The answwer is that the main question was never answered at all. When did the US ever sign onto the ICJ? If we never signed on then why should we be subject to what it claims. It is like the last part of the Geneva Convention. We never signed it. Congress never approved it. Why then should we be held to it. The earlier parts, yes, we signed them. Same with the ICJ. We never signed it. Congress never approved it. Why should we ever care what they claim. And the reasons for not signing it I mentioned before. Until those questions are answered fully and completely and those points taken into consideration, then we should just tell them to STFU.
Mark wrote: > We covered this before.......... sorry you can't respond on point. > > When Dick was asked exactly which question I did not answer in full he > did not address it at all, so I assume that to be an admission that i > did answer it. > > Now you post a reverse order time line that PROVES my point and do not > address the fact that it does so. > > Now you are off on yet another tangent. It is fine to use multiple > types of examples to make a point on topic. It is NOT kosher to grab > at one of the lesser supportive examples and try to change the base > subject of the debate to THAT example which on its own will not stand up. > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 2:56 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > >>> 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] > <mailto:[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] > <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 > > > > ... > > > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
