John Bolton declares International Criminal Court 'dangerous' and 'dead to' America


He labels the ICC as a 'freewheeling global organization governing over people without their consent'


Source:      The Independent      
Quote:

National Security Advisor to Donald Trump, John Bolton, has said the International Criminal Court (ICC) is “dead to us” in his latest speech. He labelled the court as “illegitimate” and “for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us”. Mr Bolton, who has long held an unfavourable view of the court, who was speaking at a meeting of the Federalist Society, a conservative group based in Washington DC, said the ICC was “ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed outright dangerous”. The court, established in 2002 in The Hague in the Netherlands, has the power to prosecute individuals for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The US never ratified the Rome Statute that established the court and George W Bush, in the early days of the still-ongoing war in Afghanistan, never ratified it. The court is getting ready to investigate detainee abuse in Afghanistan, an investigation Mr Bolton called “utterly unfounded”, adding: ”We will provide no cooperation to the ICC.” The former US Ambassador to the United Nations under Mr Bush, went on to say the “central aim of [the ICC’s] most vigorous supporters was to constrain the US”. Mr Bolton said the court’s statute had “glaring, significant flaws” and ”constituted an assault on the constitutional rights of the American people and the sovereignty of the US”. He also acknowledged his hecklers as Code Pink, an international charity which works to end US-funded wars, his “friends who follow me” everywhere. Mr Bolton, following a trend in the Trump administration of criticising multilateralism, branded the ICC as a “freewheeling global organisation governing over individuals without their consent”. He claimed American “soldiers, politicians, and private citizens” are at risk because the court assumes the automatic right to prosecute over everyone, even in countries which did not ratify the Rome Statute establishing the court.  Israel, Sudan, Russia, and the US under Mr Bush, are four signatories of the statute who renounced their signatures and informed the UN they would no longer be subject to the legal obligations under the statute. Mr Bolton said the US’ “unsigning” of the Rome Statute was meant to protect Americans from the “unacceptable overreach” of the court. He cited the 2002 American Service-members Protection Act, “which some have dubbed the Hague invasion act” Mr Bolton said and also prosecution within South Africa following the abolishment of apartheid as examples of why the court was “superfluous”. The act authorized the US president to use all means, “including force”, to shield US military members from prosecution by the ICC, he noted. The Trump aide said US courts and the military justice system already hold all Americans to “the highest legal and ethical standards”. Mr Bolton repeatedly hit out at the global body of which 123 countries are part, asking: “Would you consign the fate of American citizens to a committee of other nations [and] entities that aren’t even states like the Palestinian authority?” The US state department had earlier announced the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) office in Washington, partly out of a concern over the office’s attempts to have the ICC investigate US ally Israel. He supported the aggressive US stance against the ICC by citing internal management issues, like divulging confidential information to human rights ambassadors like actress Angelina Jolie. Mr Bolton went as far as threatening ICC officials and prosecutors with sanctions and legal action “to the extent permissible under US law” and said those individuals could be barred from entering the country. The overarching message of the National Security Advisor was that any perceived atrocity against humanity is to be deemed so by the people within those states, not by the international body. “We don’t recognise any authority higher than the US Constitution,” Mr Bolton said.

https://imgur.com/RImXFwK.jpg
http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif

Remember that next time US wants an international war criminal prosecuted.

Any politician signing away our sovereignty to an unelected body outside of Australia (or other countries) should be thrown out of office and be thrown straight into a Jail Cell for a minimum of 10 years...  >:(

Bolton's covering his arse over the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Yep, Mr Trump said it: drain the swamp, no?

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Sep 11^th, 2018 at 12:19pm:

Any politician signing away our sovereignty to an unelected body outside of Australia (or other countries) should be thrown out of office and be thrown straight into a Jail Cell for a minimum of 10 years...  >:(

Good point, Mechanic. Any dictator who signs away his sovereignty to be prosecuted for human rights violations, genocide and the illegal invasions of other sovereign countries deserves to be thrown in jail for 10 years.

Just not by the International Criminal Court, okay?

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 11^th, 2018 at 2:26pm:

Bolton's covering his arse over the illegal invasion of Iraq. Yep, Mr Trump said it: drain the swamp, no?

The President should never have employed Bolton - a neo-con. Has blood on his hands from 9/11 and a total madman.

Steve Pieczenic - always a straight shooter.

https://youtu.be/wbQrifXJbQo

Richdude wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 4:05am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 11th, 2018 at 2:26pm: Bolton's covering his arse over the illegal invasion of Iraq. Yep, Mr Trump said it: drain the swamp, no? The President should never have employed Bolton - a neo-con. Has blood on his hands from 9/11 and a total madman. Steve Pieczenic - always a straight shooter. https://youtu.be/wbQrifXJbQo

interesting...

I guess as an outsider as Trump is, that its hard to know who to trust and who not to trust...

we've already seen numerous times already how spies were put into the Trump Campaign and others as fall guys...

and this is how the DNC won the last two terms... the GOP is lying down allowing the DNC to take control of America and sell it down the drain...

Hillary wasn't meant to lose... Trump won a rigged election...

America Dodged a Bullet... but its far from over..  :(

there needs to be term limits so that the Trash can be taken out every 8 years...

also Keep an eye on Bob Woodward

— Who Just Published Anti-Trump Book —

he's been FBI asset since 1970s... funny how they are all coming out now and exposing themselves..

all of these sleeper cells...

---

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 7:49am:

also Keep an eye on Bob Woodward — Who Just Published Anti-Trump Book — he's been FBI asset since 1970s... funny how they are all coming out now and exposing themselves.. all of these sleeper cells...

It's funny how a "truth about Trump book" is considered anti-Trump.

It means that something pro-Trump must be inherently dishonest.

Which anyone with even the most arbitrary grounding in reality knows much if not all of the claims Trump supporters make in support of Trump, including the claims Trump makes about himself are rarely 100% true.

But more on topic, given the US treatment of prisoners of war in Afghanistan it's no surprise they want nothing to do with the ICC.

What's also no surprise is we're back to defending Trump by attacking someone else's character while spinning a yarn of conspiracy to boot.

The same thing over and over...

SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 8:38am:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 7:49am: also Keep an eye on Bob Woodward — Who Just Published Anti-Trump Book — he's been FBI asset since 1970s... funny how they are all coming out now and exposing themselves.. all of these sleeper cells... It's funny how a "truth about Trump book" is considered anti-Trump. It means that something pro-Trump must be inherently dishonest. Which anyone with even the most arbitrary grounding in reality knows much if not all of the claims Trump supporters make in support of Trump, including the claims Trump makes about himself are rarely 100% true. But more on topic, given the US treatment of prisoners of war in Afghanistan it's no surprise they want nothing to do with the ICC. What's also no surprise is we're back to defending Trump by attacking someone else's character while spinning a yarn of conspiracy to boot. The same thing over and over...

There are all kinds of problems with the ICC and frankly, I dont support it. War Crimes tribunals have historically been run by the victors in a war eg Nuremburg. I'm not sure how that is ever going to effectively change.

Richdude wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 4:05am:

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 11th, 2018 at 2:26pm: Bolton's covering his arse over the illegal invasion of Iraq. Yep, Mr Trump said it: drain the swamp, no? The President should never have employed Bolton - a neo-con. Has blood on his hands from 9/11 and a total madman. Steve Pieczenic - always a straight shooter. https://youtu.be/wbQrifXJbQo

Mr Trump doesn't care about that, Rich. It's Bolton's moustache that gets him.

He can't stand the way Bolton looks on TV, you see.

Well, I was under the impression that the ICC could only investigate if invited to investigate and charge perpetrators by the nation where the crimes were committed?

I was also under the impression that the US hadn't signed up to the Convention on the ICC and had been, over the last decade, quietly strongarming other nations to not sign up to the Convention.  Is that wrong?

Seems to be like Bolton is running a smokescreen for Trump.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

I hope Australia does the same. The UN is a joke.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 2:57pm:

Well, I was under the impression that the ICC could only investigate if invited to investigate and charge perpetrators by the nation where the crimes were committed? I was also under the impression that the US hadn't signed up to the Convention on the ICC and had been, over the last decade, quietly strongarming other nations to not sign up to the Convention.  Is that wrong? Seems to be like Bolton is running a smokescreen for Trump.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer situations to the Court.


So in other words, it would hardly be likely to even investigate the US.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 3:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 2:57pm: Well, I was under the impression that the ICC could only investigate if invited to investigate and charge perpetrators by the nation where the crimes were committed? I was also under the impression that the US hadn't signed up to the Convention on the ICC and had been, over the last decade, quietly strongarming other nations to not sign up to the Convention.  Is that wrong? Seems to be like Bolton is running a smokescreen for Trump.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer situations to the Court. So in other words, it would hardly be likely to even investigate the US.

I think the problem for USA (and many others) is that is is allowing another non-national body to have legal jurisdiction over alleged war crimes committed by its troops. It all sounds okay until you remember that if push comes to shove, most nations will simply refuse to hand them over even if indicted. National sovereignty trumps all other considerations. All it can ever be is a voluntary body where war criminals can be prosecuted... as long as everyone agrees.

it is all very problematic.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 4:20pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 3:17pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 2:57pm: Well, I was under the impression that the ICC could only investigate if invited to investigate and charge perpetrators by the nation where the crimes were committed? I was also under the impression that the US hadn't signed up to the Convention on the ICC and had been, over the last decade, quietly strongarming other nations to not sign up to the Convention.  Is that wrong? Seems to be like Bolton is running a smokescreen for Trump.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer situations to the Court. So in other words, it would hardly be likely to even investigate the US. I think the problem for USA (and many others) is that is is allowing another non-national body to have legal jurisdiction over alleged war crimes committed by its troops. It all sounds okay until you remember that if push comes to shove, most nations will simply refuse to hand them over even if indicted. National sovereignty trumps all other considerations. All it can ever be is a voluntary body where war criminals can be prosecuted... as long as everyone agrees. it is all very problematic.

Plenty of countries on the UN are full of war criminals. Are they going to give theirs up?

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 3:06pm:

I hope Australia does the same. The UN is a joke.

Yes, Homo, God forbid Serbian mass-murderers and African despots get put on trial.

We need to protect Mr Bolton, yes?

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 4:24pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 3:06pm: I hope Australia does the same. The UN is a joke. Yes, Homo, God forbid Serbian mass-murderers and African despots get put on trial. We need to protect Mr Bolton, yes?

The UN is a toothless tiger. It's a waste of time. And it's becoming more anti western by the minute. It's full of countries pointing the finger at other countries instead of pointing the finger at themselves.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 3:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 2:57pm: Well, I was under the impression that the ICC could only investigate if invited to investigate and charge perpetrators by the nation where the crimes were committed? I was also under the impression that the US hadn't signed up to the Convention on the ICC and had been, over the last decade, quietly strongarming other nations to not sign up to the Convention.  Is that wrong? Seems to be like Bolton is running a smokescreen for Trump.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer situations to the Court. So in other words, it would hardly be likely to even investigate the US.

So, the question is, why is Bolton making a song and dance about something that can not eventuate?

Again, I make the point, perhaps Bolton is laying a smokescreen for el Presidente?  Diverting the attention of the loyal band of followers from what is occurring in the Mueller inquiry?  Mmmm?   ::)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 3:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 2:57pm: Well, I was under the impression that the ICC could only investigate if invited to investigate and charge perpetrators by the nation where the crimes were committed? I was also under the impression that the US hadn't signed up to the Convention on the ICC and had been, over the last decade, quietly strongarming other nations to not sign up to the Convention.  Is that wrong? Seems to be like Bolton is running a smokescreen for Trump.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer situations to the Court. So in other words, it would hardly be likely to even investigate the US.

Well, now the United Nations won't have a bloody chance in hell of being involved in trying any American Citizen for anything whatsoever.......including 'suspected' or 'alleged' 'WAR CRIMES' supposedly committed in Iraq & Afghanistan.

American Citizens will only be tried in & by American Courts, not UN Courts, with their full American Constitutional Rights intact, based on American Laws, not International Law, or the Laws of any other Nation, under American Rules of Evidence.....etc.....etc.   ;)

https://imgur.com/RImXFwK.jpg
http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/SunglassesBubblegum.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/SunglassesBubblegum.gif
http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/cleanteeth09.gif

Panther wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 6:01pm:

Well, now the United Nations won't have a bloody chance in hell of being involved in trying any American Citizen for anything whatsoever.......including 'suspected' or 'alleged' 'WAR CRIMES' supposedly committed in Iraq & Afghanistan.

You should remember that under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, there is no "get out of gaol" card.  Indeed, that is pointedly stated where the UN Convention says:

Quote:

Article 2 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Now, Torture is illegal under the US Military Justice system.   Further, it is also illegal under the various US civil legal statutes.

The US Government was, when the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was being written, a prime advocate of the Convention.   Indeed, President Reagan, when presenting the Convention to the US Congress for ratification stated:


Quote:

"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today. The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

[url=http://pubrecord.org/torture/278/reagans-doj-prosecuted-texas-sheriff-for-waterboarding-prisoners/]Source[/url]

Would you care to explain therefore, why no American citizen has been placed on trial in an American court, where their "constitutional rights" are protected, despite clear evidence being presented that they were involved in "alleged" torture and other war crimes, DreamRyderX?

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 8:07pm:

Panther wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 6:01pm: Well, now the United Nations won't have a bloody chance in hell of being involved in trying any American Citizen for anything whatsoever.......including 'suspected' or 'alleged' 'WAR CRIMES' supposedly committed in Iraq & Afghanistan. You should remember that under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, there is no "get out of gaol" card.  Indeed, that is pointedly stated where the UN Convention says: Quote: Article 2 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. Now, Torture is illegal under the US Military Justice system.   Further, it is also illegal under the various US civil legal statutes. The US Government was, when the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was being written, a prime advocate of the Convention.   Indeed, President Reagan, when presenting the Convention to the US Congress for ratification stated: [quote]"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today. The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution."

[url=http://pubrecord.org/torture/278/reagans-doj-prosecuted-texas-sheriff-for-waterboarding-prisoners/]Source[/url]

Would you care to explain therefore, why no American citizen has been placed on trial in an American court, where their "constitutional rights" are protected, despite clear evidence being presented that they were involved in "alleged" torture and other war crimes, DreamRyderX?

[/quote]


They must think, like I, that to protect the lives of the Country's Citizens, no stone can be left unturned in the pursuit of vital information needed to protect those lives....If that means the use of torture, so be it...I condone the use of torture 110%, & I offer no apology for that......to anyone......now or ever..... http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/Doubleup.gif

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 7:46am:

Richdude wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 4:05am: Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 11th, 2018 at 2:26pm: Bolton's covering his arse over the illegal invasion of Iraq. Yep, Mr Trump said it: drain the swamp, no? The President should never have employed Bolton - a neo-con. Has blood on his hands from 9/11 and a total madman. Steve Pieczenic - always a straight shooter. https://youtu.be/wbQrifXJbQo interesting... I guess as an outsider as Trump is, that its hard to know who to trust and who not to trust... we've already seen numerous times already how spies were put into the Trump Campaign and others as fall guys... and this is how the DNC won the last two terms... the GOP is lying down allowing the DNC to take control of America and sell it down the drain... Hillary wasn't meant to lose... Trump won a rigged election... America Dodged a Bullet... but its far from over..  :( there needs to be term limits so that the Trash can be taken out every 8 years...

Couldn't agree more and one of those is Bolton and others career politicians who suck on K street.

Bolton is nervous about the powers of the ICC. He has committed many crimes.

well done to the USA.


the USA is ruled by the lion king, the king of the jungle, the apex predator.

you cant have the snails, the rabbits and the lambs hold a meeting down by the river and decide to set up a court which has authority over the lion.

thats foolish, wont work and against the rules of nature.

the lion is the symbolic representation of the hierachies in which we are all embedded.
you are embedded in 1000's of them and you just have to accept them.
even here at oz pol, the snail, the rabbit and the lamb (say longy and karnal and aia) dont get to call Freediver before a court and question his authority.
the idea is laughable.

god bless our apex predator .
he keeps us safe and all the animals of the forrest fall to their knees in awe

---

Panther wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 8:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 8:07pm: Panther wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 6:01pm: Well, now the United Nations won't have a bloody chance in hell of being involved in trying any American Citizen for anything whatsoever.......including 'suspected' or 'alleged' 'WAR CRIMES' supposedly committed in Iraq & Afghanistan. You should remember that under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, there is no "get out of gaol" card.  Indeed, that is pointedly stated where the UN Convention says: Quote: Article 2 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. Now, Torture is illegal under the US Military Justice system.   Further, it is also illegal under the various US civil legal statutes. The US Government was, when the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was being written, a prime advocate of the Convention.   Indeed, President Reagan, when presenting the Convention to the US Congress for ratification stated: [quote]"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today. The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution." [url=http://pubrecord.org/torture/278/reagans-doj-prosecuted-texas-sheriff-for-waterboarding-prisoners/]Source[/url] Would you care to explain therefore, why no American citizen has been placed on trial in an American court, where their "constitutional rights" are protected, despite clear evidence being presented that they were involved in "alleged" torture and other war crimes, DreamRyderX?

They must think, like I, that to protect the lives of the Country's Citizens, no stone can be left unturned in the pursuit of vital information needed to protect those lives....If that means the use of torture, so be it...I condone the use of torture 110%, & I offer no apology for that......to anyone......now or ever..... http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/Doubleup.gif
[/quote]

Ah yes, but torture is only useful for extracting false information. You use torture to get innocent names. You use torture to get false confessions.

To get real information, you have to build trust. You have to have a rapport with the subject.

Niceness always wins, Panther. This is the law of nature.

aquascoot wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 6:10am:

well done to the USA. the USA is ruled by the lion king, the king of the jungle, the apex predator. you cant have the snails, the rabbits and the lambs hold a meeting down by the river and decide to set up a court which has authority over the lion. thats foolish, wont work and against the rules of nature. the lion is the symbolic representation of the hierachies in which we are all embedded. you are embedded in 1000's of them and you just have to accept them. even here at oz pol, the snail, the rabbit and the lamb (say longy and karnal and aia) dont get to call Freediver before a court and question his authority. the idea is laughable. god bless our apex predator . he keeps us safe and all the animals of the forrest fall to their knees in awe

Freediver relies on rules to treat his subjects, dear. He knows that if he treats them unfairly, they won't be back. They won't generate the hits that get Freediver his Google ad money.

We snails call Freediver out regularly. The emperor wears no clothes. True leaders gain respect and appreciation, as every Mafia boss who ever ran a soup kitchen knows. Without noblesse oblige, a crown is useless, as every monarch knows.

Snails, rabbits and lambs can easily turn on lions. As Gandhi said, how can a few thousand British troops stop millions of Indians?

A king's power is directly proportional to how he protects his subjects, and he relies on his subjects - as in times of war - to protect him.

