The Road to 2012
JUNE 15, 2011
Venturing into the unknown future ---A  future that      
may or may not come ---Part 1 --- Installment 4

                              Road to 2012 by Dennis L. Pearson

(c) 2008/2009/2010/2011 by Dennis L. Pearson   All Rights Reserved --- No part of this work
may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying and recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without
permission from the author.

Obama Social Agenda ---

Be it noted at the Human Rights Campaign Dinner, Obama
promised to:
•        Sign a hate crimes bill into law.
•        Sign the Employment Non-discrimination Act into law.
•        Overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Which would jeopardize traditional marriage in every state.
•        Defend every LGBT activist who is nominated for a
federal post.
•        Rescind regulations banning HIV-infected foreigners from
entering the country.
•        Overturn a law passed by Congress that reaffirmed a long-
standing policy that forbids gays from serving in the military.
(Clinton implemented the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy – which
violated the law passed by Congress.)

President Barack Obama on Wednesday October 28, 2009 did
indeed sign the first major piece of federal gay rights legislation,
a milestone that activists compared to the passage of 1960s
civil rights legislation empowering blacks.

The new law added acts of violence against gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender people to the list of federal hate
crimes. Gay rights activists voiced hope that the Obama
administration would advance more issues, including legislation
to bar workplace discrimination, allow military service and
recognize same-sex marriages.

Congress passed the hate crimes protections quietly as an
unlikely amendment to fiscal year 2010 U.S Defense
Authorization Act.

But at that time the nation was much per-occupied by the
situation in Afghanistan, the Economy, the Baseball Playoffs
and the Health Care debate to pay notice ...

And as it was, Obama's political critics were clearly at the top of
their game adding to all the distractions by decrying all the
government Bailout money....stimulus bills...cash for clunkers...
hundreds and hundreds of billions - maybe even trillions - spent
without a single Member of Congress being held accountable
for what their wild spending spree would do to America's future
stretching beyond even their grandchildren.

Their charge was that nearly 13 TRILLION in taxpayer dollars in
bailouts and loans have been agreed to by Congress, the Bush
and Obama Treasury Departments, and the out of control Fed.
The dollar amounts to them were:

•        ... More than FDR's New Deal which they decried as
socialist
•         ... More than the entire Iraq war which they decried as a
debacle
•        ... More than the 1980’s savings and loan mess
•         ... More than the Korean War ...

With the end game being according to these critics that Our
constitutional principles and freedoms are being assaulted at
every turn by the following:

Constant economic crises -- the housing crisis and the resulting
chaos is just one example of an economic bubble created by
centrally-planned interest rates and money manipulation;

The destruction of the middle class -- as fuel, food, housing,
medical care and education costs soar, everyone who is NOT
on the government dole is forced to make do with less as the
value of their money slowly decreases;

And lastly --- Currency destruction -- to them, history shows us
that riots, violence and full-scale police states can result when
people finally realize our money isn’t worth the paper it’s printed
on and REFUSE to accept it.

Their catch phrase being that Congress had no skin in the
game ... The phrase attributable to the pen of the late
Conservative Columnist William Safire who wrote:  "The skin in
this case is a synecdoche for the self.  [T]he game is the
investment, commitment or gamble being undertaken. Thus,
investors in a company will be more comfortable in their own
skins if they know that the managers are personally invested as
well - that they share the risk and have an incentive to share the
gains."

And of course, that's what these activists for the Conservative
cause wanted Congressmen to do ... They claimed that
Congress needed to put some skin in the game to share in the
risks and therefore make better decisions. To accomplish this,  
these activists urged the American public to keep the pressure
on and spread the word

Then too, grassroots movements at tea parties and town halls
across the country have given the message that Americans are
concerned about their country's future—and they are trying to
make a difference. This shrinking faith in a growing government
has turned ordinary Americans into outspoken activists. Millions
of average Americans have gathered in small towns and big
cities across the country to evoke the same grassroots
revolutionary spirit that propelled America to her independence
more than two centuries ago. … Or at least their supporters say
they are.

And, What all of the town hall protesters and tea parties have in
common is a viewpoint vastly different from the prevailing
opinions in Washington or the Beltway. The idea is a new twist
on America's old promise—Americans can govern themselves
and choose how to spend their own time and money. It's the
idea of self-destiny; it's the idea that each person decides for
himself where his trust rests—in God, not government. It's the
idea that the Constitution has been and always should be the
rules by which government operates, restricting government
intrusion and ensuring freedom for the people.

These ideas were revolutionary in 1773, when protesting
colonists ditched British tea into Boston Harbor. Americans
today may not drink as much tea as they used to, but in light of
a government that has evolved over the last two centuries,
these ideas of liberty once again seem like radical viewpoints.
What does Obama say on these issues if not now,  historically?

Stephen G Calabresi, the co-founder of the Federalist Society
and a professor of law at Northwestern University wrote the
following October 28, 2008 in an article "Obama's
'Redistribution' Constitution ---The courts are poised for a
takeover by the judicial left."

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station
WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under
Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of
redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political
and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as
radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court,
it wasn't that radical."

He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential
constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the
Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say,
he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a
guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an
entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

To the above, Calabresi, raised the question of whether Mr.
Obama could in good faith take the presidential oath to
"preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he was
required when he took the oath of office. Then Calabresi
asked:  " Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is
written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare?
Was his call for a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently
pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to
welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the
redistribution of wealth? "

Calabresi suggesting:  "Perhaps the candidate ought to be
asked to answer these questions before the election rather than
after. But Calabresi in asking this question October 28, 2008 did
it a little too late ...

Health Care Debate

To the Conservative cause,  the icing on the cake, meaning the
tipping point for action  was the Democratic-controlled
Congress's gold-plated government plan for the  takeover of our
health care system! To them this takeover needed to be
stopped ...  And that's why the grassroots Town Halls and Tea
Parties sprung up.

But Nancy Pelosi saw to it that at least in the House of
Representatives that the health care reform bill would not be
stopped. She did it twice ... Initially when the Health Care
Measure was brought to the House for approval of the House's
version of Health Car and then after the Senate Version was
passed she kept the idea alive in the House after the
unexpected election of Scott Brown a Republican in
Massachusetts ... It is said that after the Scott Brown victory and
the loss of a filibuster  proof Senate that Obama had decided to
pursue Health Care Reform in increments and work instead on
Job creation ... But Pelosi still wanted a more radical approach
and a 39% increase on Health Care Premiums for Non-group  
individuals by Anthem Insurance Company of California
provided the incentive for Pelosi to carry on the fight and she
persuaded Barack Obama to buy using whatever pressure his
administration could muster to bring the debate to a successful
conclusion.

At the beginning of the Health Care debate under Pelosi's
guidance The Democratic-controlled House had narrowly
passed by a vote of 220 to 215 a landmark health care reform
legislation , handing President Barack Obama what seemed to
be  a close but hard won victory on his signature domestic
priority  at 11:14 PM EST Saturday, November 7, 2009. The
late Saturday vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin a
long-delayed debate on the issue that had come to overshadow
all others in Congress.

Please note --- In the United Steelworkers of America, Pelosi
and the Democratic-controlled Congress had their supporters ...
The Union's position was that health care for all was the civil
rights issue of our time ... And that the time was now to act.

To the Union the essential component of any good health care
plan would be the following:
1) Affordable options and reform of insurance practices that
result in health care for all Americans.
2) A public option that will lower costs by competing with the
private sector and offer coverage for Americans who cannot
afford alternatives.
3) No taxation for employer-provided insurance and rules to
ensure that big employers retain coverage.
4) Shared responsibility by requiring all employers to provide
coverage, also known as "pay to  Play."
5) Significant cost containment to help families, retirees,
businesses and our governments.
6) A Federal funded catastrophic reinsurance program to have
employers and VEBAs that provide benefits for pre-Medicare
retirees ages 55-64.

The House had passed sweeping health-care legislation, hours
after President Obama visited the Capitol to make a personal
closing argument for his most important domestic policy initiative
to the Democratic Caucus.... In this role, the President was like
a Coach in the locker room before the game urging his players
on to victory ... Win the battle for whomever ... And the
Steelworkers in their stand on health care reform quote the
President as saying the following:

" You can't even think about negotiating for a wage increase
because the whole negotiation is about trying to keep the
benefits you already have ... That's not the fault of the
employer. It's the fault of a broken Health Care system that's
sucking up all the money."

So it was, On November 5, 2009, at noon, on the steps of the
Capitol in Washington D.C., thousands of  Americans gathered
to express their heated opposition to the pending government
capture of the nation's entire health care sector according to  
Robert Romano , Senior News Editor of the Americans for
Limited Government
.
These individuals, many of whom traveled from across the
country, were protesting the takeover of more than one-sixth of
the nation's economy by a government that  they claim can't
even balance its own budget. They were  wary of bureaucrats
getting between them and their doctors. They opposed any
rationing of health care for senior citizens. And they refused to
accept the unsustainable hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes
and spending riddled in the 2,000 pages of the bill.

Several Republican members of Congress, led by Republican
Congresswoman from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann and
Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) thrilled the crowd with
speeches as the gathered throng chanted "Kill the bill!" and "No
you can't!" They were joined by top radio host and author of
Liberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin, and acclaimed actor Jon
Voight.

Upon the conclusion of the rally, these concerned constituents
stormed the House of Representatives office buildings to
petition their members of Congress in person, fulfilling a critical
civic duty. Their civic action complicated the Democratic House
plans to hold a final vote on the House Health Care Reform Bill
that Saturday, November 7, 2009

Bachmann said their country needed them to defeat the bill as
she encouraged them to speak up against Barack Obama,
Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. "The biggest vote in the United
States, the biggest voice in the United States is your voice,"
said Bachmann. "Quite simply, the Republicans don't have the
votes to kill this bill… We knew we were limited, but what we
knew was unlimited was the voice of persuasion of the
American people. And that's why you're here today."

To defeat the bill its opponents—including 54 percent of the
American people according to Rasmussen—need to be at least
41 House Democrats voting with Republicans. However,
despite the huge majority Pelosi had to work with, House
Democrats were still working to achieve a plurality. In short, she
didn't  yet have the votes.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal  of Wednesday,
November 4, 2009 House leaders didn't appear to have secured
the 218 votes they needed to pass the bill. They were moving
quickly to swear in two Democrats elected Tuesday November
3, 2009, which would give the party 258 seats in the House and
allow leaders to lose as many as 40 Democratic votes without
losing their majority… House leaders spent Wednesday
scrambling to secure votes from freshmen and lawmakers in
swing districts."

Adding urgency to the American people's presence at the
Capitol were moves in Congress to speedily move to a vote on
the bill, H.R. 3962, in the House. According to top Capitol Hill
sources, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had announced that the
House would convene an emergency session on Saturday,
November 7th with votes occurring as early as 9AM. But the
final vote did not occur until the late hour of that day.

The single purpose in Pelosi's mind: to rush the bill through as
quickly and covertly as possible—in the face of a tidal wave of
public opposition.

Fortunately, throughout the year, the American people  made
their voices heard against the unbridled expansion of
government. They've stood up and spoke out at tea parties. At
the summer town halls. On the phone and fax. Via email. And in
person. They have said, "No!"

They were not alone according to the Wall Street Journal, as  
54 percent of voters opposed the "public option" proposal,
which only 42 percent supported. But defeating this bill would
be no easy task.

Moderate and conservative members of the Democrat caucus
were actually the American people's only hope to kill this bill. As
Congresswoman Bachmann noted, there are not enough
Republicans to defeat ObamaCare.

In response, activists nationwide focused on those vulnerable
members of the Democrat majority who would be  concerned
about a tough election battle in 2010. Some  already caved in to
constituent pressure—especially after crushing GOP victories in
Virginia and New Jersey on Tuesday. Activists targeted some
92 House Democrats, including all members of the Blue Dog
coalition.

In the end, it was the vulnerable members of the majority who
would have to choose on November 7, 2009 who they would
serve. Those citizens who traveled hundreds, even thousands,
of miles to demand the right to their own health care choices—
or the politically powerful liberal elite.

A triumphant Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi  cited this
closely won victory as significant as the passage of Social
Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965. Pelosi was jubilant  she
had just delivered on  a promise decades in the making that  her
predecessors had failed to bring home ... But in reality the
ongoing political division in regard to health care reform did not
end with its passage in the House of Representatives ... The
curtain had closed on Act One with the remaining Acts to follow
scripting  a plot line similar to Act One or becoming a Greek
Tragedy for those who support the current Health Care bill as it
stands or a Grassroots victory for forces that do not want any
nationalized health care system of any form.

The House bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep.
Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an
overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed
were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats...Republicans in the
House were nearly unanimous in opposing the plan that would
expand coverage to tens of millions of Americans who lack it
and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry ...
They were joined in opposition by 39 blue-dog Democrats
Obama, who went to Capitol Hill earlier on Saturday to lobby
wavering Democrats, said in a statement after the vote, "I look
forward to signing it into law by the end of the year."  ... But as it
happened, Obama needed to revise his time table. His new goal
was to sign it into law before the President's First State of the
Union Speech before a Joint Session of Congress. But that
didn't happen either as the debate continued into March...
In order to assist people seeking to read and review the health
"reform" legislation (H.R. 3962) as passed by House Democrats,
a list of important page numbers and questionable  provisions in
the 1,990-page "Affordable Health Care for America Act:" has
been made available by opponents to the Bill.

Page 94—Section 202(c) prohibited the sale of private
individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing
individuals to purchase coverage through the federal
government
Page 111—Section 223 established a new board of federal
bureaucrats (the "Health Benefits Advisory Committee") to
dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase
Page 211—Section 321 established a new government-run
health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at the
Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to
lose their existing coverage
Page 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—
Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care
Page 255—Section 345 included language requiring verification
of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care
subsidies under the bill—while the bill includes a requirement
for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a
similar requirement to verify applicants' identity, thus leaving the
door open for identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and
others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits
Page 297—Section 501 imposed a 2.5 percent tax on all
individuals who do not purchase "bureaucrat-approved" health
insurance—the tax would apply on individuals with incomes
under $250,000, leaking the impression that this provision broke
a central promise of then-Senator Obama's presidential
campaign
Page 313—Section 512 imposed an 8 percent "tax on jobs" for
firms that cannot afford to purchase "bureaucrat-approved"
health coverage; according to an analysis by Harvard Professor
Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions "at substantial risk
of unemployment"—With minority workers perhaps losing their
jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts.
Page 336—Section 551 imposed additional job-killing taxes, in
the form of a half-trillion dollar "surcharge," more than half of
which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed
by President Obama's senior economic advisor,
Page 520—Section 1161 cut more than $150 billion from
Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of
seniors' existing coverage such taxes could cost up to 5.5
million jobs
Page 733—Section 1401 established a new Center for
Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill included no
provisions preventing the government-run health plan from
using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on
cost grounds, similar to Britain's National Health Service, which
denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000
Page 1174—Section 1802(b) included provisions entitled
"TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES" to fund
comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi's
promise that "We will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill
that passes the House," and the President's promise not to raise
taxes on families with incomes under $250,000
Please note - The following item was eliminated by amendment  
before the final vote allowing a few blue dog democrats to join
with other democrats in passing the bill ...
Page 110—Section 222(e) required the use of federal dollars to
fund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, if
the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the
plan to fund elective abortions

The Stupak  Amendment to Bill 3942 reads as follows:
HAdmt 509 to H.R 3942 -- An amendment printed in Part C of
House Report 111-330 to codify the Hyde Amendment in H.R.
3962.

The amendment prohibits federal funds for abortion services in
the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive
affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides
elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who
receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately
purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective
abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer
elective abortions ...  11/7/2009 House amendment agreed to by
the Yeas and Nays: 240 - 194, 1 Present

Then too, these are the Top Ten Tax Increases Included In H.R.
3962
1. Small Business SURTAX (Sec.551, p. 336)        $460.5 Billion
2. Employment Mandate TAX* (Secs 511-512, p.308)        
$135.0 Billion
3. Individual Mandate TAX* (Sec. 501, p.296)        $ 33.0 Billion
4. Medical Device TAX* (Sec.552, p. 339)        $ 20.0 Billion
5. $2,500 Annual Cap on FSAs* (Sec. 532, p. 325)        $ 13.3
Billion
6 Prohibition on Pre-Tax Purchases of Over-the-Counter
Drugs through HSAs, FSAs, and HRAs* (Sec. 531, p.324)        $
5.00 Billion
7. Tax on Health Insurance Policies to fund Comparative
Effectiveness Research Trust Fund* (Sec. 1802, p.1162)        $
2.00 Billion
8. 20% Penalty on certain HSA Distributions* (Sec. 533, p.
326)        $ 1.30 Billion
9. Other Tax Hikes and Increase Compliance on U.S. Job
Creators        $ 56.4 Billion
> IRS reporting on payments to certain businesses (Sec. 553, p.
344)        $ 17.1 Billion
> Delay implementation of worldwide interest allocation rules
(Sec. 554, p. 345)        $ 26.1 Billion
> Override U.S. treaties on certain payments by "in sourcing"
business (Sec. 561. p. 346)        $ 7.50 Billion
> Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties
(Sec.562, p.349)        $ 5.7o Billion
10. Other Revenue-Raising Provisions        $ 3.00 Billion

TOTAL TAX INCREASE . . . . . . . . . . $729.5 Billion

According to the media --- The legislation would require most
Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to
those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would
have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and
companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the
government's mandates.

Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage because
of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and
insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on
the basis of gender or medical history. The industry would also
lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price
fixing and market allocation.

At its core, the measure would create a federally regulated
marketplace where consumers could shop for coverage. In the
bill's most controversial provision, the government would sell
insurance, although the Congressional Budget Office forecasts
that premiums for it would be more expensive than for policies
sold by private companies.

Yet The glow from a health care triumph faded quickly for
President Barack Obama on Sunday following the House vote
as Democrats realized the bill they fought so hard to pass in the
House had nowhere to go in the Senate. The Senate would
write its own Bill.

Speaking from the Rose Garden about 14 hours after the late
Saturday vote, Obama urged senators to be like runners on a
relay team and "take the baton and bring this effort to the finish
line on behalf of the American people."

The problem was that the Senate would not run with the House
Bill. The government health insurance plan included in the
House bill was unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates
who held the balance of power in the Senate. Some Senators
said that the health care reform bill passed by the House
November 7, 2009  was "dead on arrival" when it arrived in the
Senate... Yet such public talk proved to be deceptive  as the
concept of Health Care Reform did advance in the Senate with
the introduction of numerous Bills all unreconciled with that of
the House Democrats overcame their own divisions and broke
an impasse that threatened the bill after liberals grudgingly
accepted tougher restrictions on abortion funding, as abortion
opponents demanded.

In the Senate, the stumbling block was the idea of the
government competing with private insurers. And Harry Reid
worked diligently to overcome any divisions in his party that
would threaten the ability of the Senate to pass its own Bill.
Notwithstanding some minor tinkering, the U.S. Senate has now
passed the government takeover of healthcare. And despite the
fact that it may not contain all of the far left’s extreme demands,
it is almost impossible to overstate the nefarious effect of what
has emerged.

As Barack Obama has rightly intoned, even as now written,
without the “public option,” the measure embodies the single
most massive government entitlement program since social
security. One-sixth of the economy will be summarily placed in
the hands of federal bureaucrats. And the greatest health care
system in the history of the world will be torn asunder.

The Democrats have already made clear that the current bill is
just the opening salvo of their all-out assault on every aspect of
private health care. As Tom Harkin (D-IA) has said, “What we
are buying here is a modest home, not a mansion. But, we can
build additions as we go along … In the future, amending it and
changing it isn’t going to be as tough as passing it in the first
place. We amend Medicare and Social Security all the time
…That’s what we will do in health care.”

As Harkin and others have also made clear, a binding public
option is inevitable. Full funding of abortions is simply a matter
of some minor tinkering. And then, once the new law has
inserted the federal government into every aspect of health
care, a sprawling new “Department of Health” will be created,
empowered to control who receives which medical procedure
and – even more chilling – who does not. A worst case scenario
that many of us don't look forward to.

ALG President Bill Wilson has condemned Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid for inserting language into the Senate health
care bill that would make it nearly impossible to repeal what
Wilson called a "health care rationing board."

"The Independent Medicare Advisory Board will become the
Healthcare Soviet—dictating rules, rates and procedures in
America's health care system with no appeal. That is why Reid
has given it the most protection," Wilson explained.
In the Reid Substitute, under Section 3403 in a section entitled
"Limitations on Changes to this Subsection," it states, "It shall
not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to
consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report
that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
Section 3403 establishes the Independent Medicare Advisory
Board (IMAB), which would "reduce the per capita rate of growth
in Medicare spending" under the Reid substitute. Wilson said
that is "rationing."

"The whole purpose of this panel is to ration health care to
seniors, no question," Wilson said.

"To hide that, the bill states that 'The proposal shall not include
any recommendation to ration health care' right after it gets
through establishing the power for the IMAB to ration health
care," Wilson explained.

"This is Orwellian Newspeak of the first order," Wilson declared,
adding, "Right in this section, Harry Reid is saying that they're
going to ration health care away from seniors, but they're just
not going to call it that."

"And then, to lock it in place, Reid goes as far as to require a
two-thirds vote in order to amend or repeal the rationing board,"
Wilson explained.

The Senate rules change was exposed on the floor of the
Senate by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC),as reported by the
National Review Online.  Senator DeMint said, "This is not
legislation. This is not law. This is a rule change. It's a pretty big
deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time
creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or
repeal the law."

DeMint said that under Senate rules, it should take a two-thirds
vote of the Senate to invoke cloture on legislation that contains
such rules changes. And, that, "[A]s the chair has confirmed,
Rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate,
states that on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules,
the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the
senators present and voting."

However, the Senate President ruled that the rules change was
not a rules change, but a change in procedure.
"This is completely unconstitutional," Wilson noted, pointing to
Article I, Section 5 of the Federal Constitution, which states:
"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings…"
"Under current rules, the Reid substitute, which includes a rules
change making it out of order to amend or repeal a section of
the bill, should require a two-thirds vote in order to be enacted,"
Wilson explained, concluding, "That has not happened, and will
not happen, meaning that once passed, any attempt to remove
the health care rationing board will be deemed out of order
forevermore. People are going to die."

Or be fined or go to jail if one fails to purchase health insurance.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights,
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most
likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed,
will dictate that Governments long established should not be
changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to
suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a
long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
security.”

Mr. Jefferson was not just writing to the Americans alive in
1776, but to all Americans for all time to come.  His words are
not meant to be locked away in unread books, or to be
venerated as sacred text, but rather to be thought about and
debated.  We Americans have a wonderful heritage, but it does
us no good if we know little about it and give little thought to it.
And it is an injustice if the intent of this heritage is misused,
This declaration is not only the cornerstone on which the basis
or justification  for  the independence of United States of
America was built, it is the single most radical statement in
Western political history since the time of Judges in the Old
Testament.

The Declaration of Independence, stated by proclamation, that
men (humanity) are endowed with unalienable rights.  Also note
the phrase "among these are" which indicates that unalienable
Rights are not limited to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness"

Universal Healthcare, of course, is not listed as one of these
Self-evident unalienable rights ... But, Health care will be added
to the list of unalienable Rights.  How you ask? By proclamation
of those who believe that the U.S. Constitution is only a
guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an
entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.... But they
want to make it so. And they proclaim it through their revision of
the Declaration of Independence which although important to
the heritage of the United States is not part of the U.S.
Constitution.

Please note --- The U.S. has a written Constitution which the U.
S. Supreme Court as custodian of , becomes the last court of
appeal to interpret the Constitutionality of all Laws passed by
Congress and all Executive Orders proclaimed by the President.
.... This  being a different system then what exists in the United
Kingdom which does not have one document known as the
Constitution which prevails over all law ... The British
Constitution is Unwritten in the sense that many documents of
historic importance are included in creating what rights and
responsibilities exist for all subjects of their realm... Its legislative
body, Parliament, is the creator of law and this law is normally
thought as Constitutional. The Courts of the realm apply the law
in judgments they don't interpret the law and make them
unconstitutional if found wanting.

Look at this commentary by Mike Jordan (July 30, 2009) entitled
"Out and About: Health care for everyone?":
There has been a lot of talk lately about health care for all
Americans. As our ability to pay for, access and even receive
health care for ourselves and our families diminishes yearly and
the debate heats up as to how to pay for health care for
everyone or even provide it to everyone at all, it might be wise
to consider a few things.

Is health care for everyone one of our unalienable rights under
the U.S. Constitution?

According to a Feb. 22, 2003, Fiedor Report on the News, Doug
Fiedor wrote, “Back in the days of the Founding Fathers, every
family was said to have two well-studied books in their library.
The most important bestseller around 1775, of course, was the
Bible. The second bestseller in the Colonies was ‘Blackstone’s
Commentaries on The Law,’ then a new three-volume set on
English common law.”

Being “the” law book of the day, it is no wonder our founding
fathers — people like George Washington, James Madison,
Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin — referenced it and quoted
it often.

Continuing, Fiedor wrote, “So, it is no surprise that the phrase
written by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence
originated in Chapter One of Book One of Blackstone’s, titled,
‘Absolute Rights of Individuals.’ Blackstone describes the
absolute rights of individuals as being our rights to life, liberty
and property. Jefferson took the editorial liberty of changing
‘property,’ to ‘pursuit of happiness,’ knowing full well that all
Colonial Americans would understand exactly what was meant.”

Fiedor states that it is we Americans that seem to have a
problem with that meaning. “We Americans have lost the
concept of true freedom because we no longer know exactly
what our rights are,” he wrote. “In today’s United States the
word ‘rights’ has been corrupted so completely that few
Americans any longer know the difference between the terms
procedural rights and civil rights and our unalienable rights and
liberties.”

Blackstone defines those absolute rights, but looking at just the
first one, “life,” I believe his definition is telling in light of our
present health care debate.

“Life — the right of personal security: ‘This right consists of a
person’s legal and unintentional enjoyment of his life, his limbs,
his body, his health and his reputation.’”

So if life is an unalienable right, or one of those absolute rights,
and a person’s health is his or hers to enjoy, what happens
when a person’s health is impaired? Shouldn’t that person have
the right to be able to get the help needed to improve his or her
health and be able to do it without cost of home, family security
and savings — even livelihood?

There are those who say health care is up to the individual and
everyone should accept the status quo. Those folks may be
members of the privileged few, like our political leaders in
Congress, the ones that have great health care we pay for —
something they don’t have to worry about as long as they keep
their jobs.

But in the private sector it is obviously a different matter.
Companies are forced to cut or drop health care coverage for
their employees because it has become too costly. At the very
least they are forced to cut huj increase deductibles and
basically turn what probably started out as a health care
program that covered many ills to more of a major medical policy
that covers only catastrophic illnesses and then only after each
person pays a huge deductible with added loopholes.

Then, is health care an American’s unalienable right? Maybe or
maybe not, but without health care for the majority of the people
— and health care that is affordable — families will continue to
go bankrupt, businesses will be forced to cease operations and
fewer and fewer people will have coverage. People will stop
seeking preventive care altogether, only seeking help in
emergencies, and costs will continue to increase anyway.

So what happens to those other unalienable rights Jefferson
wrote about? With health care eating up peoples’ savings,
causing them to lose their property and possibly their livelihood
— say nothing of liberty or, as Jefferson stated, their pursuit of
happiness — is all but lost.

For your information, Blackstone’s Commentaries are still
studied, well over 200 years after they were first written, by
every major law school in the nation.

Fiedor, at the end of his report stated, “Thus, the protection of
life, liberty and property — our natural, absolute and
unalienable rights — became the underlying reason our country
was formed. There is, of course, a caveat here: As members of
society, we are also required to respect these rights in all
others. Therefore, the most important reason we empower
governments to make and enforce laws is to insure that
everyone respects the rights of others.”

In my mind, that may very well be where we are right now.
Maybe it is time to empower the government to make and
enforce laws to insure good quality health care for every
American at a fair cost delivered in a timely manner for the rights
of all, not a select few.

Interestingly enough, Fiedor in this report used his argument for
less government control and a return to more freedom for the
people as he sees our freedoms being taken away by those in
power and calling for members of the public to speak out for
their rights.

I don’t disagree with that idea at all. What I haven’t seen happen
in my lifetime is our so-called free market system delivering
good quality health care at affordable cost for all of our citizens,
nor the insurance industry paying what it should pay for or cover
either.

Where we have ended up on the issue is with a lot of finger-
pointing by health care providers, insurance companies and the
pharmaceutical industries, i.e., really big business, with no one
admitting any wrongdoing or being willing to voluntarily change.

So the government is trying to step in for the good of the
people, to insure (no pun intended) the rights of all others.
Hopefully that is the case and not just another of our freedoms
lost.

It is obvious something needs to be done soon; a continuation
of the health care policies of the last several decades is a plan
to fail — impacting everyone.

Does the Constitution allow the federal government to force
individual citizens to buy health insurance? Sen. Tom Coburn
(R-OK) and Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) have been waging a
war to force Members of Congress to include a concise
explanation of the constitutional authority empowering Congress
to enact legislation as part of every bill. The legislation titled
“The Enumerated Powers Act” would not allow the House or
Senate to consider any legislation not containing an explanation
of the constitutional authority for legislation. Clearly this is
needed, because Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) had a hard time
responding to a simple question from a CNS reporter that
strikes at the core of ObamaCare: “Does the United States
Constitution give the United States Congress the authority to
mandate individuals to have health insurance, to carry health
insurance?”

Members of Congress should be able to provide the
constitutional authority for the federal government mandating
the purchasing of health insurance under the penalty of fines
and jail time if they support that idea. For that matter, they
should be able to recite a constitutional basis for all legislation
they support. It should be the first issue a member considers.
Not true with ObamaCare.

And consider the following question:  Where in the Constitution
does it state that Government as having the authority to FORCE
the U.S. Taxpayer to Purchase something in order to be a legal
citizen of the U.S.? The fact is, by Constitutional Amendment
the poll tax and literacy tax for voting is not allowed ...Mandating
that individuals must obtain health insurance, and imposing any
penalty—civil or criminal—on any private citizen for not
purchasing health insurance is not authorized by any provision
of the U.S. Constitution. As such, the bill should be determined
unconstitutional, and should not survive a court challenge. This
is because, the federal government has limited jurisdiction –
having only enumerated powers – unless a specific provision of
the Constitution empowers a particular law, then that law is
unconstitutional. There is no authorization for the individual
mandate

The insurance companies, of course,  will get their money and
they of course will pay off their buddies in Congress. Actually
fining people for not wanting healthcare. Now that is crazy.
What a convoluted piece of put it in your face legislation this is.
Also, requiring individuals to have health insurance equals a tax
on the very breath you take. Taxing people for just being alive is
a disgrace

The Commerce Clause, which allows the federal government to
regulate interstate commerce, does not apply to the health care
bill, “because there is no interstate commerce when private
citizens do not purchase health insurance”. The Commerce
Clause covers only those matters where citizens engage in
voluntary economic activity

Government can only regulate economic action; it cannot
coerce action on the part of private citizens who do not wish to
participate in commerce

Nor is the bill’s individual mandate authorized under the General
Welfare Clause., which applies only to congressional spending.
“It applies to money going out from the government; it does not
confer or concern any government power to take in money,
such as would happen with the individual mandate. Therefore
the mandate is outside the scope of the General Welfare Clause
Obama has stated that he won't "Rule Out" JAIL TIME as a
penalty for failing to PURCHASE insurance ..... Is this one sign
of the mark of the beast?

Stanford Bricker  9/29/2006 asked the question: IS FREE
HEALTH CARE AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT? '

While many hospitals will not turn away anyone needing care
because of his or her inability to pay, health care is not cost
free. Governors of many states have formed a group to study
ways to expand health coverage to more residents But until
everyone has coverage, who will pay for the health care of a
sick or injured uninsured person who is unable to pay?  The
answer is, as taxpayers, we all will.

But should this be the case? Are there times when injured or
sick persons are so negligent in their behavior they should be
denied treatment if they cannot afford to pay for it?

Should the insurance companies and the taxpayers refuse to
pay for medical treatment for someone who is injured or sick
because he or she:

1.    rode a motorcycle without wearing a helmet?
2.    didn’t buckle his seatbelt?
3.    had self-inflicted wounds?
4.    overdosed on drugs?
5.    was drunk while driving?
6.    smoked cigarettes?
7.    continued to drink after being diagnosed with cirrhosis of
the liver?
8.    over-ate while obese or under-ate while too skinny?

Which of the above actions should be considered voluntary?
What behavior would you add to the above list? Which
behaviors do you think still warrant free health care?

Do you think that if health insurance companies denied payment
for some or all of the above it would result in lower insurance
premiums for the rest of us? Or would it simply increase the
profits of the health insurers and the salaries of their executives?

And what about payment for treatment for those who have
already lived a long life and are now in their final few months of
life? Should significant sums of money be spent to prolong the
life of someone for another day or month? It has been reported
"50% of Medicare dollars are spent on 5% of the Medicare
population largely because of costly ‘episodic, catastrophic
care’ in the final year of life.”

But is it fair for those who are denied treatment to be left to
suffer or die because they cannot pay, while those with similar
behavior, but who are rich, can afford to pay for their treatment?

Do you think the right to health care should be absolute, or
should there be some limitations on how much society is willing
to pay?

According to Tom Harkins--- D- Iowa:

Affordable, continuous health care coverage is essential to
preventing and managing chronic diseases, and to making the
best use of our health care dollars. Yet, today, some 47 million
Americans do not have health insurance, and more and more
employers are dropping health care coverage of their
employees. In a humane, decent society, no citizens should
have to forego needed medical treatment because they are
priced out of the market. Improving access to quality healthcare
must include: Expanding Health Insurance for Children in Low-
Income and Working Families

The federal Children’s Health Insurance Program was created
in 1997 to provide health insurance to children of working
families who do not qualify for Medicaid but who cannot afford
private insurance. By every measure, the program, known in
Iowa as the Healthy and Well Kids (HAWK-I), is cost-effective,
and has been shown to work well in meeting children’s basic
health care needs. But even with this program in place, some
55,000 Iowa children, and more than 8.5 million children
nationwide, continue to go without insurance, and the number of
children in families making $40,000 or less who are not eligible
for or cannot afford private health insurance is increasing. That
is why Congress, on a bipartisan basis, twice passed an
expansion of this program, fully paid for by increasing the tax on
cigarettes and other tobacco products. Both times, the
legislation was vetoed by President. But these vetoes are not
the final word. We need to ensure that all children in Iowa and
across the U.S. are eligible for basic health care, including
regular checkups, preventive care, and prompt treatment of
injuries and illness.

Expanding Community Health Centers
Because of the increasing cost and declining availability of
health insurance, Community Health Centers -- clinics that
serve everyone, regardless of ability to pay - have assumed a
major role within the U.S. health care system. As chair of the
Appropriations subcommittee that funds health care initiatives, I
have made expansion of the Community Health Center network
a major priority. Since 2000, I have worked to double funding for
the program, and to construct new clinics all across the country.
In Iowa, I have helped to add five new Community Health
Centers, in Cedar Rapids, Dubuque, Fort Dodge, Storm Lake,
and Decatur County, while expanding the services already
available in Des Moines, Waterloo, Sioux City, Council Bluffs,
Davenport, Burlington, and Ottumwa. At the same time, I have
secured federal funding to expand facilities and enhance
equipment at clinics across Iowa. I am currently working to gain
federal status and funding for a clinic in Sioux County.
Improving Rural Health Care Services

Iowa has a disproportionately large population of senior citizens,
and many of them live in rural communities. As co-chair of the
Senate’s Rural Health Caucus, I am acutely aware of the
challenges that the Medicare program faces in largely rural
states such as Iowa. Currently, Medicare reimburses doctors
and hospitals in rural areas at a much lower rate than in urban
areas, and this is making it increasingly difficult for rural
hospitals to stay open and for doctors to practice in rural
communities. I am currently cosponsoring sponsoring The Craig
Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act of 2007, also
known as the R-HoPE Act, to address the urban-rural disparity
in reimbursements, and to increase the amount of money
Medicare pays to rural hospitals, doctors and ambulance
services.

Helping Small Businesses to Provide Health Care Coverage
Small businesses that want to provide employees with health
coverage are often charged higher premiums than large
employers, and are less able to offer their employees a choice
of health plans. That is why I am cosponsoring the Small
Employers Health Benefits Program Act. This bill would create a
new program modeled after the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program, which successfully provides affordable health
coverage to more than eight million federal employees and
retirees and their families, including members of Congress. The
bill would allow small businesses to pool their purchasing clout
to negotiate lower rates, and give small-business employees the
same kinds of health plan choices that members of Congress
have. The bill would also set reasonable limits on what insurers
can charge.

In the health care debate, Senator Harkins is said to have said
that it was self-evident that Health Care just like life, liberty and
happiness is an unalienable right that all residents of the United
States should enjoy ... What does the Senator say about the
conundrum between the unalienable right of an otherwise
healthy human being still in the womb to be born so that he or
she could enjoy the promised rights of Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of happiness and healthcare versus the supposive right
of  a woman to treat the termination of her non life threatening
pregnancy as insignificant as surgeon removing an abscess
from her back or neck.  Senator - What is your take in this? Just
as the House and Senate must reconcile their very different Bills
to create a Law that President Obama can sign by late January
to he can appear and speak triumphant when he gives his
Constitutionally required State of Union Message before a Joint
Session of Congress in February. You must reconcile the
consequences of these two very different and opposing life,
liberty, pursuit of happiness and health care inalienable rights ...
In addition you must acknowledge the Constitutional grounds
you consider Health Care an unalienable right. That
Constitutional ground cannot cite the Declaration of
Independence as its reference, because the Declaration of
Independence is not found in our Written Constitution. And
neither can you cite Scottish Law as Arlen Specter once did on
another issue.

While the entire Senate voted to protect Medicare benefits ,
there are big steps that still  must be made to the reform bill
according to AARP. The Senate must:
•        Lower drug costs and close the Medicare Part D coverage
gap or "doughnut hole";
•        Prevent costly hospital readmissions by creating a follow-
up care benefit in Medicare to help people safely transition
home after a hospital stay;
•        Increase home and community based services so older
Americans can remain in their homes and avoid costly
institutions; and
•        Improve programs that help low income Americans in
Medicare afford the health care and prescription drugs they
need.

                                   Installment 5

Of note --- A Reuters article written by Martin Petty and Prak
Chan Thul from Phnom Penh , Cambodia  said a U.N.-backed
tribunal sentenced a senior Khmer Rouge commander to 35
years in prison July 26, 2010  in its first verdict on the "Killing
Fields" revolution blamed for 1.7 million deaths in Cambodia
three decades ago.

But 67-year-old Kaing Guek Eav, known as Duch, will only
serve 19 years after the court subtracted 16 years for time
already served -- short of the maximum 40 years sought by the
prosecution and the life behind bars many Cambodians
demanded.

The former schoolteacher admitted during the eight-month trial
to overseeing the torture and the killing of more than 14,000
people but said he was only following orders.

He was found guilty of murder, torture, rape, inhumane acts,
crimes against humanity and other charges as commander of
Tuol Sleng prison, a converted high school also known as S-21
that symbolized the horrors of the ultra-communist regime
blamed for 1.7 million deaths in 1975-79.

He betrayed no emotion as a judge read the verdict. Duch could
be released after just 11 years if authorities believe he is
sufficiently rehabilitated and grant him parole

Duch had said during the trial he had no choice but to carry out
orders, that he had to "kill or be killed" and operate like an
"obedient machine."

Prosecutors had insisted Duch was "ideologically of the same
mind" as the Khmer Rouge leaders and did nothing to stop
torture. An estimated fifth of the population died during the
Khmer Rouge's 1975-79 rule over the already war-scarred
country.

Foreign investors see the Khmer Rouge trials as a gauge to
whether rule of law is taking root in one of Asia's fastest-growing
frontier markets. Justice, however, could be elusive as
controversy surrounds other cadres awaiting trial.

The cases of former President Khieu Samphan, "Brother
Number Two" Nuon Chea, ex-Foreign Minister Ieng Sary and
his wife, Ieng Thirith are highly complex and politicized. Many
fear they may never go to trial, or they might die before seeing a
courtroom.

Standing in the way of justice, analysts say, is not just the
excessive bureaucracy and a drawn-out legal process, but a
powerful single-party government that has never fully backed
the tribunal and has historical ties to the Khmer Rouge.

Many former Khmer Rouge members are now part of
Cambodia's civil service and occupy top positions in provincial
and central government and experts say they are keen to curtail
the court's progress and limit the scope of future investigations.
Long-serving Prime Minister Hun Sen is himself a former Khmer
Rouge foot soldier who says he defected to eventual
conquerors Vietnam. He has warned of another civil war if the
court expands its probes into the horrors of Pol Pot's "year zero"
revolution.

Finance Minister Keat Chhon has also admitted his involvement
as an interpreter for late Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot, while
Foreign Minister Hor Namhong has been accused of having
Khmer Rouge connections and heading a detention center. He
denies the claims

Please note - If the court system in Cambodia was unwilling or
unable to render justice to those individuals involved in the
Khmer Rouge atrocities then the International Court of Criminal
Justice as an international body could serve as the court of last
resort. But the Court will not act if a case is investigated or
prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national
proceedings are not genuine, for example if formal proceedings
were undertaken solely to shield a person from criminal
responsibility. In addition, the ICC only tries those accused of
the gravest crimes.

Currently the United States is not a member of the incipient
International Court of Justice. But we are a member of the
International Court of Justice.

It should be understand that the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) has been the principal judicial organ of the United Nations
(UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the
United Nations and began work in April 1946.

The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague
(Netherlands). Of the six principal organs of the United Nations,
it is the only one not located in New York (United States of
America).

The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international
law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory
opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United
Nations organs and specialized agencies.

The Court is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for terms
of office of nine years by the United Nations General Assembly
and the Security Council. It is assisted by a Registry, its
administrative organ. Its official languages are English and
French.

One of these Judges is  Thomas Buergenthal a naturalized
American born in Lubochna, Slovakia on May 11, 1934. He has
been a member of the Court since March 2,. 2000 and has been
re-elected to the court February 6, 2006.

Only States (States Members of the United Nations and other
States which have become parties to the Statute of the Court or
which have accepted its jurisdiction under certain conditions)
may be parties to contentious cases.


Proceedings may be instituted in one of two ways:
•        Through the notification of a special agreement: this
document, which is of a bilateral nature, can be lodged with the
Court by either of the States parties to the proceedings or by
both of them. A special agreement must indicate the subject of
the dispute and the parties thereto. Since there is neither an
“applicant” State nor a “respondent” State, in the Court’s
publications their names are separated by an oblique stroke at
the end of the official title of the case, e.g., Benin/Niger;
•        By means of an application: the application, which is of a
unilateral nature, is submitted by an applicant State against a
respondent State. It is intended for communication to the latter
State and the Rules of Court contain stricter requirements with
respect to its content. In addition to the name of the party
against which the claim is brought and the subject of the
dispute, the applicant State must, as far as possible, indicate
briefly on what basis  - a treaty or a declaration of acceptance of
compulsory jurisdiction  - it claims the Court has jurisdiction, and
must succinctly state the facts and grounds on which it bases its
claim. At the end of the official title of the case the names of the
two parties are separated by the abbreviation “v.” (for the Latin
versus), e.g., Nicaragua v. Colombia.

At present there is little concern about U.S. acceptance of ICJ
jurisdiction in some matters. However, there are no pending  
contentious case involving the United States before the Court.
There is:
•        a case involving Whaling in the Antarctic between
Australia and Japan.
•        a Maritime Dispute between Peru and Chile
•        a Application of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination between
Georgia and the Russian Federation

However, the United States in 2008 was in a Request for
Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case
concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v.
United States of America)

From: http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l437-Case-Of-
Avena-And-Other-Mexican-Nationals.html

The judgment of the International Court of Justice in Avena and
Other Mexican Nationals  considers the obligations that a state
bears towards detained foreign nationals under art 36 of the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The VCCR is a
multilateral treaty that regulates and defines the activity of the
consular post of one state, known as the ‘sending state’, in the
territory of another, known as the ‘receiving state’. One aspect
of such consular activity is the protection of nationals of the
sending state, specifically those detained on criminal charges.
Under art 36 of the VCCR, the authorities of the receiving state
must permit contact between a detained foreign national and a
consul of the sending state, so that the consul may assist the
detainee with respect to the charges faced.

In Avena, Mexico brought a suit on behalf of certain Mexican
nationals arrested in various states of the United States. The
case focused on those sentenced to death for murder, and
awaiting execution. Mexico alleged that 51 of its nationals had
not been informed about consular access upon arrest, but were
nonetheless convicted and sentenced to death. Mexico asked
for reversal of those convictions and sentences. Beyond its
implications for the life or death of those Mexican nationals, the
suit involved complex questions of the relationship between
international obligations and domestic criminal proceedings.
Mexico’s claim against the US was subject to the compulsory
jurisdiction of the ICJ because both states are party to the
VCCR, as well as the Optional Protocol to the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations concerning the Compulsory
Settlement of Disputes.

However, At present  U.S. acceptance of International Court of
Criminal Justice jurisdiction in some matters is a point of
contention.  

In a August 6, 2009  Associated Press story by Lisa Gambone ,
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaking in
Kenya said is a “great regret” that the US was not a member of
the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague,

The ICC was established in 2002 as the first ever permanent,
treaty based tribunal for trying genocide, war crimes and crimes
against humanity, building on the foundations of the ad hoc
tribunals (ICTR, ICTY) created in the 1990s.  It is currently
investigating situations in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, the Central African Republic, Uganda and Sudan
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton,
originally signed the Rome Statute (the ICC’s underlying treaty)
in 2000.  But the treaty was never ratified by Congress and was
then ‘unsigned’ by George W. Bush in 2002, on worries about
US citizens being brought before the court.

US opposition to the ICC was then further cemented by the
enactment of the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, a
law authorizing the use of any means necessary to free any US
or allied personnel brought to the ICC - effectively a conditional
authorization of US intervention in the Netherlands.

Thus the Secretary’s statements indicate a significant policy
shift in favor of the court. But for those that hope this shift will
result in imminent US membership, reports that the
administration in fact remains split on the issue show that this
may not happen anytime soon.

The International Criminal Court (ICC), governed by the Rome
Statute, is the first permanent, treaty based, international
criminal court established to help end impunity for the
perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the
international community.

The ICC is an independent international organization, and is not
part of the United Nations system. Its seat is at The Hague in
the Netherlands. Although the Court’s expenses are funded
primarily by States Parties, it also receives voluntary
contributions from governments, international organizations,
individuals, corporations and other entities.

The international community has long aspired to the creation of
a permanent international court, and, in the 20th century, it
reached consensus on definitions of genocide, crimes against
humanity and war crimes. The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials
addressed war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes
against humanity committed during the Second World War.

In the 1990s after the end of the Cold War, tribunals like the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and for
Rwanda were the result of consensus that impunity is
unacceptable. However, because they were established to try
crimes committed only within a specific time-frame and during a
specific conflict, there was general agreement that an
independent, permanent criminal court was needed.

On 17 July 1998, the international community reached an
historic milestone when 120 States adopted the Rome Statute,
the legal basis for establishing the permanent International
Criminal Court.

The Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 after
ratification by 60 countries.

The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case is
investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless
the national proceedings are not genuine, for example if formal
proceedings were undertaken solely to shield a person from
criminal responsibility. In addition, the ICC only tries those
accused of the gravest crimes.

Pursuant to the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor can initiate an
investigation on the basis of a referral from any State Party or
from the United Nations Security Council. In addition, the
Prosecutor can initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis
of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
received from individuals or organizations (“communications”).
To date, three States Parties to the Rome Statute – Uganda,
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African
Republic – have referred situations occurring on their territories
to the Court. In addition, the Security Council has referred the
situation in Darfur, Sudan – a non‐State Party. After a thorough
analysis of available information, the Prosecutor has opened
and is conducting investigations in all of the above-mentioned
situations.

On March 31, 2010, Pre-Trial Chamber II granted the
Prosecution authorization to open an investigation proprio motu
in the situation of Kenya.

In the situation in Uganda, the case The Prosecutor versus
Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo and Dominic
Ongwen have been heard before Pre-Trial Chamber II in
ansentia. In this case, five warrants of arrest have been issued
against the five top members of the Lord's Resistance Army
(LRA). ... Following the confirmation of the death of Mr Lukwiya,
the proceedings against him have been terminated. The four
remaining suspects are still at large.

In the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, three
cases have heard before the relevant Chambers: The
Prosecutor versus Thomas Lubanga Dyila; The Prosecutor
versus Bosco Ntaganda; and The Prosecutor versus Germain
Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui.

The accused Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Germain Katanga and
Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui were in the custody of the ICC.  The
suspect Bosco Ntaganda remains at large even at this late date.
In the situation in Darfur, Sudan, three cases were heard before
Pre-Trial Chamber I: The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad
Harun (“Ahmad Harun”) and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman
(“Ali Kushayb”); The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al
Bashir and The Prosecutor v. Bahr Idriss Abu Garda

The suspect Bahr Idriss Abu Garda appeared voluntarily for the
first time before Pre-Trial Chamber I on 18 May 2009. He is not
in custody. The three other suspects remain at large.
In the situation in the Central African Republic, the case The
Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo has been heard
before Pre-Trial Chamber II.

We have said above that U.S. participation in the ICC is a point
of contention. However, this contention has not prevented Alex
Whiting, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of
Massachusetts  to involve himself with the ICC. Whiting will join  
the International Criminal Court as investigation coordinator in
December 2010 ...  Whiting served in the Justice Department for
11 years before pursuing international law. From 1991 to 1995,
Whiting served as a trial attorney in the Criminal Section of the
DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, before moving to Massachusetts,
where he served in the Public Corruption and Special
Prosecutions Units until 2002.

In 2000, Attorney General Janet Reno awarded Whiting the
Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award — the Justice
Department’s second highest award — for his work on the
investigation and prosecution of Arthur A. Coia, the general
president of a labor union who pleaded guilty to engaging in a
scheme to defraud the state of Rhode Island.

In 2002, Whiting joined the Office of the Prosecutor at the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia as a
senior trial attorney. He won the conviction of Serbian rebel
leader Milan Martic by an international war crimes tribunal for
atrocities committed in Croatia during the early 1990s.

In 2007, Whiting became an assistant clinical professor of law at
Harvard Law School

As investigation coordinator, Whiting will inherit responsibility
over the ICC’s ongoing investigations in Uganda, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, the Central African
Republic and Kenya.

Upon his appointment as investigation Coordinator, Whiting said
in a statement “I am enormously excited and honored to have
this opportunity to work at the ICC ... The court faces staggering
challenges in its mission to investigate and prosecute atrocities
occurring around the world. I look forward to contributing to the
work of this important institution as it seeks to bring perpetrators
to justice.”

Historically, what is Barrack Obama's take on the ICC
Question: “Should the United States ratify the ‘Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court (ICC)’? If not, what concerns do
you have that need to be resolved before you would support
joining the court? Prior to ratification what should the United
States relationship with the Court be, particularly in regards
sharing intelligence prosecuting war criminals, and referring
cases to the UN Security Council?

The future President's response to a Candidate questionnaire
during his 2004 Senate race:
Answer: “Yes ... The United States should cooperate with ICC
investigations in a way that reflects American sovereignty and
promotes our national security interests.”

Then in October 6, 2007, the future President just  beginning
his campaign for President responded to this candidate
questionnaire:

Question: “Given the International Criminal Court’s recent
activities in pursuing war crimes and crimes against humanity,
what would be your administration’s policy regarding U.S.
cooperation with ongoing investigations?”

Answer: “Now that it is operational, we are learning more and
more about how the ICC functions. The Court has pursued
charges only in cases of the most serious and systemic crimes
and it is in America’s interests that these most heinous of
criminals, like the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur, are
held accountable. These actions are a credit to the cause of
justice and deserve full American support and cooperation. Yet
the Court is still young, many questions remain unanswered
about the ultimate scope of its activities, and it is premature to
commit the U.S. to any course of action at this time.

“The United States has more troops deployed overseas than
any other nation and those forces are bearing a
disproportionate share of the burden in the protecting
Americans and preserving international security. Maximum
protection for our servicemen and women should come with that
increased exposure. Therefore, I will consult thoroughly with our
military commanders and also examine the track record of the
Court before reaching a decision on whether the U.S. should
become a State Party to the ICC.”

Question: “Beyond cooperation with current investigations, what
should the United States’ relationship be with the Court?”

Answer: “My administration would continue to cooperate with
ongoing ICC investigations in Sudan.”

Conclusion --  Obama as a candidate seemed to generally favor
the ICC — though he obviously had reservations about U.S.
membership... Please note --- Bill Clinton had no such
reservation ... He signed the United Nations Treaty creating the  
ICC, but the U.S. Senate never voted on it during his term ...
And the Bush Administration notified the United Nations that it
would not honor Clinton's commitment for the ICC ... Pulling its
signature out of the treaty in May 2002.

And as it was, Samantha Power made the following comment
when she was still one of Obama’s senior foreign-policy
advisers in his campaign for President:
Until we’ve closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly,
renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for
America, American membership of the ICC is going to make
countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American
hegemony.

If Barack Obama ratified the ICC or announced his support for it
on day one, two things would happen. One, it would have the
chance of discrediting the ICC in the short term, and two, he
would so strain his relations with the U.S. military that it would
actually be very hard to recover. There’s a whole lot of internal
diplomacy, internal conversations about sovereignty and so
forth that have to be had before you can think about that.

But Kevin Jon Heller in Opino Juris wrote July 26, 2008: The U.
S. has been the ICC’s most bitter critic, refusing to ratify a
Statute it played a critical role in drafting, launching a multi-year
blackmail campaign to force States to sign Article 98
agreements, and even authorizing the use of military force
against the Hague should an American ever end up in the dock
there.  Joining the ICC would thus not only demonstrate to the
world that the U.S no longer thinks it is above the (international)
law, it would legitimize the Court in the eyes of its member
States and — perhaps even more important — indicate to other
ICC critics, such as Israel and Russia, that their opposition is
unwarranted.  Indeed, one could easily argue without too much
hyperbole that U.S. membership in the ICC would be the single
most momentous event in the brief history of the Court, literally
heralding the dawn of a new era for international criminal justice.
He continues: "The U.S. deserves the criticism it gets for its
irrational hostility to the ICC.  But we cannot forget that, over the
past six decades, the U.S. has done as much as any country in
the world to promote international criminal justice.  That’s why
the U.S. position on the Court is so distressing — and why a U.
S. decision to join the Court would be cause for lasting
celebration"

During his eight years in office , George Bush kept the
International Court of Criminal Court at arm’s length, refusing to
join it but encouraged its work bringing malefactors to justice.  
With the US acting as the world’s policeman, Bush explained,
he could not afford to allow the ICC to take jurisdiction over our
military personnel and give our enemies a political lever for
interference.  Gerald Warner at the Telegraph ( A UK
publication) gave us a warning in March of 2009 that Barack
Obama will reverse that decision — and that could open the
door for a string of indictments relating to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Writes Warner: "But the people who should be feeling really
nervous about this development are the citizens of the United
States and more especially their armed forces. The signs are
that the grandstanding Barack Obama is preparing to subject
the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC. In May, 2002
President Bush withdrew the United States from the Rome
Statute which established the ICC. With America heading into
global conflict, he had no wish to see US troops arraigned for
alleged war crimes before a kangaroo court.

That was a wise decision and probably required in terms of the
US Constitution. Already, however, the Obama administration is
sending out very different messages. America helped defeat a
proposal that the warrant for Bashir should be suspended for 12
months – which would have been a welcome respite for the
soup kitchens of Darfur. This is a policy change of considerable
significance..

Nor is it the only straw in the wind. Last month US Ambassador
Susan Rice, in a closed meeting of the Security Council,
supported the ICC, saying it “looks to become an important and
credible instrument for trying to hold accountable the senior
leadership responsible for atrocities committed in the Congo,
Uganda and Darfur”. A week later Ben Chang, spokesman for
National Security Advisor General James Jones, took a similar
line, telling the Washington Times: “We support the ICC in its
pursuit of those who’ve perpetrated war crimes.”

The next logical step is for the United States to sign up to the
ICC. That would flatter Obama’s ego as the conscience of the
world. It would also put US servicemen at the mercy of any
American-hating opportunists who might choose to arraign them
on trumped-up charges before an alien court whose judges are
likely to be ill-disposed towards America too."

These words and thoughts providing  a good reason why
Conservative groups sometimes look in horror at Barrack
Obama's actions ... They say that the President is at it again ...
This time he wants to impose his socialistic views on the United
States by subjecting our citizens to the International Criminal
Court (ICC).

They claim that Obama recently dispatched a delegation to The
Hague to explore issues involving United States' involvement in
the ICC, an organization that Conservatives believe could be
used to prosecute American soldiers and political leaders on
trumped up criminal charges brought by left wing, or terrorist
supporting, governments, like Iran.

They go far as suggest that Barack Obama believes that the
United States should be subject to global laws, instead of the
United States Constitution.

Organizations such as  the United States Justice foundation
(USJF) are very concerned about this shift in United States
policy, claiming the ICC does not recognize many of the U.S.
Constitution's provisions protecting defendants in criminal trials,
such as the right to trial by jury, and protections against double-
jeopardy, which are the cornerstones of the Bill of Rights.

But ironically, Obama would guarantee these same rights to
Guantanamo Inmates removed from the prison there for trial in
the United States

Says the USJC the main tenet of the ICC is that its jurisdiction
extends only to those nations that ratify the ICC treaty.
However, the Obama administration is, apparently, going to
adopt a policy that would subject the United States to the ICC,
even if the U. S. Senate does not adopt the treaty... A clear
VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!

The so-called "Rome" statute provides that when the basic
requisites for ICC jurisdiction under part of the statute have
been met, then the ICC may exercise criminal jurisdiction over
nationals of States not party to the Rome Statute, in this case,
the citizens of the United States.

The ICC was given such jurisdiction in order to ensure that
offenders of the most serious international crimes, which come
under the jurisdiction of the Court, will be held accountable of
their actions, regardless of their nationality.

This claimed jurisdiction is one of the concerns of USJF, and
they feel that this is an unlawful intrusion on our Sovereignty.

They  are afraid that this United States Senate, led by Harry
Reid, working with  other Senators they termed socialists in the
Democratic majority, will ratify the Rome Statute if it comes to
the Senate Floor, thus destroying the sovereignty of this country.

The fact is, their belief became reality as the  Obama White
House pushed for ratification of this Treaty starting in May of
2010. However, because of Public protest after ObombaCare
was forced on and Concern that the Public would again rise up
on this issue, transparency was thrown out the window. Thus it
occurred that the Obama  Administration attempted a  end-run
around the treaty ratification process, "just in case."

Many Conservatives could not trust Harry Reid's  Senate to
protect their Constitutional Rights!  Then too, they  could not  
trust the Obama Administration to protect their  Constitutional
Rights either. They had  already seen with the OBAMACARE
Push how the Democratic majority in Congress, and the Obama
White House operate. These Conservations contend that these
individuals do not care what is good for the United States, they
just care about obtaining more power and pushing their radical
agenda!

It is their claim that the ICC does not offer the same due process
rights, particularly right to trial by jury and protection against
double-jeopardy, rights which are guaranteed under the United
States Constitution.  These rights were the cornerstones of our
legal protections in criminal cases, our "due process" rights
which should never be infringed upon.

It was also their claim that the "Rome" Statute contravenes
Article I, Section 8, and Article III, Section I, of the U. S.
Constitution, dealing with the establishment of domestic courts.

To counter the charges of Conservatives, those said to be on
the left will argue that the Rome Statute contains due process
protections that are essentially in line with protections under the
U.S. Constitution, such as the right to remain silent, the
guarantee against compulsory self-incrimination, the
presumption of innocence, the right to confront accusers and
cross-examine witnesses, and the right to a speedy and public
trial ... But Conservatives counter by saying that even though a
lot of these rights parallel those in our Constitution, there is still
no right to trial by Jury.

Another problem with the ICC is that since Congress neither
created the ICC nor approved its rules, the Rome Statute is
inconsistent with the provisions found in Article I, Section 8, of
the Constitution, which empowers Congress with the authority
to "constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court," and
Article III, Section 1, which states that "judicial power of the
United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in
such inferior courts as the Congress from time to time ordain
and establish."

To Conservatives, the Constitution is pretty clear in this regard.
The power to create courts lies with Congress, and not with the
global community. That is why they continue to hammer away
the point after the fact that U.S. involvement in the ICC has
circumvented  the U. S. Constitution and destroyed  American
Sovereignty.


We remind our readers that upon his appointment as
investigation Coordinator, Alex Whiting said in a statement “I am
enormously excited and honored to have this opportunity to
work at the ICC ... The court faces staggering challenges in its
mission to investigate and prosecute atrocities occurring around
the world. I look forward to contributing to the work of this
important institution as it seeks to bring perpetrators to justice.”

A few such perpetrators to be brought to justice according to
groups as diverse as anti-war advocates, Marxists, social
reformers and Muslim groups  are  former U.S President George
W .Bush, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Former
Australian  Prime Minister John Howard and additional U.S.
military and civilian officials.

The fact is, there was an attempt as early as November 30,
2004, to bring George Bush to justice for crimes against
humanity in Vancouver, British Columbia never-the-less...Gail
Davidson, Co Chair of an international group Lawyers against
War, walked into Vancouver Provincial Court and convinced a
Justice of Peace to accept seven criminal code charges against
Bush while he was visiting Canada. She brought evidence to
support her contention  that Bush should be held criminally
responsible for counseling, aiding and abetting torture at Abu
Ghraib prison in Iraq and a U,S military jail in Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba. Each offense carried a prison sentence of up to fourteen
years. On December 6, 2004 , Provincial Court Judge William
Kitchen ruled in an in-camera hearing that those charges were a
nullity-in-law meaning they never occurred even though they
have been approved. Kitchen permitted Davidson to reveal
outside the Courtroom that his decision was based on Bush's
diplomatic immunity... A decision that the other Law Co-chair,
Michael Mandel said was irregular in procedure and wrong in
substance. However, Michael Byers, an University of British
Columbia expert in global politics and international law told the
press that a sitting head of state always has diplomatic immunity.

Davidson also told the press that she is personally committed
that Bush, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney , Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others are held accountable.
She claims that they committed a wide range of international
crimes "of the most serious nature" and insists that members of
the United Nations such as Canada cannot avoid prosecution of
these individuals and still maintain the integrity of their own legal
systems.

As it happened, on the same day, the New York based Center
for Constitutional Rights laid war crime charges in Germany  
against Rumsfeld and nine other U.S. military personnel. In
February 2005 ,  a German Court threw out the case, rejecting
the CCR's contention that the U.S. is unwilling to prosecute its
own senior officials.

And in February , 2007 The Kuala Lumpur War Crime
Commission chaired by former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr
Mahathir Mohamad heard nine charges against US President
George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and
Australian Prime Minister John Howard for the sufferings of the
people in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.

Charge # 1 -  Bush, Blair and Howard, through a deliberate plan
of deception, falsehood, forgery and outright lies, misled their
respective Congress and Parliament to wage war against Iraq
which was a "crime against peace."
Charge # 2 -  Bush, Blair and Howard embarked on a
systematic campaign to destroy Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine
economically and militarily.
Charge # 3 - Bush, Blair and Howard ordered the destruction of
vital facilities essential to civilian lives in Iraq, Lebanon and
Palestine
Charge # 4 - Bush, Blair and Howard ordered the bombing of
schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, residential areas and
historical sites and conveniently labeling the destruction as
"collateral damage".
Charge # 5 - Bush, Blair and Howard allowed the use of
weapons of mass destruction that inflicted indiscriminate death
and suffering against civilian targets such as the cluster bomb,
napalm bomb, phosphorous bomb and depleted uranium
ammunition.
Charge # 6 - Bush, Blair and Howard  fraudulently manipulated
the United Nations and the Security Council as well as
corrupted its members to commit crimes against peace and war
times.
Charge # 7 - Bush, Blair and Howard destroyed the
environment of Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.
Charge # 8 - Bush, Blair and Howard ordered and condoned the
violation of human rights, specifically the civilians in the Abu
Ghraib prison in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay in Cuba as well as other
prisons known and unknown in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and
anywhere else in the world.
Charge # 9 - Bush, Blair and Howard systematically controlled
and manipulated, directed and misinformed the mass media so
as to incite war to achieve their military objectives in Iraq,
Lebanon and Palestine.

May we ask, are these gentleman also responsible for the
terrorist suicide bombers who attack schools, mosques,
hospitals, train stations, churches, historical sites, residential
areas, shopping bazaars and police stations... Somehow the
Lilliputians who seek to disarm and weaken the western world
for their benefit walk around the world with blinders on their
heads so they could never see what they done to help continue
the turmoil that now and perhaps forever will exist in the world
because of mortal beings.

Then in May 2008,  in a copyrighted article by Sorch Faal the
Russian Foreign Ministry is alleged to have reported to
President Medvedev  that US Presidential candidate Barack
Obama had sent one of his top aides named Valerie Jarrett to
meet with officials from the International Committee of the Red
Cross, in Geneva, Switzerland, to what is being described  as
the ‘preliminary stage’ to begin actions in the International Court
of Justice charging the then present United States President,
then present Vice President and former US Defense Secretary
with war crimes.

The International Committee of the Red Cross opened in 2005 a
War Crimes Portfolio alleging that President Bush, Vice
President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and other
US Officials, were in violation of Articles 3 and 4 of the Geneva
Convention and could be tried for Crimes Against Humanity.
These two Articles of the Geneva Convention state:
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties,
each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,
the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including
members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and
those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or
any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,
without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion
or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at
any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-
mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and
degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions
without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly
constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are
recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International
Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the
Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavor to bring into
force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other
provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the
legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are
persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have
fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well
as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such
armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer
corps, including those of organized resistance movements,
belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside
their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that
such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized
resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the
laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining
Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually
being members thereof, such as civilian members of military
aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors,
members of labor units or of services responsible for the welfare
of the armed forces, provided that they have received
authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who
shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar
to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices,
of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the
Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favorable
treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach
of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading
forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular
armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the
laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war
under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces
of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it
necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even
though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were
going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where
such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the
armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in
combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to
them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated
in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-
belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers
are required to intern under international law, without prejudice
to any more favorable treatment which these Powers may
choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30,
fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations
exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-
belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the
Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the
Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be
allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting
Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice
to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in
conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical
personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the
present Convention.”

Russian diplomats took the line that Senator Obama’s actions
against the present US Leaders in his country in having a
representative meet with the International Red Cross were due
to the testimony heard  in Washington where American soldiers
detailed the war atrocities they  allegedly were ordered to
commit..

Russian legal experts further state that Senator Obama, should
he become the next President of the United States, he ‘almost
certainly’ would have to file War Crime charges against these
US War Leaders to keep himself from being brought up on
these charges should he ignore them.   

Benjamin Ferencz, the former chief prosecutor of the
Nuremberg Trials against the Nazis, and who is the founding
father of the basis behind International law regarding war
crimes, has also stated that "There is a case for trying Bush for
the supreme crime against humanity, and an illegal war of
aggression against a sovereign nation."

Of course, at the time, the Russians were intimidated by the fact
that the Bush Administration planned to provide anti-missile
defense system to Poland and the Czech Republic which at one
time were former satellite nations of the Soviet Union. Relations
between Putin and Bush had seen better days. And as it has
occurred, relations between Putin and Obama has not warmed
up to the point of them being buddies. But Obama did budge a
bit on the anti-missile issue.

Obama, of course, if he had intended to move against members
of the Bush Administration and the former President himself, has
not yet done that. Maybe to the chagrin of Russian Officials...
But the word is still out there that if Obama makes a second
term ... Former members of the Bush Administration could be  
charged with grave crimes by members of Al-Qaeda and enemy
non-combatants once held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba
especially the Yemenis scheduled to be transferred to a U.S.
prison Camp the Obama Administration plans to  locate in
Thompson Illinois...

Interestingly, the Obama Administration's proposal to relocate
Guantanamo Bay detainees to Illinois' Thomson Correctional
Center Conservative was an issue in itself.  media figures,
including Rush Limbaugh and Jim Hoft, have suggested that the
January 2010  escape of three prisoners from the privately
managed Tri-County Detention Center in Illinois demonstrates
that Guantánamo detainees should not be moved to Illinois'
Thomson Correctional Center, as the Obama administration has
proposed. But federal officials have stated their intention to
enhance the Thomson facility's security to levels exceeding that
of the Supermax prison in Colorado, which currently holds
numerous terrorists and from which there has never been an
escape; moreover, a 2001 Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
study found that privately managed prisons have higher escape
rates than federal prison

Also as we speak The White House finally released the 100th
revision of a declassified account of government missteps that
allowed a suspected terrorist to slip through security and
attempt to blow up a plane on Christmas 2009.

Still more --- In other news:  Yemen has once again rejected
direct U.S. intervention in its crackdown on al Qaeda, Foreign
Minister Abubakr al-Qirbi said Yemen security forces must fight
the militants within its borders, but they would accept some
assistance from other countries. "What we need from the United
States and other partners is to build our capability to provide us
with the technical know-how, with the equipment, with the
intelligence information and with the firepower," Qirbi said. In
other words, Yemen wanted more money from the United States
... Unfortunately, the Obama White House with all its past
Stimulus Packages cannot raise enough Yen to satisfy Foreign
Minister Abubakr al-Qirbi's wants and needs.