Posted on 03/15/2003 10:46:05 AM PST by longtermmemmory
By Art Moore © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
Could the U.N. use military force to prevent the United States and Britain from waging war on Iraq without a Security Council mandate?
United Nations headquarters in New York
Some anti-war groups are urging the world body to invoke a little-known convention that allows the General Assembly to step in when the Security Council is at an impasse in the face of a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression."
The willingness by the U.S. and Britain to go to war with Iraq without Security Council authorization is the kind of threat the U.N. had in mind when it passed Resolution 377 in 1950, said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a human-rights group in New York City.
In a position paper, Ratner wrote that by invoking the resolution, called "Uniting for Peace," the "General Assembly can meet within 24 hours to consider such a matter, and can recommend collective measures to U.N. members including the use of armed forces to 'maintain or restore international peace and security.'"
The U.N. taking military action against the U.S.?
"It would be very difficult to say what that means," said Ratner in an interview with WorldNetDaily, emphasizing that he did not believe the situation would evolve to that "extreme."
"I don't consider that within the framework I'm talking about," he said.
Shonna Carter, a publicist for Ratner's group, said she believed it would be legitimate for the U.N. to use military force to stop "U.S. aggression."
"But I doubt it would happen," she said. "I don't think that as part of Uniting for Peace they would include military action, but that would have to be something those countries agreed on. …"
Steve Sawyer, spokesman for Greenpeace in New Zealand – which has joined Ratner's group in the campaign – told WND he was not aware of the U.N. being able to use force under any circumstances.
Ratner explained that Resolution 377 would enable the General Assembly to declare that the U.S. cannot take military action against Iraq without the explicit authority of the Security Council. The assembly also could mandate that the inspection regime be allowed to "complete its work."
"It seems unlikely that the United States and Britain would ignore such a measure," Ratner said in his paper. "A vote by the majority of countries in the world, particularly if it were almost unanimous, would make the unilateral rush to war more difficult."
Uniting for Peace can be invoked either by seven members of the Security Council or by a majority of the members of the General Assembly, he said.
'Ways to make U.N. more important'
Ratner, who also teaches at the Columbia University Law School, told WND that the idea of invoking the resolution "came up when I started thinking about the fact that we could get into a situation where the U.S. may go to war without a Security Council resolution or with a veto."
He had two of his students at the law school research the resolution and now has sent out the word to every U.N. mission in New York.
In addition, about 12 missions a day are being visited by campaigners, he said, and the response has been generally very positive.
He expects there to be support from the 116 countries in the non-aligned movement, who are "already saying inspectors should be given more time."
Greenpeace's involvement has greatly expanded the campaign's reach, he said, since "we're just a small human-rights litigation organization."
"I've done a lot of work with international law and with the U.N.," he said, "and we're always interested in figuring out ways to make the U.N. more important."
Sedition?
A circular e-mail letter promoting the campaign said in the first paragraph that "if Iraq is invaded, it would empower the General Assembly to restore peace, including an authorization to use military action to accomplish this, if necessary."
The letter includes Ratner's name and e-mail address as a contact, but he says he did not send out that particular version, which included the line about the U.N. using military action.
A political science professor at the University of Michigan who forwarded the letter to colleagues, added a note above the text, obtained by WND, that said: "Below you will find an excellent and urgently needed proposal for stopping the war before it starts from the Center for Constitutional Rights. …"
"Please make this major peace action a high priority and forward this message to others," said Susan Wright, who indicated she is with the university's Institute for Research on Women and Gender.
Is Wright essentially urging foreign countries to be willing to take military action against her own country?
"I wouldn't say it's necessarily sedition," said Ratner. "Advocacy is one thing, having the means to carry it out is another. It's not something I would ever recommend."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Moore is a news editor with WorldNetDaily.com.
I LOVE IT!!!
But we've got worse problems than just "useful idiot" liberals.
This has been a long time coming:
Illustrious Albert Pike 33°
Letter 15 August 1871
Addressed to Grand Master Guiseppie Mazzini 33°
Archives British Museum
London, England
Here's a bit of irony: For a number of years now, a number of European nations have been dumping their surplus military firearms and parts onto the market, turning those old crates of "outdated" equipment into cash. Guess where most of those parts ended up?
