Posted on 11/12/2002 2:21:24 AM PST by rambo316
As I read the headlines all over the place, “UN Approves Iraq Resolution” I had a sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach. This was not because I felt squeamish about the war, although, I can, and have in the past given a litany of reasons about why a war with Iraq does not have anything to do with national security; it was the result of a careful analysis of the headline itself.
Again, the headlines read, sometimes interchanging authorizes and approves, “UN Authorizes Iraq Resolution”. An international political body that can authorize the use of military force is an international governmental body. Military force is the final means of implementing a political agenda. The use of military force is the ultimate expression of a political body. Only a government can approve or authorize the use of military force.
Once again leading up to this impending conflict, president Bush did not ask for congress to officially declare war against Iraq. Instead, congress whimpered along by authorizing the president to use force in Iraq. Congress gave up what may be its most important duty, to declare war, by delegating that authority to the president. Why? If war with Iraq is truly in the national interests of the United States, then why not, as a nation, declare war as provided by the constitution?
Conversely, the president, while not seeking an official declaration of war by congress, did however; seek official authorization by the UN. The UN is an organization that, even though the president has unsigned the treaty, that by the way the Senate never approved, still maintains its judicial authority over United States citizens with the so-called International Criminal Court (ICC). The UN is claiming that it can try U.S. citizens and soldiers for what it calls crimes against humanity.
Having read the constitution once or twice, my impression was that the U.S. Supreme Court was the highest authorized court in the land. The president and members of congress have taken oaths to protect and defend the U.S. constitution. Arguably being a member in the United Nations is a violation of that oath in the first place, but what about remaining a member after the UN claims autonomy over U.S. citizens through its ICC? Congress as already mentioned is the highest body that can declare war. Isn’t the president violating his oath to protect and defend the United States constitution by asking for an authorization to wage war from the UN?
Unfortunately, precedents are being set that will endanger all citizens of the United States. If the United States empowers the UN by seeking its authorization to wage war, then isn’t the United States also indirectly empowering the UN’s ICC? How can the United States say that military action is legitimate because the UN approved it but that the ICC, which was also approved by the UN, is not legitimate?
If U.S. soldiers go to war in Iraq based upon UN authorization then they are also subject to UN rules of combat and the ICC. Last July the UN voted unanimously 15-0 to exempt US soldiers from the court for one year. What happens after a year? And by voting for the one-year exemption from the ICC, hasn’t the US indirectly legitimized the world court?
These “Precedents In Lawlessness” are not contained to resolutions regarding the war with Iraq and the ICC. It has been recently reported that dozens of U.S. soldiers are serving under UN command in places like the former Soviet republic of Georgia. U.S. soldiers are wearing the UN blue helmets and insignias. To make matters worse this has occurred under two consecutive U.S. presidential administrations held by both political parties. Apparently, George Bush lied when he said that he wouldn’t place U.S. soldiers under UN command as his predecessor Bill Clinton did.
What are these people thinking? One would have to be an idiot to assume that such intelligent and well-financed people that have inherited the inside track to government and politics are unaware of the consequences of their actions.
The UN is an autocratic organization that consists of unelected bureaucrats, many appointed by dictators, the others appointed by presidents and prime ministers. In either case the people of any given nation do not elect their representatives to the UN the same way that U.S. citizens elect members of congress. The UN is inherently a tyranny.
The most frightening aspect of this is that it exists now. The UN is asserting itself as a world government now. It may be illegitimate, but it exists, nonetheless.
The sooner we realize this fact, the better off we will be.
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.