Panther wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 8:52pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 8:07pm: Panther wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 6:01pm: Well, now the United Nations won't have a bloody chance in hell of being involved in trying any American Citizen for anything whatsoever.......including 'suspected' or 'alleged' 'WAR CRIMES' supposedly committed in Iraq & Afghanistan. You should remember that under the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, there is no "get out of gaol" card.  Indeed, that is pointedly stated where the UN Convention says: Quote: Article 2 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. Now, Torture is illegal under the US Military Justice system.   Further, it is also illegal under the various US civil legal statutes. The US Government was, when the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was being written, a prime advocate of the Convention.   Indeed, President Reagan, when presenting the Convention to the US Congress for ratification stated: [quote]"The United States participated actively and effectively in the negotiation of the Convention. It marks a significant step in the development during this century of international measures against torture and other inhuman treatment or punishment. Ratification of the Convention by the United States will clearly express United States opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today. The core provisions of the Convention establish a regime for international cooperation in the criminal prosecution of torturers relying on so-called 'universal jurisdiction.' Each State Party is required either to prosecute torturers who are found in its territory or to extradite them to other countries for prosecution." [url=http://pubrecord.org/torture/278/reagans-doj-prosecuted-texas-sheriff-for-waterboarding-prisoners/]Source[/url] Would you care to explain therefore, why no American citizen has been placed on trial in an American court, where their "constitutional rights" are protected, despite clear evidence being presented that they were involved in "alleged" torture and other war crimes, DreamRyderX?

They must think, like I, that to protect the lives of the Country's Citizens, no stone can be left unturned in the pursuit of vital information needed to protect those lives....If that means the use of torture, so be it...I condone the use of torture 110%, & I offer no apology for that......to anyone......now or ever..... [/quote]

Thank'ee.  So, you're not worried when US citizens are tortured by overseas regimes, seeking to find out what the plans are of the US Government towards their country?  You are not worried when citizens of allies of the USA are tortured by overseas regimes, seeking to find what their government's plans are towards their country?

Or are only enemies of the USA subhuman sufficiently not to receive the same protections you demand are handed out to citizens of the USA?  Tsk, tsk, such a shallow person you have proved to be.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 6:31pm:

Thank'ee.  So, you're not worried when US citizens are tortured by overseas regimes, seeking to find out what the plans are of the US Government towards their country?  You are not worried when citizens of allies of the USA are tortured by overseas regimes, seeking to find what their government's plans are towards their country? Or are only enemies of the USA subhuman sufficiently not to receive the same protections you demand are handed out to citizens of the USA?  Tsk, tsk, such a shallow person you have proved to be.    ::)

You got it in one, Bwian - not all countries, legal and political systems are equal.  Where you go wrong here - you always go wrong -  is in thinking that all members of the UN are of equal worth, equal dignity, worthy of equal respect and recognition. They aren't.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 13^th, 2018 at 5:01pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 3:17pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 2:57pm: Well, I was under the impression that the ICC could only investigate if invited to investigate and charge perpetrators by the nation where the crimes were committed? I was also under the impression that the US hadn't signed up to the Convention on the ICC and had been, over the last decade, quietly strongarming other nations to not sign up to the Convention.  Is that wrong? Seems to be like Bolton is running a smokescreen for Trump.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer situations to the Court. So in other words, it would hardly be likely to even investigate the US. So, the question is, why is Bolton making a song and dance about something that can not eventuate? Again, I make the point, perhaps Bolton is laying a smokescreen for el Presidente?  Diverting the attention of the loyal band of followers from what is occurring in the Mueller inquiry?  Mmmm?   ::)

I suspect that they are concerned about the torture and breaches of human rights they have committed in Iraq and around the world.

Frank wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 7:37pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 6:31pm: Thank'ee.  So, you're not worried when US citizens are tortured by overseas regimes, seeking to find out what the plans are of the US Government towards their country?  You are not worried when citizens of allies of the USA are tortured by overseas regimes, seeking to find what their government's plans are towards their country? Or are only enemies of the USA subhuman sufficiently not to receive the same protections you demand are handed out to citizens of the USA?  Tsk, tsk, such a shallow person you have proved to be.    ::) You got it in one, Bwian - not all countries, legal and political systems are equal.  Where you go wrong here - you always go wrong -  is in thinking that all members of the UN are of equal worth, equal dignity, worthy of equal respect and recognition. They aren't.

Ah, you are making assumptions again, Soren.   Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  No, I don't assume all regimes/governments/nations are equal.  However, I also don't assume that a country which champions the concepts embodied in the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and then signs up to the Convention and then ratifiers it, and then commits torture against people who have been convicted of no crime in no court of justice, purely on suspicion of them being involved in Terrorism is superior to a country which has not signed, not ratified and never championed the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment .   I know countries like Iraq under Saddam Hussein is likely to torture prisoners it has captured or is holding in its gaols.  I do not assume that the USA would do such a thing.   I don't excuse either nation/regime.  What about you?  Do you think that simply because a person worships Islam they deserve to be water boarded?  Mmmm?   ::) ::)

Dnarever wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 7:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 5:01pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 3:17pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 13th, 2018 at 2:57pm: Well, I was under the impression that the ICC could only investigate if invited to investigate and charge perpetrators by the nation where the crimes were committed? I was also under the impression that the US hadn't signed up to the Convention on the ICC and had been, over the last decade, quietly strongarming other nations to not sign up to the Convention.  Is that wrong? Seems to be like Bolton is running a smokescreen for Trump.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United Nations Security Council or individual states refer situations to the Court. So in other words, it would hardly be likely to even investigate the US. So, the question is, why is Bolton making a song and dance about something that can not eventuate? Again, I make the point, perhaps Bolton is laying a smokescreen for el Presidente?  Diverting the attention of the loyal band of followers from what is occurring in the Mueller inquiry?  Mmmm?   ::) I suspect that they are concerned about the torture and breaches of human rights they have committed in Iraq and around the world.

