We dont need no stinking end of terrorism, torture, and slavery
from you dhimmis. It is our religion."
TOMORROW
Posted on 10/03/2003 8:11:26 AM PDT by knighthawk
The United Nations broke its own anti-torture convention by allowing a Zimbabwean police officer accused of torture to leave its peace force in Kosovo and return to Zimbabwe where he will probably not face investigation. Henry Dowa, a Zimbawe chief inspector, was named by several victims as having directed their torture, which included prolonged beatings on the soles of their feet and electric shocks causing convulsions. The victims' allegations were backed by medical examinations.
Human rights groups urged the UN to arrest Chief Insp Dowa and put him on trial for torture. The UN declined, citing a lack of funds, and sent him back to Zimbabwe.
There had been plans to get Mr Dowa extradited to stand trial in Britain where some of his alleged victims now live.
Redress, the London organisation which works for justice for survivors of torture, claimed that the UN had managed to break its own treaty by allowing Mr Dowa to evade arrest.
The group said yesterday it was unlikely Mr Dowa would be "held accountable for his alleged crimes, as torture is endemic and part of the Zanu-PF government's strategy to stay in power".
Last week Mr Dowa was seen driving a police Land Rover in Harare.
"What is the UN doing? By sending him back here they are allowing him to torture another day. If the UN does not help us, who is going to protect us from known torturers?" a Zimbabwean journalist said.
No more UN for US-list
If people want on or off this list, please let me know.
We dont need no stinking end of terrorism, torture, and slavery
from you dhimmis. It is our religion."
TOMORROW
It should be clear to all conservatives by now that the left intends to demonize us. They don't just disagree with us, they hate us. And worse, they want to get other people to hate us.
Places like Free Republic drive the left batty.
Please donate. Thanks for your consideration.
UN breaks easily their own Charter. For example, UNSEC is not authorized to establish new organs for UN, only General Assembly can do that. Yet, UNSEC established tribunals for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR)
Establishement of those tribunals is in direct violation of UN's own Charter. No wonder the practice of "tribunals" is more similar to Stalin's Moscow show trials than the court of law in democratic countries.
Yours is just another canard used to cloud the issue of Milosevic's crimes against Serbia's neighbors.
It is evident from the Charter text that UNSC Resolution 827 violates Chaprter VII, Articles 40 and 41. Creation of UN ORGAN is not a "measure".
UN Charter, Chapter 3, Article 7(organs) specifies that UN Organs such as UNSC may establish subsidiary organs:
"Such subsidiary organs as may be found necessary may be established in accordance with the present Charter."
ICTY and ICTR are not subsidiary organs of UNSC and UNSC had no right to create them.
Please don't break your Dinky toy in ager :-) Study, it is more effective.
Let me guess - it all depends what your definition of 'is' is.
ICTY and ICTR are not subsidiary organs of UNSC
28. In this particular case, the Security Council would be establishing, as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII, a subsidiary organ within the terms of Article 29 of the Charter, but one of a judicial nature.
Ahem.
We apparently have different definitions of 'study', as well as 'is'.
Acoording to S/RES/827:
1. Security Council (UNSC) has established ICTY as it's subsidiary organ
2. ICTY as UNSC Subsidiary organ is not subject to the authority or control of the Security Council with regard to the performance of its judicial functions.
Since this fact is confirmed, we can address the the core of the problem in the light of the international law:
There are two general restrictions in the International law for organs of international organizations in regard to their power of delegation.
1. Delegating organ can not delegate the powers that it does not have. Also, limitations related to these powers must be delegated together with the power.
2. Responsibility may not be delegated; the delegating organ itself must remain responsible.
In the light of general restrictions it is evident that
UNSC does not possess the powers that were delegated to ICTY as it's subsidiary organ.
For example, UNSC does not have the power to supercede domestic courts nor to write legislation.
Under International law, UNSC remains responsible for all transgressions and violations of justice committed by ICTY, regarldless of S/res/827/art. 28 attempt to evade responsibility.
ICTY was created hastily, as a political weapon of Clinton administration against Serbs in Former Yugoslavia, as tour de force of "subjective justice". In Hoplitespeak, "against Serbian agressors", not as a court of law.
The very creation of ICTY breaches international law. No wonder that it's Statute and practice are an abomination to jurisprudence of the Free World. Although decision to create Kangaroo Kourt in vilolation of International law can be traced to Clinton's Government, the responsibility of other P-5 members is not smaller because of that. (This responsibility for violation of the international law is the main reason why one P-5 member, Great Britain is harrasing Croatia today regarding Gen. Gotovina)
ICTY,the precursor of ICC has more similarity to Hiler's and Stalin processes than to Nuremberg.
It only shows why the Bush Administration was right to ditch ICC alltogether.
Hoplite, don't cry, if you have broken yours here's another one for you :-)
Learn how to read, and then see post #7.
2. ICTY as UNSC Subsidiary organ is not subject to the authority or control of the Security Council with regard to the performance of its judicial functions.
Get a dictionary and look up the word "judicial", the ICTY is still accountable to the UNSC, but the UNSC cannot influence the ICTY's judicial proceedings, so as to preclude the UNSC from exercising influence on the proceedings.
You started this discussion without a clue and you are determined to finish it the same way, aren't you?
Art. 7 defines what UNSC can do and general rules of international law define what it can not do.
The same isue was raised on numerous other ocasions regarding other UNSC subsidiary organs, (e.g. atomic comission). UNSC can not delegate the power to subsuidiary organ that it does not have by itself.
Who cares what UNSC does or what ICTY can or cannot do? It will do what the powers that control them decide. The bombing of Serbia was not exactly legal and the US bypassed the UNSC because of fear that Russia could veto any resolution (I seriously doubt that Yeltsin would have done anything that would deprive him of vodka).
This is reality; realities change. Thirty years ago the world was something completely different. Thirty years from now, the world will not be anything like this one. Although we don't know what the world will be, we can guess what it will not be.
You have the freedom to be stupid, but you do not have the right to expect your stupidity to pass unnoticed or uncommented upon - you don't really possess the ability to read and comprehend the UN Charter, do you?
Isn't that a convinient excuse.
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.