it was designed not to do much. If you give five different nations the right to veto any action that the collective will of the global community wants to take, then you're guaranteeing that nothing will get done
Yeah, that can be so frustrating... if by some fluke the Security Council does unanimously agree on something should it be observed by everyone?
#405911 - 01/04/0907:34 PMRe: How ya diddling?
[Re: keymaker]
carp
Dino's are Babe magnets
Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 27021
Loc: Hawaii
Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
it was designed not to do much. If you give five different nations the right to veto any action that the collective will of the global community wants to take, then you're guaranteeing that nothing will get done
Yeah, that can be so frustrating... if by some fluke the Security Council does unanimously agree on something should it be observed by everyone?
km
Thats the whole point - they don't have the means to enforce it , so why anyone would observe it ?
#405914 - 01/04/0907:42 PMRe: How ya diddling?
[Re: keymaker]
carp
Dino's are Babe magnets
Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 27021
Loc: Hawaii
Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Yes if they are captured - normally suicide bombers are not...
A dash is conjunctive - you should have put a full stop there instead if you wanted to make disjunctive.
Anyway to run with what you actually meant - what should happen if someone does summarily execute a suspected terrorist instead of organising a trial - should they be prosecuted for murder?
km
In the post response box I cannot easily see the full stop "." so if you notice I tend to use a dash instead more often , maybe I'll use a double stop ..
#405933 - 01/04/0908:51 PMRe: How ya diddling?
[Re: carp]
six_of_one
Pool Bar
Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 4474
Loc: Alexandria, VA
Alternatively, if everyone observed it, there wouldn't be the need for any enforcement, n'est pas?
Of course, the chances of *everyone* agreeing to observe any single law is vanishingly small, hence the need for an effective enforcement mechanism ... which, as you point out, the UN currently lacks ...
Of course, the chances of *everyone* agreeing to observe any single law is vanishingly small, hence the need for an effective enforcement mechanism ... which, as you point out, the UN currently lacks ...
Not as I point out, no, as you pointed out, wrongly, because the enforcement mechanisms are all there as Milosevic found out. All it takes is for the nations to vote for collective military action for example or for a tribunal to put suspects on trial.
The question I asked is whether, once the SC unanimously decides on something whether all the nations have to observe it?
#405949 - 01/04/0910:16 PMRe: How ya diddling?
[Re: keymaker]
carp
Dino's are Babe magnets
Registered: 04/19/02
Posts: 27021
Loc: Hawaii
Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
I cannot easily see the full stop
I wasn't meaning to sound critical - just explaining why I misunderstood your meaning.
Quote:
Define your use of "summarily execute"
Killing someone without due process - like firing a rocket at someone praying in a mosque for example.
km
Thats called "collateral damage" I knew you were miss using the word summarily
Definition;
Quote:
collateral damage — Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack. (Joint Publication 3-60) Intent is the key element in understanding the military definition as it relates to target selection and prosecution. Collateral damage is damage aside from that which was intended. Since the dawn of precision guided munitions, military "targeteers" and operations personnel have gone to great lengths to minimize collateral damage.
<br>
Previous Topic
Index
