Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.N. Panel Rejects Bush Stance on Military Action
Washington Post ^ | DEc. 1, 2004 | Colum Lynch

Posted on 11/30/2004 9:00:41 PM PST by FairOpinion

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30 -- An influential U.N.-appointed panel challenged the Bush administration's right to use military force against an enemy that does not pose an imminent military threat. The 16-member panel, which was appointed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, said in a long-awaited report that only the U.N. Security Council has the legal standing to authorize such a "preventive war."

The panel's findings reflect persistent international unease over the U.S. invasion of Iraq last year without an explicit council endorsement, noting that "there is little evident international acceptance of the idea of security being best preserved by a balance of power, or by any single -- even benignly motivated -- superpower." It also recommends the establishment of five guidelines that must be met before force can be legitimately used -- including a determination that force is used as a last resort and that the threat is serious.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: annan; bushdoctrine; geopolitics; iraq; kofi; un; unitednations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last
Welcome to Kerry's "global test" just announced by the UN.

I think this is another nail in the coffin of the UN and it's demise can't happen soon enough.

1 posted on 11/30/2004 9:00:41 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Here is another article, where you don't have to log in:


UN panel proposes criteria for legitimate military action
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1255527.htm

An ambitious blueprint for helping the world body adapt to new global realities in the 21st century, the panel's report said the following five criteria should be met for military action endorsed by the UN Security Council to be legitimate:

- Seriousness of threat. "Is the threatened harm to state or human security of a kind, and sufficiently clear and serious, to justify prima facie the use of military force? In the case of internal threats, does it involve genocide and other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing or serious violations of international humanitarian law, actual or imminently apprehended?"

- Purpose of action. "Is it clear that the primary purpose of the proposed military action is to halt or avert the threat in question, whatever other purposes or motives may be involved?"

- Question of last resort. "Has every non-military option for meeting the threat in question been explored, with reasonable grounds for believing that other measures will not succeed?"

- Proportional means. "Are the scale, duration and intensity of the proposed military action the minimum necessary to meet the threat in question?"

-- Consequences. "Is there a reasonable chance of the military action being successful in meeting the threat in question, with the consequences of the action not likely to be worse than the consequences of inaction?"

The panel recommended that all of the UN's 191 member states should subscribe to the guidelines.


====

And who is going to decide, the UN?


2 posted on 11/30/2004 9:02:36 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Bush has always stated we will make a preemptive move to destroy an enemy that is an emminent threat. Without the UN permission slip too!


3 posted on 11/30/2004 9:05:00 PM PST by eagle11 (Passivity and Appeasement is No Way to Run a Civilization!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

There is nothing like repeatedly poking something that can easily destroy you with a stick. The UN's days are numbered (in weeks).


4 posted on 11/30/2004 9:05:06 PM PST by ARCADIA (Abuse of power comes as no surprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

This what we can expect when the US Senate allows a traitor in there midst.

Where does Hanoi Kerry go when he does not show up for work?

I'll bet the little sissy traitor is at the UN selling his vcountry out.

He's done it before and will do it again.

Contact your current
senators and representatives

and main stream right wing media

and find out why Hanoi Kerry still is in the US Senate.
Demand that this traitor is removed from the US Senate now!

There is no need to impeach him.

He's in violation of the
US Constitution 14th Amendment Section 3
and violation of 18 USC 953
- Private correspondence with foreign governments
and UCMJ Section 904. ART. 104.
- Aiding the Enemy.

Don't be like the silent majority in the 60's and 70's
and turn your back on America and cave in to the anti war minority.
Speak up for America today!

Distribute these url's!

EXPOSE HANOI KERRY!

Full details on these url's!

http://tonkin.spymac.net/hanoikerry1.html

There is a backup site
if the 1st url is unavailable.

http://stophanoikerry.150m.com

Timeline of Hanoi Kerry

http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html


5 posted on 11/30/2004 9:05:20 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub (Why do 99 US Senators allow a traitor in their midst? Why is main stream right wing media silent?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
"An influential U.N.-appointed panel challenged the Bush administration's right to use military force against an enemy that does not pose an imminent military threat."

Yawn.

6 posted on 11/30/2004 9:06:29 PM PST by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
"says in a long-awaited report that only the U.N. Security Council has the legal standing to authorize such a "preventive war."

BAAAAWWWWAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

Riiiiiightttt.....like we'll wait until the UN says we can protect ourselves......uh huh.

7 posted on 11/30/2004 9:06:29 PM PST by goodnesswins (Tax cuts, Tax reform, social security reform, Supreme Court, etc.....the next 4 years.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
...only the U.N. Security Council has the legal standing to authorize such a "preventive war."

And most of them were bought and paid for by Saddam.

8 posted on 11/30/2004 9:06:53 PM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

We jusy need to have one more "unauthorized" invasion. It'll take place on Manhattan Island and reclaim for the US some prime development property, complete with office buildings and meeting rooms. (They will, of course, have to be fumigated!)


9 posted on 11/30/2004 9:09:22 PM PST by shibumi (John Galt is alive and well. He tends bar in a casino restaurant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Does anybody really think Bush gives a rat's a$$ what the UN thinks about his doctrine of pre-emption??!! When he wants the UN's opinion he'll beat it out of them!
Last time I checked, nowhere in the Constitution does it say the US has to get UN Security Council approval before going to war. Sorry, but the US Constitution trumps the UN charter. When the UN was created we didn't sign away our sovereignty or our right to defend ourselves against Islamofascist terrorists. It is the President & Congress, not the UN, whose job it is to safeguard this country's national security interests.
10 posted on 11/30/2004 9:09:24 PM PST by mysto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

"The 16-member panel, which was appointed by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, said in a long-awaited report that only the U.N. Security Council has the legal standing to authorize such a "preventive war."

It's time for a pre-emptive war against the UN. I am more convinced than ever that they need to be destroyed.


11 posted on 11/30/2004 9:09:36 PM PST by Wolfhound777 (It's not our job to forgive them. Only God can do that. Our job is to arrange the meeting)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eagle11

The key legal term is "anticipatory self defense," and contrary to what you might hear from left wing groups, it's a well-known and well-used doctrine.


12 posted on 11/30/2004 9:09:55 PM PST by July 4th (A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
U.N. Panel Rejects Bush Stance on Military Action

Oh no! Whatever will we do? Everybody knows the level of credibility carried by the UN
13 posted on 11/30/2004 9:10:19 PM PST by freakboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

14 posted on 11/30/2004 9:10:40 PM PST by ETERNAL WARMING (He is faithful!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

The Global test Doctrine was defeated at the polls Nov. 2nd.

Too bad for the U.N.


15 posted on 11/30/2004 9:11:22 PM PST by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ETERNAL WARMING

16 posted on 11/30/2004 9:13:14 PM PST by ETERNAL WARMING (He is faithful!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
said in a long-awaited report that only the U.N. Security Council has the legal standing to authorize such a "preventive war."

Actually, they did. But, they will never admit it.

De-fund them and throw the bums out.

17 posted on 11/30/2004 9:13:39 PM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

NOW THE TRUTH BECOMES CLEAR!!!

It's a conspiracy! Kofi and Jacques know they're going to get kicked out of the US and they're planning to move the UN HQ to the Ivory Coast.

(And they're not even going to pay the natives $24 in trinkets!)


18 posted on 11/30/2004 9:14:06 PM PST by shibumi (John Galt is alive and well. He tends bar in a casino restaurant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

Then it's time to "reject" the UN contribuions and aid.


19 posted on 11/30/2004 9:15:57 PM PST by Trippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion

20 posted on 11/30/2004 9:16:12 PM PST by NewLand (God Bless America and God Bless President Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson