----- Original Message -----
From: al winslow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: {W&P} SV: VB: [actionnow] Digest Number 831
>
>
> Claes Persson wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 6:28 AM
> > Subject: Re: {W&P} VB: [actionnow] Digest Number 831
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 5/12/02 5:18:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >
> >
> > From: "Paul Tifford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > Passage of any anti-ICC legislation at this point would be
> > > unnecessary and provocative, rubbing salt in the wounds of
> > > our allies, who already are frustrated by the Bush
> > > unsigning. Such unprecedented and reactionary decisions by
> > > US leadership undermine the essential alliances forged in
> > > the war against terrorism and anger voters who want to
> > > remain engaged in the international community.
> > >
> > > This is the first time a treaty has been "unsigned" and by
> > > so the U.S. is turning its back to its closest allies and
> > > friends. This creates a precedent that is contrary to U.S.
> > > national interests and will undermine the credibility of the
> > > signature of future United States presidents.
> >
> >
> > =====
> > Ahem! ... This Tifford must be living on another planet! Blaming
> > everything on President Bush and never once mentioning the fact that the
> > majority of the US Congress, both Republicans AND Democrats, are against
> > this treaty and have been from the start.
> >
> > Lawana
> >
> > Do you really mean that President Bush has not the final resposibiliy
> > for this and that asking for a change of that stand is to be directed to
> > someone else? Who? A clerk in some distant departement?
> >
> > Claes
> > §( :8-)
>
> ---------------------
>
> The Supreme Law of the USA is the Constitution of the United States. It
> lays out the exact responsibility for treaty ratification. The
> Constitution gives final ratification power to the US Senate. Each of
> the 50 states elects two senators in completely democratic elections.
> Senators are beholden to the people and serve the people in a very
> direct way.
>
> President Clnton, though he supported the ICC, chose not to submit it to
> the Senate for a vote because the Senate had earlier indicated in a
> non-binding vote that it would not ratify it without substantial
> changes.
>
> Some senators, mostly Democrats, favored an ICC but not in the exact
> form it has.
>
> President Bush opposes the ICC and has also chosen not to submit it to
> the Senate for a vote. There's no chance it would pass in its present
> form, given the earlier expression of Senate opposition that's on
> record.
>
>
> Al Winslow
> USA
>
--Well, it's a pitty, but it's your choise and you have to live with it.
Claes Persson
SWEDEN
___________________________________________________________
Check out http://clik.to/sf for other lists to join.
A93MR48T18
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dhdK.b1tdRU
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
