US vetoes UN resolution against Yassin's assassin

[KipWellsFan]

from cbc.ca

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/25/world/yassin_un040325

 

U.S. vetoes UN resolution against Yassin's assassination

Last Updated Fri, 26 Mar 2004 7:17:48

UNITED NATIONS - After days of debate, the United States quashed a United Nations Security Council resolution Thursday criticizing Israel's assassination of Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin.

 

 

INDEPTH: Middle East

 

The U.S. veto was slammed by critics as a blanket endorsement of assassinations by Israel. Countries cannot go around killing people who haven't been prosecuted and convicted, they said, because the policy violates international law.

 

John Negroponte (file photo)

 

During the debate, Washington had insisted that the UN resolution also condemn violence by Hamas and other groups.

 

"Israel's action has escalated tensions in Gaza and the region … but events must be considered in their context," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said.

 

 

BACKGROUND: Sheik Ahmed Yassin

 

The U.S. was the only member of the 15-seat Security Council to vote against the resolution. Three countries – Britain, Germany and Romania – abstained, while 11 voted in favour, including China, Russia and France.

 

 

FROM MARCH 22, 2004: Hamas vows 'open war' over Yassin's death

 

 

FROM MARCH 22, 2004: U.S. says it had no advance knowledge of assassination

 

Yassin was killed in a missile strike in the Gaza Strip on Monday. The spiritual leader of Hamas had urged militants to use suicide bombings and other violence to establish a Palestinian state in the region.

 

To be honest I don't really know enough about the whole situation to make a concrete judgement. But on one hand what Israel did was violating international, and on the other hand they seem to be just protecting their people against a man who has urged suicide bombings and other violence to get a Palestinian state.

 

Can't they all just pass around the reefer and not worry and be happy.

[mmmmmbeeer]

I believe international law prohibits the assassination of government officials. Yassin was the "spiritual" leader of a terrorist organization with absolutely no government affiliation. He is therefore exempt from becoming an "assassination" victim. Was he murdered in cold blood? Certainly. I don't think the UN should be condemning nations for the murder of terrorists, quadripalegic or not.

[cwsox]

I don't think the UN should be condemning nations for the murder of terrorists, quadripalegic or not.

 

If Syria considers Bush a terrorist, are they free to kill him with no condemnation from the UN because they are killing a terrorist?

 

I am certainly not advocating anything.

 

I am saying think thius through from an international perspective since the whole world is not us.

 

What Israel did should IMO be condemned because it was an act of pouring gasoline onto a fire.

[mreye]

I am certainly advocating anything.

typo, I hope.

[southsider2k5]

My question is how many UN resolutions are out there after each suicide bombing? Are those lives any less important? I guess according to the UN, they are. The Palestinian "government" is sending people over to kill Israeli citizens, just like the Israel government sent it troops over to kill Yassin.

[cwsox]

typo, I hope.

typo

 

fixed

 

[cwsox]

My question is how many UN resolutions are out there after each suicide bombing?  Are those lives any less important?  I guess according to the UN, they are.  The Palestinian "government" is sending people over to kill Israeli citizens, just like the Israel government sent it troops over to kill Yassin.

that's unfair geopolitical and realistic analogy

 

the difference is the same as killing me (not incendiary) and killing Kerry - we are both human being but the political significance of the acts are very different

 

killing a leader of Hamas is incendiary

 

there is a not a resolution every time Paletstinians are killed either

 

but if Hamas takes out Sharon, then you will have thew quid pro quo and that be likewise be... incendiary? just revenge? what?

[southsider2k5]

that's unfair geopolitical and realistic analogy

 

the difference is the same as killing me (not incendiary) and killing Kerry - we are both human being but the political significance of the acts are very different

 

killing a leader of Hamas is incendiary

 

there is a not a resolution every time Paletstinians are killed either

 

but if Hamas takes out Sharon, then you will have thew quid pro quo and that be likewise be... incendiary?  just revenge?  what?

Sure its incindary.

 

So is sending 12 year olds as suicide bombers, the UN hasn't acted on that lately.

 

So is blowing up entire buses of people. There wasn't a UN resolution on that.

 

So is sneaking suicide bombers into a port city for the express purpose of blowing up chemicals, I must have missed the UN resolution on that one.

 

So are all of the statements that Yassin made that are counter to so many UN resolutions.

 

 

My point is Israel didn't execute Yassin in a vacuum, yet the UN seems to be operating in one.

[cwsox]

Sure its incindary. 

 

So is sending 12 year olds as suicide bombers, the UN hasn't acted on that lately. 

 

So is blowing up entire buses of people.  There wasn't a UN resolution on that. 

 

So is sneaking suicide bombers into a port city for the express purpose of blowing up chemicals, I must have missed the UN resolution on that one.

 

So are all of the statements that Yassin made that are counter to so many UN resolutions.

 

 

My point is Israel didn't execute Yassin in a vacuum, yet the UN seems to be operating in one.

I disagree with you.

 

You are leaving out a whole half of the conflict.

 

And you are leaving out a lot of UN work.

[southsider2k5]

I disagree with you.

 

You are leaving out a whole half of the conflict.

 

And you are leaving out a lot of UN work.

The UN is leaving out half of the conflict, that is my point. Yes I am highlighting the other side of the coinm because that seems to be missing. They seem to do a good job of bringing Israel to the floor for its actions, yet I don't see them doing the same for similar actions on behalf of the Palestinians

 

I actually went back and looked at the UN resolutions since 2003. The last time Palestinian terror was mentioned was in the context of them living up to the terms of the Roadmap. No condemnations for any their bombings.

[KipWellsFan]

The UN is leaving out half of the conflict, that is my point.  Yes I am highlighting the other side of the coinm because that seems to be missing.  They seem to do a good job of bringing Israel to the floor for its actions, yet I don't see them doing the same for similar actions on behalf of the Palestinians

 

I actually went back and looked at the UN resolutions since 2003.  The last time Palestinian terror was mentioned was in the context of them living up to the terms of the Roadmap.  No condemnations for any their bombings.

This issue is very fuzzy to me but how can the UN and why would they condemn Palestine bombings if they aren't a part of the United Nations.

 

Lol, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about.

[southsider2k5]

This issue is very fuzzy to me but how can the UN and why would they condemn Palestine bombings if they aren't a part of the United Nations.

 

Lol, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about.

I don't exactly how that works, but there are multiple mentions of Palestine in recent UN resolutions. So the UN at least tries to have some kind of a say.

[mmmmmbeeer]

If Syria considers Bush a terrorist, are they free to kill him with no condemnation from the UN because they are killing a terrorist?

 

I am certainly not advocating anything.

 

I am saying think thius through from an international perspective since the whole world is not us.

 

What Israel did should IMO be condemned because it was an act of pouring gasoline onto a fire.

They're free to kill Bush but it would be an assassination. The UN has every right to condemn the assassination of GWB being he is a head of state and a government official. The point of my post was that this should not be looked upon as an assassination according to international policy. Yassin was NOT a head of state and belonged to a terrorist organization with absolutely no affiliation to a RECOGNIZED government.

[YASNY]

If Syria considers Bush a terrorist, are they free to kill him with no condemnation from the UN because they are killing a terrorist?

 

I am certainly not advocating anything.

 

I am saying think thius through from an international perspective since the whole world is not us.

 

What Israel did should IMO be condemned because it was an act of pouring gasoline onto a fire.

If Syria attempted to kill Bush, a UN resolution would be the least of their concerns. Syria soon becoming a smoking black spot would be a bit higher on their list of things to worry about.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

If Syria attempted to kill Bush, a UN resolution would be the least of their concerns.  Syria soon becoming a smoking black spot would be a bit higher on their list of things to worry about.

Well said.

[Texsox]

A better example than Bush, would be does anyone mind if Mexico sends an Apache and missle down Main Street San Diego to take out a fugitive and a couple other Americans?

 

Six other people died in the blast, with at least two having no known association with the Hamas leader.

 

I wsh Israel cold have captured him, held a fair trail, then killed him.

 

Do not simultanously need world help and thumb your nose at International Law.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

A better example than Bush, would be does anyone mind if Mexico sends an Apache and missle down Main Street San Diego to take out a fugitive and a couple other Americans?

 

Six other people died in the blast, with at least two having no known association with the Hamas leader.

 

I wsh Israel cold have captured him, held a fair trail, then killed him.

 

Do not simultanously need world help and thumb your nose at International Law.

If they mounted an operation to capture the guy then I guarantee you there would have been a bloodbath in the streets & a lot more innocent people would have died than 2.

[Texsox]

If they mounted an operation to capture the guy then I guarantee you there would have been a bloodbath in the streets & a lot more innocent people would have died than 2.

Nuke, are there any laws you believe in?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Nuke, are there any laws you believe in?

Capture = more death

 

Missile = surgical hit

 

 

If you tried to capture the guy with a commando raid that would have led to a street fight with his security detail & a lot of people would have died & it would have had the effect of swatting a fly with a sledge hammer.

