posted on Mar, 5 2010 @ 07:48 PM
Originally posted by rick1
reply to post by Chevalerous
Point me to the place in the U.S. constitution where it says we need UN approval to go to war. I can't find it.
Do not mistake this post for meaning I am in favor of either war. I am in favor of the constitution.
With all respect, I'm not talking about the US constitution my friend!
I was talking about the International Law & treaties and charters the US has signed and now have broken and violated through the illegal war &
invasion of Iraq by Great Britain and the USA.
The general legal consensus 2010 is that several of those treaties, charters under Universal jurisdiction are now broken according to International
Law since the first Nürnberg treaties were signed 1945-46.
The military use of DU violates current international humanitarian law, including the principle that there is no unlimited right to choose the means
and methods of warfare (Art. 22 Hague Convention VI (HCIV); Art. 35 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva (GP1); the ban on causing unnecessary
suffering and superfluous injury (Art. 23 §le HCIV; Art. 35 §2 GP1), indiscriminate warfare (Art. 51 §4c and 5b GP1) as well as the use of poison
or poisoned weapons.
The deployment and use of DU violate the principles of international environmental and human rights protection. They contradict the right to life
established by the Resolution 1996/16 of the UN Subcommittee on Human Rights.
But you can of course tell the rest of the world to go and screw themselves and not to honour these principles and International treaties which your
own country has signed with the rest of the countries standing under Universal jurisdiction.
And then it depends on how the rest of the countries are going solve this legal dilemma since according to the treaties they are by International Law
bound to take some kind of action against the part who violated the treaties and breached the existent and valid U.N. Charter. This is the duty of
each country which have signed the treaties under Universal jurisdiction and according to existent and current International Law 2010.
But they can of course scrap all this toghether and throw it in the dustbin and go directly to new written International Law for the New World Order -
maybe this was the plan all along?
Maybe we can ask Henry Kissinger
[edit on 6-3-2010 by Chevalerous]