UN to try again on stalled anti-terror treaty

Reuters ^

[jmc1969]

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - World governments, spurred by suicide bombings in London, will try once again later this month to break a years-long impasse over a global treaty against terrorism, a key diplomat said on Thursday.

The U.N. General Assembly's treaty-writing legal committee will hold a fresh round of informal negotiations during the week of July 25 in renewed bid to move the pact forward, committee chairman Mohamed Bennouna of Morocco told Reuters.

The United Nations already has 13 treaties intended to counter various aspects of terrorism.

But the draft "comprehensive convention on international terrorism" has been stalled in the legal committee since 1996, where negotiations have repeatedly bogged down over how to define terrorism.

In recent negotiations, some countries questioned whether the definition would apply to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

[soloNYer]

The hurdle for the U.N. has been how to make sure the definition of terrorism only applies to the U.S., as opposed to some freedom-fighting groups whose recent strategies have included the use of "bombers."

Have another meeting U.N.

[operation clinton cleanup]

The United Nations already has 13 treaties intended to counter various aspects of terrorism.

If first you don't succeed, try, try again!

[soloNYer]

By the way, this quote by Annan is typical: "I think a simple, clear definition that gets across the message that killing of innocent civilians or noncombatants, regardless of one's cause, is terrorism pure and simple, will suffice. And I hope the membership in time will come to this agreement," Annan told reporters on Tuesday.

Please get Bolton in there as soon as possible, before they really DO name us as a terrorist nation....actually, I hope they do it, it will be the final straw.

[Ukiapah Heep]

The problem is that the U.N. is pro terrorism.

[Publius6961]

In recent negotiations, some countries questioned whether the definition would apply to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Why, of course it will!
What better way to head off any repercussions than by naming any just response also as "terrorism"?

[Publius6961]

By the way, this quote by Annan is typical: "I think a simple, clear definition that gets across the message that killing of innocent civilians or noncombatants, regardless of one's cause, is terrorism pure and simple, will suffice.

The man is a certifiable babbling idiot.

By his puerile definition, every war in history ever fought, won or lost, offensive or defensive would qualify as terrorism!

What sort of an drooling moron would think that's a rational thought?