And here's this in the NYT: "Kerry’s Blunt Words for Israel Denounced by Lawmakers in Both Parties."
“While he may not have intended it, I fear Secretary Kerry, in his speech and action at the U.N., has emboldened extremists on both sides,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, the incoming Senate Democratic leader.
A bipartisan chorus of lawmakers, upset with President Obama’s decision last week to allow the passage of a United Nations resolution condemning Israel’s construction of settlements in disputed territory, made clear that they were looking past the departing administration.
Posts
327 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 327 of 327"'@Lewis Wetzel:
'And what is the enforcement mechanism? The United States is a sovereign nation.'
"As I said in the first sentence of the very next paragraph 'Now, as it is widely known in the area of international law, the problem becomes one of enforcement.'"
It seems to me that, as a treaty to which we are signatories becomes "the law of the land," this is less a matter of international law than of domestic law. Which is to say, when the US violates the UN Charter, we have violated our own law. The proper means of enforcement would be impeachment and trial of those responsible for the violation of law. This still raises a problem of enforcement when the violations are committed by those in the highest offices in the land, but this requires a solution internally. I supppose if the American people en masse demanded the resignation and arrest of even the President of the United States, we would either achieve it or see how false our "representative republican" democracy actually is.
A few points.
1. I don't think J. Farmer is an Israel hater. He is somewhat bright and arrogantly stubborn. Nothing really terrible there.
2. "International law" is an oxymoron. We defended Kuwait because it was in our best interests. International law appeased the UN.
3. Israel reflects my values. The Palestinians are a bunch of corrupt murderous thugs. They are the spearpoint that the Arabs point at Israel which they would like to see as the reason for all their problems. Whenever the Israelis can get over on the Palestinians, Arabs and Persians, I support it. I find no value in pretentious intellectual or legal arguments about this issue.
4. The US supports Israel because they are democratic allies. However, we also mollify the Arabs because of oil, and the need to maintain stability in the Middle East. Now, we don't need their fucking oil. The Iranians and ISIS make the area unstable and they cannot blame it on the Jews. Screw the Arabs and he Persians!
@Birkel:
Fair enough. Just white out the part of Article VI of the Constitution that makes treaties the supreme law of the land, and we're in business.
@Francisco D:
1) Having a position and being prepared to defend it is "arrogantly stubborn?"
2) Article VI of the Constitution stipulates that treaties we consent to are the supreme law of the land
3) Israel is stuck in a paradox because it wants to exercise sovereignty over the West Bank, but it doesn't want to incorporate the population into the polis. This point has been made repeatedly by very strong supporters of Zionism and of the State of Israel. Apparently Americans thousands of miles away understand Israeli's needs better than Israelis do.
4) A fifth of Israel's population is Arab. And Israel is not an ally of the United States in any sense that the term is generally understood. They are a client-state. They do not contribute troops or resources to any of our military interventions, and we have no obligation to come to their defense in case of an attack. The NATO treaty means that our commitment to Estonia is deeper than our commitment to Israel.
Meh. What I remember is how the Israelis built a wonderful complex of greenhouses in Gaza and left them for the Palestinians. Who deliberately destroyed them, rather than use the handiwork of the hated Jew.
This says everything.
Israel is a Major non-NATO ally (MNNA) -- "a designation given by the United States government to close allies who have strategic working relationships with U.S. Armed Forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). While the MNNA status does not automatically include a mutual defense pact with the United States, it does confer a variety of military and financial advantages that otherwise are not obtainable by non-NATO countries."
J. Farmer:
In order to follow UN rules, we would have to white out the Bill of Rights.
You go first.
@Owen:
This says everything.
It says a great deal less than you think. Here is a measured discussion of the Gaza Greenhouses. Half of them were demolished by the settler prior to leaving Gaza, and though they did experience some looting after the withdrawal, they were intact and functioning.
@Birkel:
In order to follow UN rules, we would have to white out the Bill of Rights.
What part of the UN Charter would require that?
