Posted on 06/21/2007 9:45:15 AM PDT by anotherview
Jun. 21, 2007 17:38 | Updated Jun. 21, 2007 17:46
House urges UN to charge Ahmadinejad
By BY HILARY LEILA KRIEGER AND JTA
The US House of Representatives urged the UN Security Council Wednesday to charge Iran's president under genocide conventions.
The non-binding resolution, initiated by Reps. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Steve Rothman (D-N.J.), passed by 411-2. It cites an October 27 speech in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad allegedly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and calls for the Security Council to charge him under its 1948 convention for the prevention of genocide.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) attempted to read into the record alternate translations of Ahmadinejad s remarks that suggest the Iranian leader was calling Israel to come to an end through democratic means, and not through violence.
"I am unequivocal in my support for the security and survival of Israel, and I do have serious concerns with the remarks made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran," said Kucinich, a long-shot candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. "But I object to resolutions that lay the groundwork for an offensive, unprovoked war."
One of the alternate translations was by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).
Kucinich and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a long-shot contender for the Republican presidential nomination, were the only votes against. The sponsors of the resolution cited the UN charter to support their argument that Ahmadinejad should be charged.
The charter - which Iran has accepted - requires all UN member states to 'refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.'
"When the leader of an armed nation such as Iran calls for the destruction of a fellow member state of the United Nations, the UN must prosecute and punish him," Rothman said. "It is my hope that this resolution will effectively increase pressure on the United Nations to hold Iranian President Ahmadinejad accountable for his genocidal words and prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons."
The vote is meaningless, of course. The U.N. overwhelmingly supports Iran and hates Israel, but it's still a good message to send to the world.
ping
His complete agreement with leftist moonbat Dennis Kucinich on this is purely a coincidence.
It is amazing to me how many things Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich seem to agree on.
Oh, they'll probably spin it with a whole bunch of anti-UN language. Whatever it takes to justify their "fortress America" cowardice of letting the islamofascists gain in strength until they become a problem too big to contain, all the while blaming the US for everything.
I guess Ron Paul read something in the Constitution about genocide that the rest of us missed.
They’re nothing if not predictable.
In past threads... I and other FReepers have noticed the similarities. More proof...
This resolution was directed at the UN security council. Kucinich's statement is implicitly acknowledging that the council is useless and will not act to aid Israel. Why else would there be an "unprovoked war" if the council was going to act against Iran? Even a nut like Kucinich can read the writing on the wall with these useless sacks.
Hey, brand-newbie.
Here's a clue: the Constitution authorizes Congress to make treaties.
The Constitution also authorizes Congress to utilize the privileges conferred by the treaties it makes.
RINO is usually interpreted as a philosophical Democrat calling him or herself a Republican. I think it applies to Libertarians like Reps. Paul and Fink as well.
Ron Paul always votes against any US involvement with the UN in any capacity. His opposition to inclusion of the UN in the making of US foreign policy -- and, for that matter, having anything whatsoever to do with the UN -- is nothing new.
Nonsense. Kucinich probably opposed it because he in some twisted way supports Amadinejad, but I'm certain Ron Paul opposed it simply because the US Constitution doesn't recognize the authority and legitimacy of the UN.
paul doesnt want to charge him he rather have him as a guest when he takes over for fat rosie on the view
See #17.
Specifically, this clause is statement of the warrant to authorize the agent to pass beyond the borders of the nation (”marque”, meaning frontier), and there to search, seize, or destroy assets or personnel of the hostile foreign party.
wideawake hit the nail on the head here.
vfb stuttgart: You’re new so you haven’t read my previous posts on the U.N. If you want to know my feelings about the organization here is a recent example: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1852521/posts
Yep, I post articles from UN Watch and call for the abolition of the organization and it’s replacement with an organization of free, democratic nations. There are few Freepers who are more anti-UN than I am.
Having said that... the reality is that the current Congress and President are internationalists who support the U.N. Since I have to live in the real world I support votes like this and cheer speeches by people like former U.S. Ambassador Bolton and Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman. At least tell the world the unvarnished truth they don’t want to hear.
The sponsors of the resolution cited the UN charter to support their argument that Ahmadinejad should be charged.The charter - which Iran has accepted - requires all UN member states to 'refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.'
Birds of a feather.
I personally believe that every single member of Congress should do anything within their power to end all US involvement with the UN by the close of business today, if possible. I don't think it's going to happen; but, since you asked, that's what I would like to see.
Ron Paul seems to be the only Congressman who consistently advocates complete withdrawal from the UN in all respects. I believe that he is right, and I support him for that.
But in the meantime, you’d not hold a nation accountable for violating its treaties. Interesting.
Aritcle 1, Section 8, Paragraph 10 >
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
If any group could be considered guilty of 'piracy', it could be the UN.. and based on this, it is within Congresses duty to grant a letter of marque to the UN. A letter of marquis basically grants a non-government entity the blessing to search, seize, or destroy assets or personnel of the hostile foreign party.
What part of the real world is the U.N. in?
Take it up with Congress and the Supreme Court.
The Constitution doesn't authorize you as its interpreter.
I'll just point out that most treaties include transfers of value, most treaties are intended to be for perpetuity, and most treaties involve modulating existing policy.
The grounds on which you object to the UN Charter are incredibly flimsy.
We have only to choose new elected officials in order to change that reality.
List of current presidential candidates who are running on a platform of leaving the UN:
Ron Paul
Percentage of votes garnered by Ron Paul in his last national election:
00.47%
Good luck.
Forty-Second Street and First Avenue, right off FDR Drive.
Kitty-corner from the Sutton apartments.
I don't believe a good End (condemning Ahmadinejad) justifies the use of bad Means (the UN).
I believe it is a left, but otherwise sounds about right.
If you are coming from the north you do have to take a left off the FDR.
I'm always coming from the south if I'm driving to midtown Manhattan.
Bookends of the political spectrum
“The charter - which Iran has accepted - requires all UN member states to ‘refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.’”
Great! So when are they arresting Bill Clinton for the invasion of Yugoslavia? Last I heard from the libs, “genocide” has come to mean the mass removal of people on an ethnic or religious (or whatever else they pick) basis.
For that matter, what’s keeping the UN from trying to arrest President Bush for the same thing in Iraq? Sure it’s different, but they don’t want to see it that way.
Y’all want UN troops showing up at your door using UN laws as trumping the constitution, well good for you! As for me, I think I’ll just stick to American law and let other folks in their countries stick to their laws.
“The Constitution doesn’t authorize you as its interpreter.”
Sure it does. You can find it here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/
It doesn’t grant his/her interpretation the force of law, but it sure as heck authorizes anyone to opine on their personal views of what it means.
“List of current presidential candidates who are running on a platform of leaving the UN:
Ron Paul
Percentage of votes garnered by Ron Paul in his last national election:
00.47%
Good luck.”
Percentage of heliocentrists in 1543: probably less than 00.47%.
Wow! Ptolemy was right after all!
Ron Paul’s failure to win popular votes does not mean his ideas are wrong. If Ron Paul’s views of the UN are correct, we’ll all need more than just luck.
I say this is no sarcasm at all: Thank you for providing what I am sure is Paul’s rational for his “no” vote.
I’m not supporting him, but I’ve always appreciated that if there’s ever a 434-1 vote, you know who the “1” is, and you know he had a surprising, principled, and conservative reason for his vote.
If a RINO can be outside of the party to the RIGHT, then Paul certainly is a RINO. He makes no bones about being a Libertarian.
The success and effectiveness of treaties depends directly upon the honesty, integrity and sincerity of the parties involved. When certain parties to a treaty demonstrate by both their words and their deeds that they have no intention of abiding by said treaty, then the treaty is worthless, and so are any allegedly punitive diplomatic sanctions enacted under the (non-existent) authority of said treaty.
Such a gesture is, in the brutal reality of the threats we face, merely a feel-good substitute for taking effective action by those obsessed with the illusive and elusive promises of diplomacy. It's a cop-out that lets them posture as if they're "doing something" while avoiding actually doing it.
Treaties have their place, but as the Founding Fathers understood, they are useful only for so long as all the respective parties act in good faith. Iran is not acting in good faith, no matter what treaties they have signed, and it's time to grown up, put aside childish things (and childish diplomacy) and deal with this existential threat to our country and to Western civilization effectively and forthrightly.
Both Iran and Syria are killing our military personnel in Iraq. These are acts of war. In fact, Iran has been waging war against us since 1979. The US Constitution provides ample authority for our leaders to deal with this, and there is no need to subordinate our national sovereignty to the UN or the "world community" in order to do this. The political establishment's long-asserted legalistic sophistry that "treaties are superior to the US Constitution" which has been falsely asserted for half a century has hamstrung our will and our ability to discern this essential truth.
So, to your question "do you mean to excuse a country from living up to its treaties?, my answer is no, I'm all for insisting on compliance AS LONG AS IT APPEARS THERE ARE REASONABLE INTENTIONS TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH. That is no longer true with Iran. In fact, it is obvious they are merely engaged in dissembling to buy time to complete their nuclear first-strike capability.
The time for diplomacy is past. It is time to take out this rogue regime and their WMD capability. We have already waited too late, and the cost will be horrendous. If we fail to act, it will prove fatal to the civilized world as we know it.
The US didn't invade Yugoslavia.
For that matter, what’s keeping the UN from trying to arrest President Bush for the same thing in Iraq?
Probably the UN's own resolution against Saddam Hussein's regime.
Y’all want UN troops showing up at your door using UN laws as trumping the constitution, well good for you!
The UN does not have the authority so to do under the Charter. The US is also a permanent member of the Security Council, so this is practically impossible as well as legally impossible.
As for me, I think I’ll just stick to American law and let other folks in their countries stick to their laws.
The UN Charter is American law, ratified by the US Congress.
It doesn’t grant his/her interpretation the force of law
Thanks for reluctantly reiterating my point.
Wow! Ptolemy was right after all!
A terrible analogy. Ptolemy and Copernicus' rival theories could be resolved simply by having the proper technology to actually observe the natural phenomena they were theorizing about.
You do not vote on physical reality.
You do, however, vote on policy.
And Ron Paul's policy is not supported by 99.53% of the electorate.
You must not be a Ron Paul supporter then, because he’s opposed to the US in Iraq despite the fact that they had been at war with us since 1991.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel. or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
I think it's a good idea irrespective of Ron Paul's opinion. I'd speculate that Ronald Reagan didn't implement the Genocide Convention hoping it wouldn't be used. Wonder if he asked Ron's opinion before signing?
------------------------
Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 - Ronald Reagan address - transcript
US Department of State Bulletin, Jan, 1989
President Reagan's remarks at the signing ceremony of the Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987 in Chicago on November 4, 1988, and the text of a White House fact sheet.
PRESIDENT'S REMARKS'
We gather today to bear witness to the past and learn from its awful example to make sure we are not condemned to relive its crimes. I am today signing the Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987, which will permit the United States to become party to the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide that was approved by the UN General Assembly in 1948.
During the Second World War, mankind witnessed the most heinous of crimes-the Holocaust. After the war, the nations of the world came together and drafted the genocide convention as a howl of anguish and an effort to prevent and punish future acts of genocide. The United States signed the convention and in 1949, President Truman requested the Senate's advice and consent to ratification.
In 1986, the Senate gave its consent conditioned upon enactment of implementing legislation. We finally close the circle today by signing the implementing legislation that will permit the United States to ratify the convention and formally join 97 nations of the world in condemning genocide and treating it as a crime.
I am delighted to fulfill the promise made by Harry TI-uman to all the peoples of the world-and especially the Jewish people. I remember what the Holocaust meant to me as I watched the films of the death camps after the Nazi defeat in World War Two. Slavs, Gypsies, and others died in the fires as well. And we've seen other horrors this century-in the Ukraine, in Cambodia, in Ethiopia. They only renew our rage and righteous fury and make this moment all the more significant for me and all Americans.
Under this legislation, any U.S. national or any person in the United States who kills members of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group with the specific intent of destroying that group in whole or in substantial part, may spend his or her life in prison. Lesser acts of violence are punishable by as much as 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million. While I would have preferred that Congress had adopted the Administration's proposal to permit the death penalty for those convicted of committing genocidal murders, this legislation still represents a strong and clear statement by the United States that it will punish acts of genocide with the force of law and the righteousness of justice.
Timing of the enactment is particularly fitting, for we are commemorating a Week of Remembrance of the Kristallnacht, the infamous "night of broken glass," which occurred 50 years ago on November 9, 1938. That night, Nazis in Germany and Austria conducted a nationwide pogrom against the Jewish people. By the morning of November 10th, scores of Jews were dead, hundreds bleeding, shops and homes in ruins, and synagogues defiled and debased. That was the night that began the Holocaust, the night that should have alerted the world to the gruesome design of the final solution.
This legislation resulted from the cooperation of our Administration and many in Congress-such as Congressmen Henry Hyde, Jack Davis, and John Porter, and Senator Bill Proxmire-to ensure that the United States redoubles its efforts to gain universal observance of human rights.
We pay tribute to those who suffered that night and all the nights that followed upon it with our action today.
Show of hands. Who’s going to vote for Ron Paul? Raise your hand now, so I’ll know whose posts not to bother reading, unless I need a good laugh.
No, I'm not supporting Paul in his candidacy for President. I do support him in his lifelong attempts to get Americans to remember their Constitution and the principles upon which their country was founded. Sometimes he gets it wrong. He's a flawed human being, as are we all.
Regarding Iraq, if President Bush had gone to Congress in the days following 9-11 and had requested and received a Constitutional declaration of war, Ron Paul would probably be on board. In hindsight, it's clear that's exactly what Bush should have done.
“Because we’re a million times more principled than you slobs.”
LOL!
Nope. Ron Paul gave speeches opposing intervention in Iraq before we went in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.