PDA

View Full Version : From the UN-Obama is in violation of international law



genglandoh
02-25-2012, 04:47 PM
It is a shame that the individuals at Guantanamo have not been put on trial after 10 years.


The following is from reuters.

The United States is still flouting international law at Guantanamo Bay, despite President Barack Obama's election pledge to shut the facility, the United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay said on Monday.

"It is ten years since the U.S. Government opened the prison at Guantanamo, and now three years since 22 January 2009, when the President ordered its closure within twelve months. Yet the facility continues to exist and individuals remain arbitrarily detained - indefinitely - in clear breach of international law," Pillay said in a statement.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-un-guantanamo-idUSTRE80M0SU20120123

Peter Malcolm Jardine
02-25-2012, 05:25 PM
The USA doesn't respect the idea of international law, and doesn't belong to the world court. Accountability isn't an american belief.

David G
02-25-2012, 05:43 PM
I think the situation with Guantanamo is unsupportable. It was a huge mistake to set up that facility. Kinda like building a bunch of nuclear power plants with no idea how one was gonna deal with the inevitable toxic waste that resulted. I have no idea why Obama is failing to dismantle it.... but I suspect it has something to do with the practical matter of the toxic waste. Maybe after Obama wins the next election, he'll figure he has nothing to lose by moving ahead.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
02-25-2012, 05:50 PM
If by "World Court" you mean the International Court of Justice, we are members, and Canada is not.


Sorry, the International Criminal court. The US is not a member. In addition, Guantanamo has violated several Geneva Conventions. The USA refuses to be held accountable. When you are the military powerhouse of the world, you can do that.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
02-25-2012, 06:16 PM
US to Back Out of World Court Plan
Envoy: Bush team may 'unsign' treaty

by Elizabeth A. Neuffer

UNITED NATIONS - The Bush administration will not take part in the International Criminal Court scheduled to be ratified next month and is considering removing its signature from the treaty that created it, a top war crimes envoy said yesterday.
''The US is not and will not be part of the ICC,'' said Pierre Prosper, the State Department's ambassador at large for war crimes issues, told reporters in New York.

April 11 is the date set by the UN and court supporters for when the 60th country will ratify the treaty - the number needed to establish the court. To date, 139 nations have signed the treaty; 56 have ratified the treaty and at least nine more are expected to sign it.

Prosper said that ''unsigning'' the treaty was one of several options being considered by Washington as an indication that it was not bound by the treaty. Typically, when a country signs a treaty, it then submits it for ratification by its lawmakers, something the Bush administration has vowed not to do.

The Clinton administration, after months of opposition, signed the treaty just minutes before a Dec. 31, 2000, deadline. It signed with the understanding that the treaty would be changed before congressional ratification, an unlikely prospect because of strong opposition to the court by Senator Jesse Helms, the Republican of North Carolina who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Prosper said too many doubts about the treaty remain. Among administration officials' concerns is that there are inadequate safeguards to protect US soldiers based abroad from politically motivated prosecutions.

The permanent international criminal court, the dream of human rights advocates since the Nuremberg war crimes trials after World War II, is intended to prosecute future cases involving war crimes. The court would step in to do so only when countries themselves fail to hold criminals accountable.

Yesterday, proponents of the court said they would push ahead with or without American support. The court, which will be based in The Hague, is expected to take effect July 1.

''The world is about to show themselves and the US they can start a major organization without US political and financial leadership,'' said William Pace, the head of the International Coalition for a permanent International Criminal Court.

Many countries that have supported the US war on terrorism see the court as a forum in which to address war crimes. They are concerned that the Bush administration might try to undermine the court.

''That would be worrying,'' said one European diplomat.

British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, in conversations with US Secretary of State Colin Powell, has encouraged the United States not to make a big issue over the differences between the two countries.

Some legal specialists said yesterday that ''unsigning'' could mean that the Bush administration will simply state its opposition in writing to the treaty and announce it will not submit it for ratification.

Palitha Kohona, head of the UN treaty section, said he knew of ''no precedent'' for a country removing its signature. It is not unusual for countries to sign and then not ratify a treaty, he said, or to take a long time to ratify a treaty. The United States, for example, signed the Genocide Convention in 1948 but did not ratify it until 1988.

Personally, I don't care what the US does. I only care when they claim to be the leaders of freedom and democracy and all that stuff. They're not.

.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
02-25-2012, 06:24 PM
I'm not fretting. Just acknowledging the elephant in the room.

stevebaby
02-25-2012, 06:26 PM
I don't know when that was written, but Israel and Sudan also 'un-signed' the Statute of Rome.





For someone who doesn't care, you sure fret about it a lot.
ftfy. :-)

stevebaby
02-25-2012, 07:02 PM
Thanks. I saw the error, fixed it, but fixed it wrong. I think the "t" and "r" are too close together on my keyboard.We've all done it. I have developed a bad habit of not hitting the Shift key hard enough to register when I want to capitalize a letter...twice in this post lol! :D
What I need at the moment is a keyboard with larger keys...both hands have weird blisters* on them making it difficult to type.


*dyshidrosis apparently.

stevebaby
02-25-2012, 07:13 PM
Thanks Donn. I didn't realize there were so many keyboards available.
$69.00 looks good to me too.