So they should be.  Afterall, they signed up and ratified the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment , which contains as part of it the following clauses:


Quote:

Article 2 1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction. 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. 3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

They have not followed through on their commitments under the Convention.  They have failed dismally to uphold those clauses.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 10:16pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 7:37pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 6:31pm: Thank'ee.  So, you're not worried when US citizens are tortured by overseas regimes, seeking to find out what the plans are of the US Government towards their country?  You are not worried when citizens of allies of the USA are tortured by overseas regimes, seeking to find what their government's plans are towards their country? Or are only enemies of the USA subhuman sufficiently not to receive the same protections you demand are handed out to citizens of the USA?  Tsk, tsk, such a shallow person you have proved to be.    ::) You got it in one, Bwian - not all countries, legal and political systems are equal.  Where you go wrong here - you always go wrong -  is in thinking that all members of the UN are of equal worth, equal dignity, worthy of equal respect and recognition. They aren't. Ah, you are making assumptions again, Soren.   Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  No, I don't assume all regimes/governments/nations are equal.  However, I also don't assume that a country which champions the concepts embodied in the UN Convention against Torture and other forms of Unusual Punishment and then signs up to the Convention and then ratifiers it, and then commits torture against people who have been convicted of no crime in no court of justice, purely on suspicion of them being involved in Terrorism is superior to a country which has not signed, not ratified and never championed the UN Convention against Torture and Unusual Punishment.   I know countries like Iraq under Saddam Hussein is likely to torture prisoners it has captured or is holding in its gaols.  I do not assume that the USA would do such a thing.   What about you?  Do you think that simply because a person worships Islam they deserve to be water boarded?  Mmmm?   ::) ::)

Oh? It's about Muslims now? What is it about you and Islam, Bwian? Do you have to turn everything into a Muslim grievance-fest? Do you have gandalf's OK for this? Karnal's?  You have Allah on your ... what's the word? it's not mind... brain??


An outraged, clucking old turkey preening himself in the dust just after being run over by a rusty ute  - that's how I see you, you stupid old, demented fool.

Frank wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 10:26pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 10:16pm: Frank wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 7:37pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 6:31pm: Thank'ee.  So, you're not worried when US citizens are tortured by overseas regimes, seeking to find out what the plans are of the US Government towards their country?  You are not worried when citizens of allies of the USA are tortured by overseas regimes, seeking to find what their government's plans are towards their country? Or are only enemies of the USA subhuman sufficiently not to receive the same protections you demand are handed out to citizens of the USA?  Tsk, tsk, such a shallow person you have proved to be.    ::) You got it in one, Bwian - not all countries, legal and political systems are equal.  Where you go wrong here - you always go wrong -  is in thinking that all members of the UN are of equal worth, equal dignity, worthy of equal respect and recognition. They aren't. Ah, you are making assumptions again, Soren.   Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  No, I don't assume all regimes/governments/nations are equal.  However, I also don't assume that a country which champions the concepts embodied in the UN Convention against Torture and other forms of Unusual Punishment and then signs up to the Convention and then ratifiers it, and then commits torture against people who have been convicted of no crime in no court of justice, purely on suspicion of them being involved in Terrorism is superior to a country which has not signed, not ratified and never championed the UN Convention against Torture and Unusual Punishment.   I know countries like Iraq under Saddam Hussein is likely to torture prisoners it has captured or is holding in its gaols.  I do not assume that the USA would do such a thing.   What about you?  Do you think that simply because a person worships Islam they deserve to be water boarded?  Mmmm?   ::) ::) Oh? It's about Muslims now? What is it about you and Islam, Bwian? Do you have to turn everything into a Muslim grievance-fest? Do you have gandalf's OK for this? Karnal's?  You have Allah on your ... what's the word? it's not mind... brain?? An outraged, clucking old turkey preening himself in the dust just after being run over by a rusty ute  - that's how I see you, you stupid old, demented fool.

Were you trying to provide something relevant to the thread or just a personal attack on me, Soren?   No, it doesn't seem so.  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 10:29pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 10:26pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 10:16pm: Frank wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 7:37pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 6:31pm: Thank'ee.  So, you're not worried when US citizens are tortured by overseas regimes, seeking to find out what the plans are of the US Government towards their country?  You are not worried when citizens of allies of the USA are tortured by overseas regimes, seeking to find what their government's plans are towards their country? Or are only enemies of the USA subhuman sufficiently not to receive the same protections you demand are handed out to citizens of the USA?  Tsk, tsk, such a shallow person you have proved to be.    ::) You got it in one, Bwian - not all countries, legal and political systems are equal.  Where you go wrong here - you always go wrong -  is in thinking that all members of the UN are of equal worth, equal dignity, worthy of equal respect and recognition. They aren't. Ah, you are making assumptions again, Soren.   Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  No, I don't assume all regimes/governments/nations are equal.  However, I also don't assume that a country which champions the concepts embodied in the UN Convention against Torture and other forms of Unusual Punishment and then signs up to the Convention and then ratifiers it, and then commits torture against people who have been convicted of no crime in no court of justice, purely on suspicion of them being involved in Terrorism is superior to a country which has not signed, not ratified and never championed the UN Convention against Torture and Unusual Punishment.   I know countries like Iraq under Saddam Hussein is likely to torture prisoners it has captured or is holding in its gaols.  I do not assume that the USA would do such a thing.   What about you?  Do you think that simply because a person worships Islam they deserve to be water boarded?  Mmmm?   ::) ::) Oh? It's about Muslims now? What is it about you and Islam, Bwian? Do you have to turn everything into a Muslim grievance-fest? Do you have gandalf's OK for this? Karnal's?  You have Allah on your ... what's the word? it's not mind... brain?? An outraged, clucking old turkey preening himself in the dust just after being run over by a rusty ute  - that's how I see you, you stupid old, demented fool. Were you trying to provide something relevant to the thread or just a personal attack on me, Soren?   No, it doesn't seem so.  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

You have done this lotsa times before but you know you are a prick, I know you are a prick, we all know you are a useless, know-nothing prick, Bwian.

