Thank you, jgg1000a, You are exactly right. That is what I asked and when Mark refused to answer I assumed that he could not and still make his point so he ignored it. That seems to be a very common practice among the lefties. Either ignore or try to change the subject or both.
jgg1000a wrote: > Mark reread the thread.... Dick asked you if effect does the Us have > the right to "try" a foreign leader and then issue an arrest > warrant... To this question you did an Obama and refused to answer > directly... And that is the core topic of this thread... In one > post, in making a point, you added a false fact that > > >>>> the first to openly ignore the UN >>>> > > which you altered after the fact to in effect > > >>>> the first to openly ignore a ICJ judgment >>>> > > Now I show even that anti-American dig is plainly false what do you > do??? You claim if effect any comment about your false your dig is > NOT part of this thread, so any disabusing of your "off-topic" > statement is now out of bounds... Egads man, do you have no > shame??? If the "the US was first to do it" was off topic, why did > you YOU TYPE IT? If however it was part of a valid reply that was on > topic, then questioning your claimed facts IS ON TOPIC... > > You are seeking to have your insult and deny my claim of you claiming > false facts all at the same time... Was you insult on topic??? If > yes, admit your claim was false, if not apologize for being off > topic... Very simple really. After all, we are here for honest, > open and civil debate here are we not??? > > On Apr 10, 3:30 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> again gaar, you sidestep the original issue. >> >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM, plainolamerican >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> ouch!!! >>> >>> On Apr 10, 2:09 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Further examples as I twist the knife into your false claim's back... >>>> Openly ignoring ICJ judgements is relatively common starting from >>>> 1951.... >>>> >>>> Non-Compliance with the International Court of Justice >>>> >>>> Andrew Srulevitch >>>> Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations >>>> July 8, 2004 >>>> >>>> Tomorrow the International Court of Justice will issue its non-binding >>>> advisory opinion on Israel’s Security Fence. How might Israel react >>>> to an adverse decision? Detonate a nuclear device? Attack the >>>> enemy? Send 350,000 civilians into the disputed territory? >>>> >>>> So responded France, Iceland and Morocco, respectively, to ICJ >>>> decisions against them. Ignoring the ICJ ruling would not be original >>>> either. The United States, Albania, Argentina, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, >>>> Malaysia, Nigeria, Romania, South Africa and Thailand have all >>>> followed that path. >>>> >>>> If Israel does not accept the ICJ’s conclusions, Palestinians and >>>> their supporters will argue that the Security Council should enact >>>> sanctions against Israel, as it did against apartheid South Africa. >>>> Lawyers for the Palestinians made this argument explicitly in their >>>> oral presentation to the court: >>>> >>>> This is a classic case in the light of the opinion issued by the Court >>>> in the Namibia case. As a result of the serious breaches of >>>> international law by the State of Israel, other states are obliged to >>>> co-operate with one another and with the United Nations and other >>>> competent international organizations, in order to put a stop to these >>>> violations; not to recognize the unlawful situations arising from >>>> these violations; not to assist in the maintenance of these >>>> situations. If Israel persists in its refusal to apply the above- >>>> mentioned rules of international law and does not accept the >>>> consequences of its responsibility, the General Assembly is entitled >>>> to expect the Security Council to take the necessary coercive measures >>>> which, in the case of violations of mandatory legal rules, should not >>>> be amenable to the use of a veto by any member of the Council. >>>> >>>> Their argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Just as the general >>>> comparison between Israel and South Africa is specious, so is the >>>> specific linkage of the Namibia and Security Fence cases. >>>> >>>> The history of the ICJ not only contradicts the Palestinian argument, >>>> it leads to the opposite conclusion: states have not been subject to >>>> Security Council sanctions for non-compliance. The ICJ’s judges have >>>> issued decisions in various formats: in contentious cases between two >>>> states, as advisory opinions for other UN agencies, and as an >>>> arbitration panel. Though the circumstances of each case differ from >>>> Israel’s and from one another, all of the states cited above adopted >>>> policies of non-compliance with an ICJ ruling. >>>> >>>> Four cases – France, Iceland, Morocco and South Africa – are described >>>> below. The first three cases have important similarities to the >>>> Security Fence issue, while the South African case has important >>>> differences. The other cases of non-compliance are noted briefly to >>>> provide additional context. >>>> >>>> * * * >>>> >>>> Defying ICJ rulings on national security issues: France and Iceland >>>> >>>> On May 9, 1973, New Zealand (and Australia in a parallel case) asked >>>> the ICJ to order France to end atmospheric nuclear testing in the >>>> South Pacific. France responded that it did not consider the ICJ >>>> competent to hear the cases, did not accept ICJ jurisdiction, and >>>> would not participate in any proceedings. On June 22, the ICJ issued >>>> an Order, which stated that there was a prima facie basis for >>>> jurisdiction and, as an interim measure, “the French Government should >>>> avoid nuclear tests causing the deposit of radio-active fall-out on >>>> New Zealand Territory.” >>>> >>>> France then conducted five atmospheric tests in July and August >>>> 1973. In a June 10, 1974 note to the New Zealand Foreign Ministry,the >>>> >>> French government wrote: “France, at the point which has been >>> >>>> reached in the execution of its programme of defence by nuclear means, >>>> will be in a position to move to the stage of underground firings as >>>> soon as the test series planned for this summer is completed.” France >>>> then conducted seven atmospheric tests from June to September 1974. >>>> Both in 1973 and 1974, New Zealand reported to the ICJ that >>>> radioactive fall-out had been detected in their territory. Subsequent >>>> French tests were conducted underground, and therefore did not violate >>>> the Order of 22 June 1973. >>>> >>>> On an important national security issue – its nuclear weapons program >>>> – France was unapologetic about defying an ICJ decision. >>>> >>>> The case of Iceland has a more mundane subject – cod fish. Since >>>> fishing accounted for over 70% of its exports, cod was national >>>> security issue for Iceland. In July 1972, Iceland unilaterally >>>> extended its area of exclusive fishing rights from 12 miles to 50 >>>> miles, prompting complaints to the ICJ from the United Kingdom and >>>> Germany. Iceland responded that it did not accept its jurisdiction >>>> and would not participate in the hearings. In August 1972, the ICJ >>>> issued an interim Order of protective measures. The UK continued to >>>> send fishing boats into the zone claimed by Iceland. The Icelandic >>>> Coast Guard attacked the boats and cut their trawling lines. >>>> >>>> In July 1974 the ICJ ruled that Iceland’s unilateral extension of its >>>> exclusive fishing area was invalid and that the UK had fishing rights >>>> outside the 12-mile limit. Iceland still refused to comply. There >>>> were additional clashes between the Icelandic Coast Guard and British >>>> frigates that had been dispatched to protect their fishing fleet. In >>>> 1975, Iceland claimed an even larger exclusionary area, out to 200 >>>> miles and clashes continued. Shots were fired and ships rammed each >>>> other, though no fatalities resulted. The dispute ended in 1976 with >>>> an agreement that granted Iceland almost all of its demands. >>>> >>>> Iceland – a liberal democracy and advocate of international law – >>>> deemed the threat to its economic national security so serious that >>>> the ICJ decisions were simply ignored. >>>> >>>> Neither France nor Iceland was the target of international sanctions >>>> for their clear defiance of the ICJ. >>>> >>>> * * * >>>> >>>> Defying the ICJ in territorial disputes: Morocco and South Africa >>>> >>>> On December 13, 1974, the General Assembly asked the ICJ for an >>>> advisory opinion on the legal status of Western Sahara, the former >>>> Spanish colony known as Spanish Sahara, and the legal ties of Morocco >>>> and Mauritania to the area. Both countries had made claims to Western >>>> Sahara in the context of decolonization by Spain, while the indigenous >>>> Saharawi population wanted an independent state. On October 16, 1975, >>>> the ICJ returned its advisory opinion that both countries had some >>>> legal ties to Western Sahara, but they were not sufficient to claim >>>> sovereignty and the status of Western Sahara should be determined by >>>> “the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine >>>> expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory.” >>>> >>>> King Hassan II of Morocco responded to the ICJ opinion with the Green >>>> March. Three hundred and fifty thousand Moroccan civilians were sent >>>> towards Western Sahara with the intent on settling there and doubling >>>> the population. >>>> >>>> Morocco then defied a series of Security Council resolutions. On >>>> October 22, the Security Council passed resolution 377, requesting the >>>> Secretary-General to start consultations and appealing to all parties >>>> to exercise restraint. On October 31 the Moroccan military crossed the >>>> border. After receiving the Secretary-General’s report on November 2, >>>> the Security Council passed resolution 379, again urging an end to >>>> “unilateral actions” that would “escalate tensions.” On November 5, >>>> King Hassan II ordered the 350,000 civilians to cross the border. On >>>> November 6 the Security Council passed resolution 380, which “deplore >>>> [d] the holding of the march; [and] call[ed] upon Morocco immediately >>>> to withdraw from the Territory of Western Sahara all the participants >>>> in the march.” >>>> >>>> In 1976 Morocco annexed the area under its administration and then >>>> annexed the rest in 1979 when Mauritania withdrew its claim to the >>>> southern region. Twenty-five years later neither annexation has been >>>> recognized nor have Morocco and the Saharawi reached an agreement. >>>> >>>> Though construction began six years after the ICJ opinion, it should >>>> be noted that Morocco built a thousand-mile security barrier through >>>> the middle of Western Sahara to protect against Saharawi attacks. The >>>> “berm,” as it is known, is a three-meter high earthen rampart, >>>> fortified with an estimated one to two million landmines. It divides >>>> the Moroccan-controlled northwestern two-thirds of Western Sahara – >>>> rich in oil and minerals, whose coast contains the territory’s fertile >>>> land and fishing industry – from the southeastern third that is mostly >>>> desert and controlled by the Saharawi. >>>> >>>> Despite disregarding both the ICJ opinion on Western Sahara and the >>>> related Security Council resolutions, Morocco has not suffered serious >>>> >> ... >> >> read more » >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
