+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Help, I can't find any links (/thread-11732.html)
Help, I can't find any links - Occhidiangela - 03-27-2003
I heard on the radio that XXXXXXXX Representative (did not catch the name) had introduced a proposed bill today in the U.S. Congress that calls for the U.S. to quit the UN (I can hardly believe my ears) and quit supporting certain multinational organizations, to include NATO. I can't believe it, but I had hoped to find out the story via the news.
After Yahoo and Google, NT Times on line, Wash Post on line, and a bunch of other news orgs on line, I found nothing. Do any of you all living in Europe have a news report of this? Kiwi's or Aussies? The time difference may have allowed deadline to fit the story in.
Since the Senate approves all treaties, this action in the House may just be a lot of hot air, but it reeks of neo-isolationism. I am trying to find out just what actually was in the Bill, and wonder if anyone has a link.
Me, I support the UN, and have always felt that for all of its shortcomings, the UN has a lot of good points and is on the whole a good organization.
I will keep looking for links, but was wondering if anyone else had heard of this.
Help, I can't find any links - Griselda - 03-27-2003
http://www.christianparents.com/unplan02.html
If we were already taken over by the UN 3 years ago, it's a little late to back out now! ;)
That was just the top result in a google search, since RL is calling...
-Griselda
Help, I can't find any links - WarBlade - 03-27-2003
No links here, but it wouldn't surprise me. I've seen the American government's "stuff you then" attitude (when America doesn't get it own way) before regarding the ANZUS treaty, although isolation from the UN is altogether larger kettle of fish entirely.
Help, I can't find any links - Occhidiangela - 03-27-2003
I will now check the Congressional Record from 1999 to see what the heck this is really all about, if I can. :)
Help, I can't find any links - BlackLightning - 03-27-2003
Whoa!
Man, that's just impossible! I think the United States started the UN! Why would they back away from it (Perhaps they created a monster <_< )?
Anyway, have you checked the UN website? They might have more info. there. Even then, it would seem really dumb if the U.S. backed out of the UN, which THEY created!
What troubled times can do....
Help, I can't find any links - Occhidiangela - 03-27-2003
The American Sovereignty Restoration Act. That is why my searches went screwy.
Representative Paul of Texas is the Author
He is from the 14th District, just up the road around Victoria, Texas. Given its 1999 genesis, as HR 1146, I start to see what all is going on, and why the new attempt to resurrect it from whatever grave it fell into back then. Thanks to Gris for the help in getting my search correct; the House Foreign Relations Committee has yet to address this, and I suspect it will be given short shrift.
I also poked around and read a few legal analyses that point to the pseudo-Constitutional nature of the UN Charter, and the conflict that presents with our own Constitution, how treaties are to be looked at within that context, and a bunch of other arguments that I have seen before.
Help, I can't find any links - Occhidiangela - 03-27-2003
. . . two fold.
1. NATO was created by a treaty, the Washington Treaty, and as such was subject to the usual Senatorial debate and review. Some of the pundits argue that no such treaty process was the case in US membership of the UN, since it was formed during WW II by the nations that were united versus Germany (just defeated) and Japan in June of 1945.
The UN as it is, even if imperfect, is better than no UN. Some of us recall the League of Nations (OK, I studied it, I aint THAT old) and how its impotence and our own lack of support for internationalism was its demise when Hitler called its bluff, or earlier when the Spanish Civil War went on as the League of Nations squabbled. Given that perspective, and recalling how hard some states fought (and still fight) the federalization efforts in our own country, so too do sovereign nations fight the perceived powers of an extranational world government.
It took a major war to resolve our 'states versus Congress' issue, as well as subsequent judicial decisions.
So maybe it would take a major war to resolve the "Nations versus UN" issue.
*Shudder*
That is exactly what this world does not need, in this rogue's opinion.
Oops, here is fold 2.
International Law.
A lot of folks are claiming that US is violating 'International Law' while they appear to ignore the violations of Geneva Convention and International Law in Iraq, and other places.
Whatever the various merits and demerits of those discussions, no Law is any better than its enforcement, or the extent of voluntary obedience.
So, for those who claim that the US violates international law with this action in support of enforcing UN resolutions (that is a bit ironic, really) I would ask anyone just what the hell they tend to do about it? Who will enforce the law?
The US has tended to be one of the few U.N. enforcement arms, there are others, for the past 50 years. Look at how much effort Pres Bush had to expend to EJECT AN AGGRESSOR FROM KUWAIT. A cut and dried case of Aggression took exceptional effort to take action against. So, if there is a cut and dried case that could be made against the US, for agression, who the heck is going to do anything about it? Who is going to enforce 'international law?' If they don't have the balls to face Saddam, who has the balls to face the US?
That question lays bare the limitations of the UN in practice.
Help, I can't find any links - Bun-Bun - 03-27-2003
I will be charitable and say that Ron Paul occupies a seldom-frequented segment of the political bell-curve.
Help, I can't find any links - Occhidiangela - 03-27-2003
"Representative Paul is the only TRUE Conservative left in America."
I am not quite sure what he meant, but I suppose that would make Rush Limbaugh a moderate liberal in comparison? :)
Help, I can't find any links - Rhydderch Hael - 03-27-2003
The U.S. leaving the UN that they created isn't all that ludricrous if you take histroical precedent into account.
The League of Nations was the brain child of American President Woodrow Wilson. He was the guy that came up with the then-nutty idea of a multinational council of diplomacy as part of his "Fourteen Points of Light". Then as other Allied nations pushed for war reparations and the disarmanent of Germany through the myopic Treaty of Versailles, Wilson was so put off by the idea that he himself began arguing against the Treaty and the only "Point of Light" that survived into it: The League. Wilson's campaign to the American public to refuse the Versailles treaty created the situation that the nation that thought up the idea of the League of Nations refused to join it.
Help, I can't find any links - whyBish - 03-28-2003
Occhidiangela,Mar 28 2003, 08:13 AM Wrote:.A lot of folks are claiming that US is violating 'International Law' while they appear to ignore the violations of Geneva Convention and International Law in Iraq, and other places.The U.S. has broken international Law ... Those steel tarrifs were illegal (WTO ruling) after all. Oh wait, I'm off topic ;)
Why does the 'winking head' look as if he's been jabbed in the right buttock?
Anyway back on topic...
personal opinion: I think the war is a good thing, just don't think the U.S. went about it the right way. Once they had started the troop buildup it was going to be too expensive to back down, even if demands were met, and it was going to be too expensive to keep troops there if the weapon inspection process 'dragged on'.
Not sure why Britain and U.S. are complaining about pictures of hostages / dead soldiers, what do they expect when they declare war on another nation?
The issue of policing is definately an interesting one. (I'm not saying they have but...) If the U.S. had broken international law by declaring war, then would the U.N. have been able to kick them out (U.S. has veto powers)?
The other interesting subject is, if Iraq is being invadedberated then why isn't Zimbabwe being treated the same (Human rights abuses) or N.K. (WMD)?
The weird thing is watching all of the biased media spouted from both sides. Each side calls the other evil. Each side syas 'god' will prevail. Each side claims the other bombed Iraqi citizens in Baghdad. You could take transcripts of most of the leaders speeches, blank out the country and president names and yyou wouldn't know which side said it ( translated of course ;) ).
The sad trend here is that most people seem unable to think for themselves. They spout uninformed comments (I suppose I am no different :( ) ... and many of the anti-war protesters are exactly that ... anti-war, regardless of the cost. many are also just protesters (regardless of the cause)... anad none of them seem to respect the opinion of the other side. pro-American supporters have been verbally abused, had placards stolen etc., but you don't see the opposite happening.
We were supposed to have a terrorist attack here today (off-topic again).
Help, I can't find any links - WarBlade - 03-28-2003
whyBish,Mar 28 2003, 05:47 PM Wrote:We were supposed to have a terrorist attack here today (off-topic again).Well there's still time, although this one sounded more like a hoax than anything. "American and British interests" being the ear-marked target, I wonder if people will start mentioning Australia et al.