J. Farmer:
Please point to the sections of various foreign constitutions that make them subservient to the UN. Start with China and Russia.
J. Farmer:
So the U.N. Is nothing more than a charter?
Birkel said...
GWash thinks God's promises come with expiration dates like Obama's do. Perhaps GWash is confused about which is God."
It sure looks that way. GWash, you say you are a Christian. Somehow, you missed Paul's Epistle to the Romans: "To the Jews belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to their flesh, is the Christ, for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."
"Irrevocable." I prefer to base my pro-Israel arguments in secular terms, but I do object when supposed Christians try to pull an old and very bad trick: portraying God as what we used to call "an Indian giver."
@Lydia:
That designation also includes countries like Bahrain, Egypt, and Pakistan, and I would count none of those as allies. If anything, they are client-states. Friends with benefits, if you will. Japan and NATO members are countries that would traditionally be called allies.
@Birkel:
Please point to the sections of various foreign constitutions that make them subservient to the UN. Start with China and Russia.
We're talking about the US Constitution, Birkel. The fact that China and Russia aren't restricted in the same way as the US government is besides the point. You can wish away Article VI all you want, but it's in the constitution. You said that acceptance of the UN charter would require whiting out the bill of rights. I'm asking you to defend that position. Please do.
U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
...
There goes freedom of speech. I wonder if Iranians who chant Deatth to America know they are violating the U.N. Charter.
@Birkel:
So the U.N. Is nothing more than a charter?
I don't know what that phrase means. The UN Charter is the foundational treaty that delineates our relationship or the member states relationship with the body. The Senate voted in 1945 by 89-2 to ratify the treaty.
@Birkel:
The UN Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly and thus is not binding on member states. I'm talking about the foundational charter.
J. Farmer:
No, I am ridiculing your claims. Please do not tell me what we are discussing. I do not surrender my agency to you.
Nor, by the way, does a sovereign state.
Ann,
I made a lengthy post that was apparently deleted. Reason?
Thanks.
@Birkel:
I do not surrender my agency to you.
Testy, testy. You made a claim, and I asked you to defend it. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, just say so.
Japan is also a Major non-NATO ally, as are Australia and New Zealand. Just like Israel.
J. Farmer:
You tried to tell me what 'we' are discussing. You may tell me what you wish to discuss. I am not bound.
@Lydia:
Japan is also a Major non-NATO ally, as are Australia and New Zealand. Just like Israel.
No, our security relationship with Japan is delineated in the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan that was passed in 1960. The major non-NATO ally designation is a manner of military cooperation and thus is part of the armed services code.
J. Farmer:
By the way, you started by discussing what Israel must do. Do you wish to switch to what the U.S. must do?
I find that switch and all of your attempted sidesteps of questions posed to you an effort at dishonesty.
@Birkel:
You tried to tell me what 'we' are discussing. You may tell me what you wish to discuss. I am not bound.
Oy. Talk about tedious.
Okay, let's recap. You wrote that "In order to follow UN rules, we would have to white out the Bill of Rights." I asked you to substantiate that claim, which I disagree with. You responded by quoting from the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which is not the UN Charter and was passed by the General Assembly, and thus not binding on member states, as opposed to the charter.
So I am still waiting for you to explain how our treaty obligation to the UN charter would require us to white out the bill of rights, as you claimed.
@Birkel:
By the way, you started by discussing what Israel must do.
No, and as I've said repeatedly, I have never said that Israel must do anything. I specifically described the problem as a quagmire and have said why I didn't think there was a chance of the conflict being settled anytime soon. What I also did do, though, was describe the broad international consensus on how the conflict will be solved.
The discussion about US treaty obligation is a direct result of our conversation on "international law."
J. Farmer:
So you are saying that the Bill of Rights trumps the U.N. Charter? And that the United States could withdraw on a whim?
But we must submit to the UN because of the Constitution? But other countries are not bound?
So what does that have to do with Israel?
