When it comes right down to it, our involvement with the UN is unconstitutional.







Our government officials are to be elected by American citizens, and the UN clearly is not.

Mr. Anon and his whack pack never have and never will represent us. They need to realize this.

Why won't we sign on to the world court? Because we can't. Every American has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers.

The UN wants control of our soldiers for "peace-keeping" missions. Well, our military is not a military of peace, they are a military of death. And it is unconstitutional for an American soldier to wear any uniform other than a US Government issued uniform (made in China, of course).

The UN is the joke of the world, and we need to sever ties ASAP.

Here's the highlights of the UN Commission on Human Rights:
China
Cuba
Mexico
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
Zimbabwe

Who can take that seriously?

Let's get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US.

Mike

Fundamentally, I agree with you, Mike. Our Constitution, as you clearly show, does not permit us to participate in the United Nations because it disenfranchises Americans and usurps the powers of Congress.

Historically, we have a little problem, though. It goes back to 1945, and the 79th Congress. This Congress had a majority of democrats in both the House and Senate. Additionally, our President was a democrat (FDR for the historically ignorant). Thus, there was little dissention in American political opinion at the time.

Roosevelt, in his usual bizarre mix of imperialism and socialism, was one of the masterminds behind the establishment of the UN. Believe it or not, Roosevelt properly followed the Constitution when he asked the Congress to vote on our participation in this union.

It was the 79th Congress who seriously violated our Constitution by usurping the enfranchisment rights of Americans. The resolution passed by that Congress can be found at: United Nations Organization The most disturbing part of this resolution is the fact that the Congress leaves it up to the President to appoint our UN delegates. Obviously, this violates Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, by relieving us of our right to a republican form of government.

Given today's love of power as is so often displayed by our current Congress, it is somewhat difficult to fathom why they would have so easily given up power. We must remember the world was at war and this was a time of crisis. Acting out of fear has often produced results that violate civil rights (the UN, McCarthyism, the Patriot Act...).

The solution to this "problem" of UN participation is up to the American people. We will need to stress to our representatives that our current UN participation is illegal. We must stress that they repeal the current language in this resolution. For those of you actually interested in doing so, America's Debate provides links to your US representative on our Resources Page

Time to kick the UN out of the USA. For you lefties, lemme say this: we retain the right(s) to war, not the UN. So shaddap.

After today's news on Iraq and the UN, it is time to deem the United Nations as a belligerent entity.

GODDAMNIT!!!

Personally I feel the United Nations has become useless. It is, as they say, a debating forum. Things have been moving this way for years.

I find it amusing, and *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***-offing (if that's a word), that the LIBERALS want to apply the Constitution to the Iraqi Republican Guard and such but not our own citizens.

Anti UN Rant for the day:

Why should power be shifted to the UN, which is led by dictators?

The UN is a major step in "getting along with others." I am ashamed that members of my country feel that other countries are not important. I am ashamed that members of my country are only thinking of themselves. Where did anyone say we need the UN's okay to go to war? The UN has no real power.

Zucker-
I'm curious- to whom was this directed?

Someone in this forum or to Americans in general?

Thanks,
Jaime

It was aimed towards Americans in general that feel that way.

Hey Zucker, welcome to the board.

While I understand your point in regards to the UN being a good step in "getting along with others", I have to wonder if we actually need to get along with others.

We are the world leader. We don't need to solicit approval from lesser nations, they need to solicit approval from us.

I don't think that other nations are not important. I think that we should listen to their opinions, and use that to make our independent decison.

My problem with the UN lies in the fact that it is simply unconstitutional. American soldiers need to wear American uniforms and fight American wars under American generals.

Mike

You need the UN because 'getting along with others' is the difference between dictatorship and democracy.

Hitler pulled out of 'The League of Nations' in order to do his own thing.

If you pull out of the UN to do your own thing what does that make you?.

Poor misguided wittle Alan. All those years most obviously wasted on booze. Hee hee hee. Alan, it is one thing to get along with one another. It is another that we should KISS YOUR DAMN *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. ***.

Uggh. I need a motrin. Wait till tommorrow for worthwhile commentary.

As I understand it the UN is not unconstitutional, through something of a technicality. Agreements made with the UN are classified as treaties. According to the Constitution treaty are second only to the Constution in importance.

To the more difficult issue of the usefulness of the UN, the UN does enormous humanitarian good. However when the going gets tough (Iraq, Israel-PLO, India-Pakistan). They tend to pass resolutions with no intent to enforce them, this is a MAJOR problem.

John Proia, remove that personal attack against Alan or I'll edit it. Thanks.

