Is Obama a War Criminal? He Is Good at Killing People!

0
Share

wake-up

Placard in Egypt, ‘Wake up America, Obama backs up a fascist regime in Egypt’

Maybe Mr. Obama should have considered his words more carefully before he said he had a ‘kill list’ and is ‘good at killing people.’

The Egyptian newspaper El Watan, reported that an organization of lawyers in Egypt have submitted a formal complaint to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity by President Barack Obama.

The complaint states that Egyptians believe Mr. Obama is an accessory to the Muslim Brotherhood which has incited violence throughout Egypt before and after the June 30 Revolution. You can read more about it at Front Page Magazine.

The reason I find this of particular interest is because our president relentlessly pursued Bush administration employees for war crimes that did not exist. He accused Mr. Bush and members of the CIA of torture for water boarding while he himself drones people and admits he is ‘good at killing people.’

Mr. Obama knew the ICC wanted to indict George Bush for war crimes and he wanted a treaty with this absurd court run by socialists and communists.

Now, he himself could be indicted by them.

Oh the irony!

The US is not a participant in the International Criminal Court (ICC) which has threatened our military and former presidents with arrest for their perceived crimes against humanity.

Were we to join with the ICC, it could supersede US courts because treaties have the force of law and would override our constitution. This would endanger our right to: a jury of peers, to an attorney,to not self-incriminate, our right to a speedy trail, bail and so on.

In 2012, Hillary Clinton entered into negotiations to consider U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court.

Proponents of an ICC treaty hoped to create a new crime of “aggression,” which would mean going to war without the approval of the United Nations would be a crime. Under these circumstances, submitting to the court’s jurisdiction would mean our presidents and Cabinet officials could be prosecuted criminally for going to war without U.N. approval. This would, of course, give Russia and China a veto over our military actions. Our military men and women would also be endangered.

Clinton said at that time that she would not allow our military’s hands to be tied, however, once we accept the International Criminal Court, we go down a slippery slope. The court could even prosecute Americans who have been cleared by our own judicial system.

Hillary Clinton said, it is a ‘great regret’ that the U.S. is not in International Criminal Court. She not only regretted it but she continually cooperated with it.

The Obama Administration implemented the treaty that has never been approved in the case of international criminal, Kony, and they did so with cues from the ICC, not Congress.

Obama deployed members of the U.S. Armed Forces on behalf of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which indicted Kony for war crimes in 2005 and issued an arrest warrant for him. However, not only has the U.S. Senate not ratified the ICC treaty, Congress has never authorized the use of U.S. troops to carry out the ICC’s edicts. So where does Obama get the power to deploy U.S. troops in this manner?

Obama informed Congress: “I have directed this deployment, which is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.”

In the case of Kony, Obama appeared to have taken his cue from the ICC.

Last October Jake Tapper of ABC News asked Obama about the decision to deploy troops “to help eliminate Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army.” Obama replied:

“Well none of these decisions are easy, but those who are familiar with the Lord’s Resistance Army and their leader, Mr. Kony, know that these are some of the most vicious killers. They terrorize villages, they take children into custody and turn them into child soldiers, they engage in rape and slaughter in villages they go through. They have been a scourge on Uganda and that entire region, eastern Africa. So there has been strong bi-partisan support and a coalition, everything from evangelical Christians to folks on the left and human rights organizations who have said it is an international obligation for us to try to take them on. And so given that bipartisan support across the board belief that we have to do something about this, what we’ve done is we’ve provided these advisors. They are not going to be in a situation where they are called upon to hunt down the Lord’s Resistance Army or actively fire on them, but they will be in a position to protect themselves. What they can do is provide the logistical support that is needed, the advice, the training and the logistical support that hopefully will allow this kind of stuff to stop.”

It is a sympathetic reason but it is also a slippery slope. Notice the use of the term “international obligation.” That is not the same as a declaration of war or resolution on the use of force from Congress…”

Mr. Obama might want to rethink his ‘cooperation’ with the ICC or he might one day find himself in their crosshairs.

Share