What I actually said about the U.S. obligation:
J. Farmer:
Any country that wishes to hold itself in violation is in violation.
Any country that wishes to hold itself not in violation is not in violation.
12/29/16, 4:44 PM
@Birkel:
So you are saying that the Bill of Rights trumps the U.N. Charter?
No; I'm saying I'm aware of no conflict between the two. You asserted a conflict, and I merely asked you to substantiate that assertion. And now you seem damn determined not to. That's fine.
@Birkel:
What I actually said about the U.S. obligation:
And then I pointed out that Article VI of the US constitution makes ratified treaties the supreme law of the land. So far your only response to that point was a baseless assertion that you're not prepared to defend.
J. Farmer:
Can the United States withdraw from the U.N. on a whim?
@Birkel:
"Can the United States withdraw from the U.N. on a whim?
"On a whim" is a vague, slippery phrase. The charter itself did not give a mechanism for withdrawal, and there is disagreement on customary law and ties Vienna Convention about withdrawal from treaties in which no mechanism is delineated. There is certain historical precedence for withdrawal such as Syria in the late 1950s or Indonesia in the mid-1960s. There is also a long tradition in the US supporting withdrawal, such as by the John Birch Society. Ron Paul was probably the most recent political I can think of who advocated withdrawal, though support for withdrawal in Congress is very very low. So, essentially, yes it most likely could.
See how easy it is to answer a simple question? Perhaps you can return the favor. What part of the UN charter conflicts with the bill of rights?
Saudi money being wasted at Althouse.
The major non-NATO ally designation is a manner of military cooperation and thus is part of the armed services code.
No. It comes under the Department of State in the Foreign Relations code.
J. Farmer:
Must the United States submit to the International Court of Justice, according to treaty obligations? Does the United States do so?
Or another jealous Goyum.
@Birkel:
I'll answer any question you ask after you answer the question I asked two hours ago. Or you can withdrawal your claim. Your choice.
Don't confuse it with facts, it's mind's made up.
@Lydia:
That was a later addition. The original status was created by an amendment in the armed forces code.
Ya gotta admit, it sure types fast.
J. Farmer:
Since the International Court of Justice has made rulings at odds with the Bill of Rights, I am not sure how to get you to resolve your internal dispute.
Are you aware that the United States withdraw from the ICJ? On a whim?
@Birkel:
You're confusing the International Court of Justice with the International Criminal Court.
http://www.cfr.org/courts-and-tribunals/united-states-icj/p26905
Nope.
Quote from the link:
"She says the United States is making considerable efforts to come into compliance, despite serious obstacles within its own constitutional system."
@Birkel:
That's an issue of compulsory jurisdiction, not withdrawing from the court itself, which the US submits to on a case-by-case basis. And that was over the issue of Nicaragua. What bill of right was in question in that case?
Uninformed entities are the pits.
But liars are something else.
Birkel's claim: "In order to follow UN rules, we would have to white out the Bill of Rights."
I've asked you to substantive that claim half a dozen times now. I'm still waiting.
Another quote:
"The United States withdrew from the court's compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 after the court ruled it owed Nicaragua war reparations."
On. A. Whim.
Compulsory jurisdiction. Compulsory.
Withdrew. Compulsory.
J. Farmer: "...the US submits to..."
I win.
"...serious obstacles within its own constitutional system..."
Can you read?
@Birkel:
Don't start sucking your own dick just yet. The US govenremnt contravenes its obligations, domestic and international, with a degree of regularity. That does not disprove anything I have said. Article VI of the Constitution says what it says no matter how much you want to wish it away.
And I'm still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. Are you ready to admit you just pulled it out of your ass?
"Birkel: In order to follow UN rules, we would have to white out the Bill of Rights."
Still waiting...
Willful ignorance is nothing to be proud of.
Neither is hate.
But do go on.
@Birkel:
"...serious obstacles within its own constitutional system..."
Can you read?
That's a vague phrase. Care to expound?
Are you on drugs?