Alan, you speak of the difference between dictatorship and democracy, and of "getting along with others" as a determining factor.

I don't get it.

Why are we instantly a dictatorship if we don't allow other countries to tell us what to do?

We elected our President (not open for debate in this thread), and he acts on behalf of the American people. If he's out of line, Congress and the media (ugh.) will let him know.

I'll go so far as to say that by your logic, the UN itself is a dictatorship. They don't get along with everyone, and in particular us. They're certainly not a democracy. So, Alan, why should the USA try to get along with the dictatorial UN?

And Turnea:

I understand they use a litigious loophole to justify our participation in the UN, but I read the Constitution. If we didn't elect them, they don't represent us. The Constitution should supercede anything that Congress decides should be the law of the day. It is not a living and breathing document.

We have had US soldiers Court Marshalled due to the fact that they refused to wear a UN uniform, and they refused to take orders from UN leadership (UN leadership - there's an oxymoron for you). This is not right, and it's unconstitutional, no matter what laws the "experts" in Congress have had their staffers write.

And the UN is far from doing enormous humanitarian good. Look who is on the UN Commission on Human Rights:

China
Cuba
Mexico
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
Zimbabwe

By allowing those countries to be heard in relation to human rights hinders their progress.

How's this for an example? In the early 1990s, the Chinese government purchased blood from peasants. They used unsterilized equipment. Thousands have contracted AIDS from these bloodbanks.

OK, so China may have made a mistake.

But then again, they only admitted it happened after Dr. Wan Yanhai, an AIDS activist, made this information public. So what did the humanitarian nation of China do? The arrested the doctor for revealing state secrets.

Mike

i think the UN is kind of anti american, most of the world is and its looking like political democrats are feeding the fire. i think it goes along with the constitution that we are allowed to be in the UN, but to protect america and the constitution ABOVE ALL. and if they dont support us((like with going to iraq)), then it is are obligation to do what we have to.

The UN just doesn't make any sense.

There are entirely too many nations which belong for whom it is simply a device to rail at the US and the developed world while accomplishing absolutely nothing. The Human Rights panel is a complete farce. When nations like Sudan, where enslaving non-Muslims is legal, are on it, it serves no purpose.

What I would propose is a different agency more akin to the old Congress system of the 19th century. A group of large, powerful nations get together and hammer out their differences. It would be the US, the PRC, Brazil, Germany, Britain, Russia, Japan, India. These are all large, powerful nations, essentially regional superpowers with large economies. Events that happen around the world affect these nations in a way that other smaller nations are not. Thus, at some point, these nations have to exhibit greater responsibility. Its decisions would not be binding unless all members agreed to be bound on that individual decision. This is not a rehash of the G-7 because some of the nations I've mentioned are LDCs, like India or Brazil. Some G-7 members like Italy and France are merely redundant. Including second-level economies like Australia, Canada, Holland, Argentina, South Korea, Israel would merely crowd the room. Nations that just stand around and whine while doing nothing like the Scandanavian nations should have no place. The despotic, sclerotic, backward, shrinking regimes of the Arab world have no place there.

The idea should be that stability is important around the world for the large states. Thus, they would be encouraged to work together for a rational trading, financial and development system. Because of the diversity of the group, the interests of LDCs would be represented which is the main flaw of the G-7. However, because all the nations mentioned are players in the global economy and not just recipients of global largesse, even the LDCs would not use the occasion of meetings to get on a soapbox.

Nations that are not represented could form their own associations or form agreements independently with group members and have their concerns brought in that way. The notion that any serious person should have to listen to such lesser lights as Kofi Annan, Mary Robinson, Boutros-Boutros-Boutros-Boutros-Boutros Ghali, or Kurt Waldheim is ludicrous. The notion that NYC should be infested with gangsters and terrorists masquerading as diplomats because of an unwieldy and overstaffed cankersore called the UN is insane.

Mike.

A little late getting back on this one.

America may well be the most powerfull nation in the World but there are members of the UN who can hurt the mainland, both economically and physically.

And America knows it.

By all means pull out and persue an isolationist policy.
By all means do whatever America wants to do when it wants to do it.

But remember you WILL make more enemies and no matter how powerfull you are you still need the World, it's resouces, its money and on occasions its help.

History is littered with the carcases of powerful nations that imagined they 'could do their own thing' regardless.

The UN has no power as such. That rests in the hands of the member nations. But what it does do is give an indication of World opinion and the world is not yet 'Planet America'.

Think hard.


Regards.....Alan.

Furthermore.