 

You guys whine all the time about civillian deaths but doing the surgical hit with a missile is a lot less deadly to the innocent than starting a gun battle right there on a crowded street.

[cwsox]

Capture = more death

 

Missile = surgical hit

 

 

If you tried to capture the guy with a commando raid that would have led to a street fight with his security detail & a lot of people would have died & it would have had the effect of swatting a fly with a sledge hammer. 

 

You guys whine all the time about civillian deaths but doing the surgical hit with a missile is a lot less deadly to the innocent than starting a gun battle right there on a crowded street.

and to recall history, Saddam did try to assassinate Bush 1 and Clinton responded with missiles for that

 

missiles took out things important to Saddam. In fact all of Clinton's missile strikes against Iraq may well have a major part in why no more WOMD, Clinton took them out.

 

So Nuke you support Clinton firing the cruise missiles after bin laden based on your comment, cool! Shame that bin laden was to fast on the move and the delay between targeting and strike is what it is and the drone missile thing never worked, but the attempts were made that met with your approval, cool!

 

funny, isn't it my friend that everyone involved in the first WTC got convicted and jailed under Clinton

 

and from the embassy bombings and Cole, Clinton made efforts via your weapon of choice, the cruise missile, to get bin laden and people make fun of Clinton for not getting bin Laden while Bush ahs had the same amount of time (2 1/2 years from embassy bombings to end of term, same for 9-11 to now) and Buish hasn't even got a shot off at him - and people make fun of Clinton for not doing in the same time period what Bush has not done.

 

politics is so silly isn't it

[kapkomet]

politics is so silly isn't it

You could never say anything else as profound as that!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

and to recall history, Saddam did try to assassinate Bush 1 and Clinton responded with missiles for that

 

missiles took out things important to Saddam.  In fact all of Clinton's missile strikes against Iraq may well have a major part in why no more WOMD, Clinton took them out.

 

So Nuke you support Clinton firing the cruise missiles after bin laden based on your comment, cool! Shame that bin laden was to fast on the move and the delay between targeting  and strike is what it is and the drone missile thing never worked, but the attempts were made that met with your approval, cool!

 

funny, isn't it my friend that everyone involved in the first WTC got convicted and jailed under Clinton

 

and from the embassy bombings and Cole, Clinton made efforts via your weapon of choice, the cruise missile, to get bin laden and people make fun of Clinton for not getting bin Laden while Bush ahs had the same amount of time (2 1/2 years from embassy bombings to end of term,  same for 9-11 to now) and Buish hasn't even got a shot off at him - and people make fun of Clinton for not doing in the same time period what Bush has not done.

 

politics is so silly isn't it

Is this the same Bin Laden that Sudan wanted to hand over to us back in 1996 and Clinton told them to go bug off? Just checking in case there is more than one terrorist mastermind by that name.

[mmmmmbeeer]

and to recall history, Saddam did try to assassinate Bush 1 and Clinton responded with missiles for that

 

missiles took out things important to Saddam.  In fact all of Clinton's missile strikes against Iraq may well have a major part in why no more WOMD, Clinton took them out.

I mean hell, Clinton even took out the aspirin factory that supplied Bin Laden with his aspirin. I'll be ya everytime Bin Laden has a migraine he cusses Bill Clinton and his strong stance on defense. Rumor has it that the aspirins were being laced with, gulp, ibuprofen. Thank God that factory was taken out in such a prompt and effective manner or the world may be overrun by WMDs and Sudanese aspirins.

 

Incidentally, Clinton's orders for cruise missiles to be lobbed at Iraq had more to do with covering up his perjury than it did national security. But for some reason I doubt we'll agree on that.

[Texsox]

Is this the same Bin Laden that Sudan wanted to hand over to us back in 1996 and Clinton told them to go bug off?  Just checking in case there is more than one terrorist mastermind by that name.

Damn Constitution. We need to rip that damn thing up and let Nuke run the world.

 

Nuke_Gingrich would you like to explain why Clinton did not want to take Bin Laden? IIRC you have excused GOP administrations for supporting Bin Laden and giving him weapons, but then condemn Clinton for following the constitution and not arresting Bin Laden when the US had no legal justification to do so.

 

Who should Bush arrest today because he might commit a crime in 2006? If Kerry wins, does he get a free pass on any terrorist attackes his first 9 months in office? Can we blame Bush for those?

 

Do you support the US Constitution or not?

[southsider2k5]

funny, isn't it my friend that everyone involved in the first WTC got convicted and jailed under Clinton

Bin Laden and Al Zawaheri are in jail? Since when?