Frank wrote on Sep 14^th, 2018 at 10:31pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 10:29pm: Frank wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 10:26pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 10:16pm: Frank wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 7:37pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 14th, 2018 at 6:31pm: Thank'ee.  So, you're not worried when US citizens are tortured by overseas regimes, seeking to find out what the plans are of the US Government towards their country?  You are not worried when citizens of allies of the USA are tortured by overseas regimes, seeking to find what their government's plans are towards their country? Or are only enemies of the USA subhuman sufficiently not to receive the same protections you demand are handed out to citizens of the USA?  Tsk, tsk, such a shallow person you have proved to be.    ::) You got it in one, Bwian - not all countries, legal and political systems are equal.  Where you go wrong here - you always go wrong -  is in thinking that all members of the UN are of equal worth, equal dignity, worthy of equal respect and recognition. They aren't. Ah, you are making assumptions again, Soren.   Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  No, I don't assume all regimes/governments/nations are equal.  However, I also don't assume that a country which champions the concepts embodied in the UN Convention against Torture and other forms of Unusual Punishment and then signs up to the Convention and then ratifiers it, and then commits torture against people who have been convicted of no crime in no court of justice, purely on suspicion of them being involved in Terrorism is superior to a country which has not signed, not ratified and never championed the UN Convention against Torture and Unusual Punishment.   I know countries like Iraq under Saddam Hussein is likely to torture prisoners it has captured or is holding in its gaols.  I do not assume that the USA would do such a thing.   What about you?  Do you think that simply because a person worships Islam they deserve to be water boarded?  Mmmm?   ::) ::) Oh? It's about Muslims now? What is it about you and Islam, Bwian? Do you have to turn everything into a Muslim grievance-fest? Do you have gandalf's OK for this? Karnal's?  You have Allah on your ... what's the word? it's not mind... brain?? An outraged, clucking old turkey preening himself in the dust just after being run over by a rusty ute  - that's how I see you, you stupid old, demented fool. Were you trying to provide something relevant to the thread or just a personal attack on me, Soren?   No, it doesn't seem so.  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) You have done this lotsa times before but you know you are a prick, I know you are a prick, we all know you are a useless, know-nothing prick, Bwian.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Were you trying to provide something relevant to the thread or just a personal attack on me, Soren?   No, it doesn't seem so.  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

[media width=625]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf_CSvjaKcs[/media]



https://imgur.com/RImXFwK.jpg

Until the US withdraws from the UN Convention Against Torture, it is held by the clauses of the Convention.  The US was a main proponent of the Convention and was a main supporter of the Convention.   It still remains a signatory and a ratifier of the Convention.

So, Panther, you're proposing that the US join the ranks of states like Iran, DPRK, Malaysia, Papua-New-Guinea, Botswana, Sudan and Angola?

You really are quite crazy, you realise that?

As is el Presidente' Trump.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2018 at 4:48pm:

Until the US withdraws from the UN Convention Against Torture, it is held by the clauses of the Convention.  The US was a main proponent of the Convention and was a main supporter of the Convention.   It still remains a signatory and a ratifier of the Convention. So, Panther, you're proposing that the US join the ranks of states like Iran, Botswana, Sudan and Angola? You really are quite crazy, you realise that? As is el Presidente' Trump.   ::)

https://s15.postimg.cc/ae1sl8lgb/UN00000001.jpg
http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif The U.N. http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif

You claim to care about veterans yet you oppose the UN...

Isn't the prevention of war and therefore less injured, maimed or killed service men and women better than pretending to fund proper care for them?

Panther wrote on Sep 15^th, 2018 at 5:39pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2018 at 4:48pm: Until the US withdraws from the UN Convention Against Torture, it is held by the clauses of the Convention.  The US was a main proponent of the Convention and was a main supporter of the Convention.   It still remains a signatory and a ratifier of the Convention. So, Panther, you're proposing that the US join the ranks of states like Iran, Botswana, Sudan and Angola? You really are quite crazy, you realise that? As is el Presidente' Trump.   ::) https://s15.postimg.cc/ae1sl8lgb/UN00000001.jpg http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif The U.N. http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif

Why bother?  Knowing the US Governments' previous performance on the provision of care for past veterans of all wars that the US has engaged in, all you'd be doing is consigning your veterans, who you appear to claim to care about, to worse care and neglect than they have already suffered.  Tsk, tsk, how typical of the Right-Wingers, so short sighted and of course, the next time the US is looking for a fig leaf of respectability and legality, when it invades someone who it dislikes because they have given the US the two-fingered salute, well, you'll be rowing upstream in shite creek in a barbed wire canoe without a paddle.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2018 at 6:29pm:

Panther wrote on Sep 15th, 2018 at 5:39pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2018 at 4:48pm: Until the US withdraws from the UN Convention Against Torture, it is held by the clauses of the Convention.  The US was a main proponent of the Convention and was a main supporter of the Convention.   It still remains a signatory and a ratifier of the Convention. So, Panther, you're proposing that the US join the ranks of states like Iran, Botswana, Sudan and Angola? You really are quite crazy, you realise that? As is el Presidente' Trump.   ::) https://s15.postimg.cc/ae1sl8lgb/UN00000001.jpg http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif The U.N. http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif Why bother?  Knowing the US Governments' previous performance on the provision of care for past veterans of all wars that the US has engaged in, all you'd be doing is consigning your veterans, who you appear to claim to care about, to worse care and neglect than they have already suffered.  Tsk, tsk, how typical of the Right-Wingers, so short sighted and of course, the next time the US is looking for a fig leaf of respectability and legality, when it invades someone who it dislikes because they have given the US the two-fingered salute, well, you'll be rowing upstream in shite creek in a barbed wire canoe without a paddle.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Bump!  Just in case Panther (DreamRyderX) missed it, the first time it was posted.   ;)

America want to be able to commit torture and war crimes with impunity and no repercussions....The Yanks believe only other countries (accept Israel) should be held to account for  indiscriminate killing and provoking illegal wars....The Yanks are an evil empire who cause most of the worlds problems....F@#k Donald Trump and his supporters!!!

::) ::) ::)

Panther wrote on Sep 15^th, 2018 at 5:39pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2018 at 4:48pm: Until the US withdraws from the UN Convention Against Torture, it is held by the clauses of the Convention.  The US was a main proponent of the Convention and was a main supporter of the Convention.   It still remains a signatory and a ratifier of the Convention. So, Panther, you're proposing that the US join the ranks of states like Iran, Botswana, Sudan and Angola? You really are quite crazy, you realise that? As is el Presidente' Trump.   ::) https://s15.postimg.cc/ae1sl8lgb/UN00000001.jpg http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif The U.N. http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif http://33sm.net16.net/smileys/finger005.gif

A "veteran's hospital", eh?

Do you mean like his charity, Rich?

The Trump Foundation?

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:

America want to be able to commit torture and war crimes with impunity and no repercussions....The Yanks believe only other countries (accept Israel) should be held to account for  indiscriminate killing and provoking illegal wars....The Yanks are an evil empire who cause most of the worlds problems....F@#k Donald Trump and his supporters!!! ::) ::) ::)

You need to sack your news sources cause you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about.

The average American are not hawks and certainly the President is not. Despite what you hear.

