From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #121 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Wednesday, April 29 1998 Volume 02 : Number 121 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:06:18 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: Ken Starr's real conflict of interest, CHINA - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 14:17:12 -0500 From: jqp@inxpress.net Subject: CAS: Farah: Kenneth Starr's real conflict of interest not to be used for commercial purposes WorldNetDaily April 27/98 Joseph Farah Kenneth Starr's real conflict of interest - - --------------------------------------------------------------- The vast left-wing conspiracy to protect President Clinton has a new defense strategy. Now that it has effectively neutralized congressional opposition and press criticism, the Clinton attack machine has focused most of its wrath on Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr by suggesting he has a conflict of interest. For once I would like to agree with the defend-Clinton-at-any- cost crowd. Starr does have a conflict of interest. But it's not illusory ties to conservative millionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Rather Starr's conflict is that he has strong links with the same foreign powers suspected of corrupting this administration. There is not a doubt in my mind, given the way Starr has botched his investigation of Clinton every step of the way, that the independent counsel is serving interests other than justice. While Starr is being denounced by Clinton administration officials as a "right-wing extremist," he is, in fact, part of the same insider political establishment that backs Bill Clinton's selling of this country down the Yangtse River. As Strategic Investment reported last year, one of Starr's largest law clients is the China International Trust and Investment Corp., or CITIC, a ministry-level corporation owned by the Chinese government and reporting directly to the State Council of the People's Republic of China. The chairman of CITIC is Wang Jun, who also heads Poly Group Corp., the major arms trading section of the People's Liberation Army. Poly Group was the company caught trying smuggle 2,000 automatic weapons into the United States aboard a China Overseas Shipping Co., or COSCO, vessel last year. This is a conflict far more glaring in its appearance than Starr's connections with American tobacco companies and General Motors. For it is Clinton's relationship with China that is more disturbing and more threatening to the vital national security interests of this country than his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. It's an open secret now that millions of dollars flowed illegally into the Clinton-Gore campaign and into the coffers of the Democratic National Committee from Chinese and other mysterious Asian sources during the 1996 election campaign. Two years later, we can now ask what those dollars may have purchased. The answer is to that question is apparently anything China wanted. For instance, was anyone prosecuted for the attempt to import those automatic weapons into the United States so they could be sold to L.A. street gangs? No. Why not? This administration is hell-bent on denying law-abiding Americans with even semi- automatic weapons. You would think Clinton and company would be outraged that a foreign company would try to smuggle these actual "assault weapons" into the states. Why wasn't there a peep of protest from the White House? Why didn't the federal government make an example of the Poly Group and their collaborators in COSCO? More recently, of course, The New York Times exposed the way the Loral Corp. was cleared personally by the president of any wrongdoing in providing the Chinese with technology that will sharpen the aim of their nuclear missiles targeted on the United States of America. Loral's boss was the largest individual contributor to the DNC in 1996. Remember, this was the administration which came to power criticizing President Bush's all-too-cozy relationship with China. Yet, it quickly adopted Bush's policy of granting "Most Favored Nation" status to the brutes in Beijing. Then there was the decision by the Department of Commerce to reclassify formerly restricted military technology for supercomputers, radiation- resistant computer chips, satellite geo-positioners, submarine and stealth technology, high-tech missile engine tools and more. U.S. companies have been selling all of these items to the Chinese ever since. The China scandal, of course, is one that threatens to cut in bipartisan fashion. Senior politicians from both major political parties serve as unregistered lobbyists for the Chinese government. They include Alexander Haig, Henry Kissinger, Mickey Cantor and Robert Strauss. In addition, some of the nation's largest banks, multinational corporations and financial institutions are promoting even cozier ties with Beijing as a recipe for economic growth over the next decade -- human rights, freedom and national security be damned. So when the left-wing conspiracy theorists ask you why a "right- wing Republican" like Kenneth Starr would hesitate to go for the jugular in his investigation of the president, now you have some answers. ========================================================================== This mailing list is for discussion of Clinton Administration Scandals. If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send electronic mail to majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com. In the message body put: unsubscribe cas - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:41:24 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: Ex-Teamsters official indicted for bribe to Democrats - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- [06] Ex-Teamsters official indicted By Bill Sammon THE WASHINGTON TIMES A federal grand jury indicted the Teamsters' former political director yesterday on charges of giving $1.1 million in union funds to the Democratic Party, the AFL-CIO and liberal advocacy groups so they would launder portions into the re-election campaign of Teamsters President Ron Carey. The indictment was handed up just hours after James P. Hoffa --who blames the money-laundering scheme for his 1996 loss to Mr. Carey -- was cleared by a federal election officer to seek the presidency in a rerun election. William W. Hamilton Jr., who controlled the union's powerful political action committee until his resignation in July, was charged with embezzlement, conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, perjury and making false statements to a federal election officer. If convicted, he faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.5 million in fines. "Bill is innocent of all charges and we look forward to his day in court," said his attorney, Robert Gage. Mr. Hamilton -- a former Planned Parenthood spokesman who once ridiculed Mother Teresa's opposition to abortion in a letter published by The Washington Post -- joined the Teamsters in early 1995, bringing with him a commitment to liberal activism that contrasted sharply with the union's previous support of Presidents Reagan and Bush. "Mr. Hamilton had an expansive and pro-active view of the [Teamsters'] role in politics and in mobilizing its membership for political action, a view shared by Mr. Carey," Barbara Zack Quindel, a former federal election officer, wrote last year. Mr. Hamilton's own records show that he emptied the coffers of the Teamsters' political action committee, known as DRIVE, tapped the general treasury and even secured a $500,000 bank loan so the union could keep giving money to Democrats in the 1996 elections. "We have to recommend to our members, semantics aside, that they vote for Bill Clinton, not Bob Dole," Mr. Hamilton told Teamsters Communications Director Matt Witt in a March 1996 memo. "We ask for and get, on almost a daily basis, help from the Clinton administration for one thing or another. In the absence of a better candidate, it doesn't make sense to complicate our ability to continue doing so." The Clinton administration even agreed to "lean on" railroad executives who might ask union workers for concessions, Mr. Hamilton wrote in another memo. Later in the year, Mr. Hamilton schemed with Carey campaign manager Jere Nash and campaign aides Martin Davis and Michael Ansara to launder union funds into Mr. Carey's re-election bid, the indictment says. He diverted unprecedented sums to the AFL-CIO and liberal advocacy groups -- including Citizen Action, Project Vote and the National Council of Senior Citizens -- all of which kicked back portions of the money into the Carey campaign, prosecutors said. Mr. Hamilton also directed $236,500 to various state Democratic parties in exchange for a $100,000 contribution to the Carey campaign that was to be arranged by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign. The Democrats lined up a donor who sent the check, but the Carey campaign sent it back because the donor was an employer and thus barred by election rules from contributing. Last year, the money-laundering scandal was uncovered by Hoffa aides, including spokesman Richard Leebove, who fed evidence to FBI agents and federal prosecutors. A grand jury was convened and, on April 14, 1997, questioned Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton made "29 false declarations when questioned concerning the [Teamsters'] contributions to Citizen Action and Project Vote, and Hamilton's and Nash's roles in those contributions," the office of U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White in New York said in a statement yesterday. Those declarations are the basis for the perjury charge. On July 29, Mr. Hamilton resigned from the Teamsters, saying he would no longer cooperate with Mrs. White's investigation, which he called "a circus." "I admit to doing everything I could do last year to try to re-elect the president and defeat Newt Gingrich's congressional majority," Mr. Hamilton wrote in his resignation letter to Mr. Carey. "I also did what I could to help you win re-election and continue to reform this union." On Sept. 18, Nash, Davis and Ansara pleaded guilty in the money-laundering scheme and agreed to cooperate in Mrs. White's investigation. The results of the election were nullified and Mr. Carey, who also has been implicated in the scandal, was barred from participating in the rerun election. Yesterday, federal election officer Michael Cherkasky cleared the way for Mr. Hoffa to seek the presidency but fined his campaign for minor fund-raising violations. Mr. Cherkasky also barred Mr. Leebove from working for Teamsters candidates until the rerun election is completed later this year. Mr. Cherkasky said Mr. Leebove made an improper in-kind contribution to the Hoffa campaign by underbilling it by $167,675. Mr. Leebove called the ruling retaliation by the election office, which he said was embarrassed by its failure to detect the money-laundering scandal. Mr. Leebove also said Mr. Cherkasky was seeking personal revenge against him for telling reporters earlier this year that the election officer once accepted questionable campaign donations when he sought unsuccessfully to become district attorney of Westchester County, N.Y. After news reports on the contributions, the New York State Board of Elections began an inquiry. Mr. Cherkasky yesterday denied accepting improper contributions. He also said his punishment of Mr. Leebove was based on evidence, not revenge. =============================================== - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 12:44:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: One (UN) Nation is Clintons politics per Sidney Blumenthal - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Inside Politics News and political dispatches from around the nation By Greg Pierce THE WASHINGTON TIMES One-nation politics Sidney Blumenthal, the White House aide who first divined the vast right-wing conspiracy, apparently outdid himself in a speech last week at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. When a questioner ridiculed his conspiracy ideas, Mr. Blumenthal replied: "Is there a right wing? Absolutely. Is it out to get the president? Absolutely." Boston Globe reporter Peter S. Canellos said Mr. Blumenthal, besides bashing independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr "in fierce terms," took the opportunity to define President Clinton's ideology. Mr. Clinton's purpose is to "create a new social contract for a global economy in which opportunity is widened. ... If there is a name for the Clinton approach as a politics, this is it: one-nation politics," Mr. Blumenthal said. But the presidential adviser warned of "hostile forces that seek to confound and destroy one-nation politics and all that it promises." - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 17:10:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Brad Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Metaksa (fwd) If I thought that arguing our case before the U.N. was appropriate, I'd have to agree that she did a great job. However, by participating in UN fora, we imply that we think the U.N. is legitimate and that it has our approval in its efforts to extend its "global governance" over us. It isn't and it doesn't. I'd feel just as queasy had she argued for our interests before the assembled multitudes of the Aryan Nations or the Taliban. IMNSDHO, of course. bd On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Boyd Kneeland wrote: > Ok, having read that I'm ready to hear from the usual suspects about how > the NRA does not Kick Ass for the gun owners of the world. Thats right, > after hearing Ms. Metaksa "take it to the mountain" I'd like all those > critics who want to dump this astounding (albeit flawed) tool to just raise > their hand here. > Thank you. > > And a BIG thank you to TM for making my membership an honor. I'll enjoy > continuing to work for the FNRA event in Bellevue Wa this friday. I'll be > early to the Washington Libertarian convention (Sat. and Sun) where CLAW > members will hand out copies of this speech and sign up -more- NRA members. > And I'll work late each day at the Washington Arms Collectors show to set > up and photograph the NRA auction. > > Boyd Kneeland, Pres., Council for Legislative Action, Washington. (CLAW) > > > Text of Metaksa speech to UN deleted. > > > > - > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 18:25:31 +0500 From: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Metak > From: Brad > To: roc@lists.xmission.com > Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Metaksa (fwd) > If I thought that arguing our case before the U.N. was appropriate, I'd > have to agree that she did a great job. However, by participating in UN > fora, we imply that we think the U.N. is legitimate and that it has our > approval in its efforts to extend its "global governance" over us. > > It isn't and it doesn't. The UN is sufficiently legitimate that they're willy-nilly in the process of closing down the global small arms markets with resulting major damage to our domestic arms producers. Likewise, they're legitimate enough that they're on the verge of passing resolutions - for now - that will force the US further into the pariah corner in terms of domestic gun ownership. To say that your lack of belief in their "legitimacy" somehow makes Tanya's efforts in that arena irrelevant is akin to sticking your head in the sand, IMO. Personally, I do not believe BATF is a legitimate organization either - but they're the ones I have to send my fees to and the ones whose forms I have to use when I sell a gun. Now, in a perfect world.. *but we ain't in one!* Best, Brad - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:11:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Brad Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Metak On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Brad Alpert wrote: > > > From: Brad > > To: roc@lists.xmission.com > > Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Metaksa (fwd) > > > If I thought that arguing our case before the U.N. was appropriate, I'd > > have to agree that she did a great job. However, by participating in UN > > fora, we imply that we think the U.N. is legitimate and that it has our > > approval in its efforts to extend its "global governance" over us. > > > > It isn't and it doesn't. > > The UN is sufficiently legitimate that they're willy-nilly in the > process of closing down the global small arms markets with resulting > major damage to our domestic arms producers. Likewise, they're > legitimate enough that they're on the verge of passing resolutions - > for now - that will force the US further into the pariah corner in > terms of domestic gun ownership. > > To say that your lack of belief in their "legitimacy" somehow makes > Tanya's efforts in that arena irrelevant is akin to sticking your > head in the sand, IMO. Personally, I do not believe BATF is a > legitimate organization either - but they're the ones I have to send > my fees to and the ones whose forms I have to use when I sell a gun. > > Now, in a perfect world.. > > *but we ain't in one!* > > Best, > > Brad > There are two reasons why I would choose to obey/cooperate with an institution of authority: (1.) Because it is "legitimate" (That is, at least in some vague way, we have granted it authority run our affairs and I want to support it or (2.) because it is sufficiently powerful to compel my behavior The U.S. judicial system might still qualify as an example of #1. As demonstrated at Waco, the BATF meets the second criterion. The BATF is here and you have to deal with them as they command or they will kill you. The U.N. doesn't have that kind of power *yet* and its legitimacy should be opposed so that it doesn't get it. IMHO, of course. Brad - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:46:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Brad Subject: One tiny example why the UN is illegitimate, should be opposed - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Wednesday, April 29, 1998 The New World Information Order Last October, heavily armed NATO "peacekeepers" seized four radio and television transmitters controlled by Bosnian Serbs. The United States and its Western allies are now so proud of their action that they are creating a tribunal with the power to shut down radio and TV stations and punish newspapers engaged in undermining "peace." The NATO forces, which we must remember are under the command of the United Nations, not the United States, say the new powers will be used to stop what they call "poisonous propaganda." Western officials involved in organizing the speech police unit said it would monitor what news organizations publish and broadcast to determine whether they meet "internationally accepted standards." And just what are those standards? Where are they written? What code of ethics will the U.N. enforce? Well, there isn't one, exactly. The New World Information Order is sort of making up the rules as it goes. But news organizations had better be careful, because warnings, fines and revocation of licenses - -- not to mention armed seizure of transmitters, presses and property -- are coming, all in the name of peace, harmony and tranquility. "Basically there's a tradition here of propaganda in the class of Goebbels," explained Simon Haselock, a spokesman for the civilian operations of the "peacekeeping" force. "What we're trying to do is put in place a regime that offers a legal framework that improves and guarantees press freedom. It's not about censorship. This is all pretty groundbreaking." It's groundbreaking, all right -- for a new fascism. I'd like to remind Mr. Haselock that it was Goebbels and his Nazi friends who practiced the fine art of shutting down voices of opposition in the press -- not Europe's liberators. A State Department official who requested anonymity told The New York Times: "There are obvious free-speech concerns, but we need to put in place something to deal with the abuses of the media -- the hate, the racial epithets and ethnic slurs." Doesn't this sound familiar? Wasn't it this administration that, not too long ago, was complaining about "hate radio" right here in the United States? Is there any doubt that if such a plan is deemed effective in Bosnia it will be employed elsewhere by the new global hierarchy? "It is intended that this should take place with sufficient speed to ensure the provision of free, balanced, unbiased and pluralist information prior to the September 1998 elections, thereafter to ensure that Western democratic standards governing the media are permanently embedded," explains a draft charter of the "intervention tribunal," newspeak for thought police. Forgive my skepticism, but isn't the whole concept of Western press freedom based on the notion that people have an inalienable right to express themselves without fear of coercion by government -- be it foreign or domestic? Best of all, guess who's paying for this plan? You've got it. It will cost $2.7 million this year, and your tax dollars will cover the lion's share of the budget. The pseudo-intellectual foundation for this international experiment in the suppression of dangerous ideas was laid out a few months ago in the winter issue of Foreign Affairs, the influential journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. Jamie M. Metzl, a former U.N. human rights officer, threw out the idea that it's time for his old employer to create a special "jam squad" or "independent information intervention unit" that could be dispatched to crisis points around the world, carrying equipment to block "harmful" radio and TV broadcasts. Already, NATO and the U.N. are taking the idea one step further -- employing brute force to shut down newspapers and broadcast operations of the "politically incorrect." Bosnia has long been regarded by the internationalists as a testing ground for the New World Order. It's a laboratory for the most hideous experiments in forcible social engineering. Interestingly, one of the main reasons NATO's international army is enforcing these new curbs on freedom of expression is because of their objections to being characterized as "fascists" by Bosnian Serb propagandists. Well, if you act like fascists, you'd better be prepared to be called fascists. If you can't stand the heat, get out of Bosnia. While this latest misadventure should offer persuasive evidence that Bosnia represents a severely misguided mission, rather it demonstrates just how easy it is to convince some Westerners that freedom is not really a God-given right, but a privilege granted or revoked by force of arms. Joseph Farah is editor of the Internet newspaper WorldNetDaily.com and executive director of the Western Journalism Center, an independent group of investigative reporters. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:06:17 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: Will America Be Caught in Clinton's 'Web'? -- April 1998 (fwd) - ----- Begin Included Message ----- Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 23:15:43 -0500 From: Eagle Forum Subject: Will America Be Caught in Clinton's 'Web'? -- April 1998 Will America Be Caught in Clinton's 'Web'? What Clinton Told the UN President Bill Clinton made a major speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 22, 1997 in which he set forth his hopes for the future. It didn't get much ink then, but it's very important in explaining his world view and how his various foreign policy initiatives mesh together into a consistent plan. Clinton used the metaphor "web," and it is very apt. He described the series of treaties he has signed and sent to the U.S. Senate for ratification as a "web of institutions and arrangements" that has set "the international ground rules for the 21st century," and he urged Americans to support what he called "the emerging international system." Clinton enthusiastically described the treaties which are locking the United States into a network of global entanglements: the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Chemical Weapons Convention, "binding international commitments to protect the environment" (i.e,, the Global Warming Treaty), and the NATO Expansion Treaty. Since Clinton's speech, this rosy picture has been somewhat tarnished. The WTO decision against Eastman Kodak was followed by a layoff of 16,000 employees, people are asking why the Chemical Weapons Treaty doesn't protect us against Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons, and the Global Warming Treaty is being ridiculed as hot air. In his UN speech, Clinton spoke with gusto about what he called "this new global era." He said, "The forces of global integration are a great tide, inexorably wearing away the established order of things. But we must decide what will be left in its wake." All of a sudden it appears that the "established order of things" being washed away is our right to decide how to spend American tax dollars. According to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, global integration requires us to spend tens of billions of U.S. dollars to bail out the bad loans made by the big U.S. banks to corrupt Asian regimes. "Before the century ends," Clinton told the UN, "we should establish a permanent international court to prosecute the most serious violations of humanitarian law." That means that Clinton's "web" includes a global court empowered to invent and adjudicate a new system of "humanitarian law" made by persons unknown. "Just last week," Clinton told the UN, "we lost some of our finest sons and daughters in a crash of a UN helicopter in Bosnia. Five were Americans, five were Germans, one Polish and one British; all citizens of the world we are trying to make." When those five Americans joined our armed services, they had no inkling that they would be transformed by presidential ukase from American citizen soldiers defending U.S. national security into "citizens of the world" and then called upon to give their lives to "make" Clinton's new global world. "The United Nations must play a leading role in this effort," Clinton said, "filling in the fault lines of the new global era." He defined the UN mission as taking over peace, security, human rights, eliminating poverty, and "sustainable development" (the code word for global control of energy consumption). Clinton concluded his UN speech by telling us that it is "necessary to imagine a future that is different from the past, necessary to free ourselves from destructive patterns of relations with each other and within our own nations and live a future that is different from the past." He didn't define what will be "different" about our future, but it clear from the text and tone of the entire speech that the principal difference will be submerging what he called our "poisoned nationalism" into a "web" of global organizations. Exploring Clinton's mind further, let's look at his remarks made the following month, on October 