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

Skip to comments.

House urges UN to charge Ahmadinejad (Kucinich and Ron Paul Only No Votes)
The Jerusalem Post ^ | 21 June 2007 | Hilary Leila Kreiger and JTA

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."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Israel; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911truther; ahmadinejad; denniskucinich; genocide; iran; kucinich; libertarians; nuclearthreat; paul; randpaultruthfile; ronpaul; ronpaultruthfile; un; unitednations; ushouse
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-125 next last
To: SJackson; wideawake
Please don't think for a minute that I have the slightest sympathy for Ron Paul, because I have none. Neither do I have any use whatsoever for "palaeolibertarianism." What's more, I don't even subscribe to Jeffersonian "strict constructionism" (which "palaeocons" seem to think is the one, true, authentic interpretation of the Constitution, which they seem to believe, like the mormons, is divinely inspired). This anti-Semitic, anti-banker strict constructionism is nothing other than European fascism applied to American culture (Spain has a centralized government under a king, we have Calhoun's "compact theory"). I assure you both that I am a true-blue Hamiltonian-Washingonian Federalist/Whig/Republican loose constructionist and that Ron Paul makes me want to vomit.

HOWEVER-- I hope you will understand that I regard the UN going around indicting people of "genocide" is a very bad thing. It was a mistake for President Reagan to endorse the genocide treaty (as Jewish conservatives at the time maintained). The "genocide treaty" was written in such a way as to exempt Communist governments from conviction and you may be sure its main purpose is to be used against the United States and Israel (in fact, Israel will probably be the first nation to be hit with it).

Think for a minute what it would be like if the UN could go around charging anyone in any country of "advocating genocide." Considering there is only one Jewish country and perhaps fifty Arab/islamic ones, who do you think would be invoking it? And considering some of the things said about Arabs/moslems here on FR, can't you see that theoretically any FReeper could be hauled before the UN on charges of "genocide?"

"Genocide" has become the charge d'jour. The United States has been accused of "genocide" of Blacks and Indians, Australian of aborigines, and (most of all) Israel of the "palestinians." We don't need a UN with the power to indict or try people for anything. (And besides, as I stated before, this toothless resolution is primarily to give a "pro-Israel record" to liberals.)

Finally, I am opposed to any global authority that is not based explicitly and firmly on the laws of the True G-d. Any other such world authority would be a potential Tower of Babel.

Now guys, I hope neither of you accuses me of being a "paleaocon" or a Birchite or a Ron Paul supporter, because you know very well it's not true.

The UN is Israel's deadliest enemy. Neither Israel nor the US should be members or even recognize its legitimacy. The fact that a bunch of Nazis are running around screaming "Get us out of the Zionist UN!" no more changes that than the endorsement of Israel by many liberals changes the fact that Israel is G-d's Chosen People!

I sincerely hope nothing I have said here will be misunderstood, however much you might disagree with me.

101 posted on 06/22/2007 10:53:57 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . veyiqchu 'eleykha farah 'adummah temimah, 'asher 'ein-bah mum, 'asher lo'-`alah `aleyha `ol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: rrrod
Paul is a flake and I dont care if it pisses you off or not.

LOL. Sometimes FR reminds me of an elementary school playground.

102 posted on 06/22/2007 11:04:17 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
>> see the how the Paullites spin this <<

>> 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. <<

It's simple, they're just say the UN is unconsititutional, any resolution dealing with the UN, even if it's call for a positive action, is unconstitutional, and heck, maybe Israel is "unconstitutional" too. And Congressional resolutions are "unconstitutional" as well, because Ron Paul says so and he's ALWAYS right, being the world's foremost expert on everything regarding the consitution.

103 posted on 06/22/2007 11:05:16 AM PDT by BillyBoy (FACT: Governors WIN. Senators DON'T. Support the RIGHT Thompson in '08: www.tommy2008.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
I hold no brief for the UN as a "world government" either, nor for indicting foreign politicians.

But as long as we are paying for the UN as an advisory body, we should use it as a bully pulpit to put scum like Ahmadinejad on notice.

If you note, he is already backtracking today - one of his toadies is now claiming that he was misquoted about wiping Israel off the map.

Ahmadinejad keeps pushing the envelope with his behavior and rhetoric - hoping that everyone but the US will give him a pass.

Any criticism that comes from a source external to the US and UK confuses him.

104 posted on 06/22/2007 11:06:34 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

No arguments here.


105 posted on 06/22/2007 11:12:23 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . veyiqchu 'eleykha farah 'adummah temimah, 'asher 'ein-bah mum, 'asher lo'-`alah `aleyha `ol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
(1) Congress has the Constitutional authority to declare war if it so desires. The Constitution nowhere forbids or enjoins Congress from its power to delegate discretion to the Executive.


It is a 'check' as in 'checks and balances'. The founders were very clear in the constitution and the federalist papers why this responsibility was laid solely on congress and not the executive branch. Congress represents the People and the States. By skipping congress you allow one man to decide when war is justifiable, even if the people aren't behind the war. To my knowledge, war without the consent of the people has always been considered Tyranny.


Unless one is blind, one knows that the terrorists currently operating in Iraq pose a clear threat to the national security of the United States.


Note the specific language used by our congress in authorizing force:

(2) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq

Do you really believe Iraq is going to attack the US? Or do you mean the "terrorists living in Iraq" are a threat to us?

Well if we now know that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until after we invaded, and they have even said they are glad we are there because it gives them easy targets...isn't it a weak argument to say that 'Iraq the country' is a threat to us? Besides, all terrorists are a threat to us, not just those in Iraq. Why aren't we invading all the other countries? Because we can't invade countries unless congress declares war or votes to give the president use of force for very specific purposes (which I personally believe is unconstitutional) which we did - and we have met those objectives.

Now you have a majority of Americans (70%) that are against the war and congress can't or won't stop it. Maybe that has something to do with extremely low approval ratings for both congress and the president.


“As the executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side, by preventing the competent body from deliberating on the question.”
- Thomas Jefferson


“The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war.” - James Madison


"Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure."
~Abraham Lincoln
106 posted on 06/22/2007 3:40:36 PM PDT by keyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“To wit: his bizarre suggestion that instead of assaulting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan the Congress should have issued letters of marque and reprisal.”

It’s bizzare to go after Bin Laden with another tool available and permitted by the Constitution? Why would you disagree with that and deem it silly? Do you understand the proposal and it’s potential effect in the effort to capture Bin Laden? I don’t think you do. That or perhaps you support Bin Laden and his minions. I sure hope otherwise. But based on this bizzare post you either don’t understand the proposal and it’s potential effect, or you don’t want Bin Laden captured. You tell me.


107 posted on 06/22/2007 8:19:47 PM PDT by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: rod1
I guess Ron Paul read something in the Constitution about genocide that the rest of us missed.

More likley, he didn't see the provision that empowers congress with the ability to charge the leaders of other nations with crimes.

108 posted on 06/22/2007 8:23:37 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“Unless one is blind, one knows that the terrorists currently operating in Iraq pose a clear threat to the national security of the United States.”

Right now, their clearest threat is to their opposition in Iraq, and to the US forces in Iraq. Neither are a threat to our National Security no matter how many times you repeat it.

I would agree that failure to eliminate them Iraq would be a loss at this juncture. However, if you are not blind, then you also realize that by elimintating them in Iraq, we do not solve the problem of global terrorism. Since terrorists operate on a global scale for govt and private entities even our leaders refuse to publically acknowledge.

How do you explain this?


109 posted on 06/22/2007 10:31:59 PM PDT by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Excellent, I love it...


110 posted on 06/23/2007 10:00:40 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (Don't worry hippie, we'll defend you too. Now fetch my Cafe Mocha will you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Um, sorry to say but our UN membership as well as foreign aid is consitutional. The constitution empowered congress and the executive branch to enter into treaties and conduct foreign activities as they see fit. That’s the beauty of the document. it does not get into the petty details allowing for the changing needs of our nation. That’s also it weakness at times.

The problem is the UN is largely our own creation. That it has been twisted into something else beyond its intent is the big problem.

If we want to change this dynamic it is not up to the congress but to the people.

111 posted on 06/23/2007 10:23:09 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (Don't worry hippie, we'll defend you too. Now fetch my Cafe Mocha will you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22
Um, sorry to say but our UN membership as well as foreign aid is consitutional.

Um, sorry no it's not. If it were, Foreign Aid would have been instituted on a regular basis before the 20th century, which in fact it was not. I realize progressives such as yourself, in fact the whole of the Republican party, chooses to invent new powers as needed but...

Foreign aid is a system by which the American taxpayers are forced, in the name of national security or defense of the “free world,” or charity, or whatever the politicians tell us, to subsidize US export companies and prop up client states that are often ruled by dictators.

Constitutionally, of course, none of this spending is authorized. The US Constitution was written under what is referred to as “positive grant.” In short, what this means is that the federal government is authorized to engage in only those activities specifically authorized by the Constitution. Positive = authorized activities. Grant = specifically listed.

Just to make sure this principle was legally codified, the Tenth Amendment was included:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

That’s the beauty of the document. it does not get into the petty details allowing for the changing needs of our nation.

Ah yes the progressive call. It's a 'living breathing document'. It means what we say it means. Sad to see the party of conservatives has fallen so far. You want to throw your tax dollars away, go for it. As for me, I'll have mine back thank you very much. I could use them much better than for the US government to fund another tin pot dictator

112 posted on 06/23/2007 10:58:57 AM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: billbears

First, thanks for the laugh, lumping me in with progressives, that is a good one...

Made my wife chuckle too, she being a former Democrat...

Now on to the games…

Despite the “living document screed” as it is often used by “my fellow” progressives (and my fellow conservatives when need be) it is indeed an organic construct. If that was not the intention pray tell why it is amendable. That pretty much ends the argument right there. If the people wanted to do away with the constitution tomorrow and they got enough votes, the 28th amendment could say “hey, ignore all that other stuff above”.

Now as far as foreign aid, I went to those 10th amendment sites, and it repeats many of the ideas I have seen before and agree with to a reasonable extent. Then it becomes a matter of interpretation (and before I go on I take issues with the constitutionality of some acts too.) Two things come into play, first one of the quotes:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The congress, for better or worse, represents will of the people. Pick nits but that allows some sway depending on the current needs. Is it abused, of course, now more than ever, but then it falls to the people to replace the SOBs. But I would not say that all foreign aid falls into that category. This brings me to another quote from one of the sites:

“The words “general Welfare” in the Taxing Clause refer expressly to the welfare of the people “of the United States.” This excludes the people of any foreign country.”

I would argue as would many conservatives that in a modern world using money to protect our trade and interests, even if it means helping the people of a foreign country, is good for our general welfare. We are not some isolated back water country like we were after the revolution, but a major if not the major player in international business. As a capitalist myself I have no problem with using the government in securing trade and resources. Indeed I think it is the best use of our money short of the military and the interstate highway system.

This leads me to one last thing. We did practice foreign aid before last century. The Barbary States intervention mentioned before is one example. The “recent” increase in such aid is due to the fact that we have progressively become more prosperous and also more international in our interest over the past century.

Taking you view of the constitution there are many federal bodies and acts that are illegal. The FBI is not in there, nor any of the cabinet positions. Many laws are not specified. Perhaps the powers granted the various branches of government do come into play. If not, then you have a lot of battles ahead to prove the unconstitutionality of these various constructs and acts.

I don’t take issue with some of your ideas, indeed I agree with you more than you think. However I grow weary of the “unconstitutional” argument used by so many on both side of the isle. Everything in the end falls to “we the people” which even supersedes the Constitution. I find that the unconstitutional defense is a straw man that is letting us off the hook. If we don’t like something scream its unconstitutional instead of making our representatives do their job. It is a true double edged sword.


113 posted on 06/23/2007 3:19:02 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (Don't worry hippie, we'll defend you too. Now fetch my Cafe Mocha will you....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: anotherview
Kucinich and Paul only NO votes

So you approve that we cede more of what's left of our sovereignity to the UN too?

You'll defend the UN but not the guy who's believes in the Constitution. Nice.

114 posted on 06/23/2007 3:21:08 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: domenad
Even a nut like Kucinich can read the writing on the wall with these useless sacks.

Facts don't matter to the Paul bashers.

115 posted on 06/23/2007 3:22:37 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: chesty_puller
I have been reminded several times that not supporting Paul is a slap at the Constitution. Not supporting Paul means I don’t love my country. These people are loons beyond repair.

Because you're taking one single position of Paul (WOT) and painting him with a broad brush as a lunatic. I disagree with Paul on some of his foreign policy views but I certainly see this from his point of view. So instead of agreeing to disagree with the man you and the others call him a kook or other things usually reserved for liberals.

BTW, you're not fit to shine your screenname's shoes.

116 posted on 06/23/2007 4:03:58 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
It’s bizzare to go after Bin Laden with another tool available and permitted by the Constitution?

We no longer live in a world where sovereign nations recognize letters of marque and reprisal.

Congress can grant them all day long if it wants to, but it hasn't granted them in almost 200 years because they are no longer instruments that any other nation acknowledges.

The US hasn't recognized other countries' letters of marque and reprisal for almost 200 years.

If Ron Paul had any clue at all about anything, he'd know that.

117 posted on 06/23/2007 6:09:19 PM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“Congress can grant them all day long if it wants to, but it hasn’t granted them in almost 200 years because they are no longer instruments that any other nation acknowledges.”

Of course congress can. Article 1 section 8: “To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; “

Mercenaries could legally search and destroy Bin Laden and his minions. This action is permitted by our Constitution.

Is our Constituion equally too “old school” for you as well?

It matters not that other nations do not recognize the letter, nor that we haven’t used it nor recognized them lately. Besides, the UN and Congress propose meaningless policy all the time. My question is, why shouldn’t we issue one for global terrorists? Seems reasonable to me.

I’ll wager this. Issue the letter, and I’ll bet for some bullions of gold, there are some mercenaries out there who can and would find Bin Laden.

What’s wrong with it?


118 posted on 06/24/2007 2:42:01 PM PDT by takenoprisoner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: takenoprisoner
It matters not that other nations do not recognize the letter, nor that we haven’t used it nor recognized them lately.

Yes it does matter. It means that any such letters would be meaningless and provide their holders zero legal protection.

One might as write up one's own letters of marque and reprisal - they would have equal legal effectiveness both inside and outside the United States.

I’ll wager this. Issue the letter, and I’ll bet for some bullions of gold, there are some mercenaries out there who can and would find Bin Laden.

A $25M bounty - guaranteed by the US State Department - already exists on bin Laden's head and anyone is welcome to it.

My point: Ron Paul's argument that Congress, instead of authorizing war in Afghanistan, should have just issued letters of marque and reprisal is stupid.

Letters of marque and reprisal are no longer an instrument of international law, they have no standing anywhere, and there is already a bounty on bin Laden's head.

Ron Paul is not a serious interlocutor, but a distracting sideshow freak.

119 posted on 06/25/2007 5:27:05 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

1. NATO invaded Yugoslavia (Kosovo is still a part of Yugoslavia. My former roommate was shipped to Bosnia after Dayton. Our troops are still on the ground there and the country they are occupying don’t want them there. You’re playing little semantic games, not discussing reality. US troops invaded Yugoslavia and I’m pretty sure most of the guys who signed up didn’t rush off to fight for NATO.

2. There are those in the UN who believe Pres. Bush violated international law. I don’t doubt they can play with reality using the same semantic tricks you use to make any fantasy seem “legally” or “technically” true.

3. That may not happen in the US (in the near future), but it has happened in other countries. Not only is it not impossible, but it’s a reality.

4. If the UN Charter is law, it’s not the highest law of the land. That was my point, in case it was lost on you.

5. “And Ron Paul’s policy is not supported by 99.53% of the electorate.” Indeed! And you have the legally conducted elections to show that your statement is true. Oh wait, you’re more interested in self-fabricated distorted “reality” supported by arguments only technically true if one looks at it a certain way.

No thanks. I think I’ll stick to reality.


120 posted on 06/25/2007 11:33:25 AM PDT by cizinec
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-125 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