The Weasels will find out, if they come here.
How about a flag?
It's GONE!!!
- Abraham Lincoln
Why is Lincoln's English so poor?
It's one of the reasons the Russians scrapped invasion plans. The R.T.K.A.B.A. as specified in our Second Amendment. A little thing that's spared America from much grief.
Small wonder the UN is a group of gun grabbing b*stards.
Hypocrisy running amock! They disagree with force used to oust Saddam, but they agree with force used to stop the ousting of Saddam. It shows their priorities and motivations.
You're right, I shouldn't be making the leap, but I just couldn't envision a person with that name as a leftist New York lawyer who wasn't in some way related and under the effluents. As it turns out, she's Noam's sister-in-law.
In 1988, Michael Dukakis was poised to lose the presidential election in an ass-whumping of epic proportions. He became convinced that his only hope of closing the gap was to simultaneously:
- demonstrate his commitment to military spending
- hunt and kill furloughed Massachusetts prisoners for sport
When asked about whether his primary motivation for joining Dukakis was the Governor's political track record or his support for economic reform, Mojo replied, "He gots him a tank." The aforementioned tank had been retrofitted with a Pedestrian Electro-Bastard Death Ray, hydraulic suspension, and a Funny Car Turbo Nitrous booster system.
What began as a prime photo opportunity degenerated into carnage and mayhem when Dukakis, fed up with Mojo calling him a "swarthy little Unibrow Muppet" and prodding him to "Punch it! Punch it!", elected to punch it. Mojo's hand grenade flew loose and decimated a CNN lighting crew, while unlucky members of the fourth estate became grease spots under the tank's massive treads.
Rather than call the whole day a wash, Mojo and Dukakis mowed a path of destruction to a nearby park where, lacking any released prisoners to hunt, they unleashed their massive arsenal on a troupe of amateur mimes who, as it turns out, really can make noise when it counts.
Subject: Old Soldiers aka old farts w/attitude problems
I've said that if I could, I'd enlist today and help my country track down those responsible for killing thousands of innocent people in New York City and Washington, D.C. But, I'm over 60 now and the Armed Forces say I'm too old to track down terrorists. You can't be older than 35 to join the Army.
They've got the whole thing backwards. Instead of sending 18-year-olds off to fight, they ought to take us old guys. You shouldn't be able to join until you're at least 35.
For starters: Researchers say 18-year-olds think about sex every 10 seconds. Old guys only think about sex a couple of times a day, leaving us more that 28,000 additional seconds per day to concentrate on the enemy.
Young guys haven't lived long enough to be cranky, and a cranky soldier is a dangerous soldier. If we can't kill the enemy, we'll complain them into submission. "My back hurts!" "I'm hungry!" "Where's the remote control?"
An 18-year-old hasn't had a legal beer yet and you shouldn't go to war until you're at least old enough to legally drink. An average old guy, on the other hand, has consumed 126,000 gallons of beer by the time he's 35 and a jaunt through the desert heat with a backpack and M-60 would do wonders for the old beer belly.
An 18-year-old doesn't like to get up before 10 a.m. Old guys get up early just to show we can (and to steal the neighbor's newspaper and pee).
If old guys are captured we couldn't spill the beans because we'd probably forget where we put them. In fact, name, rank, and serial number would be a real brain teaser.
Boot camp would actually be easier for old guys. We're used to getting screamed and yelled at and we actually like soft food. We've also developed a deep appreciation for guns and rifles. We like them almost better than naps. The army could lighten up on the obstacle course, however. I've been to the desert and didn't see a single 20-foot wall with rope hanging over the side. I can hear the Drill Sergeant now, "Get down and give me...er...one." And the running part is kind of a waste of energy. I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.
An 18-year-old has the whole world ahead of him. He's still learning to shave. To actually carry on a conversation. To wear pants without the top of the boxer shorts sticking out. To learn that a pierced tongue catches food particles. And that a 200-watt speaker in the back seat of a Honda Accord can rupture an eardrum. All great reasons to keep our sons at home and to learn a little more about life before sending them off to a possible death.
Let us old guys track down those dirty, rotten cowards who attacked our hearts on September 11. The last thing they'd want to see right now is a couple of million old farts with attitudes.
regards - red
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.