|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Instead of celebration, when are "we" going to start looking at the bigger picture? If you simply take this as an embarassment to Bush - I think that is short-sighted.
At what point do "we" take it personal when the UN is used as a forum by other leaders to insult "us" and "our" President?
Like a spoiled child who gets what he/she wants by crying, how is Bolton's resignation going to make it easier to fix the problems in the UN?
|
ace....lemme see if I have your position correctly set in my mind.
<b>1.)Despite compelling evidence that president Bush is a war criminal, guilty of the crime of launching a war of aggression, clearly repudiating the lifetime of effort by Ben Ferencz, former Nuremberg chief prosecutor to establish the rule of law, over the rule of force, and that John Bolton is an accomplice of Mr. Bush in this and associated crimes against humanity....</b>
and....
<b>2.)despite the fact that Mr. Bush was unsuccessful in obtaining the consent of the 55 senators of his own party to appoint Bolton as US ambassador to the UN, but appointed him, temporarily, to that position anyway, instead of appointing a less controversial candidate from outside his "inner circle" of war crime conspirators......</b>
and.....
<b>3.)despite numerous reports from foreign and domestic past and present ambassadors, that John Bolton failed to be a reasonable builder of consensus at the UN, or even respected the UN and it's other ambassadors....</b>
you, ace, asked:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura2
....At what point do "we" take it personal when the UN is used as a forum by other leaders to insult "us" and "our" President?....
|
aceventura2, unless the republicans who controlled the senate in 2005, and Ben Ferencz (I urge you to spend time visiting his website and reading the entire articles that I've excerpted in the following quote boxes...), and the nytimes.com reporting that I've included below.....all have it wrong, Mr. Bush is probably guilty of the most heinous crime against humanity...."war of aggression", and therefore, should receive no less of an insulting response by the UN, than that afforded to Saddam Hussein. John Bolton, as a fellow alledged war criminal, and owing to the facts that he was not appointed to be the UN ambassador with the consent of a senate aligned with Mr. Bush, and owing to reports of his "performance", at the UN, this past year, in the opinions of his fellow ambassadors from formerly allied countries.....is clearly not fit to continue as ambassador of the US....to any country or organization.
ace, you support a "rogue regime", bent on undoing, all that Ben Ferencz has devoted his life to achieving. Read what Ferencz has written and said, and compare his opinions to what you have allowed to fill your head. Do you earnestly believe that you are not an advocate for the rule of force over the rule of law, and that, somehow, such an advocacy will be better for the future of subsequent generations?
Quote:
http://www.benferencz.org/arts/70.html
The New York Times
March 3, 2003
To the Editor:
Re "U.S. Lists Iraqis to Punish, or to Work With" (front page, Feb. 26):
President Bush has a unique opportunity to uphold the rule of law. If the Security Council fails to issue an unambiguous mandate to use force, the president should respect the will of the world community.
We need a new military objective: upholding the Nuremberg principle that never again will crimes against humanity go unpunished. Our goal should be to bring to trial only top Iraqi leaders. Those who become accessories by blocking arrests will suffer "serious consequences."
No time limits apply to crimes against humanity, and existing courts can be modified to offer fair trials. Judges for the new International Criminal Court are being inaugurated on March 11. Isn't law better than war?
BENJAMIN B. FERENCZ
New Rochelle, N.Y., Feb. 26, 2003
|
Quote:
http://www.benferencz.org/arts/79.html
Tribute to Nuremberg Prosecutor Jackson
Benjamin B. Ferencz
Jackson's Vision of Peace Through Law
........Those who opposed allowing the ICC to deal with the crime of aggression argued that the 1974 consensus definition was too vague. It gave the Security Council discretion to determine whether aggression by a State had occurred. Criminal statutes had to be precise and interpreted narrowly. The UN Charter charged the Council with primary responsibility to determine the existence of an act of aggression. Without a prior Council finding that a State had committed the crime , it might be beyond the competence of the ICC to convict any individual for the offense.
Delegates also remained skeptical about the impartiality of a politically-minded Security Council that might undermine the Court's independence. It was agreed that the definition of the crime and the relationship between an independent ICC and the Council needed clarification. <b>Many smaller States felt that they could not accept an international criminal court that had no authority to deal with "the supreme crime". They settled for a compromise. </b>Further consideration of aggression would be deferred for at least seven years after the Statute received the minimum of sixty ramifications needed for the treaty to go into effect. At that time there could be an amendment conference which, if almost all States agreed, aggression, as well as terrorism and narcotics trafficking, might become punishable by the ICC. The hottest issue was thus put on ice.
