have so many other things available to me that do the same thing.

BUT, I am a firm believer in variety being the wisest health decision, so will be looking to add this to my repertoire. 🙂

Westcoaster
Westcoaster

Personally, I’d like to see Cheney and his band of neo-con torturers stand trial for their war crimes. Doesn’t matter to me if it’s at The Hague. BTW did any of you smart folks know Malaysia held a war tribunal in 2012? http://www.commondreams.org/news/2012/05/13/war-tribunal-finds-bush-cheney-guilty-war-crimes
Could their Malaysia air MH370 (still missing) and MH17 (shot down) problems be payback???

MuckAbout

I have read this post and all the comments on it three -four times.

After careful consideration, considerable analysis of the vast and obviously intelligent foundation (to someone) and peering under every verb and rock there, I cannot figure out what the fuck this whole post is about.

MA

Mr. Chen
Mr. Chen

As I understand it, with a bit of fuzziness, the Germans are critical of the USA for exempting their countrymen from any international war tribunals. Particularly irksome to the Germans who obviously haven’t forgotten their own countrymen were subjected to such tribunals.

Stands to reason that if they were allowed to go forward, it might put a damper on American adventurism.

Tucci78

At 4:57 PM on 28 August, TeresaE had written:

…I don’t bother differentiating between the house and senate, they are both screwing us, so it really doesn’t matter. And most were lawyers and most have been politicians for life. Little to no difference. Representative or Senator, it no longer matters much.

The “Mr. Paul” is because Ron Paul is a doctor, so, it is not “Mr.” it is Dr. Paul.

Here in the USA, we use the honorific “Doctor” for physicians and surgeons alike, but – curiously enough – in Britain, the convention is to call surgeons “Mister” even though they graduate from medical schools with Medicinae Doctor (“M.D.”) degrees.

There’s a history behind it, and insofar as I’ve learned, if you don’t call a Brit cutter “Mr.,” he gets shirty about it.

So in a weird way, it’s kinda legitimate to refer to Ron Paul as “Mr.” because – as I’d observed – he’s an obstetrician/gynecologist (board-certified by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), and both OB and GYN are considered surgical specialties.

His son, Senator Rand Paul, is an ophthalmologist – also a surgeon – so you might in good conscience refer to him as “Mr.” also.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading