photo by kind courtesy of @atuktekt (*click the photo for details)


FACT CHECK: Obama DID NOT sign the Executive Order to 'rejoin' the International Criminal Court (ICC)

Original Japanese version of this article can be found here. ←日本語版はこちら


On 3 May 2012, Gordon Duff, a Senior Editor of an independent publication related to (but NOT an official gazette) the U.S. Veterans Association, Veterans Today ("VT"), published a personal blog article entitled "Obama Rejoins ICC, US No Longer "Rogue" State". The article reported that U.S. President Obama has recently signed an Executive Order ("EO") "rejoining" the International Criminal Court ("the Court"). The news spread like a brush fire through out the Web but with no substantial evidence corroborating to the alleged facts stated in the article. If indeed this was true, the whole world should rejoice the news, welcome and commend President Obama to have taken such a bold step.
That being said,
 however, this blog challenges to conclude that through a thorough fact check on the alleged report, there was no evidence whatsoever corroborating to what was said in the VT article. This blog also concludes that even if such action was taken in secret as a 'secret EO', such action will not have the desired and/or feared effect of those on each side of the political spectrum.

This blog warns that IF President Obama is attempting to override the Constitutional limitations as President to authorize himself to 'ratify' a multilateral treaty without Congressional approval or due process of the law it will create a dangerous precedent on the legal foundations of limiting the power of the President.

The process of verification has been documented in a compilation of tweets in Japanese (partly subtitled in English). This is the English version of that report on my personal fact check mission. Because I wanted to know the fact, and the fact should be made known to all of those concerned.


There appears to be two contending forces behind this news report; one that supports the alleged move and one that is wary of the alleged move: the former, lead by prominent individuals like  Bill Wood shown here on his video, who commend the President for taking such a bold action against the "dark forces", and latter, like many of those in the U.S. Veterans Association who do not support the U.S. joining the Court in the first place because it will take away the rights of the U.S. solidiers. They would instead contend that the President has fallen to "globalists" that conspire to rob the American people of their sovereign rights as U.S. citizens..

We must note that VT comes from the latter background. VT is known for its anti-zionist (synonymous of "globalists" in many anti-zionist quarters) campaign, as can be seen from this banner shown on their Website.

The Court has long been a source of distrust and disgust to many who oppose globalist conspiracies since its inception in the early 1990's when the U.S. was still an active party to the endeavor. As I recall, it was once even thought as the "globalist headquarters". It is assumed that the opposition was derived from the knowledge of the fact that CICC, the international coalition of NGOs that spearheaded the agreement to hold an international conference in Rome in 1998 (which led to the establishment of the Court) was led by WFM or World Federalist Movement, which in contrary to their suppositions is supported by many American foundations such as Ford Foundation and McArthur Foundation.

So I initially assumed that Gordon Duff, a Senior Editor of VT, a journal "representing the position of members of the military and veteran community in areas of national security, geopolitical stability and domestic policy," that supports the United States "against all enemies foreign and domestic" and that believes the majority of the members of their government, including the Supreme Court, "currently serve agendas absent loyalty to the American people and the Constitution,"  (actual excerpts from their "About VT" section) within the confines of their internal codes, WOULD NOT be able to write an article that is supportive of a Presidential action to "rejoin" an organizatoin that has long been thought as a "globalist headquarter". Furthermore, the article displays ignorance about the actual behavior of the Court bound by the statutory limitations that seeks to justly balance the power of the Court and sovereign rights of nations.

However, this blog also noted that in spite of the lack of basic knowledge on the working s of the Court, the author of the VT article expressly notes in its disclaimer that the "views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors or partners."  So this blog assumes that despite the background of being a VT Senior Editor, this specific article was written in the author's personal capacity to express his support for the reportedly signing of the EO to "rejoin" the Court without bias, which is evident in the tone of his article where he concludes by saying this:

When we see Interpol put the cuffs on McCain and Lieberman and “perp walk” them out of the Senate, we will know we may get America back.


While acknowledging that the author's report is not biased from the VT's point of view, his article still lacks substance. It does not detail WHEN and WHAT exactly President Obama has signed. It lacks the specifics. However, this blog also concludes that even if this was a 'secret act' of the President signing a 'secret' EO, it still will not have the effect that either the "supporters" or "opponents" would desire or fear. The power of the President vested to him by the Constitution is limited, especially in sigining an international treaty. Below is a summary of the detailed findings to that effect.

DISCOVERED FACTS: Public Information

Summary of facts discovered following all available public information on Presidential actions as of May 5, 2012.

  1. There are no indications of the Court in the list of Presidents's recent EOs
  2. There are no indications of the Court in any of the recent individual EOs:
  3. There are no indications of the Court in the list of President's recent Proclamations
* Note there were only one (1) case of EO related to ICPO or Interpol, signed in 2009, Executive Order 13524.

DISCOVERED FACTS: Experts information

Summary of facts discovered asking ICC and Washington experts on Presidential actions as of May 5, 2012.

  1. CICC has not confirmed the information of President Obama signing such EO.
  2. AMICC (American NGO Coalitions for ICC) flatly rejected as "fundamentally fictional"


Summary of facts surrounding the actions, authorities, conditions, and limitations pertaining to "rejoining"the Rome Statute and/or any international treaty in reference to Constitutional powers vested to the President, his relationship with the Congress, and in accordance to international customary laws and the Rome Statute in particular.

  1. Unless it is is a bilateral executive agreement signed between one or more executive branches of the government parties to the agreement, U.S. President CANNOT RATIFY an international treaty.
  2. According to the Constitution, any international treaty MUST be approved by the Congress (Senate) with signature of the President to enact as a national law.
  3. Under customary law, any multilateral treaty or convention MUST be ratified, accepted, or acceded to through the conditions prescribed under such treaty or convention.
  4. Under the Rome Statute, the Statute "is subject to ratification, acceptance, or approval" by a signatory state. This reverts the authority to approve the treaty for ratification to the Congress under the Constitution.

0 件のコメント: