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 <jgg1...@hotmail.com> 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 <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > again gaar, you sidestep the original issue. > > > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:27 PM, plainolamerican > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > > > > > ouch!!! > > > > > On Apr 10, 2:09 pm, jgg1000a <jgg1...@hotmail.com> 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 exclusionary area, out to 200 > > > > miles and clashes continued. Shots were fired and ships rammed each > > > > other, though no fatalities resulted. The dispute ended in 1976 with > > > > an agreement that granted Iceland almost all of its demands. > > > > > > Iceland – a liberal democracy and advocate of international law – > > > > deemed the threat to its economic national security so serious that > > > > the ICJ decisions were simply ignored. > > > > > > Neither France nor Iceland was the target of international sanctions > > > > for their clear defiance of the ICJ. > > > > > > * * * > > > > > > Defying the ICJ in territorial disputes: Morocco and South Africa > > > > > > On December 13, 1974, the General Assembly asked the ICJ for an > > > > advisory opinion on the legal status of Western Sahara, the former > > > > Spanish colony known as Spanish Sahara, and the legal ties of Morocco > > > > and Mauritania to the area. Both countries had made claims to > Western > > > > Sahara in the context of decolonization by Spain, while the > indigenous > > > > Saharawi population wanted an independent state. On October 16, > 1975, > > > > the ICJ returned its advisory opinion that both countries had some > > > > legal ties to Western Sahara, but they were not sufficient to claim > > > > sovereignty and the status of Western Sahara should be determined by > > > > “the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine > > > > expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory.” > > > > > > King Hassan II of Morocco responded to the ICJ opinion with the Green > > > > March. Three hundred and fifty thousand Moroccan civilians were sent > > > > towards Western Sahara with the intent on settling there and doubling > > > > the population. > > > > > > Morocco then defied a series of Security Council resolutions. On > > > > October 22, the Security Council passed resolution 377, requesting > the > > > > Secretary-General to start consultations and appealing to all parties > > > > to exercise restraint. On October 31 the Moroccan military crossed > the > > > > border. After receiving the Secretary-General’s report on November > 2, > > > > the Security Council passed resolution 379, again urging an end to > > > > “unilateral actions” that would “escalate tensions.” On November 5, > > > > King Hassan II ordered the 350,000 civilians to cross the border. On > > > > November 6 the Security Council passed resolution 380, which “deplore > > > > [d] the holding of the march; [and] call[ed] upon Morocco immediately > > > > to withdraw from the Territory of Western Sahara all the participants > > > > in the march.” > > > > > > In 1976 Morocco annexed the area under its administration and then > > > > annexed the rest in 1979 when Mauritania withdrew its claim to the > > > > southern region. Twenty-five years later neither annexation has been > > > > recognized nor have Morocco and the Saharawi reached an agreement. > > > > > > Though construction began six years after the ICJ opinion, it should > > > > be noted that Morocco built a thousand-mile security barrier through > > > > the middle of Western Sahara to protect against Saharawi attacks. > The > > > > “berm,” as it is known, is a three-meter high earthen rampart, > > > > fortified with an estimated one to two million landmines. It > divides > > > > the Moroccan-controlled northwestern two-thirds of Western Sahara – > > > > rich in oil and minerals, whose coast contains the territory’s > fertile > > > > land and fishing industry – from the southeastern third that is > mostly > > > > desert and controlled by the Saharawi. > > > > > > Despite disregarding both the ICJ opinion on Western Sahara and the > > > > related Security Council resolutions, Morocco has not suffered > serious > > > > ... > > > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