The only thing left that isn't shutting down for the day at this point is Bruce Springsteen and those concert goers are going to be more concerned with keeping dry.
Now if only some of that rain could bugger off down to the Kapiti coast where they could really use it. <_<
Help, I can't find any links - Growler - 03-28-2003
Without the presence of significant American troops, there wouldn't have an inspection process at all.
Quote:Not sure why Britain and U.S. are complaining about pictures of hostages / dead soldiers, what do they expect when they declare war on another nation?
With regard to this incident, no one is complaining about the fact that our soldiers get killed or captured. That happens in war. What was/is outrageous is that the dead soldiers aren't merely dead, they were executed while in captivity, and shown with their pants pulled down, too boot. The war is over for POWs, why the extra cruelty? Pointless contemptible barbarism is all this is.
Quote:The other interesting subject is, if Iraq is being invadedberated then why isn't Zimbabwe being treated the same (Human rights abuses) or N.K. (WMD)?
N.K. is on the list of the 'Axis of Evil' countries and has nukes, so wait and see what happens. Zimbabwe doesn't threaten America or American interests, so no obligation to invade Zimbabwe exists.
Help, I can't find any links - AtomicKitKat - 03-28-2003
The whole of Iraq. Nothing like wet uniforms and rusted rifles to piss off a soldier.
Help, I can't find any links - Occhidiangela - 03-28-2003
Quote:The issue of policing is definately an interesting one. (I'm not saying they have but...) If the U.S. had broken international law by declaring war, then would the U.N. have been able to kick them out (U.S. has veto powers)?
The U.S. has broken international Law ... Those steel tarrifs were illegal (WTO ruling) after all. Oh wait, I'm off topic
And just who is going to do anything substantial about it? Who can? Who has the backbone?
On the steel tarrifs, I suspect that in time either the market, or other political forces, such as various trade negotiations down the line, will sort that out. This strikes me as a temporary move to re establish a viable steel industry that had become moribund. By taking the long term view, it makes some sense, though in the short term, it may put other trade negotiations or agreements at risk. Risk management is part of the political process.
And please comment on Japanese rice subsidies, long a sore spot with some agriculturally robust nations. :)
Help, I can't find any links - Scorzonera - 03-28-2003
Another two examples :
- The U.S. refuses to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child
- The U.S. strongly opposes the International Criminal Court
Too bad IMHO, but the international communion seems to be able to do very little about it.
Help, I can't find any links - --Pete - 03-28-2003
Hi,
The U.S. refuses to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child
There are provisions in that convention that would make circumcision of male infants illegal. Considering both the health and religious aspects involved, perhaps *not* signing it is the right thing to do. In addition, the definition of a "child" in that convention is anyone under the age of 18. IIRC, the convention does not distinguish between "infant", "child", "adolescent", and "teenager". Thus, many of its provisions, which are valid for the younger groups, are not valid for the older ones.
The U.S. strongly opposes the International Criminal Court
The ICC has no body of law behind it. It has no agency which can control it. It has no means for an unjustly accused person to get some compensation from his accusers. Thus, anyone in any country (including lunatic extremists) could accuse any other person in any other country (including the chief elected officials) of crimes. It becomes a nuisance factor with no redeeming value. For more, see http://www.state.gov/p/9949.htm On a closely related topic, see http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/28/internat...pe/28BRIE4.html (second item).
So, is it your contention that every time a nation turns down a stupid or self serving international resolution, that nation is "against the world".
Do you think we're stupid? Or are you?
--Pete
Help, I can't find any links - Occhidiangela - 03-28-2003
It is not built on the proper foundation.
Until there is a single and universally agree international Constitution and codification of laws, until there is a single international legal authority that is accepted by all nations, and until there is a single international method for ensuring due process of law, the ICC will remain a political tool, and a tool used to attempt an international version of California 'deep pockets' legisltion. In other words, the Miranda ruling does not yet apply in every nation on the globe, as a minor example.
The UN Charter is not such a foundation document, it was a charter created by a select group of nations whose aim was to prevent World War III, and whose aims included that sovereign nations have a structure and a method to resolve differences short of war, and to promote greater peace and prosperity among the family of nations: sovereign nations. It was not crafted to supercede the authority of its members as regards their internal affairs, or their sovereignty. Had that been the intent, I doubt very much that the U.S. would have signed it, nor any of the other powers involved.
Until every nation on the globe subordinates its sovereignty, and its ability to craft the laws for its own people's best needs as they see them, the ICC will remain an idea whose practical application as a legitimate court is as full of holes as Swiss Cheese.
Or do you believe that the laws of Iran regarding the status of women is the international standard that all should strive for? Do you believe that the Church shall be the final arbiter of the Law, as in the sovereign nation of Iran? Or that the people are the property of the State, per the Communist model?
The laws on this planet are unequal, are different, and are tailored within each nation to meet the needs of its population 'writ large', either via the open and changeable process of the representative governments, or in the 'law by decree' of more autocratic nations.
"International Law" is a matter of treaty and negotiation between nations, and has to date gotten incredibly uneven enforcement. It is also, at it best, a subset of international politics. At worse, it is a waste of time.
Help, I can't find any links - FoxBat - 03-28-2003
Occhidiangela,Mar 27 2003, 02:13 PM Wrote:International Law.It's more of the paradox, at least.
A lot of folks are claiming that US is violating 'International Law' while they appear to ignore the violations of Geneva Convention and International Law in Iraq, and other places.
Whatever the various merits and demerits of those discussions, no Law is any better than its enforcement, or the extent of voluntary obedience.
So, for those who claim that the US violates international law with this action in support of enforcing UN resolutions (that is a bit ironic, really) I would ask anyone just what the hell they tend to do about it? Who will enforce the law?
If you're going to appeal to the UN's authority for disarming Iraq, well you can't go ahead ignoring that authority as it applies to yourself, and expect anyone to believe that your doing it because of the UN's authority.
You can find independent grounds for saying that the UN sanctions on Iraq are good, like this will contain Saddam who is dangerous, etc. But you can no longer say that Iraq's UN violations are bad just because they are UN violations.
The paradox of vigilantianism - vigilanties arise in the vacuum (or percieved vacuum) of law, to enforce the law, by breaking the law. There is no enforcement, the law has no meaning, hence there is nothing for the vigilanties to enforce. (Or, if they are enforcing something, it's because no-one is enforcing the law as it applies to them.) If the law had meaning, there would be no need for vigilantiasm, as it would be officially enforced. Maybe this is appropriate in some situations, but it's not lawful.
Help, I can't find any links - --Pete - 03-28-2003
Hi,
The paradox of vigilantianism - vigilanties arise in the vacuum (or percieved vacuum) of law, to enforce the law, by breaking the law.
The problem here is the singular collective "law". I'm reminded of a riddle: "A man without eyes saw pears on a tree. He did not take pears, he did not leave pears. Now how can that be?"
The vigilantes don't break *the* law, they break *some* laws to enforce the rest. In a sense, this is just what governments do. The "social contract" concept of rule by the consent of the governed fails the test. The criminals do not give consent to the government to curtail their criminal activity. They state, by their actions (which, I believe, speak louder than words) that the government has no *right* to tell them not to rob banks (or whatever). The government, representing the superior force of the majority, arrests (i.e., kidnaps) these criminals and deprives them of fundamental rights (liberty, the pursuit of happiness). It is simply a case of the government getting away with actions that would be jailable offenses if performed by individuals. So, since the government is simply the will of the powerful (whether that power comes from money, from position, or from majority), if the vigilantes represent the majority of the population, then they are excused from some law just as any government is.
Besides, is a "law" that is not enforced a law at all? That gets right down to the fundamental question of what a "law" is. So, if vigilantes are operating in a region at a time when no law is enforced, then what law can they be breaking? Again, the question devolves into whether absolutes exist and are (even some) laws absolutes.
Usually, the only real difference between vigilantes and policemen is whether they get paid.
--Pete
Solution to riddle: A one eyed man saw two pears on a tree and took one of them.