You are forgetting something. The US never approved the ICJ in the
first place. In fact they refused to because of all the questions
raised that nobody could answer and still to this day have not answered.
You might answer some of them.
What is the code of laws that would be applied
Are you assumed guilty or innocent until proven otherwise
Who is certified as qualified to appear before the court
What right of appeal is there
Who will enforce any judgment by the court
How will judges be assigned to the cases to ensure that for example
an Israeli would not appear before a Palestinian judge or a
Chechen would not appear before a Russian judge or a Greek
before a Turk or vice versa
How will judges be appointed to the court in the first place
How will standing be determined to ensure that frivolous cases will
not be used to punish oppostion
In the case of the code of laws how can they be modified or revoked
Who will control the courts (forget the UN - we should never allow that
misbegotten organization to affect us at all, in fact we should
leave it)
With these questions never having been answered and from the current
cases that this misbegotten court has tried and the way it has bee used
I for one think we should stay as far away from it as possible. And as
for the UN and that Human Rights crew they have, that should be enought
to get us out of the UN ASAP. It may be good for something but not a
whole lot. Look at the tsunami, two weeks after the tsunami the UN
shows up and decides to hold meetings with limos and parades to decide
what to do about the tsunami. In the meantime the US and the Aussies
and other countries had already sent ships that were actually doing
something. Then the UN decided they should take over control of the
whole mission. That was to joke I hope. Then we have those wonderful
groups that were working in Africa with the rapes and using the people
who needed help for their personal brothel. Also the ones who stood
there and watched the shooting of the crowd when they were supposed to
be there to get the two sides to sit down and talk.
Long story but the upshot is that we should never repeat NEVER turn our
sovereignty over to any of these international organizations. They are
not to be trusted under any circumstances.
Mark wrote:
> Response one:
>
> Someone has to.
>
> TWO:
>
> They have the right to reach internationally on affairs they think
> affect or affected their interests in any way.
>
> Gee, the US does just that as well.
>
>
>
> THREE:
>
> Should they ??? No. He has not made a single overt or covert move
> outside his borders that did not include an invitation of another (the
> affected) sitting sovereign government. That would be the US method
> and why the Spanish feel they have a right to act.
> FOUR:
>
>
> If I'm not mistaken the US does not consider six men (Che had
> resigned from
> ALL Cuban service) talking politics and basicallly starving in the
> outback
> to be a reasonable threat... in this case there is no point to be made by
> you. As far as some of the other excursions made by Cuba during their
> "foreign travels", those soldiers were on loan to the Soviet bloc....
> Is the
> US responsible for UN actions ??
>
> And as far as deserving to be convicted... what difference does it
> make...
> the first to openly ignore the UN was indeed, you guessed it, the US
> under
> Raygun Ronnie, when he unilaterally pulled the US from the ICJ
> jurisdiction
> AFTER being convicted and an 18 billion dollar (still unpaid) verdict
> was rendered for war crimes............
>
> How soon the right points fingers forgetting they paved the way.
>
> I see NO waffling in any of my very direct answers to direct and ON
> TOPIC (unlike yours) questions.
>
> And up until and including that reply we were discussing heads of
> state and he mistakenly threw Che into the mix... I reminded him Che
> was not part of the Cuban Gov. when in Bolivia etc.
>
> You then started on ENTITIES, not people pulling a Gaar and trying
> your best to make it suit some imagined topic that was simply NOT
> being discussed regardless of your interpretation.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:15 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> 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]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> > again gaar, you sidestep the original issue.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM, plainolamerican
> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > ouch!!!
> >
> > > On Apr 10, 2:09 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]
> <mailto:[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.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