American foreign debts and foreign investments in America are enormous.
The balance of payments, import export imbalance is dreadful.
America is the worlds largest debtor.

Have a look at this.
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat.htm

When it comes down to the bottom line it will always be money that has the last word.
Some of those Nations in the UN are able to put huge financial and multinational pressure on America.
America is in no position to ignore them.

Two things to bear in mind here.
One of which falls into the 'Catch 22' bracket.

World currency is tied to the American dollar. Thus if the dollar goes down the rest follow. The world financial system cannot allow that and needs to constantly prop it up despite the spiralling debts.

America has the most powerful military in the World that can be used in many ways.
Three of which are....
To fix the balance of payments problem by force of arms.
To police the world on behalf of the powerful multinationals.
For mainland defence.

The Administrations may well give the orders but International banks and foreign multinationals hold the purse strings.

Regards....Alan.

Alan,

You keep repeating a lie over and over and over. The rest of the world is NOT supporting American debt. It is, rather quite the opposite. You need to do some further research. There is a correlation between GNP and debt. Look harder..and look with an open mind.

Darcaine

Sir,

I would respectfully diagree with your comments.

If our elected officials agree to enter agreements with other nations, and agree on certain actions triggered by specific events or conditions, I don't see how that goes against the constitution or threatens our sovreignity.

America would be better off if we aprrocahed the consept of "global" as more than a way to maximize profit, and worked in concert with other nations.

We have ignored and bad mouthed the UN excpet when we want them to rubber stamp some military adventure. WE have tried to force them to uphold resolutions we like, and vetoed the inforcement of ones we don't like.

We could comtribute to making the UN an effective, positive force in the world if we made a long term commitment to paying our dues, and exerting diplomatic influence in an even handed and positive way.

You're right about the human rights, but look how many human rights trashers we have supported, or had business with outside of our UN activities, our hands are no cleaner.

I have noticed that a lot of conservatives perceive us as being the victim in world ploitics, misunderstood and taken advantage of. Poor little us, the richest and most powerful nation in history....

I am 50/50 on this. The un can come into a good reason because it helps all countrys that need help such as go to war. But my other 50 is that we should ditch them because some times they dont allow us to declare war if needed

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Are you suggesting that our UN delegates should be elected or are you somehow implying that the UN is a part of our government? The fact is that the UN is no more than a collection of sovereign nations (something which it's unlikely our Founders could have foreseen). It has no independent power or authority and certainly has nothing to do with how we govern our own country.

It's also important to remember that the UN's policies and objectives can only be those the US directs (along with the other permanent Security Council members) and that we are one of the few member states which has the power of unilateral veto. One of the consequences of this, of course, is that it makes no sense to blame the UN for failed policies in places like Somalia and Bosnia. They were our policies - the UN was (and usually is) an extension of the US - not the other way around. This also means that we don't have a realistic option of turning over to the UN those problems we do not want to deal with ourselves. One of the ironies of the US in relation to the UN is that we want it both ways. We are delighted to rely on the UN when it comes to something like CIVPOL and the international policing of borders, smuggling, narcotics trafficking, and international money laundering. We are not so happy on the very rare occasions when the UN is pushing for something which the US opposes - like the attempt to curb the international trade in small arms.


Again, an international court is hardly something which our Founders could have foreseen, but this is one of those things which we as a nation helped define. Prior to WWII, there was no notion of "crimes against humanity" and no forum for the trial of international war criminals. The US was instrumental in setting this precedent at Nuremberg. Clearly, in relation to Nazi war crimes, we supported such a court.

Trial by a jury of one's peers is a right guaranteed when those crimes are municipal, state, or federal - when the crime is committed on US soil - and we have courts to address crime on each of those levels. But, when it comes to international crime, it is a different story. If one commits a crime in a foreign country, one is subject to the laws of that country. Were one to commit a crime against humanity (such as war crimes), it is arguable that one should be subject to the laws of the world community. Without an international court, a country like the US could wreak havoc with impunity - overthrowing governments of which we disapprove, participating in acts of genocide for the sake of dubious allies, assassinating foreign heads of state. In fact, we have done all of these things - and only a world court could possibly deal with those responsible.


According to the UN Participation Act, our military can be deployed to noncombative details with UN peace-keeping forces at the discretion of the President. And this is something I would endorse. The UN is able to run traditional peace-keeping operations - such as the one on Cyprus - where there is a peace to keep with a degree of success. But as an institution composed of sovereign nations, I feel that the UN lacks the material and organizational resources required to conduct peace enforcement missions which are roughly the same as conventional combat operations. Peace enforcement is a job best left to multinational coalitions or, where our interests require, unilateral US action.

The same distinction should determine whether and when US forces should serve under UN command - again, as defined by the UN Participation Act (and, especially, the Amendments of 1949). It ought to matter less if US forces serve under a UN commander in traditional peacekeeping operations since the threat of violence is low. For related reasons, there ought to be far less need for US combat personnel to participate at all in such traditional peacekeeping operations - and, indeed, we are limited, by US law, to one thousand troops. I don't know of any case where US military personnel have worn any uniform but those of America's armed forces (though there was an incident in which the Army issued UN insignia to troops serving in Macedonia and some soldiers being awarded UN service medals in Yugoslavia, which caused a bit of a stir in Congress).



I believe that the UN has the potential to support US policies in a variety of ways. The UN can deal with a crisis in a manner which serves US interests, but does not require direct US involvement. The UN is also a mechanism for cost-sharing. Granted, the US currently is charged nearly one-third of the costs of every UN peacekeeping operation, but that is still less than the costs of going it alone in a unilateral US operation. Most importantly, the UN is often seen to occupy the moral high ground - which is where we prefer to be as a nation. The UN seal of approval often makes the critical political difference between the success and failure of our initiatives by determining whether other countries - including our allies - will join with us, speak out against us, or just sit on the sidelines. Even the UN sanctions against Iraq and their weapons inspection program is endorsing the idea that the US is the good guy and that Hussein is the one who needs to be watched.

Ultimately, the UN is what the US makes it. We can either make it an effective ally of US foreign policy by exercising leadership within the Security Council or we can use it as a scapegoat for our own mistakes and dumping ground for problems we want to ignore. In the latter regard, I would argue that many of the criticisms leveled at the UN would be more accurately directed at ourselves.

I do feel that Congress should be more involved in the decision to become involved in any UN actions (which would, if nothing else, encourage the administration to proceed more cautiously) as this would be more in keeping with the Congressional right to declare wars - which our Presidents have been tending to disregard anyway.

Bottom line: the UN could be an important part of a US strategy to advance American interests, but it can never be a substitute for sound US policy and strong leadership.

I'm pretty nuetral on the UN. One false move, and I'll write them off completely.

I don't really think Mike was implying that UN should be elected, and was certainly not implying they should be a part of our gov't.

I think what he was getting at, is the how unconstitutional the UN is becoming, and our involvement with it.

Take the ICC for instance, almost NONE of the rights given to a criminal in the constitution, apply to the ICC. The ICC goes against EVERYTHING the constitution stands for.

The constitution says the fedral gov't makes the laws, not the UN, not treaties, but we the people. The fedral gov't is the final authority, and if there is anything above that authority, it threatens our soverignty.

--cheers

With Americas involvement the U.N. was created.

It was created with the intention of allowing the nations of the World to work together.
The U.N. Security Council is an offshoot of it.

This Council stopped the current American elected paranoiac from kicking 'ten shades of s##t', right there and then, of anyone who he saw as being against him, his mates and his honour.

Thinking time, calming down time.

America was welcomed to the World on 9/11 but many of us have already paid the price of meddling.

Regards.......Alan

Nor do I. I just wasn't sure what he meant by "Our government officials are to be elected by American citizens, and the UN clearly is not." Obviously, the UN does not equate to "our government officials" - nor does the UN in any way set US policy on anything. Quite the opposite, in fact - the UN can do nothing without the consent of the US. And I'm certain he wasn't implying that American citizens should be electing UN delegates in general. So I just wasn't sure what his primary objection was.


Perhaps. But the ICC does not pertain to US laws. And US laws certainly don't apply to international crime or crimes against humanity. If we are to participate in global politics - and we must - we need to acknowledge at some stage that, difficult though it may be for some of us to accept, the US does not rule all the other nations of the world. Nor, contrary to the desires of many, can we stand alone. Even our Founders entered into binding treaties with other nations.


The federal government makes laws relating to its member states and the citizens thereof - and is the final authority within the boundaries of this republic. Surely you're not suggesting that the US federal government is the final authority in the world - are you?

no no no no no. Of course not. But it is the final authority for any legal citizen.


(emphasis added)

You said it yourself. A citizen of this country should be tried/convicted/punished in this country by our laws. Not the ICC's or anyone elses for that matter. Thats all I'm saying.

--cheers

...BUT, correct me if I'm wrong, if you break a law in another country, you are subject to their laws, their legal system, and their punishment, hence the whole situation with the teenager that was caned a few years ago (I can't remember what country that was off the top of my head) for vandalizing cars.

Singapore.

