showing resolve at the UNSC
An interesting tidbit from the Jerusalem Post:
Jan 12, 2009 14:26 | Updated Jan 12, 2009 19:09
PM: Rice left embarrassed in UN vote
By JPOST.COM STAFF AND AP
Quote:
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday referred to the US decision to abstain from Thursday's UN Security Council resolution vote calling for a Gaza cease-fire, saying US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "was left quite embarrassed, not voting for a resolution that she herself had prepared and organized."
...
"Early Friday morning [Israel time], [we knew that] the secretary of state was considering bringing the cease-fire resolution to a UNSC vote and we didn't want her to vote for it. Suddenly, within ten minutes it became clear that, the vote was going ahead.
"I [called the White House and] said, 'Get President Bush on the phone.' They tried, and told me he was in the middle of a lecture in Philadelphia. I said, 'I'm not interested, I need to speak to him now.' He got down from the podium, went out and took the phone call. I told him that the US cannot possibly vote in favor of this resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote for it. She was left quite embarrassed."
Freeman withdraws from appointment as NIC chair
Impartiality Questioned, Intelligence Pick Pulls Out
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 11, 2009; Page A04
Quote:
Charles W. Freeman Jr. withdrew yesterday from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council after questions about his impartiality were raised among members of Congress and with White House officials.
Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said he accepted Freeman's decision "with great regret." The withdrawal came hours after Blair had given a spirited defense on Capitol Hill of the outspoken former ambassador.
Freeman had come under fire for statements he had made about Israeli policies and for his past connections to Saudi and Chinese interests.
Freeman's own frank comment on his withdrawal here.
Thanks thats what I kinda got from the article
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Entropy
His critics made two claims:
1. He was too critical or even hostile to Israel.
2. He was not trustworthy because he worked for Chinese/Saudi entities.
On the first count, that is a matter of perspective, but those who are the most supportive of Israel are the people who most opposed this appointment. His comments in the link Rex provides are pretty frank on that score.
On the second count, he denies it. I haven't seen much evidence one way or another. A lot of it seems to come down to interpretation of a few select comments he made in the past - quotes which he and DNI Blair say were taken out of context.
Just wondering if anyone here actually knew of anything specific
For some reason, I'm inclined to tolerant if not
downright supportive of folks who do not toe the party line. :D
Washington -- which hates people who do not toe lines -- could do with a few more rebels with or without causes. We've had three Administrations in a row which put way too big a premium on 'loyalty' (or subservience...).
I think Freeman's disposed to throw a grenade or two to see if everyone is paying attention. Nothing wrong with that...
A good reason not to adopt I Law en masse ...
A certain segment of the I Law "community" considers I Law to be incorporated into domestic (national) law en masse.
Another segment (the traditional US approach) looks at incorporation of I Law as a selective process, on say a treaty by treaty basis - and, in the case of the US, subject to override by the Constitution and by subsequent legislation. As such, when the US adopts I Law, it is treated like any other domestic law.
Based on the Israeli cases on targeted killings (which I've referenced somewhere in SWC), Israel appears to have followed more of an en masse approach in adopting I Law - as part of its organic, constitutional framework.
What the Norwegian lawyers are arguing is the concept of "universal jurisdiction" to try war crimes by any nation - whether it is directly affected or not. What this boils down to is that any investigating judge in a Code Law jurisdiction - or a prosecutor in a Common Law jurisdiction - can generate quite a bit of publicity and political spin if a broad "universal jurisdiction" is accepted in that jurisdiction.
Are you sitting down, Danny?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Danny
...The point is that the politicians, regardless of whomever they turn to, many of them, have a constituency that believes in the special place Israel holds. Large swaths of the South, much of the midwest and rural West, believe these things.
True and more important due to numbers than the so-called Jewish lobby. Recall the Presidents that have been the greatest supporters of Israel; Truman, Johnson and Carter...
The latter spent a great deal of our money in order to defang Israel's most dangerous enemy. His latter day shenanigans to justify his Nobel not withstanding.
Quote:
Paradoxically, when we behave like pagans as we are prone to do with the Hollywood trash traveling across the globe to their children, they see us as polluters of their culture and religion. And we are.
Also true and far more important to them than the Israel / Palestine issue.
Quote:
Many readers will be aghast at finding out that it doesn't all revolve around Israel. Their favorite whipping boy isn't really who they think it is.
Yep. A whole lot of people are focusing on the wrong targets. Plural...
Good comment, Herschel
Here's an interesting point on the issue
that I've wondered about for some time. Being a State is confining, being a group of 'stateless persons' can be rewarding -- fiscally and emotionally...
LINK