Reply With Quote
Correct. And the relevance of this fascinating bit of informaiton to the obligations of member states who vote in favor of creating a no-fly zone over Libya is what exactly?
I'll take that as a "no, I can't name even one single instance where the UN forced a country to go to war against it's will."
Correct. And the relevance of this fascinating bit of informaiton to the obligations of member states who vote in favor of creating a no-fly zone over Libya is what exactly?
Any treaty that demands military action conflicts with the cons ution. Good try though.
Why's that?
So the treaty underlying NATO is uncons ional?
Are you ing re ed?
Because we do not place our armed forces at the disposal of the UN unless our president deems it so. Automatically doing that by rule of law would be uncons utional.
Any treaty that obligates the US military to act is unenforceable and effectively uncons utional. That includes NATO.
You think that if France is attacked tomorrow we're obligated to defend them by law?
The relevance is that there is no such obligation.
The arab league supports the no-fly zone. How many Arab league nations are honoring your alleged obligation to participate?
Yes. Those are the terms of the treaty.
We have the ability to withdraw from NATO if we want to - much like we can withdraw from the UN.
But to claim that the terms of those treaties - which have been in effect for decades is per se uncons utional is beyond moronic.
This clause has been around since 1949: why hasn't there been a succesful legal challenge to it:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Does the treaty specifically demand military action? Or a more generic "aid"?
So the treaty pretty much says "Countries will help in the best way they see fit".
Thats what that "such actions as it deems necessary" clause means.
You can make that argument. I'd say that given the other words used in connection with that clause (i.e., attacking), along with the fact that the treaty is for a mutual defense organization, the "such actions" language only contemplates military aid.
Also, the last line indicates that all these actions are intended to restore security back to the North Atlantic. I'd say that clause modifies the earlier language to only encomplass military action as well - but not necessarily a direct military attack.
So whats the penalty if the President decides to ignore the obligation?
That's not the point.
You asked what obligates us to enforce UN mandates. I answered that. Clearly, you finally understand that we are obligated to enforce certain UN actions. The penalty for not doing so is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we're obligated in the first place.
We're not obligated. As I stated earlier, you don't understand the word you're using. There is no penalty because there is no obligation under law. Those treaties are in good faith but they don't mandate us action by any means which is easily proven by looking at the boatloads of UN resolutions we've flat out ignored when they don't suit our interests.
That seems to be a fact which escapes you.
The simple fact is, without Presidential approval there is no UN Mandate. We still have Security Council veto power.
Are they treaties that have been ratified by the US? If so, explain why Article VI does not obligate us to enforce them?
You can be obligated to do something - and - ignore that obligation at the same time. That doesn't mean you're not obligated. That means you've ignored what you're duty-bound to do. Why is this fact incapable of entering you fat ing skull?
I'd have been fine just abstaining from the vote. If France and GB want to take on Gaddafi, let 'em.
The government doesn't have the right to ignore obligations. See, this is what I mean about you not understanding how to use the word. If the US had a true legal obligation to back the UN with our military people would sue when they wanted the US military involved in a UN resolution. Of course, that would never pass because our government is not at the mercy of UN resolutions.
It may not have the right to ignore its international obligations. But it does so.
I honestly don't know how to spell it out clearer: the U.S. is obligated to enforce UN mandates just as it is obligated to defend a NATO member nation in the event it is attacked. These treaties have been around for almost half a century, and no court has declared them uncons utional.
These laws place legal obligations on the US. The fact that those laws and obligations may not be enforced is 100% irrelevant to the question of whether those obligations exist in the first place.
Plus I'm not so sure being obigated to commit US forces is uncons utional. Is it an automatic violation of the Executive's commander-in-chief power?
We're obligated to help, as we best deem necessary per the treaty. We may deem our own help as "not necessary". Or we could send a token represenative to show that we are indeed helping.
Pretty much. No other country can dictate what our military must do, for obvious reasons.
Also, the other countries COULD kick us out of NATO, but what good would it do them? They have to accept when and where we wish to help.
Actually, you're not quite getting it. The "US" isn't obligated to defend a NATO member; "NATO" is obligated. Since NATO is made up of numerous countries, they can determine how best to defend said country. The treaty doesn't require that EVERY country put in allocation of resources for EVERY defensive effort.
It's not clear, but I don't think that's what it means. Seems like it says a member can contribute military forces (i.e., join the attack) or contribute support - the choice being up to the member as it sees fit.
I wouldn't read it the "as it deems necessary" language to mean a member can do nothing at all because that would tend to negate the whole point behind an attack on one is an attack on all -- all members could then deem their support not necessary. Not likely to happen, but a possible outcome under that interpretation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions