The International Criminal Court (ICC) Can Try Abortionists:
Are you shocked that such a thing could be suggested? Then you haven't paid attention to what the International Criminal Court is designed to accomplish.
This is how an AP report on July 3, 2002, described the International Criminal Court, "…opening its doors for operation in February 2003 in The Hague, Netherlands, …the new court will deal with genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity…Crimes against humanity include systematic murder or torture, rape and sexual slavery…"
According to the Declaration of Independence we are supposed to be celebrating tomorrow, those who are willing to act like unborn babies are human beings who are "…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life…" have a perfect legal foundation in the International Criminal Court to indict abortionists for "crimes against humanity."
True, the rules of the court
specifically say, "…Crimes committed before
You scoff? You think it is impossible for abortionists to be prosecuted at the ICC?
If you examine the International Criminal Court's mandate and jurisdiction, you will see that, at least in principle, it looks like it is designed to bring crimes like abortion to the bar of justice, even when those activities have been declared to be perfectly legal in nations, like the United States of America, that sanction them.
To prove the point, the AP report continued, "The ICC will not supercede national legal systems and will intercede only when national courts are unable to investigate or prosecute serious crimes…It can try anyone from heads of state who knew, ordered or condoned a crime, to average citizens, who cannot say they were acting under orders."
In other words, the ICC will decide
what constitutes a crime, local government's decrees notwithstanding. And in the
Before you are tempted to dismiss
this idea as literally unthinkable, consider this: "The
In other words, while there is obviously significant opposition to the ICC from the major nuclear powers on earth, the rest of the world is rallying behind the court because, without it, there is no legal basis on earth for a weak, non-nuclear power, to defend itself from the nuclear powers. The only thing that protects the citizens of a non-nuclear powered nation is the benevolent character of the nuclear powered nations.
Did the idea of any nation on this earth being seen to be of "benevolent character" provoke a snort of scorn from you? Then you know why the great majority of nations on earth are working like beavers to bring about the ICC. And they will continue to work. If you want to see why the ICC will continue to grow in power, look at how benevolent Israel looks these days, or, for that matter, look at how benevolent the USA looks when guests at wedding parties in Afghanistan (where scores of civilians were recently vaporized for the crime of being at the wrong place at the wrong time) must keep one ear attuned to approaching B-52s or American gunships.
The point is this: do not expect
the International Criminal Court to go away, and do not expect the Court to
exempt citizens of the
If we've got to learn to live with it, we might as well put it to good use.
As the Nuremberg Files web site said nearly four years ago, and still says today, "One of the great tragedies of the Nuremberg trials of Nazis after WWII was that complete information and documented evidence had not been collected, so many war criminals went free or were only found guilty of minor crimes."
The Nuremberg Files continued, "We do not want the same thing to happen when the day comes to charge abortionists with their crimes. We anticipate the day when these people will be charged in PERFECTLY LEGAL COURTS once the tide of this nation's opinion turns against the wanton slaughter of God's children (as it surely will)."
In a world where bad news and
good news go hand in hand, the good news about the ICC is that the means are
becoming available to bring about justice for those children of God who have
been legally butchered in the
Return to Christian Gallery News ServiceThe United States objects to the idea that Americans could be subject to the court’s jurisdiction if a crime is committed in a country that has ratified the Rome treaty that established the court -- even if the United States is not a party. Washington is demanding that American and other peacekeepers from countries that have not ratified the treaty be exempt from arrest and prosecution by the tribunal. The court’s supporters contend that the Rome treaty provides adequate safeguards against abuse. First and foremost, it will step in only when countries are unwilling or unable to dispense justice themselves.
You Can Mail A Donation To: Neal Horsley, PO Box 1081, Carrollton, Ga 30116,
Or If You Can't Donate Now, Click Below and Join The We Choose Life Network.
Use Your Internet Connection Fee To Help Deter People From Butchering God's Children