Proposal for new law in America

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by johnny: DON'T worry about it dude, whatever it is, it's bullshit.

Why? I have yet to see a confirmation about it being false. It's been news in our counry for days now, I'd say that if it was really fake, there should have been some official denials by now.

[Grojlach]

Gotsha. Here is the bill in question, taken from this site:

SEC. 2007. PROHIBITION OF UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO PARTIES TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. (a) PROHIBITION OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE- Subject to subsections (b) and (c), and effective 1 year after the date on which the Rome Statute enters into force pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, no United States military assistance may be provided to the government of a country that is a party to the International Criminal Court. (b) NATIONAL INTEREST WAIVER- The President may, without prior notice to Congress, waive the prohibition of subsection (a) with respect to a particular country if he determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that it is important to the national interest of the United States to waive such prohibition. (c) ARTICLE 98 WAIVER- The President may, without prior notice to Congress, waive the prohibition of subsection (a) with respect to a particular country if he determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that such country has entered into an agreement with the United States pursuant to Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the International Criminal court from proceeding against United States personnel present in such country. (d) EXEMPTION- The prohibition of subsection (a) shall not apply to the government of-- (1) a NATO member country; (2) a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand); or (3) Taiwan. SEC. 2008. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT. (a) AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court. (b) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED- The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons: (1) Covered United States persons. (2) Covered allied persons. (3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government. (c) AUTHORIZATION OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE- When any person described in subsection (b) is arrested, detained, investigated, prosecuted, or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court, the President is authorized to direct any agency of the United States Government to provide-- (1) legal representation and other legal assistance to that person (including, in the case of a person entitled to assistance under section 1037 of title 10, United States Code, representation and other assistance in the manner provided in that section); (2) exculpatory evidence on behalf of that person; and (3) defense of the interests of the United States through appearance before the International Criminal Court pursuant to Article 18 or 19 of the Rome Statute, or before the courts or tribunals of any country. (d) BRIBES AND OTHER INDUCEMENTS NOT AUTHORIZED- This section does not authorize the payment of bribes or the provision of other such incentives to induce the release of a person described in subsection (b). SEC. 2009. ALLIANCE COMMAND ARRANGEMENTS. (a) REPORT ON ALLIANCE COMMAND ARRANGEMENTS- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President should transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a report with respect to each military alliance to which the United States is party-- (1) describing the degree to which members of the Armed Forces of the United States may, in the context of military operations undertaken by or pursuant to that alliance, be placed under the command or operational control of foreign military officers subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court because they are nationals of a party to the International Criminal Court; and (2) evaluating the degree to which members of the Armed Forces of the United States engaged in military operations undertaken by or pursuant to that alliance may be exposed to greater risks as a result of being placed under the command or operational control of foreign military officers subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. (b) DESCRIPTION OF MEASURES TO ACHIEVE ENHANCED PROTECTION FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President should transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a description of modifications to command and operational control arrangements within military alliances to which the United States is a party that could be made in order to reduce any risks to members of the Armed Forces of the United States identified pursuant to subsection (a)(2). (c) SUBMISSION IN CLASSIFIED FORM- The report under subsection (a), and the description of measures under subsection (b), or appropriate parts thereof, may be submitted in classified form. SEC. 2010. WITHHOLDINGS. Funds withheld from the United States share of assessments to the United Nations or any other international organization during any fiscal year pursuant to section 705 of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 (as enacted by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-113; 113 Stat. 1501A-460), are authorized to be transferred to the Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance Account of the Department of State. SEC. 2011. APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 2004 AND 2006 TO EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITIES. (a) IN GENERAL- Sections 2004 and 2006 shall not apply to any action or actions with respect to a specific matter involving the International Criminal Court taken or directed by the President on a case-by-case basis in the exercise of the President's authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States under article II, section 2 of the United States Constitution or in the exercise of the executive power under article II, section 1 of the United States Constitution. (b) NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS- (1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 15 days after the President takes or directs an action or actions described in subsection (a) that would otherwise be prohibited under section 2004 or 2006, the President shall submit a notification of such action to the appropriate congressional committees. A notification under this paragraph shall include a description of the action, a determination that the action is in the national interest of the United States, and a justification for the action. (2) EXCEPTION- If the President determines that a full notification under paragraph (1) could jeopardize the national security of the United States or compromise a United States law enforcement activity, not later than 15 days after the President takes or directs an action or actions referred to in paragraph (1) the President shall notify the appropriate congressional committees that an action has been taken and a determination has been made pursuant to this paragraph. The President shall provide a full notification under paragraph (1) not later than 15 days after the reasons for the determination under this paragraph no longer apply. (c) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this section shall be construed as a grant of statutory authority to the President to take any action. SEC. 2012. NONDELEGATION. The authorities vested in the President by sections 2003 and 2011(a) may not be delegated by the President pursuant to section 301 of title 3, United States Code, or any other provision of law. The authority vested in the President by section 2005(c)(3) may not be delegated by the President pursuant to section 301 of title 3, United States Code, or any other provision of law to any official other than the Secretary of Defense, and if so delegated may not be subdelegated. SEC. 2013. DEFINITIONS. As used in this title and in section 706 of the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001: (1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `appropriate congressional committees' means the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. (2) CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION- The term `classified national security information' means information that is classified or classifiable under Executive Order 12958 or a successor Executive order. (3) COVERED ALLIED PERSONS- The term `covered allied persons' means military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally (including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand), or Taiwan, for so long as that government is not a party to the International Criminal Court and wishes its officials and other persons working on its behalf to be exempted from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. (4) COVERED UNITED STATES PERSONS- The term `covered United States persons' means members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government, for so long as the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court. (5) EXTRADITION- The terms `extradition' and `extradite' mean the extradition of a person in accordance with the provisions of chapter 209 of title 18, United States Code, (including section 3181(b) of such title) and such terms include both extradition and surrender as those terms are defined in Article 102 of the Rome Statute. (6) INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT- The term `International Criminal Court' means the court established by the Rome Statute. (7) MAJOR NON-NATO ALLY- The term `major non-NATO ally' means a country that has been so designated in accordance with section 517 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. (8) PARTICIPATE IN ANY PEACEKEEPING OPERATION UNDER CHAPTER VI OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS OR PEACE ENFORCEMENT OPERATION UNDER CHAPTER VII OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS- The term `participate in any peacekeeping operation under chapter VI of the charter of the United Nations or peace enforcement operation under chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations' means to assign members of the Armed Forces of the United States to a United Nations military command structure as part of a peacekeeping operation under chapter VI of the charter of the United Nations or peace enforcement operation under chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations in which those members of the Armed Forces of the United States are subject to the command or operational control of one or more foreign military officers not appointed in conformity with article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States. (9) PARTY TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT- The term `party to the International Criminal Court' means a government that has deposited an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession to the Rome Statute, and has not withdrawn from the Rome Statute pursuant to Article 127 thereof. (10) PEACEKEEPING OPERATION UNDER CHAPTER VI OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS OR PEACE ENFORCEMENT OPERATION UNDER CHAPTER VII OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS- The term `peacekeeping operation under chapter VI of the charter of the United Nations or peace enforcement operation under chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations' means any military operation to maintain or restore international peace and security that-- (A) is authorized by the United Nations Security Council under chapter VI or VII of the charter of the United Nations; and (B) is paid for from assessed contributions of United Nations members that are made available for peacekeeping or peace enforcement activities. (11) ROME STATUTE- The term `Rome Statute' means the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on July 17, 1998. (12) SUPPORT- The term `support' means assistance of any kind, including financial support, transfer of property or other material support, services, intelligence sharing, law enforcement cooperation, the training or detail of personnel, and the arrest or detention of individuals. (13) UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE- The term `United States military assistance' means-- (A) assistance provided under chapter 2 or 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.); or (B) defense articles or defense services furnished with the financial assistance of the United States Government, including through loans and guarantees, under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763). SEC. 2014. REPEAL OF LIMITATION. The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002 (division A of Public Law 107-117) is amended by striking section 8173. This Act may be cited as the `2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response To Terrorist Attacks on the United States'. Passed the House of Representatives May 24, 2002. Attest: Clerk. 107th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 4775 AN ACT Making supplemental appropriations for further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on the United States for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

[ 06-09-2002, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Dreamer128]

Thanks Groj.

SEC. 2008. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

[Calaethis Dragonsbane]

I personally think that this is very disturbing. Perhaps it would be best if EVERY country left each other alone. never going to happen though. A question: if America 'can' or 'is allowed' to invade holland, which country which join their list next?

I honestly believe we're going to destroy ourseleves though war if we are not careful...

[Ar-Cunin]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: Thanks Groj. quote: SEC. 2008. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

[/QUOTE]yes - although a full scale invasion is extremely unlikely - a small commando-raid can definately be counted as a possibility.

Lets face it - this bill is a result of american paranoia - that this court will be used by hostile counties to get back at USA, by falsely accusing its citizens of warcrimes or crimes against humanity.

This court isn't located in som banana-republik somewhere - it is staffed by professional legal personsel that intend to uphold the law - not cater to interest-groups and their view of justice.

[Earthdog]

Just my opinion here, not likely that the bill would ever be passed but if it were it would be another meaningless law.

All this law would be saying is that "the US government does NOT recognise the government trying the US Citizens in question. If neccssary we will attempt to rescue them."

In both cases this will never happen. The Bill WILL NOT be passed into LAW. secondly, The US would not invade a NATO ALLY for the sake of a nameless sergeant who supposedly committed a war crime.

For the US to invade a country it requires alot more than just one person being accused of a crime.

The reason the US is invading Afghanistan is multifold. They know the terrorist network that is centered there. The Governement is not the legally ruling governemnt elected by its citizens.

No matter how some people may dislike the US governement being in Afghanistan, the US has a SOLID LEGITEMATE REASON for being there, killing terrorists is just an added bonus.

And if anyone is wondering, most of he Australians Ive spoken with are perfectly happy and willing to let the US Government do what it wants with the Afghani prisoners that htey catch. In particular many Aussies would like to see the WHITE AUSTRALIAN MUSLIM CONVERT who fought for the Al Queda network HUNG BY HIS NARDS for violating everything that FREEDOM stands for.

Now who is the war criminal??? Should White Aussie muslim convert be tried for TREASON>>>??? After all, his nation is at WAR with the people he swore to defend with his life.

When do the War Crimes Trials begin on this case?

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Yes of course it is bob, but unfortunately those are merely words.

Not trying to be impertenant here but...umm who is Bob? [img]smile.gif[/img]

As for the rest, I need to do some reading today on this proposed bill. As for the US invading the Netherlands, thats about as likely as me having snow on my porch today. I guess there is some kind of bill being looked at, and even if it passes all three parts of our government, I cannot believe it will ever be acted on. But stranger things have happened.

P.S. Im following through on my promise to call my congress man...altho I may change it to writing...we will see how hard it is to get one his people to answer the phone.

[Melusine]

Actually Earthdog, I think you're right. I don't think the US would 'invade' us, even if they manage to get the bill passed. And even so, the word invasion is a bit awkwardly chosen, it evokes pictures of American soldiers roaming the streets here and confiscating our stuff [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]
If it happened that we held an American war criminal and the US refuses to recognise the authority of the International Court, then I think both sides would try to TALK first and see if a compromise can be reached. Since the countries of the Western World are pretty dependent upon each other, they wouldn't want to risk pissing each other off if there is a better solution. Sure there are disagreements all the time, but I doubt any leader would be crazy enough to take it further than words.
Still, if the bill is passed I would find that very disturbing. It's about the principle more than about any realistic situations it might cause.

Originally posted by MagiK: P.S. Im following through on my promise to call my congress man...altho I may change it to writing...we will see how hard it is to get one his people to answer the phone.[/QB]

They never do answer their phones, not here at least.
I always write letters to my M.P,
Not that he ever does anything mind you, since he’s a Tory.

[johnny]

Originally posted by Ar-Cunin: quote: Originally posted by Dreamer128: Thanks Groj. quote: SEC. 2008. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.

[/QUOTE]yes - although a full scale invasion is extremely unlikely - a small commando-raid can definately be counted as a possibility.

Lets face it - this bill is a result of american paranoia - that this court will be used by hostile counties to get back at USA, by falsely accusing its citizens of warcrimes or crimes against humanity.

This court isn't located in som banana-republik somewhere - it is staffed by professional legal personsel that intend to uphold the law - not cater to interest-groups and their view of justice.[/QUOTE]a small commando raid ? Don't you think you saw too many sylvester stallone and chuck norris movies ? They have guns here too you know and i'm prety sure they open fire on anyone who violates our territory. Just hope this crap isn't going to be necesary.