And its silly to think that American law should dominate. As already stated, if you are in a different country and break its laws, you are going to recieve a punishment according to that country. Its ridiculous to think "Oh, well their not a citizen, we'll let them get punished back home." We do the same thing, such as with that Mexican drug dealer (?) who got executed. He broke our laws, Mexico wanted him sent back and we refused because we were to dole out the punishment.

ICC is needed. Then maybe Kissinger would finally get the punishement he deserves.

I hate to use a word over and over again, but conceptually the UN is a step forward. Trying to connect the powers and ruling with a more diverse crowd.

ugh

No, that kid (I forget his name) that was caned in Singapore, should not have been extradited back to the US. And honestly, I strongly opposed Clinton when he asked the gov't of Singapore to go easy on him. Or whatever... (its been a while)

The ICC is still not needed even in his case. When he broke the law in Singapore, he was punished in Singapore under Singapore law. The ICC would still not have jurisdiction.

Any of those people against the death penelty, and think that criminals should have more rights, really ought to look deeper into the ICC. You might be suprised at what you find.

--cheers

You missed the point. Of course that kid should have been tried under Singapore's law, because he committed a crime in Singapore.

What it seems that you (and those against the UN and the ICC) are saying is that because youre an American citizen you should only be held to American standards, which is why Singapore was brought up in the first place. Obviously the Constitution doesnt apply to ALL American citizens, especially if you commit a crime in a forgien country.

And this is the reason for the ICC. There are these things called "crimes against humanity" or "war crimes" which dont fall under a forgien country's law, but should still be considered. They arent crimes committed specifically on a certain country, they deal with the international community. If an American, oh lets say Henry Kissinger, were caught and brought to trial, should the Bill or Rights apply to him, even though his crimes span across a few different nations? Or should there be an international court proceeding, with a few different nations involved to mete out his punishment?

Again.....and ...Again all we get is justice according to the American rules.

There are nations that have rules that have existed many times longer than Americas rules.

If America leaves them alone and stops messing around with them perhaps the World will eventually find equilibriam.

Regards.......Alan

Thank you for clarifying, Kim. You said that more eloquently than I could have. American citizens should be held to the laws of the country that they are in at any given time, and because we all exist on the same planet, there is a need for international law and an international court. There are some situations that shouldn't be dealt with internally by any nation because of the natural bias that exists.

Right now, we have US troops under UN command.

Could someone please point out how that is Constitutional?

Mike

It's a seperate treaty. Would you prefer we back out of the U.N. so that we are free to start wars wherever we see fit?

Could someone answer my actual question now? Preferrably citing the portion of the Constitution that allows our soldiers to be subject to foreign command...

The U.S. government volunteers its forces to the U.N. after being involved in a negotiating process for each peace keeping mission, and at no time, are the soldiers required to swear allegiance to the United Nations. They are always under U.S. control, and they continue to wear U.S. military uniforms.

Additionally, as a permanent member of the security council, we can veto any peace keeping operation.

The answer was...it isn't part of the Constitution...nor does it have to be for it to be valid.

From the Constitution of the United States of America:
"Article I. Section 8...
Clause 12: [The Congress shall have Power] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;"

It would appear that Congress is authorized to "make Rules" regarding our armed forces, which I imagine would include legislation like the 1946 United Nations Participation Act and the 1949 Amendment to the United Nations Participation Act, which includes the following:

Even more dubious, I would have thought, would be our participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (1949) and the Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (1954), both of which placed US troops permanently under the command of treaty organizations - including combat.


That said, is there anything in our Constitution which restricts how our troops might be deployed or with whom they may participate in cooperative action or how they may be detailed in combatant or noncombatant capacities? For that matter, where does the Constitution expressly demand that American soldiers wear American uniforms and fight American wars under American generals?

That's what I'd like to know. The way that I understand it, the constitution gives congress the power to make those decisions.

The United Nations provides the opportunity to resolve international problems without using war. It does not have the ability to stop the United States from acting unilaterally and attacking other countries. It does have the power to pass a non-Security Council resolution condemning such aggression.

The United Nations is a useful organization and even though we presently have the power to act however we would like whenever we would like, it is in our best interest to learn to play well with others.

The United Nations, I give it two thumbs up!

Whatever happened to the Monroe Doctrine? It is time, militarily, we leave Europe and the Mid-East to Europe and the Mid-East. Free trade should be the extent of our alliances.

We still use the Monroe Doctrine. Who has been allowed in the western hemisphere during the 20th century. We still use balance of power foreign policy (NATO) we just don't need to toss out collective security. The UN does not bind the US to action unless we allow it to.