The President does have undesirables who are puppets for the PTB - eg Bolton a neo-con who helped push for Americas invasion of the ME. Bolton follows the script of the PNAC report.

The land on which the UN building sits on was formerly an abattoir owned and given to the UN by none other David Rockefeller. 

The UN has always been owned - its a toy of the oligarchs to subtly implement their policies while appearing as a democratic organisation.

Another thing.

America is the most powerful country on Earth. Powerful countries dominate. Rome brutally dominated the ME and Europe all empires do. Of all the empires America has been the most benevolent.

Do you think a Chinese empire would be as benevolent as the US?

I think you should heed your own advice there Rich...

Richdude wrote on Sep 19^th, 2018 at 1:33am:

The UN has always been owned - its a toy of the oligarchs to subtly implement their policies while appearing as a democratic organisation.

Which UN you talking about?

The Security Council?
The General Assembly?
The Secretariat?
The Ancillary organisatons?

Four very different groups, all with very different objectives and very different viewpoints.  None are "democratic" except how they arrive at decisions - not in who gets appointed to them and what powers the individual members have.

Appears to me that you don't know very much about how the UN was created or organised.  Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19^th, 2018 at 2:30pm:

Richdude wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 1:33am: The UN has always been owned - its a toy of the oligarchs to subtly implement their policies while appearing as a democratic organisation. Which UN you talking about? The Security Council? The General Assembly? The Secretariat? The Ancillary organisatons? Four very different groups, all with very different objectives and very different viewpoints.  None are "democratic" except how they arrive at decisions - not in who gets appointed to them and what powers the individual members have. Appears to me that you don't know very much about how the UN was created or organised.  Tsk, tsk.    ::)

https://imgur.com/RImXFwK.jpg
Tsk, tsk...

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19^th, 2018 at 2:30pm:

Appears to me that you don't know very much about how the UN was created or organised.  Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Looks like just more Trump supporters applauding his actions without understanding what he's actually doing or what it means.

Just blind devotion.

SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 19^th, 2018 at 3:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 2:30pm: Appears to me that you don't know very much about how the UN was created or organised.  Tsk, tsk.    ::) Looks like just more Trump supporters applauding his actions without understanding what he's actually doing or what it means. Just blind devotion.

Sad, innit?  Sad that it will all come crumbling down when he is either removed from office, kicking and screaming and locked up in a padded cell or he loses the next election which is highly likely.   Not only will Americans suffer 'cause of his stupidity, so will the rest of the world.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

Panther wrote on Sep 19^th, 2018 at 3:25pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 2:30pm: Richdude wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 1:33am: The UN has always been owned - its a toy of the oligarchs to subtly implement their policies while appearing as a democratic organisation. Which UN you talking about? The Security Council? The General Assembly? The Secretariat? The Ancillary organisatons? Four very different groups, all with very different objectives and very different viewpoints.  None are "democratic" except how they arrive at decisions - not in who gets appointed to them and what powers the individual members have. Appears to me that you don't know very much about how the UN was created or organised.  Tsk, tsk.    ::) https://imgur.com/RImXFwK.jpg Tsk, tsk...

Appears to me that you don't know very much about how the UN was created or organised.  Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Tsk, tsk.    ::)

Why we hate you and laugh at you, Bwian.

Frank wrote on Sep 19^th, 2018 at 10:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 9:58pm:   Tsk, tsk.    ::) Why we hate you and laugh at you, Bwian.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

Panther wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 3:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 2:30pm: Richdude wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 1:33am: The UN has always been owned - its a toy of the oligarchs to subtly implement their policies while appearing as a democratic organisation. Which UN you talking about? The Security Council? The General Assembly? The Secretariat? The Ancillary organisatons? Four very different groups, all with very different objectives and very different viewpoints.  None are "democratic" except how they arrive at decisions - not in who gets appointed to them and what powers the individual members have. Appears to me that you don't know very much about how the UN was created or organised.  Tsk, tsk.    ::) https://imgur.com/RImXFwK.jpg Tsk, tsk... Appears to me that you don't know very much about how the UN was created or organised.  Tsk, tsk.    ::)

I used to be a believer like you. Now its become more like another level of arbitrary gov.

How many agreements has Australia signed? Did Australians get a say in those agreements? No! I noticed when I was in Oz, your local gov proudly spouts Agenda 21 as part of its charter.

Tackling "climate change" is a hot topic in Oz - part of Agenda 21. The answer? Tax it LOL! We'll tax climate change out of existence!  ;D ;D ;D

Richdude wrote on Sep 19^th, 2018 at 10:46pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 9:58pm: Panther wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 3:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 2:30pm: Richdude wrote on Sep 19th, 2018 at 1:33am: The UN has always been owned - its a toy of the oligarchs to subtly implement their policies while appearing as a democratic organisation. Which UN you talking about? The Security Council? The General Assembly? The Secretariat? The Ancillary organisatons? Four very different groups, all with very different objectives and very different viewpoints.  None are "democratic" except how they arrive at decisions - not in who gets appointed to them and what powers the individual members have. Appears to me that you don't know very much about how the UN was created or organised.  Tsk, tsk.    ::) https://imgur.com/RImXFwK.jpg Tsk, tsk... Appears to me that you don't know very much about how the UN was created or organised.  Tsk, tsk.    ::) I used to be a believer like you. Now its become more like another level of arbitrary gov. How many agreements has Australia signed? Did Australians get a say in those agreements? No! I noticed when I was in Oz, your local gov proudly spouts Agenda 21 as part of its charter. Tackling "climate change" is a hot topic in Oz - part of Agenda 21. The answer? Tax it LOL! We'll tax climate change out of existence!  ;D ;D ;D

It's not like a carbon tax is widely accepted as the best way to lower emissions and was working when it was policy...

Still waiting for my $550...

Richdude wrote on Sep 19^th, 2018 at 10:46pm:

I used to be a believer like you. Now its become more like another level of arbitrary gov.

The UN is what it's member states make it, nothing more, nothing less.  The US has by and large given up on the UN because it only pays attention to the Security Council.  The General Assembly gets ignored - why?  'Cause the US doesn't control it.   It has a veto in the Security Council - which it has used more often than any of the other permanent members BTW.

The UN was created to ease world tensions.  It has, by and large worked well.  It has provided a fig leaf of legal convenience for the superpowers when they wanted to intervene in other nations and to condemn one another when they disagree with it.   It has stopped world wars from reoccurring.


