It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Inciting Terrorism - Banned By The United Nations

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   
At the current World Summit of the United Nations being held at their headquarters in New York, the security council unanimously voted last night for a worldwide ban on "incitement to terrorism". Britain's Tony Blair led the moves in the security council after London suffered the July 7 attacks on their transport system. There are no attempts made in the new resolution to actually define the word terrorism. Both Mr Bush and Mr Blair spoke out with strong support for the resolution.
 



www.news.com.au
Resolution 1624 calls upon all 191 UN member states to "prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts" and to "deny safe haven" to anyone even suspected of incitement.

Terrorists "have their strategy, but we have ours, and we should use it to defeat them," Mr Blair told the Security Council, the UN's 15-nation core decision-making body.

He said terrorism "will not be defeated until our determination is as complete as theirs, our defence of freedom as absolute as their fanaticism, until our passion for the democratic way is as great as their passion for tyranny".

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said terrorism "constitutes a direct attack on the values the United Nations stands for... we must thus be at the forefront of the fight against terrorism."

In a diplomatic sense, it also compensates for relatively weak language on terrorism in the draft final communique of the World Summit, the biggest-ever gathering of world leaders, which wraps up Friday.

Only one page in the 35-page draft deals with terrorism, and while it sets a September 2006 deadline for a "comprehensive convention on international terrorism," it says a high-level UN conference on terrorism to add teeth to such a document should only be "considered".

"We must complete the comprehensive convention on international terrorism that will put every nation on record," US President George W. Bush said at the summit.

Mr Blair was also to join some 40 other leaders today, led by Russian President Vladimir Putin, in signing an international convention - agreed earlier this year - combatting nuclear terrorism.

The 15-page pact, a Russian initiative, codifies definitions for trafficking in controlled nuclear materials and calls on participating states to adapt national laws to tighten controls on unsanctioned use of such materials.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I find this a big issue that terrorism is not clearly defined in the resolution, leaving it open to authorities in vavious countires to interpret it in their own way. With the United Nations sanctioning this move, individual regimes have an open licence to quieten any dissent.




posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   

as posted by Mayet
I find this a big issue that terrorism is not clearly defined in the resolution, leaving it open to authorities in vavious countires to interpret it in their own way.

Not surprising here.

This has been an ongoing problem for the United Nations for decades, Mayet.


The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.

The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".


Past UN attempts at defining terrorism:


1. League of Nations Convention (1937):
"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):
"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed; 2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):
Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

UN ODCCP
Terrorism: Can You Decide?




as posted by Mayet
With the United Nations sanctioning this move, individual regimes have an open licence to quieten any dissent.

As for regimes having an open licence, I would have to disagree to a large extent, while admitting that definitions of terrorism, be they Western or Islamic, can be manipulated or misinterpreted as needed.
Why do I disagree, in general?
Because a large number of nations do have definitions for terrorism, as indicated here:
Terrorism: Western Perspective
Terrorism: Islamic Perspective

So in short, national definitions are not an issue, and in some degrees, neither is mild international definitions. The issue is that the UN can not, and has not after decades, come to an agreed upon definition.
Quite frankly that is sad to near ludicrous, but nothing surprising, either.




seekerof

[edit on 14-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I don't really understand the resolution, surely inciting terrorism, murder, death, mayhem, thats illegal in any UN member state anyways no??



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 08:57 PM
link   

I certainly would have thought so myself, Nygdan.





seekerof



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
So does this mean Pat RObertson is going to court/jail?

What is Inciting Terrorism, calling for a president to be assassanated? Like the arabs call for Bush? Then Patty Boy needs to go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.



posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Then Patty Boy needs to go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars.


Yes he does! Where can we send him soap on a rope?



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Interesting, how does this gel with America's First Amendment? Will America subjugate its constitution to the will of the UN? If it does I will be very surprised. And as mentioned, Pat Robertson would of fallen foul of this new resolution.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
WOO HOO...the UN has banned something, that will make it all better.

Just like when they told Saddam to leave Kuwait and when they told him to let thier weapons inspectors in...did it work??? Nope!



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Notice that they didn't pass this 'ban on terrorism' while their
pet perv Arafat was still alive. If they had passed the ban while
he was still doing his nasty deeds, then it would have put him
out of business.

(either that or Arafat would have ignored the UN pronouncement,
just as most folks around the world seem to)



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Interesting, how does this gel with America's First Amendment?

Its irrelevant, since the law is redundant in the US. The 1st ammendment does not permit anyone, at anytime, to call for the lynching, mobbing, murdering, of anyone, or even to call for the destruction of private and public property. You cannot do terrorism without murder, mayhem, and destruction.


Will America subjugate its constitution to the will of the UN?

More likely its the other way around.


If it does I will be very surprised. And as mentioned, Pat Robertson would of fallen foul of this new resolution.

He's probably been afoul of the law in the US since he made the comment, let alone this resolution.


I'm completely at a loss as to how iran and syria are supposed to comply with this. It seems that Hamas is now illegal globally. So is the IRA and so are the Orangemen for that matter.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by Nygdan]



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join