Refusing to participate is NOT the same as pulling out. Does a defendant need to testify or offer any evidence even in US courts??
I do see that the US never recalled the judge assigned to the court... he retired from there. Some pullout. On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:18 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > Reagan pulled out BEFORE by refusing to take part... > > On Apr 10, 5:13 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > Your source PROVED my point..... reagan pulled out AFTER the conviction. > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:10 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I did and you did not answer my points... I cited sources and you > > > are not... Be original here, cite original documents from the > > > founding of the ICJ showing the US accepted the view the ICJ had the > > > jurisdiction as you claim... I cited one source which said > > > otherwise... Your turn to do the research and linking... > > > > > Please cite a source which cites an American offical at the time > > > stated YOUR assumption... > > > > > On Apr 10, 4:53 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > rad response to Dick and try again. > > > > > > On Apr 10, 2:50 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > 5th paragraph from the bottom > > > > > > > >>> 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............ > > > > > > > Reagan took the same stance as France did in 1974 -- that is > refused > > > > > to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ... He did so in 1985 BEFORE > > > > > the ICJ made any ruling... In your statement your state or infer > > > > > Reagan was the first to openly ignore the ICJ (false) and that > Reagan > > > > > did so After the Judgment (again false)... The facts you DID not > > > > > include were Iranian open rejection of the ICJ Judgment in 1980... > > > > > > > You are NOT ENTITLED to your FACTS when they are false... > > > > > > > > http://timelinesdb.com/listevents.php?subjid=537&title=World%20Court > > > > > > > 1980 May 24 > > > > > Iran rejected a call by the World Court in The Hague to > release > > > the > > > > > American hostages. > > > > > Links: Netherlands, Iran, World Court Click to see the > source(s) > > > > > for this event > > > > > > > 1985 Jan 18 > > > > > President Reagan declared that the U.S. would not take part > in > > > the > > > > > World Court ruling on Nicaraguan charges. > > > > > Links: Nicaragua, USA, World Court, ReaganR Click to see the > source > > > > > (s) for this event > > > > > > > 1985 Oct 7 > > > > > The United States announced it would no longer > automatically > > > comply > > > > > with World Court decisions. This was in response to a June 25, > 1985, > > > > > World Court ruling that U.S. involvement in Nicaragua violated > > > > > international law. The ruling stemmed from a suit brought in April > > > > > 1984 after revelations that the CIA had directed the mining of > > > > > Nicaraguan ports. The U.S. later vetoed two U.N. resolutions > calling > > > > > for compliance to the World Court ruling. > > > > > Links: Nicaragua, USA, UN, CIA, World Court Click to see the > source > > > > > (s) for this event > > > > > > > 1986 Jun 27 > > > > > World Court ruled that US aid to Nicaraguan contras was > > > illegal. > > > > > Links: Nicaragua, USA, World Court Click to see the source(s) > for > > > > > this event > > > > > > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