Quote:

How many agreements has Australia signed? Did Australians get a say in those agreements? No! I noticed when I was in Oz, your local gov proudly spouts Agenda 21 as part of its charter.

Australia is a member state.  Our National Government has had as much say in the creation, indeed perhaps even more than most, in the creation of world agreements and conventions which it has signed and ratified.  Agenda 21 is a non-binding action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.  Note that, "non-binding".   You sign on if you want, you sign out if you want.   Why are you so frightened of a non-binding plan?   Some local Governments have signed on, some haven't.  It is their choice - ratified by the rate payers.


Quote:

Tackling "climate change" is a hot topic in Oz - part of Agenda 21. The answer? Tax it LOL! We'll tax climate change out of existence!  ;D ;D ;D

So, taxing something to make it more expensive doesn't work for you?   I thought you like the idea of market driven economics.  Using taxation to drive the market is not as silly as you appear to believe.   It is one way of making sure that something which is undesirable remains undesirable.   What would your alternative be?   Have people stand in a circle and sing?  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

If the UN isn't working for the US, perhaps the problem is the US wants something that no one else wants.   Make the UN do what you want it to do by persuasion, not by abandonment.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 20^th, 2018 at 12:06am:

If the UN isn't working for the US, perhaps the problem is the US wants something that no one else wants.   Make the UN do what you want it to do by persuasion, not by abandonment.    ::)

But that's not the Trump way.

You don't do what he wants and he'll fire you or have a hissy fit, collect all his toys and go home.

Richdude wrote on Sep 19^th, 2018 at 1:33am:

philperth2010 wrote on Sep 18th, 2018 at 6:02pm: America want to be able to commit torture and war crimes with impunity and no repercussions....The Yanks believe only other countries (accept Israel) should be held to account for  indiscriminate killing and provoking illegal wars....The Yanks are an evil empire who cause most of the worlds problems....F@#k Donald Trump and his supporters!!! ::) ::) ::) You need to sack your news sources cause you have absolutely no idea what the hell you are talking about. The average American are not hawks and certainly the President is not. Despite what you hear. The President does have undesirables who are puppets for the PTB - eg Bolton a neo-con who helped push for Americas invasion of the ME. Bolton follows the script of the PNAC report. The land on which the UN building sits on was formerly an abattoir owned and given to the UN by none other David Rockefeller.  The UN has always been owned - its a toy of the oligarchs to subtly implement their policies while appearing as a democratic organisation.

Nothing to do with the UN dickhead....America invaded Iraq without the sanction of the UN which was based on lies and has created instability in the region....The Yanks are war criminals and refuse to accept the standards they impose on others....You are typical of the Nationalist Yank dickhead who excuses everything America does and ignores the crimes it has committed in the world....You have no idea!!!

::) ::) ::)

the UN.


compassion masking uselessness.

i doubt they could design a good christmas card.

mother nature does not send a rabbit from each forrest to sit on a committee to set forth the laws under which the lions shall operate.

it is unnatural and that which goes against nature usually disappears fairly quickly as we live in a darwinian reality.

99.5 % of all species are extinct.
i would imagine 99.5 % of all ideas become extinct.

unless they are based in deep mythological pre suppositions.

the UN, for example , will probably not outlast the bible, the dao or the koran.
it is based on wish fulfilment and new age fantasy.  its a bit creative but anyone with any spine can just push it aside

aquascoot wrote on Sep 20^th, 2018 at 7:40am:

the UN. compassion masking uselessness. i doubt they could design a good christmas card. mother nature does not send a rabbit from each forrest to sit on a committee to set forth the laws under which the lions shall operate. it is unnatural and that which goes against nature usually disappears fairly quickly as we live in a darwinian reality. 99.5 % of all species are extinct. i would imagine 99.5 % of all ideas become extinct. unless they are based in deep mythological pre suppositions. the UN, for example , will probably not outlast the bible, the dao or the koran. it is based on wish fulfilment and new age fantasy.  its a bit creative but anyone with any spine can just push it aside

You really do want to do away with any sort of diplomacy or equality in the world and regress back to a survival of the fittest type society and culture don't you...

You had better be the strongest, fittest and best fighter, armed to the teeth should we ever get to your utopia because the intellect you've displayed here will see you outsmarted and losing the battle in a snap.

SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 20^th, 2018 at 8:31am:

aquascoot wrote on Sep 20th, 2018 at 7:40am: the UN. compassion masking uselessness. i doubt they could design a good christmas card. mother nature does not send a rabbit from each forrest to sit on a committee to set forth the laws under which the lions shall operate. it is unnatural and that which goes against nature usually disappears fairly quickly as we live in a darwinian reality. 99.5 % of all species are extinct. i would imagine 99.5 % of all ideas become extinct. unless they are based in deep mythological pre suppositions. the UN, for example , will probably not outlast the bible, the dao or the koran. it is based on wish fulfilment and new age fantasy.  its a bit creative but anyone with any spine can just push it aside You really do want to do away with any sort of diplomacy or equality in the world and regress back to a survival of the fittest type society and culture don't you... You had better be the strongest, fittest and best fighter, armed to the teeth should we ever get to your utopia because the intellect you've displayed here will see you outsmarted and losing the battle in a snap.

its not survival of the fittest.

if the leader is a tyrant then 3 or 4 subordinates who are 75 % as powerful can combine to take him out.
a good leader will therefore form alliances and care for those under his care.

but a good leader still has to lead and be the one who charges TOWARDS the danger and runs INTO the burning house.

a good leader cant be a harmless virtue signalling rabbit in a blue helmet who runs away when there is trouble (as the UN did in bosnia for example)

The Us pays for almost a quarter of the UN's budget. The general Assembly has been completely hijacked by third worlders that contribute the least to the UN.

https://i0.wp.com/factly.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Un-Budget-Top-10.png

So, the world should just do what Washington tells them to do, Soren?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  The US may contribute the most but guess who makes it do that?  It isn't the Third World nor is it the UN.  The US puts money into the begging bowl when it comes past but no one forces them to.  Tsk, tsk.   ::)

SadKangaroo wrote on Sep 20^th, 2018 at 7:17am:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 20th, 2018 at 12:06am: If the UN isn't working for the US, perhaps the problem is the US wants something that no one else wants.   Make the UN do what you want it to do by persuasion, not by abandonment.    ::) But that's not the Trump way. You don't do what he wants and he'll fire you or have a hissy fit, collect all his toys and go home.

I think that's what the Mechanic means by his policies.