>>> You then started on ENTITIES, not people No I said your claimed facts were false, which had to do with first open rejection of a ICJ or UN Judgment.... Again had you limited your claim to "the ICJ judged against Reagan and the US in 1986" it would have been factual... Instead you included attack-dog verbage which included false claims...
That you are unable to admit or understand this simple point is telling... On Apr 10, 4:26 pm, Mark <[email protected]> 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]> 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 > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
