----- 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
==^================================================================

Reply via email to