United Nations untouchable?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Hey folks, It's my first thread, so please go easy on me.

I was browsing through the Wikileaks disappointment today when I happened across a statement that made my jaw hit the floor:

"The 1946 UN convention on privileges and immunities states: ‘The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action."

Inviolable...period. You may not proceed against the UN in a court of law, or it's property, or assets.

You might want to read the definition of 'person' in Black's Law...and you will find that this SEEMINGLY extends to UN 'PERSONnel'.

I am aghast, and see the UN in a whole different light.

SOURCE
edit on 29/11/2010 by quietone77 because: Bad link




posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
That is crazy. I was looking through the wikileaks earlier and I didn't see that. But it makes sense if you think about it. They would have to make sure they are untouchable in case something illegal that they may have done comes out in the open. They would get away with it. Not saying they have done anything like that but you never really know.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by quietone77
I am aghast, and see the UN in a whole different light.


All that means is the UN is just like a foreign embassy, and those who work there have diplomatic immunity. Just like all the USA's and all other countries embassies and diplomats around the world



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ucantcme
 


Well there is the whole theory about UN troops on home soil....this gives it a whole new perspective, to me...
If the cops kick my door without just cause or Warrant, I have recourse...if a Blue Helmet does it, seems I have no recourse...scary stuff



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


No offense, but I think you need to read it a little closer. I get the whole diplomatic thing, but I read that it extends much further...



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by quietone77
 


Yes very scary stuff but that's the world we live in. Nothing we can do about it. Whatever happens, happens.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ucantcme
 


I don't see it that way...I did, once...when I was younger. I refuse to take any part of it, whatever the cost may be.

One small candle, right?

Lester B would be rolling in his grave...maybe lol.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by quietone77
 


The UN is a lame duck organization..
It can't be anything else while it still allows veto votes..

Democracy at it's worst.....



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Agreed, for the MOST part.

They do seem to push a good portion of global agenda though (WHO etc)

Begs the question, if the security council is innefective, what is the real purpose of the UN? I dont see any mediation in the current Korean issue (even though it was a UN mess to begin with)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by quietone77
 


To truely understand the UN it is best to look at what actions were vetoed rather than what was passed..
The true identity of the UN lies there..IMO



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
It seems all governments are untouchable and not responsible for anything
they do,so why not the UN.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quasi
It seems all governments are untouchable and not responsible for anything
they do,so why not the UN.


True..Secrecy is the new norm, for national security of course..

No one outside of Government knows WTF is going on...





top topics
 
0

log in

join