![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Thus it also violates UN Article 1 and 2 Wrong, "severe consequences" were promised by UN resolution and delivered by the "coalition of the willing". 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". Additionally, older UNSC resolutions also threatened Iraq with armed reprisal should they violate any one of the *two dozen* resolutions regarding them. "The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law: Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances" Not applicable due to UNSC resolutions authorizing force. 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. 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. 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. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
(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... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The US is much criticised for following its own policy
in many issues. There is no secret in that. The question you need to ask yourself is; why? Why are France, Russia, Belgium, etc. free to persue their own national policies without drawing criticism but the US cannot? Then perhaps it should be time for the US to pay it's $2BN debt to the UN. If we pay our debt, will the UN begin paying the State and City of New York the billions they pay every year for hosting the United Nations. Everything from additional police to sanitation removal are not paid for by the UN. We could probably pay off some of that in parking tickets if UN members ever paid them, but they flaunt their diplomatic immunity pretty good in downtown Manhatten. Tell you what, why don't we move the UN to your country? I think that's a solution that at least every American (definitely every "New Yorker") would agree to. Lack of money and resources is an contributing factor why the UN has trouble fulfilling its obligations and goals. $$ has nothing to do with the fact that the international politics in this multi-polar world have rendered the UN unable to act. The US has vetoed 26 of the last the Palestine/Israel issue I think. You keep dredging this up as if to prove this represents US violation of UN resolutions. It doesn't and for the fifth or sixth time, US vetos since 1991 are based on the simple *fact* that the UN has *never* admonished Isreal's enemies and from the looks of things never plans to. Furthermore, no other nation or organization has made progress (in some cases temporary, yet progress none-the-less) between the Isreali's and their Arab counterparts like the US. 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. And this proves what? 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. Wrong. The US has begged the EU to get involved in a substantive way for the last 5 years, their biggest contibution is to approve UN resolutions admonishing Isreal and leaving the PA blameless and to whine that the US has vetoed the resolution. The US does not rely on the EU in the middle east. 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 Partially correct. There was no wording automatically authorizing force, but then again there was no wording not authorizing force. Its called diplomatic ambiguity, its in nearly ever international agreement since the Magna Carta. The US choose to assume past resoltions authorizing force and the current resolution threatening "severe consequences" was authority enough. Did the SC decide there had been a material breach of the resolution? Yes. UNSCOM reported the Iraqi's were being "deceptive". This was a material breech. Had all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted? Probably by around 1995. 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. Potential chemical and biological weapons and known ties to international terrorists was more than enough "proof". But what was the US and UK official reasons for going to war? Iraq was still developing chemical and biological weapons and had known ties to international terrorists. I don't think the convention makes such a distinction. It absolutely does. You can't engage in armed conflict in jeans and a T-shirt and expect to be recognized as a legal armed combatant. The convention not only says you must be a uniform, but an "officially recognized" uniform. Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual, militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW when captured. Correct, if wearing a uniform identifying themselves as such. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roman J. Rohleder wrote:
(BUFDRVR) schrieb: I don't think the convention makes such a distinction. It absolutely does. You can't engage in armed conflict in jeans and a T-shirt and expect to be recognized as a legal armed combatant. The convention not only says you must be a uniform, but an "officially recognized" uniform. Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual, militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW when captured. Correct, if wearing a uniform identifying themselves as such. And if not they should be regarded as POW until proven of different status..I stumbled across an item by "The Guardian" dealing with that as a side-topic. Well, since by definition conducting military operations without such a uniform (or if not possible, then typically a "distinctive marking" is considered adequate) specifically disqualifies one as a legal combatant, then the determination doesn't take too long. If, as a military member, I were captured taking potshots at someone while wearing jeans and a T-shirt, then I would quite likely not be entitled to combatant status. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html To quote: "The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war. First, there is no legal distinction between whether a military act is considered illegal in defining a legal combatant, so a uniformed soldier engaging in any conflict is a legal combatant, period. They could possibly be tried for carrying out illegal acts (invasion isn't one of them) before their capture, but by convention only after the end of the conflict (some countries hold exceptions to this, North Vietnam was one of them, IIRC). The uniform issue applies even if one IS a recognized member of an armed force- operating out of uniform for the purpose of carrying out military activity (blowing up a fuel depot for example) is prohibited, and marks you as an illegal combatant- specifically, a spy, for which you may legally be executed. Note that JUST being out of uniform doesn't count, as you may be disguised if not carrying out military activities- escaping from a POW camp in civilian clothes doesn't make you an illegal combatant (or evan a combatant, for that matter), but blowing up that fuel depot while escaping would. BTW, al-Quaeda isn't considered a volunteer organization, since they don't operate under the direction of a national command structure, nor are they fighting for a specific nation (fighting AGAINST someone isn't enough). More importantly, perhaps, is that no nation has claimed that al-Quaeda is working FOR them- quite understandable, given that a) no one wants to openly side with them, because b) no one wants to openly declare that they consider themselves to be an appropriate target of the US and other NATO forces (note the previous invocation of the mutual defense clause of the NATO alliance by the NATO council on 12 September, 2001). Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory, the men have no constitutional rights." The "competent tribunal" in this case rested with the US military, which took the prisoners- note that not all prisoners were labelled illegal combatants. Also note that the ruling by the Court of Appeals was based on a 50+ year old Supreme Court ruling, but that the US Supreme Court has now apparently agreed to hear a case on that very point- guess we'll see how it goes. Pretty much only the Supreme Court has the luxury of overturning one of its previous rulings- lower courts are bound by the previous precedent. Mike |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Isn´t it simple - you join the club, you pay the admission fee?
Then why not move the UN to Berlin and allow the German government to pay all the "slack". The UN is a financial drain on both the City and State of New York. This is an unarguable fact. Iraq was still developing chemical and biological weapons and had known ties to international terrorists. It doesn´t get truer by repetition.. reminds me of the slogan "Marxismus ist richtig, weil er wahr ist.". :-( So you're arguing that the US (and the UN) didn't believe Hussain was hiding an iilegal weapons program? Or are you denying Iraq's ties to international terrorism? And if not they should be regarded as POW until proven of different status.. First of all, the detainees at Gitmo have been treated as POWs from the moment they were captured. Both the Red Cross and Red Cresent have been allowed to see them, they have been treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention. The only differance between these detainees and POWs is that they have not been released with the defeat of their government....*however*, one could argue that the conflict is still on going and they have no legal right to be released. "The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice, by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their country. It's good to see that not only US media outlets are completely uninformed. The above quote is ridiculous and shows no understanding of the Laws of Armed Conflict or the Geneva Convention Accords. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war. *If they are properly identified by recognized uniform and insignia*! Damn why do you keep ignoring that part? Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". For 95% of the detainees, there is no doubt. They were illegal immigrants in Afghanistan, fighting for a non-governmental organization, wearing no uniform. In other words an unlawful combatant. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The joke called TSA | Spockstuto | Instrument Flight Rules | 58 | December 27th 04 12:54 PM |
Sick Boeing Joke. | plasticguy | Home Built | 0 | April 1st 04 03:16 PM |
On Topic Joke | Eric Miller | Home Built | 8 | March 6th 04 03:01 AM |
Europe as joke | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 165 | November 8th 03 10:45 PM |
American joke on the Brits | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 50 | September 30th 03 10:52 PM |