17, 1997, in Buenos Aires to Argentine reporters. "What I'm trying to do is to promote a process of reorganization of the world so that human beings are organized in a way that takes advantage of the new opportunities of this era." Hear that again! Clinton says he is trying to achieve a "reorganization of the world" so that "human beings are organized"! The scope of this global goal staggers the imagination. Continuing his remarks to Argentine reporters, Clinton added, "If we can prove that you can merge integrated economies and integrated democracies, then we'll be more likely to build a global system of this kind." It's clear that the "kind" of a "global system" that Clinton is trying to "build" will be based on merging "integrated" economies and democracies. The notion of integrating the United States, either our economy or our democracy, into a "global system" has never been cleared with the American people. So how come Clinton is announcing it to Argentineans? In describing his plans, Clinton is much more forthright in talking to foreigners than he is with Americans. When Tim Russert asked Bill Clinton on NBC's Meet the Press what he hopes his legacy will be, Clinton responded immediately by talking about his "global" aspirations. Americans had better get busy if we want to stop Clinton's "inexorable" march toward global "integration." ______________________________________________________ Our latest Alert: Questions to Ask Your Senator About NATO Expansion http://www.eagleforum.org/alert/98-04-24/98-04-24_nato.html Call your two U.S. Senators and tell them to vote NO on NATO Expansion! 1-800-504-0031 or 1-202-224-3121 Senate debate starts Monday - tune in to C-SPAN 2 Senate E-mail: http://www.eagleforum.org/vote/sen-email.html - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUPPORT EAGLE FORUM! To receive the Phyllis Schlafly ReportHARDCOPY -- Subscription: $20 per year Send check or money order to: Eagle Forum * P.O. Box 618 * Alton * IL 62002 - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Eagle Forumhttp://www.eagleforum.org PO Box 618 eagle@eagleforum.org Alton, IL62002 Phone: 618-462-5415Fax: 618-462-8909 - --------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe to Eagle E-mail please e-maileagle@eagleforum.org with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line - ----------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:26:00 +0500 From: "Brad Alpert" <1911a1@gte.net> Subject: Re: INFO: Opening Closed Doors - Statement by ILA Director Metak Brad Dolan: > The U.S. judicial system might still qualify as an example of #1. > As demonstrated at Waco, the BATF meets the second criterion. The BATF is > here and you have to deal with them as they command or they will kill you. > The U.N. doesn't have that kind of power *yet* and its legitimacy should > be opposed so that it doesn't get it. IMHO, of course. Absolutely agree that the UN should be opposed on every front possible. Likewise, their evil machinations on behalf of banning guns should be opposed, also - and it seems to me that the only way to do that now is to fight the effort in the belly of the beast. Ignoring them won't make them go away any more than ignoring the machinations of a nascent political movement called the National Socialist Party made it go away. What am I missing? Best, Brad - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:25:21 -0500 (CDT) From: Subject: IP: Farah:Americans target of U.N. Criminal Court? (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:30:59 -0500 From: believer@telepath.com To: believer@telepath.com Subject: IP: Farah:Americans target of U.N. Criminal Court?=20 Americans target of U.N. Criminal Court?=20 New report says Clinton plan risks violating Constitution=20 By Joseph Farah =A9 Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com=20 Bacre Waly N'diaye of Senegal, a United Nations "special rapporteur for extrajudicial summary or arbitrary execution," toured the United States at the invitation of the State Department last year to investigate the way America applied the death penalty.=20 His report to the U.N. Human Rights Commission concluded the U.S. was "arbitrary" in its use of executions and called for a moratorium on the practice.=20 Later, the U.N.'s World Court tried to stop the state of Virginia from executing a foreign national, Angel Francisco Breard, convicted of murder. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright supported the plea, though the execution was carried out.=20 Was this an aberration, or a sign of things to come? Opponents of an expansion of the U.N.'s authority over the enforcement of "international law" and world courts fear this is just the beginning.=20 The United Nations is meeting in Rome in June to draft a treaty to establish an International Criminal Court that could subject American citizens to the jurisdiction of foreign judges with no respect for the Constitution, charges a new report by the American Sovereignty Project.=20 Though the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution affirms a right to trial by jury, there will be no such right before the ICC, according to the author of the report, investigative journalist Cliff Kincaid.=20 "Instead, foreign judges will decide the fate of Americans," he says.