Truman signed it. August 26, 1946
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]> 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]> 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 » >> >> >> > > > -- 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