In the late evening of 17 July 1998, <b>the exhausted Delegates from 120 nations, presented with the proposed compromise Statute for the ICC, voted "Yes".</b> It was a remarkable historical achievement that owed much to the precedents laid down in Nuremberg more than fifty years earlier. The hall burst into wild and sustained applause. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called it "A gift of hope to future generations" <b>Unfortunately, seven nations, including the United States, and a few that the US had condemned as "Rogue States" , voted "No!".</b>
The Rome Statute was in the form of a treaty that had to be accepted voluntarily by States that agreed to be bound by its terms. Under the US Constitution, no treaty can be ratified without the consent of two-thirds of the Senate. Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina was Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He was adamantly opposed to any foreign court ever having jurisdiction over any Americans. His view was shared by many conservatives who seemed to prefer the law of force to the force f law. The Defense Department wanted a free hand to intervene with unrestrained military might wherever it was deemed necessary for humanitarian, political or security reasons.
<b>It had taken forty years to obtain the two-thirds consent needed to ratify the Genocide Convention proposed by the US in 1945. Many American Presidents, including the first President Bush, had spoken out clearly for the rule of law and supported the idea of an International Criminal Court.</b> In September, 1999, President William Clinton, addressing the United Nations, called for the creation of an ICC. Just before leaving office, he directed that the treaty be signed as an indication that the United States was in principle in favor of such a court. Knowing that it would not gain the needed Senatorial consent, Clinton noted that improvements were needed and he would not submit the treaty for ratification. Leading bar associations and legal scholars supported US participation in the International Criminal Court. Conservatives who opposed the court rolled out misguided and non-persuasive arguments designed to kill the infant ICC in its cradle.
<b>Following the election of George W, Bush to the Presidency, John Bolton, an Assistant Secretary of State and reputed protege of Senator Helms, filed notice with the United Nations on May 6, 2002 that "...the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000." This unprecedented and unlimited repudiation of a solemn presidential commitment shocked all those who supported the ICC.</b> A host of other measures were taken unilaterally by the US in Washington and at the United Nations to make sure that every American would be forever exempt from ICC jurisdiction. These attempts to provide immunity for all American citizens and their employees brought the US government into disrepute with nations determined to create a rule of law that would bind everyone equally. It was a repudiation of Justice Jackson, Telford Taylor and the most fundamental principles repeatedly espoused by the United States at Nuremberg.
Where is Jackson's Dream Today?
Despite the vehement and widespread opposition from the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, the ICC treaty passed the target mark of more than 60 ratifications on 1 July 2002 - much sooner than expected. Many of America's staunchest allies, including England, Canada and the European community have joined those who stand firmly for the ICC and the rule of law that binds everyone. The International Criminal Court now sits in a new courthouse in the Hague. Its bench is staffed by 18 eminent jurists elected by member States from all parts of the world. A distinguished Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina, a noted human rights advocate, has begun to prepare for trials of crimes within the ICC's limited jurisdiction. The United States has turned its back on the court. The seat kept open for an American representative to contribute to the further development of international criminal law remains empty. The voice of Justice Robert M. Jackson is missing.
Aggression is one of the four crimes listed in the Statute of the Court but the ICC cannot exercise its jurisdiction over that most dangerous and destructive of all offenses until and unless new agreements are reached. Only after 1 July 2009 will it be permissible to consider amending the ICC Statute. Despite Justice Jackson's report to the President of the United States that aggressive war-making would henceforth be treated as an international crime, and despite the affirmation of that conclusion by many courts and the United Nations, the only international court in the world that may be able to try aggressors for Crimes Against Peace is the International Criminal Court that now sits in the Hague, with its hands tied. How much more suffering must the innocents of this planet endure before decision-makers recognize that law is better than war?
Would the world not have been off if, after Iraq's 1990 invasion of the friendly neighboring Arab State of Kuwait, there would have been in existence a functioning International Criminal Court to bring to justice those leaders of Iraq who were responsible for the aggression, crimes against humanity and major war crimes?
Thousands of non-governmental organizations all around the world call out for support of the new criminal tribunal that now stands before us facing the opposition of a hostile US administration. It is high time for political leaders to heed the voices of the people. Until the sound principles so eloquently articulated by Justice Robert H. Jackson at Nuremberg are universally accepted and implemented, the world will remain a very dangerous place.
BENJAMIN B. FERENCZ
J.D.Harvard, 1943.
The author was a prosecutor at the subsequent Nuremberg war crimes trials.
|
Quote:
http://www.benferencz.org/arts/81.html
War Crimes Tribunals: Response to Eric A. Posner
Published: January 6, 2005, The New York Times
To the Editor:
Eric A. Posner's denunciation of both the International Court of Justice and the recently established International Criminal Court in The Hague ("All Justice, Too, Is Local," Op-Ed, Dec. 30) repudiates the highest ideals espoused by the United States during the Nuremberg war crimes trials. I take issue with his depiction of the records, purposes and powers of these tribunals. He does not note that every nation has the right to try its own citizens.
The prosecutor is subject to strict controls, including close supervision by Britain, Canada and a host of other nations that are being alienated by bellicose intimidation and demands for immunity for all Americans. Mr. Posner expresses fear of politicization, yet favors Security Council control of the court.
Only lawbreakers need fear the rule of law. Mr. Posner warns international organizations to "adapt to great power politics" or "wither on the vine." We may all "wither" if we continue the power politics that inevitably leads to war rather than law.
Benjamin B. Ferencz
Delray Beach, Fla., Dec. 30, 2004
|
Quote:
http://www.benferencz.org/arts/86.html
From the UN Chronicle, December 2005
THE HOLOCAUST AND THE NUREMBERG TRIALS
.....The United States indicated its early support for the ICC when President Bill Clinton addressed the UN General Assembly and had the treaty signed at the United Nations on New Year's Eve of 2000. But in an unprecedented repudiation, his signature was cancelled as the new Bush Administration in May 2002 notified the United Nations that the United States had no intention of becoming a party to the ICC.
Conservative forces in the United States Government argued that the uncontrolled prosecutor might unfairly prosecute American service members. Nations were warned that the United States economic and military aid would be halted unless they signed agreements exempting American citizens and their employees from the reach of the new Hague tribunal. The United States, which had done so much to advance the rule of law, turned its back on the Nuremberg principle espoused by Robert Jackson, Telford Taylor and many others, that law must apply equally to everyone. The fears expressed by the United States Government are misguided and not shared by the hundred nations that support the ICC, including America's staunchest allies and the entire European Community. Under the ICC Statute, every nation must be given priority to try its own nationals; only when the country is unable or unwilling to provide a fair trial can the ICC exercise jurisdiction. No prosecutor in human history has been subject to more controls. The American Bar Association and leading jurists support the ICC, and it is hoped that when the ICC has proven its fairness and merit, the United States will end its unreasonable boycott and join the other nations seeking to uphold fundamental principles of international humanitarian law.......
|
Quote:
http://www.benferencz.org/arts/75.html
State University of New York at Stony Brook Radio (WUSB)
Mort Mecklosky Interviews Benjamin B. Ferencz.
December 22, 2003
M:..... I understand that it’s a violation of international law to go to war without approval of the UN Security Council when not under armed attack. Is that true?
F: Well, there are differences of opinion. In my opinion, any violation of the United Nations charter is a violation of international law. Since the charter supercedes all national laws and has been accepted and ratified by all of the member states. The charter says specifically that you are prohibited from the use of armed force except under very restricted circumstances. And those are if you are subjected to a direct attack by someone else and until the Security Council can respond to restore order, you can defend yourself. Those were not the conditions which existed in the case of the United States’ invasion of Iraq. Now, there are some international lawyers who take a different view and they say the charter was written before the nuclear age and you can’t expect any nation to wait to be destroyed before it responds to a nuclear attack. And therefore they invented the excuse that Saddam is creating weapons of mass destruction and has them and is ready to go and we have to, therefore, intercede even though it does not comply with the UN charter. So we do have this division of opinion and since we don’t have any enforcement mechanism on an international scale despite the charter requirement that we set up an international military force we’re stuck with the kind of situation we have today........
.....M: According to that we can then, in their minds, go to war against North Korea or any of the other nations that have nuclear weapons if someone here feels that they are a threat.
F: That would be the logic of the president’s recently declared policy for the United States.
M: How many lawyers, international lawyers of international law agree with that, or are most of them critical of the US and its invasion?
F: I think most of them are critical, there are a few who d agree with that for example State Department lawyers and Pentagon lawyers but most – not only those, there are some academic lawyers who take the same point of view and it’s a conservative point of view – of those who believe that armed force is more important than the force of law.
M: Alright, so in your view, the US is guilty of violating international law.
F: In my opinion, yes, if we did have a legal test of that I would reach that conclusion....
......F:....But the US has been violently opposed to that court under this administration. The previous administrations supported the idea of such a court and the fact that he US opposes it and is threatening to kill this infant in its cradle causes great concern to me.
M: If the US opposes the international criminal court and has taken action that you consider a violation of international law, does that make us a rogue nation a nation that violates?
F: At the moment the international criminal court that we’ve set up in The Hague does not have jurisdiction to deal with the crime of aggression, which would be the issue here. And they are waiting till they get another definition of aggression which is acceptable to the Security Council. It may be some time before that happens. So in following the Nuremberg principle, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was a clear case of aggression the invasion by the US of Iraq I think would also qualify under the Nuremberg principles as a violation of international law......
......F: The UN does not have its own military force, it is dependant upon contributions from member states. But they did pass a resolution after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait calling upon all nations to use all necessary means to expel the aggressor from Kuwait and to restore peace in the area. In my opinion as a lawyer, I would say that phrase was sufficiently broad to authorize the invading forces to proceed to Baghdad and arrest the man who was disturbing the peace in the area. And that’s what they should have done 12 years ago. Unfortunately, they didn’t do that. The then President Bush, father of this president, felt that his authorization was not that specific from the Security Council and why should he continue to kill people and proceed. I wrote a long article at that time, a law review article, saying that there was a mistake that Saddam Hussein would continue to thumb his nose at the world community until he was arrested. <b>So the justification for proceeding into Iraq again should have been not to declare war on Iraq – because that’s illegal – we have no basis for that. But, to say you are going in to arrest a criminal and those who block the arrest become accomplices and accessories to the crime – that would have given us a legal justification which unfortunately we didn’t do because the feeling of some of the people in the Pentagon was who needs law, we’ll go ahead and grab him.</b> And now we got him and they don’t know what to do with him.......
....F: That’s correct. But that also changed. It became clear in the subsequent Nuremberg Trials that even crimes committed without a war, crimes against humanity, are punishable. The right of a sovereign to abuse his own citizens disappeared and it began with the Declaration of Independence in the US. It was a big step forward at that point.
M: Is going to war without the approval of the Security Council, as the US did in Yugoslavia and also in Iraq, is that a crime?
F: Yes, it is a crime. It’s a crime of aggression, a crime against peace. Now unfortunately, we don’t have a court competent to deal with that crime today and the result is that those who have the power exercise that power and defy the law. In the long run, I think that’s very dangerous because the law must apply equally to everyone and we say, “No it doesn’t apply to us.” This is an untenable position which even our friends don’t agree with, and we are antagonizing all of our friends, our allies by telling them that if you dare to send an American national to The Hague for any reason we will declare war on you, and we will cut off our aid to you and we will put economic sanctions against you and they say “Do you want the law to apply to everybody except you?” And we say, “Yes, because we have special responsibilities and therefore we have title to do that.” And that doesn’t sell – that doesn’t fly......
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/wo...pagewanted=all
<b>Praise at Home for Envoy, but Scorn at U.N.</b>
By WARREN HOGE
Published: July 23, 2006
......Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said, “He has done an extraordinary job representing the U.S. during what has turned out to be an extraordinary time at the U.N., and Secretary Rice thinks he’s doing a terrific job.”
But over the past month, <b>more than 30 ambassadors consulted in the preparation of this article, all of whom share the United States’ goal of changing United Nations management practices, expressed misgivings over Mr. Bolton’s leadership......</b>
...... In the months after his arrival, ambassadors said that despite his history of putdowns of the United Nations, they were impressed by his work ethic and knowledge of his brief and thought they could collaborate with him.
Now the reaction is different. “My initial feeling was, let’s see if we can work with him, and I have done some things to push for consensus on issues that were not easy for my country,” said an ambassador with close ties to the Bush administration.
“But all he gives us in return is, ‘It doesn’t matter, whatever you do is insufficient,’ ” he said. “He’s lost me as an ally now, and that’s what many other ambassadors who consider themselves friends of the U.S. are saying.”
A European envoy said that Mr. Bolton was a difficult ally for his traditionally pro-American group because he often staked out unilateral hard-line positions in the news media or Congress and then proved unwilling to compromise in the give and take of negotiations.
In the aftermath of a 170-to-4 vote last spring on creating a Human Rights Council, which the United States opposed, Peter Maurer, the ambassador of Switzerland, characterized the American approach as “intransigent and maximalist.”
“All too often,” he said, “high ambitions are cover-ups for less noble aims, and oriented not at improving the United Nations, but at belittling and weakening it.”
Mr. Bolton’s habit of avoiding any favorable mention of the United Nations while seizing many opportunities to disparage it is so well established that Senator Paul S. Sarbanes, a Maryland Democrat, observed to him in a May hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee, “The role of constant scold I’m not sure is the best way to induce change.”....
|
|