=20 During a Senate hearing, Sen. Jesse Helms, R-NC, asked Professor Cherif Bassiouni, a leading academic proponent of the tribunal, if judges for this new entity could come from China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba or the Palestine Liberation Organization, and whether they could judge the actions of the U.S. government or U.S. citizens.=20 "There is no guarantee" this will not happen, he replied.=20 Despite the alarming response, the U.S. Senate voted 55 to 45 to encourage the establishment of the ICC within the U.N. system. The Clinton administration is strongly backing the plan.=20 "Before the century ends," Clinton told the U.N. last September, "we should establish a permanent international court to prosecute the most serious violations of humanitarian law."=20 Opponents, including Kincaid and Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly, say such a plan means inventing, codifying and adjudicating a whole new system of international "humanitarian law" by unelected global officials with no constitutional authority over American citizens.=20 Under the U.N.-sponsored International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, a forerunner to and model for the ICC, there is no right for the accused "to be confronted with the witnesses" against him, as stipulated in the Sixth Amendment. Instead, the tribunal has adopted a provision known as Rule 75 which can "allow some witnesses to remain anonymous, even to defendants and their lawyers."=20 In addition, Kincaid points out, the Sixth Amendment refers to the right of the accused "to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation." However, the Yugoslavia tribunal has issued secret indictments. In a case involving Slavko Dokmanovic, he was invited by a U.N. official under false pretenses to a meeting, where he was seized and handcuffed by about 20 masked gunmen. He was then taken to the Hague, where the tribunal is based, and jailed.=20 President Clinton specifically defended that action, noting that Dokmanovic was "under sealed indictment."=20 "Americans are being led to believe that an International Criminal Court will be a great leap forward, following in the footsteps of the Nuremberg military tribunals that prosecuted Nazi and Japanese war criminals after World War II," says Kincaid. "But those tribunals were staged by victorious military powers and were temporary in nature. The ICC, a permanent court sponsored by the U.N., could intervene against a leading military power in the world today -- the United States -- rather than those countries which are true threats to international peace and security and which have the worst human rights records."=20 While the treaty is being sold by Clinton and Republicans and Democrats in Congress as a vehicle for seeking justice against notorious international criminals, such as the late Pol Pot or Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Americans are also potential targets.=20 "It is not credible to argue that the United States is supporting the creation of this court while guaranteeing that no American will ever come before it," said David Scheffer, the U.S. ambassador-at-large for war-crimes issues and the main American representative at the U.N. negotiating table. "We are not saying Americans are off bounds."=20 Kincaid says he believes the ICC is designed to inhibit the U.S. from conducting military operations except under authority of the United Nations.=20 "The world needs lawyers more than the world knows," explained U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in a pitch for the ICC before the International Bar Association. Indeed, the move is getting the support of lawyers in the United States and abroad. The American Bar Association has published a booklet endorsing the concept of the ICC.=20 One of the reasons lawyers love the ICC concept, opponents say, is because it would allow them to make up the rules as they go along. Since no international criminal code exists, each case represents an opportunity to create new precedents that will in turn create law.=20 Judge Gabrielle McDonald of the Hague Tribunal, speaking at the Aug. 11 session of the ICC's preparatory committee, explained that the goal "should be one of principle and not of detail. ... (The code should) be a flexible statute based on principles which may be developed by the court as circumstances require while still providing sufficient guidance to establish an international framework within which the court can work."=20 Is there a precedent for the United States to subordinate the authority of the U.S. Constitution to the vagaries of a world governing body? The World Trade Organization is one example. Recently, the United States has lost several key cases before the international agency governing commerce and tariffs. Will this be a model for the future?=20 "Today's international policy makers' ... short-term goal is to subordinate American and other national sovereignties to multilateral authorities," warned former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in Washington last December. "Their long-term goal, one suspects, is to establish the U.N. as a kind of embryo world government."=20 Cliff Kincaid's new special 16-page report on the United Nations plan for an International Criminal Court is available for $10.99 by writing to: America's Survival, P.O. Box 146, Owings, MD 20736. The report and a video are available for $25.=20 =A91998, Western Journalism Center ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #121 *************************