06-09-2002, 10:45 AM | #71 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
They are committing crimes against humanity there, so the war crimes tribunals should start with bush & blair. Despite repeated reference to the right of self-defense under Article 51, the Charter simply does not apply here. Article 51 gives a state the right to repel an attack that is ongoing or imminent as a temporary measure until the UN Security Council can take steps necessary for international peace and security. The Security Council has already passed two resolutions condemning the Sept. 11 attacks and announcing a host of measures aimed at combating terrorism. These include measures for the legal suppression of terrorism and its financing, and for co-operation between states in security, intelligence, criminal investigations and proceedings relating to terrorism. The Security Council has set up a committee to monitor progress on the measures in the resolution and has given all states 90 days to report back to it. Neither resolution can remotely be said to authorize the use of military force. True, both, in their preambles, abstractly "affirm" the inherent right of self-defense, but they do so "in accordance with the Charter." They do not say military action against Afghanistan would be within the right of self-defense Nor could they. That's because the right of unilateral self-defense does not include the right to retaliate once an attack has stopped. The right of self-defense in international law is like the right of self-defense in our own law: It allows you to defend yourself when the law is not around, but it does not allow you to take the law into your own hands. Since the United States and Britain have undertaken this attack without the explicit authorization of the Security Council, those who die from it will be victims of a crime against humanity, just like the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks. Even the Security Council is only permitted to authorize the use of force where "necessary to maintain and restore international peace and security." |
|
06-09-2002, 10:48 AM | #72 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
[ 06-09-2002, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ] |
|
06-09-2002, 11:17 AM | #73 | |
Emerald Dragon
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Location: melbourne victoria australia
Age: 58
Posts: 960
|
Quote:
In reality though you would be correct in assuming that America would "invade" an ally in order to rescue and individual or even a group of individuals who had been accused of war crimes. Maybe Im the first person this has occured to but here try this on for size: "the law is designed to protect the PRESIDENT AND HIS CABINET or other American leaders who thought they were doing their best in the "war against terror". Now that akes a certain bit of sense to me seeing how the Pres is the one who tells the troops where to go and what to do, who to fight ect. Seems to me like hes trying to keep his own ass out of the sling so to speak.
__________________
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!! |
|
06-09-2002, 11:43 AM | #74 |
Dracolisk
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Age: 44
Posts: 6,541
|
ROTFL!! I think you have it all figured out Earthdog - the whole bill is just a big conspiratory ploy to steal our pot! [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]
__________________
[img]\"hosted/melusine.jpg\" alt=\" - \" /><br />Your voice is ambrosia |
06-09-2002, 11:45 AM | #75 | ||
Dracolisk
Join Date: January 5, 2002
Location: Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
Age: 38
Posts: 6,043
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
06-09-2002, 12:15 PM | #76 | |
Gold Dragon
Join Date: August 11, 2001
Location: The land of blonde virgins
Age: 42
Posts: 2,563
|
Quote:
And just the fact that someone with that much power in USA has put forward such a proposal and that it's being taken under serious consideration is just wrong. Why shouldn't USA have to accept the sentences of this court when every other hcountry has to? But more importantly, what is the other european nations going to do about it? I don't think you should let something like this pass, something has to be done. Someone has to say that they don't accept this sort of thing without fear of drawing USA's negative attention to them. I stand by my opinion that having one country which is so much bigger and have so much more influence than other countries is terribly wrong. |
|
06-09-2002, 01:23 PM | #77 |
Ninja Storm Shadow
Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 3,577
|
SEC. 2008. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.
(a) AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court. Is not diplomacy a "means", sactions a "means", or how about sending a team of Gov't lawyers ( after all we are the King of the Hill when it comes to LAWYERS)? Why does the only response have to be war? Talk about PARANOIA!!!!!! Oh the USA is Going to Invade, thats the only thing they know, the Sky is falling , the Sky is falling. Still ROTHFLMAO! The USA has a long standing policy the US military serves under only US generals, with only a few exceptions due to our former president Bill Clinton. If there are any US servicemen guilty of WAR CRIMES we'll take care of them far more harshly, in accordance with our laws, and what our society demands they pay. They'll pay the price they know will befall them. Oh by the way "Gov't of the people, by the people, and for the people" ARE NOT MERELY WORDS They are the essence of the USA. The moment they become mere words MY advice to the rest of the world is to go to the nearest drug store and buy as many sleeping pills as it takes to end your lives, because the feeces is going to hit the fan far worse then you can imagine.
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts |
06-09-2002, 01:49 PM | #78 | |
Ninja Storm Shadow
Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 3,577
|
Quote:
And just the fact that someone with that much power in USA has put forward such a proposal and that it's being taken under serious consideration is just wrong. Why shouldn't USA have to accept the sentences of this court when every other hcountry has to? But more importantly, what is the other european nations going to do about it? I don't think you should let something like this pass, something has to be done. Someone has to say that they don't accept this sort of thing without fear of drawing USA's negative attention to them. I stand by my opinion that having one country which is so much bigger and have so much more influence than other countries is terribly wrong.[/QUOTE]That's JUST IT Sir ReGiN, Every other country DOES NOT HAVE TO accept the sentences of this court!!!!!! If they DID there would be no need for a treaty!!!!! It would just happen, but the FACT there must be a treaty PROVES the every other DOESN't have to accept it, They Choose TOO!!! But then I guess every other country gets that right Except for the USA! Oh, by the way while every other country gets to make that CHOICE to sign the treaty or not, lets just not give the USA that choice then complain about the USA when it says "Hale No!" Never in the history of the entire world has any country, empire, city state (you name what ever socital grouping you wish) held such a lopside amount of power compared to the rest of the world, as the USA and NOT conquered any and everybody they could!!!!! Did the Romans? the Huns? the Vikings? the Souix? the Aztecs? The Normands? What about the French in the early 1800's? The Greeks under Alexander? Iraq in 1990? The USSR in the late 40's? Nazi Germany in the 30's-40's? The Mongols? The Japanese in the 30's-40's? the Cromagon(sp?)? The Hitties? The Egyptian? The Nubians? And don't give me the line about what the USA did in the past I'm Clearly talking about the time when each of these peoples were the most powerful, JUST LIKE the USA currently IS!!!!! [ 06-09-2002, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts |
|
06-09-2002, 01:56 PM | #79 | |
Ninja Storm Shadow
Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 3,577
|
Quote:
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts |
|
06-09-2002, 02:00 PM | #80 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
I think however that you will hear people say that we are attempting to use our economic might to somehow enslave the rest of the world to our will even if we do not invade and occupy.....but I do not see it that way. Good Post! [img]graemlins/2gunfire.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/1daisy.gif[/img] |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A proposal | ZFR | General Discussion | 20 | 09-28-2005 09:27 AM |
French/German/Russian proposal to UN | Ronn_Bman | General Discussion | 35 | 03-01-2003 05:46 PM |
US to offer final proposal to France | Timber Loftis | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 6 | 10-18-2002 11:52 PM |
LH and OHF: A proposal. | Yorick | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 155 | 09-08-2001 04:03 AM |