@Jon Ericosn:
You're obviously in desperate need of attention given your incessant need to involve yourself in a dialogue in which you appear to have nothing substantial to say. So here's some attention. Now please piss off.
tl;dr will be here soon.
MNNA status is covered under two parts of U.S. Code. That in the Armed Forces section was added in 1989; that in the State Dept. section dates back to 1961.
Your favorite song.
@Jon:
"tl;dr"
Yes, you did.
@Lydia:
The designation wasn't even created until 1989.
Oh, there we go again with that so-called international law court. How detailed and intricate an analysis they weave! It makes me wonder how they spend their time when not being petitioned ceaselessly on how everything Israel does must somehow be illegal. Like debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
J Farmer where would you be if it weren't for Althouse's occasional blog posts on Israel's latest act of non-conformity? Are there any interests you have besides that one? It's a really strange thing about Israel, how obsessive the topic makes people. It's been that way for quite some time.
J. Farmer:
It is more fun to mock you than to teach you. The judge on the ICJ says the Constitution presents hurdles to ICJ enforcement. And you ask how, exactly?
Can you google? Or do you think she is making it up?
Speak of the devil!
Can I ask again why my previous post was deleted, along with a request for explanation?
Alinsky tactics work against leftists too.
Agree completely, and I think there is a large consensus in Israel for a two-state solution.
There's an even larger consensus for a no-engagement-with-incompetent-terrorism-condoning-Pali-government solution.
Such a pity that Israelis prioritize not being blow up by douchebags w/hand detonators yelling allahu akbar! over dragging the Palestinians, kicking and screaming, into an enlightened state of political affairs.
J. Farmer: "The US govenremnt (sic) contravenes (sic) its obligations (sic), domestic and international, with a degree of regularity."
It is almost as if the United States (and every other sovereign) doesn't take your point.
@R&B:
I have been commenting here for several years on numerous topics. that you're unaware of that is not my problem. Feel free to read my D I SQUS profile if you want to know more about my commenting history.
Birkel is obviously deciding to miss the point on purpose so he won't have to explain how our obligations under the UN Charter require the Constitution be ignored. Our obligations under the UN Charter are mandated by the Constitution.
We can obviously withdraw from the UN, and from our Charter obligations, if we want to do so...but we don't. We use the UN as a tool for our own purposes, not least of which is to wax sanctimonious and lecture other countries for transgressions of which we are manifestly guilty, but which we refuse to cease or answer for.
Is my precious getting all flustered?
@Birkel;
The same woman you quote doesn't seem to share your belief that international law is a fiction. Why?
How do you interpret article 6 of the US Constitution?
Dance, monkey, dance.
J. Farmer:
She believes the useful fiction and knows it contravenes the U.S. Constitution.
This is easy.
The only thing the ICJ is good for, as far as I can tell, is the prosecutorial harassment of Israel.
The UNGA is fine for political harassment of Israel. And the Security Council occasionally comes in handy for military harassment.
But what better venue for getting the world to think that the Arab states and the various other despots they're aligned with are suddenly all about law and order - especially as they pretend to dispense it upon Israel? Why, the ICJ of course. So here we go.
It's impossible to deny that the moralizing harassers of Israel actually subscribe to the idea of a higher morality and political order that is made simply on the basis of argumentum ad populam fallacy. Why not? That's what this history is about, and has always been about. Egypt was stronger, Babylon was stronger, Rome was stronger, the church's soldiers were more numerous, the jihadis are more numerous. Etc., etc., etc. It's the same thing as always: Israel's supposed "sin" is getting in the way of the imperialistic "might makes right" thinking of antiquity and getting in the way of supposedly universalist mob rule for the last two thousand years through the present.
And what part of the Constitution does a contravene? You claim the bill of rights hours ago but have seemingly abandoned that point.
To be continued. Obligations of real life have intruded....
The whole world agrees: Israel is evil.
Mob thinking at its finest. What moral sophistication.
It sure is tough, kicking the old Bolsheviks out of the library when it's this cold.
Is "Multiple Miggs" Ericson still bouncing around, talking to himself, in his cell?
tl;dr always gets the last word.
J. Farmer:
You should read about the judge's concerns that the ICJ is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. She supports the contravention of the Constitution, of course.
I cannot help you learn. This is the internet. You have access.
Really it is fascinating how little some things change. Everybody remarks about the endless and seemingly interminable conflict between Israel and its neighbors (as well as various countries around the world).
Similarly, the circus here continues unabated, so much more passionate, driven than most other discussions, natural to consider if that's merely coincidental.
I have this "curiosity thread" that runs though my head pondering such things. Not a novel idea that understanding what keeps conflict going could offer hints about how to end the conflict. Althouse probably doesn't realize (or care) what a great little conflict laboratory she's created here, no doubt some grad student is eyeballing it to use for a Ph.D. thesis.
Can't say I know what's going on, just thinking out loud, wondering what drives it and keeps it going. No clues or theories, just questions.
Seems to be 1 jew-hater against the commentariat.
jrapdx:
Write the grant.
I quoted J. Farmer contradicting his own pronouncements in this very thread. Irrational belief is (Get this!) irrational.
J. Farmer wants American retrenchment in foreign affairs and strict compliance with U.N. treaties. Logical consistency.
I suppose its raging against the dying of the light might have something to do with it too.
R&B: "There's an even larger consensus for a no-engagement-with-incompetent-terrorism-condoning-Pali-government solution.
Such a pity that Israelis prioritize not being blow up by douchebags w/hand detonators yelling allahu akbar! over dragging the Palestinians, kicking and screaming, into an enlightened state of political affairs"
Amen to that.
It's clear that the usual suspects will continue to be upset as those pesky Israeli's continue to defy the deep arab/"palestinian" desire to drive every Jewish man, woman and child into the sea.
It will be fascinating to watch how Trump & Netanyahu (and whoever else might come next) attempt to extricate the US/Israel alliance out from under the pro-Iran/Hamas stance of obama.
J. Farmer said...
@Birkel:
"Can the United States withdraw from the U.N. on a whim?
"On a whim" is a vague, slippery phrase. The charter itself did not give a mechanism for withdrawal, and there is disagreement on customary law and ties Vienna Convention about withdrawal from treaties in which no mechanism is delineated.
Just a note- the U.S. Constitution has not method delineated for withdrawal. But, the Constitution followed the Articles of Confederation, which quite clearly stated the Union was perpetual in nature. There is no such predecessor document for the United Nations. Any nation can withdraw at any time.
As for the U.N. living up to it's own charter, the Republic of China, with freedom of religion as outlined in Article 1 Section of the U.N. Charter, located on Formosa, was kicked out and replaced by the People's Republic of China, which was not a republic, and where religion is suppressed. The only reason I see for kicking a nation out is Article 2 Section 6: A Member of the United Nations which has
persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. I've read through the charter, and there doesn't seem to be any procedure for kicking out a free and independent nation not in violation of that provision, but they did it anyway, and brought in a member in violation of the Charter.
Harold:
By what method would the U.N. stop a sovereign from withdrawing. Could it?
What about countries that have been absorbed by other countries or split up? The Germanies? Yugoslavia? Can the U.N. do anything the sovereigns decide to deny?
International law is a useful fiction.
Jon Ericson — "Seems to be 1 jew-hater against the commentariat."
Birkel — "… I quoted J. Farmer contradicting his own pronouncements in this very thread. Irrational belief is (Get this!) irrational. …"
So the diagnosis is arguing for sake of arguing. In that case the imperative is continuing the "battle". Such a stance is impervious to logic, facts or good sense, and all too often exactly what we see happening.
What drives arguing as a ongoing "habit"? Emotion, especially hatred, impels action, specifically aggression. Under ordinary conditions emotion dissipates after an initial uptick. But battle (in whatever form) keeps stimulating emotion, so maintains and renews hatred. Eventually it can harden into a character flaw, or more widely an institution or a tradition, even burning for millennia.
Hatred is hard to extinguish because it is so easy to attribute to the "enemy", and not realize that the locus of hatred is within oneself. A good education teaches introspection. Maybe it's lack of good examples that keeps people from learning it, hard to say.
Some opine that Trump will be the nation's symbolic "good grownup dad", prompting people to be more self-aware, less hateful. On a good day I might think that's possible.
jrapdx:
Sometimes I eat for the sake of eating or poop for the sake of pooping.
Get your 5¢ sign ready.
http://peanuts.wikia.com/wiki/Lucy's_psychiatry_booth
Birkel said...
Harold:
By what method would the U.N. stop a sovereign from withdrawing. Could it?
If you re-read my comment- they can't. As for countries merging, disappearing, new ones being created from old ones splitting up- there is no real mechanism for any of that in the U.N. Charter. They're winging it on an ad hoc basis with every instance you just asked about. Without looking into it deeper, I imagine they're simply using a 2/3 vote of the General Assembly to justify any of their actions regarding membership.
International law is mainly just winging it. Could not agree more, Harold.
(You didn't take my comment as disagreement, I hope.)
Back...sorry, had to see my drug dealer...now, where were....oh yes, Birkel...
"It is more fun to mock you than to teach you."
The fact that you're so proud of your immaturity is endearing...in a sad, pathetic sort of way. But I digress. On to the arguments, as they were.
"J. Farmer wants American retrenchment in foreign affairs and strict compliance with U.N. treaties. Logical consistency."
There is no logical inconsistency whatsoever between those positions. Yes, I want a less interventionist foreign policy, and yes, I believe that the United States has obligations under the UN charter. We benefit from this and it costs us very little. We can't be compelled to do anything by the UN because we have veto power and are permanent members of the security council. That's why opposing compulsory jurisdiction from the ICJ was a useless move for the US. When the issue came before the security council, we vetoed it. As any lawyer will tell you, anyone can win a judgment; try to collect.
Your whole remain about international law being a "useful fiction" is obviously true in some abstract, rhetorical way. The same exact argument could be made for the statement "law is just a useful fiction." But the fact of the matter is that the globe is full of independent nations interacting with each other in various ways. There are numerous conventions and treaties managing affairs between nations. These conventions, norms, and regulations provide some constraint on America's ability to act on the global stage. It's less constrained than most nations because it is quite powerful, but it's power is not absolute. It has an interest in maintaining a stable international order, and acting within a generally mutually agreed framework. These structures exist and must be accommodated in the real world.
Here are my politics in a nutshell: nationalism. I believe that the US government should run a foreign policy for the benefit and protection of Americans. I'm a restrictionist on immigration for the same reason. I support Israel's nationhood and desire to remain a distinctly Jewish state. More power to them. But I don't support what they do in the West Bank, and I'm prepared to defend that position. At the same time, I don't believe that the US should try to compel Israel's behavior on the matter. I'm generally against the US using force against other nations except in a few narrowly constricted ways. If Israel wants to buy American military equipment, fine by me. But I'm not for giving Israel (or any other nation) US taxpayer welfare.
If international law is as meaningless as you claim, then why does Netanyahu care about Security Council resolutions anyway?
Hey! Mohammad's back!
J. Farmer: The same exact argument could be made for the statement "law is just a useful fiction."
Is there an enforcement mechanism for domestic law? Then you are wrong. And boring. And poorly educated.
I mock you because you are boring and dull. And also because you know so many things that just are not so.
J Farmer, UN resolution 1446 authorized the Iraq invasion, IIRC.
@Birkel:
Is there an enforcement mechanism for domestic law? Then you are wrong.
There is an "enforcement mechanism" for international law, and they are typically delineated in the treaties in which they are based. The question is not one of existence but execution. Similarly, there is an enforcement mechanism in domestic law, and there are questions of its execution. The nature, legitimacy, and analysis of the method of execution is a big part of the legal profession.
For example: Iraq violated the UN charter when it invaded Kuwait in 1990. The security council found Iraq in violation of the charter and imposed penalties in the form of authorizing the use of force to compel its compliance. Hence, member states formed in coalition and repelled Iraq from Kuwait. That was the enforcement mechanism.
The fact that enforcement is selective and not equally distributed (exactly as its selective and not equally distributed in domestic law) does not mean that countries are not bound by obligations they agree to in international agreements.
So now let me return to you a question and see if you'll answer or continue your pattern of steadfastly refusing to answer questions you seemingly have no answer for: if Security Council resolutions are meaningless, then why does anybody care about US abstention? Why does Israel care about the US security council at all?
I mock you because you are boring and dull.
And yet you read and reply everything I write...to a much greater degree than most others on this site. Are you a masochist?
@richard mcenroe:
J Farmer, UN resolution 1446 authorized the Iraq invasion, IIRC.
I think you mean UN resolution 1441, and no, actually it did not. The US did not have authorization to unilaterally enforce 1441. That rested in the security council. Why was the US trying to get another security council resolution?
Israel First or America First?
I thought Mr. Buchanan's realistic assessment of the global situation and unabashed pro-America position was a welcome antidote to all the overwrought, hysterical gushing that is so predictably prevalent all over this thread.
J. Farmer: "No, and as I've said repeatedly, I have never said that Israel must do anything."
J. Farmer: "There is an "enforcement mechanism" for international law, and they are typically delineated in the treaties in which they are based."
Which J. Farmer shall I mock?
Never stop being who you are
@Birkel:
Which J. Farmer shall I mock?
Tommy Chong broke the law in the 2003 and went to federal prison for nine months for it. I didn't call for his arrest, and I don't think he should have been prosecuted. There's no contradiction between those two statements.
Benzoylmethylecgonine to the rescue!
@Jon:
Sadly, no. Plain old cannabinoids. Benzoylmethylecgonine is for the weekend, silly.
Don't want to upset walter, but did anybody notice some sort of a change of gears here?
Let it flow.
You can tell us.
We can fix it.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/russia-fumes-over-us-sanctions-says-it-will-wait-for-trump-response/
"J Farmer, UN resolution 1446 authorized the Iraq invasion, IIRC."
No, it did not.
"I think you mean UN resolution 1441, and no, actually it did not. The US did not have authorization to unilaterally enforce 1441. That rested in the security council. Why was the US trying to get another security council resolution?"
What J. Farmer says.
Actually, at Colin Powell's urging, Bush reluctantly sought to get a UN Resolution to authorize an invasion of Iraq, but the motion was withdrawn by the US when it became apparent the they didn't have the votes in the Security Council to get it passed.
The special brand of idiocy that is Robert Cook.
Your compelling argument against my comment, Birkel, as usual, completely fails as a response, much less as a refutation.
"Seems to be 1 jew-hater against the commentariat."
Who is the "jew-hater?"
"...the UN Security Council adopted a compromise resolution, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized the resumption of weapons inspections and promised "serious consequences" for non-compliance. Security Council members France and Russia made clear that they did not consider these consequences to include the use of force to overthrow the Iraqi government.[49] Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador, Jeremy Greenstock, publicly confirmed this reading of the resolution, assuring that Resolution 1441 provided no 'automaticity' or 'hidden triggers' for an invasion without further consultation of the Security Council.[50]"
---https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
"On August 5, 2002, Powell advised the President that the United States should only attack Iraq if it had a UN Security Resolution authorizing such action. Powell hoped that a UN resolution might force Saddam to back down from his intransigence on WMD inspections—which it in fact did."
"At the United Nations, the United States negotiated with France and others for eight weeks and on November 8 passed UN Security Council Resolution 1441 by a vote of fifteen to zero. The resolution, backed by American intelligence, declared Iraq to be in “material breach of cease fire terms” and gave Saddam a “final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.”
