[quote=“Flipper”]
the UN was not conceived as an international law body and it has never been an international law body. please put the leftist rhetoric away and read the UN charter. thanks.[/quote]
Okay, read it. What presumably then is the purpose of an ‘International Court of Justice’?
Article 92 (UN Charter)
The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.
Article 93 (UN Charter)
All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.
[quote=“spook”][quote=“Flipper”]
the UN was not conceived as an international law body and it has never been an international law body. please put the leftist rhetoric away and read the UN charter. thanks.[/quote]
Okay, read it. What presumably then is the purpose of an ‘International Court of Justice’?
Article 92 (UN Charter)
The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.
Article 93 (UN Charter)
All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.[/quote]
the icj is a venue for arbitration. the parties involved in a dispute must both agree to go before the icj. the icj then offers it’s advice on the matter and then the parties involved must figure out what they’re going to do about it. so if one of the parties declines to argue the case in front of the icj, then no case can be brought before the judges.
the wto has a much better claim to be an “international law body” than the icj ever will.
why do you think they had to create the international criminal court?
the icj is the “judge judy” of legal systems. except judge judy actually has the participants sign a legally binding agreement to abide by her rulings. the icj has no way to enforce it’s arbitration.
In my opinion the current US administration would like to avoid any international bodies having oversight in the Iraq war for how this oversight might jepodize the use of Private Military Contractors.
You are all over the board. You want the US to avoid all international alliances but then claim that a supranational body like the UN has the right to determine international law over US interests. Then, if we are going to talk about international law, why isn’t Kofi Annan in jail for massive crimes against humanity and corruption? Did billions meant for Iraqi civilians not reach them? If so, how many died? 1 to 1.5 million. Therefore, we have to find out who is to blame. We know that Kofi Annan’s son, the French and Russian ambassadors and Saddam were all involved. If there is such a concern for international law etc., then I think we should all demand that these people be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Meanwhile, Iran’s claims against Germany should also go ahead since the German government and several of its most prominent companies were directly involved in building Saddam’s arsenal. Shame. Hang your heads in shame.
[quote=“Flipper”][quote=“twocs”]
That why we no longer need to bother about any so called international law body known as the United Nations. Making $10 an hour or $40,000 an hour, rest assured that the US will take care of all international law.[/quote]
the UN was not conceived as an international law body and it has never been an international law body. please put the leftist rhetoric away and read the UN charter. thanks.[/quote]
You cannot take the UN charter and then determine from one source what international law is. The US would beg to differ. AND no nation has surrendered its right to defend itself nor its sovereignty to the UN. Therefore defining sovereignty and right of defense are the very issues where the US and UN had their differences. Both sides had numerous supporters but I cannot help but notice that the civilized world of democracies backed the US while the French led a corrupt cabal of UN officials with vested interests in continuing to milk the Oil for Food Program and included nations that had sold extensive amounts of weapons to saddam or had negotiated lucrative oil deals with him. Backing up this whole mess was the Arab League which as everyone knows if determined first and foremost to serve the broaders interests of humanity.
so let’s re-examine the outrage against the US and (most of EU and NATO)
17 resolutions all calling for Iraq to comply. US most responsible for freeing Kuwait as well as defending Persian Gulf. US not allowed to act despite strong support because decision was not two-thirds majority in the security council. When has the UN ever voted so unaninimously on anything of such importance?
Given the concern for international law and given that most Iraqis are grateful to the US for removing Saddam. Every poll has confirmed this, then why is it that so much is being made of the US illegal action when those that looted the system from start to finish have not even been charged yet? Hmmm?
You are all over the board. You want the US to avoid all international alliances but then claim that a supranational body like the UN has the right to determine international law over US interests. Then, if we are going to talk about international law, why isn’t Kofi Annan in jail for massive crimes against humanity and corruption? Did billions meant for Iraqi civilians not reach them? If so, how many died? 1 to 1.5 million. Therefore, we have to find out who is to blame. We know that Kofi Annan’s son, the French and Russian ambassadors and Saddam were all involved. If there is such a concern for international law etc., then I think we should all demand that these people be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Meanwhile, Iran’s claims against Germany should also go ahead since the German government and several of its most prominent companies were directly involved in building Saddam’s arsenal. Shame. Hang your heads in shame.[/quote]
So why has the US not tabled anything to bring these “criminals” to justice, or is it that they fear the can of worms that would be opened up should such a trial ever take place.
Do you ever read the newspapers? We have several senators trying to make this an issue now. Kofi Annan that would be the secretary general in case you were not aware has sent out letters to stymie the process by warning companies against cooperating with the investigation. I am sure that Americans may have been involved but the true peak of the pinnacle goes to the French, Russians and Kofi Annan himself. Sometimes these things take time but they do tend to unravel and once one person talks the next is implicated and talks and so on and so on. Let’s give it another year or two to see what comes of this. My money is on Chirac and Annan going to jail. Chirac will lose presidential immunity in 2007. What happens then? His anointed replacement was jailed, if the other party wins, or even another faction in his party, what will keep him from going to jail? On that note, picture Fred Smith doing a very unsightly jig to celebrate.
Even though a backhanded compliment, a compliment nonetheless and all too true. I am quite happy that this is FINALLY starting to get the media attention it deserves. Why the media have continually looked for hidden attempts by Bush to mislead the American people is beyond me when they have the scandal of the century staring them in the face. A scandal which is directly accountable for why certain countries voted as they did in the UN Security Council in the lead up to the Iraq invasion. CORRUPTION!!!
Here’s some more sand for your molehill, Fred. Can’t believe you missed this reference in the article:
“The most lucrative exploitation of the program involved kickbacks from companies executing legal sales of oil. . . One of the most prolific purchasers of the oil was Swiss-based Glencore run by one-time fugitive American financier Marc Rich, which the report alleges paid over $3.2 million in kickbacks to the Iraqi government. Rich, formerly wanted for tax-evasion was pardoned by President Clinton in his last days in office.”
Pardoned at the behest of our bestest friend, the Israeli government, I might add.
You are arguing with me about Clinton era corruption. The same Clinton era corruption that created Worldcom, Enron and Arthur Anderson. But when these companies approached Bush for assistance he said no but who gets blamed for corporate sleaze? Bush. Gotta love it.
BUTT: I am happy to see that a week does not go by when spook doesn’t fail to mention Israel, cuz it’s all about the Jews you know. They control everything except for all the oil money that the Saudis have, the Japanese industrial corporations, the Swiss banks, the German industry, the French sleaze but you get the idea. And they killed Christ too you know.
More filth and sleaze. Where are the headlines on this crap!
The largest of the allocations went to Mr. Wyatt, who the list said had received allocations totaling 74 million barrels. At the profit rates of 15 cents to 85 cents per barrel that were reported in the arms inspector’s study, he could have earned $23 million. NOT MUCH COMPARED WITH THE BILLIONS THE FRENCH, RUSSIANS, UN AND CHINESE WERE MAKING.
Mr. Khafaji and Mr. Vincent, who both received much smaller allocations in the secret Iraqi list than Mr. Wyatt, could not be reached for comment. Mr. Vincent is an Iraqi-born businessman who headed Phoenix International.
Mr. Khafaji financed a controversial film about Iraq by Scott Ritter, the former United Nations arms inspector who opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq.
OH REALLY SPONSORED A MOVIE BY SCOTT RITTER DID HE? INTERESTING LITTLE CONNECTION HERE HUH? IT SEEMS EVERYONE WHO WAS VOCALLY AGAINST THE WAR IN THE LEAD UP WAS ON THE PAY. FILTHY DISGUSTING WHORES. nytimes.com/2004/10/09/inter … r=homepage
