(BUFDRVR) wrote in
:

I'm not talking about violations per se -- there is a
difference between voting "no, we don't agree" as opposed
to veto something, knowing well it will torpedo what other
nations has agreed on.


That's laughable coming from someone in Europe.

Glad I can make someone smile. :^)


The "coalition
of the willing" assembled against Iraq last year was nearly
twice the size as the coalition in '91, yet France, Germany and
Russia were ready to veto; "what other nations has agreed on".
If you don't like the whole UN veto system write your ambassador
to the UN and complain, but don't claim the US is a sinister,
evil nation for working with the construct of the UN Charter.

The US is much criticised for following its own policy
in many issues. There is no secret in that.

But yes I do feel the basic UN system is ready for restructuring.
After all the world has changed since 1945.


You took that statement out of context and you changed the
words to try to make it look like a black and white issue.

It is a black and white issue. Either the US respects the UN or
it doesn't. You argue it doesn't, I argue it does, at least as
much as European nations.

Then perhaps it should be time for the US to pay it's $2BN
debt to the UN. Lack of money and resources is an contributing
factor why the UN has trouble fulfilling its obligations
and goals.


The US has vetoed 26 of the last the Palestine/Israel issue
I think. Russia has vetoed two I believe. If you look at
this table you can see that of the 254 vetos in the UNSC
since 1946, the US alone accounts for 78 of them.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm



WRT the Paliestine issue it has failed so far.

Ohh, so the US has failed on the Palistinean issue huh? Well,
then I suggest the EU step in and pick up where the US failed.

As I pointed out early in this discussion, it's a team-effort,
the EU -or anyone else- relys on the US as much as the other
way around.

The US has taken more of an interest in helping the Palistineans
than Egypt, Jordon, Saudi Arabia and most definitely the EU
combined. The EU contibution to helping the mid-east crisis is
to bitch at the US when we support Isreal. Way to go, that'll
help make progress.

Tee bitching probably goes both ways.


I won't pretend to be an expert,
I can only comment what I've seen brought up in the newsmedia,
but, for instance, it seems to me the US is violating UN
General Assembly resolution 377, which decleares that it
is to meet to resolve any possible threats to or breach of
the peace if the UNSC fails to maintain peace because of a
lack of unanimity.

There was unanimity, the last UN resolution (sorry, we made so
many against Iraq I've ignored the resolution numbers) on Iraq
threatened; "severe consequences" should Iraq not fully
cooperate with inspectors.

That's UN Resolution 1441, of november 8th 2002.

The UN reported Iraq was being
deceptive and to the US "severe consequences" meant war. We're
sorry if it meant another UN resolution to France and stern
words of admonishment from Germany. The US acted with the
authority of the last UN resolution.

No it didn't, Iraq accepted and complied five days after
the resolution was passed through, on nov 13th, and the
SC did not automaticly authorize the use of force, which
is why China, France and Russian added a Proviso which
stated that they do not understand it to authorize
"automaticity in the use of force."


It also violates Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter which
declears that no member state has the authority to enforce
any resolution with armed force on its own and also that the
UNSC -must- authorize the use of military force.

Number one, we weren't on our own, number two the UNSC
authorized the use of force when they threatened "severe
consequences".

Again, Iraq complied. Did the SC decide there had been
a material breach of the resolution? Had all nonmilitary
means of enforcement have been exhausted? Article 41/42
states that it must.

In addition, Article 51 restricts the use of the force
to cases of self-defense and only in response to an
"armed attack." I think you are going to have a tough
time showing that Iraq posed an imminant offensive threat.


Additionally, older UNSC resolutions also
threatened Iraq with armed reprisal should they violate any one
of the *two dozen* resolutions regarding them.

That's a much better argument, Iraq has a long history
of noncompliance with the demands of the UN. But what
was the US and UK official reasons for going to war?


therefor any violation of International Laws
agreed upon by treaty, is a violation the supreme Law of
the Land. Thus, isn't the US in violation with its own
Constitution?

Uhh, no. US involvement in the United Nations was not part of a
treaty ratified by congress, it is an international organization
and US involvement with said organization has nothing to do with
US Constitution any more or less than our involvement in the
WTO.

Professor Marjorie Cohn of Thomas Jefferson School
of Law seems to disagree:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew58.php


Dr. Matthew B. Robinson of Appalachian State
University too:

http://www.justiceblind.com/iraq.htm


By the way, what's your opinion the Guantanamo prison
issue? Do you accept the "unlawful combatants" claim,
or do you feel the US is in violation of the Geneva
convention?

Anyone who's familar with the Geneva Accords knows full well
that any Taliban fighters captured in other than an *officially
recognized* military uniform and all Al Queda captured were, by
definition, unlawful combatants.

I don't think the convention makes such a distinction.
Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual,
militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW
when captured.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/2f681b...563cd0051aa8d?
OpenDocument



With that being said, I think
the Afghani's captured as part of the Taliban without an
"officially recognized" uniform, that we cannot directly tie to
Al Queda should be released. Afghanistan was a fourth world
country, holding a man as an unlawful combatant simply because
he did not have an "officially recognized" uniform under those
conditions seems unfair.

We agree on that.


Regards...