"But the resolution did not authorize “all necessary means”—that is to say, force—to be used. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte agreed that another resolution would be necessary to authorize the United States to invade Iraq.
"Iraq agreed to the resolution and opened its doors to inspection teams led by Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, who declared Iraq devoid of WMDs and released forty-three volumes of documentation to try to prove it.96 German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer argued that inspections were 'moving in the right direction and. . . they should have all the time which is needed.'97"
"Opposition to war was meanwhile mounting in Europe. Blair insisted on a second UN Security Council resolution to bring his country along, but the French feared that a resolution would just be a rubber stamp on a dubious U.S. case for war. In March, when the French threatened to veto a second resolution, Bush dropped the effort and gave Saddam a forty-eight-hour ultimatum to leave Iraq."
---http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-war-bushs-biggest-blunder-294411
Robert Cook:
You are under the delusion that a sovereign must ask permission.
Looks like the UK and Australia also agree w.r.t. Kerry's awfulness: UK, Australia rebuke Kerry: Quit blaming lack of progress entirely on settlements.
"You are under the delusion that a sovereign must ask permission."
As per our Article 6 obligations under the Constitution, the UN Charter is the law of the land. According to the law of the land, no member nation may unilaterally wage war against any other member nation without UN Security Council authorization, except in cases where there is an imminent self-defense necessity.
This is not "international law." It is domestic law, "the law of the land," as per the Constitution.
(BTW, for all those haw-hawing at the notion of "international law," you're simply undermining any basis the US might have to excoriate any other nations for being "outlaws" due to their international behavior. If there is no international law, then every country is free to do as it pleases to whomever it pleases whenever it pleases, and no other nation has shit to say about it. So, this idea that Russia be sanctioned for its alleged--but unproven--hacking of the DNC and so-called "interference in our election" is simply nonsense. Russian may do whatever it likes to us, until we decide to launch a war against them.)
Benghazi was about a video, "Shirley you jest" Why do we continue to project our lives into these third world countries? I've been there and worse. There is no internet, there are no internet cafes, they live on barely one dollar a day and military hand outs of bread they bake for the tribes. And I'm not sure I saw a single flip phone cell phone, and no cell phone towers except for in the middle of the totalfina oil fields. W're idiots for believing anything Washington says, no wonder mr. T. doesn't have time to listen to the U.S. intelligence, any of those folks that say anything are talking from no experience, I wager mr. T. or his staff have more exxperidnce in those places tyring to buy options on beachfront for possible resorts. And he's got an Ex. Defence intelligence agency guy working for him, who understands just how bad and dysfunctional these instituions have become he'll likely will close most of them or sunset them or term limit them until the next real emergency when they need to be rebuoiolt when the U.S. and our families will know they will die if agencies like this don't work. because they simply can't be fixed today from the shape their are in as his military folks know frm direct experience in every war since Gb1. I can still hear Noman S. yelling standing on his desk.
Oh, Robert Cook! If you didn't have your petty delusions what would you have left?
Excoriation is worthless, except to The countries that wish to submit to such. The countries that do not care far outnumber the ones that do. Shall we start lists?
The United States can withdraw from the U.N. on a whim. The U.N. Charter is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution as suggested above by the U.S. judge on the ICJ. We have withdrawn from "compulsory" jurisdiction of the ICJ because the United States is a sovereign.
Hobbes has taught us all we need to know about international law.
Robert Cook said...
"Seems to be 1 jew-hater against the commentariat."
Who is the "jew-hater?"
Illustrates the density of a black hole.
"Illustrates the density of a black hole."
No. If someone is going to make an ugly accusation, they should identify who they're accusing and why. I'm assuming it was intended for J.Farmer, but I could be wrong. If I am right, I'm curious why he would be labeled so. I've seen nothing he's written here that suggests he is a "jew-hater." Charges of anti-semitism are cheap and easy, and too often thrown at people merely for criticizing a nation-state, (Israel). Is Israel off-limits for criticism?
Post a Comment