So, I've done two recent posts (Response to: "Obama on presidential war-making powers - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com" and On a US-Constitutional Declaration of War & UN Security Council Resolution 1973, Libyan No-Fly Zone) concerning the UN Security Council Libya No-Fly Zone Resolution. I then went and dug deeper to get the most relevant international law on the subject of why it's legal. My previous post dealt with why the Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) is constitutional under the US Constitution despite there not being a US Congressional Declaration of War just for this Libyan action. Now let me get into the new law and how this is the first real application of it, setting a new and better precedent, provided the UN is consistent in its application, meaning that it is used to protect peaceful demonstrators everywhere — exactly what the likes of Russia and China and others would fear (including the US under certain circumstances). Consistency is a bitch unless you love it.
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly
[without reference to a Main Committee (A/60/L.1)]
60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome
The General Assembly
Adopts the following 2005 World Summit Outcome:
2005 World Summit Outcome
Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity
138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.
139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.
Resolution 1674 (2006)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 5430th meeting,
on 28 April 2006
4. Reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity;
So, there you have it. The Security Council obligated itself to do what it is doing in Libya. Of course, even without those resolutions, the Security Council actions would be consistent with the spirit and letter of the UN purpose, which is always the measure of the legality of any actions taken under the UN Charter.
This is the first time to my understanding that this has been applied. You will note that the Security Council was careful to repeat that Qaddaffi's actions may constitute crimes against humanity. I don't know why they didn't have a finding that his actions clearly have constituted crimes against humanity, but they tread rather indecisively in such matters for the sake of votes by those nations that would otherwise fear that the new application could be turned around against them, as it should of course. We need to get the hypocrisy out of all law.
Getting the hypocrisy out of all law would be the greatest achievement of human kind to date and I dare say forevermore. Therefore, the other nations that are attacking and injuring and murdering and torturing and false imprisoning, etc., the citizenry must be held to the same account to which Qaddaffi is now being held. It matters not that Qaddaffi's actions were larger or swifter and that the other brutal dictators who do not have the consent of the governed were more measured for fear of bringing down the wrath that now faces Qaddaffi and his foolish, albeit probably often captive, "supporters."
I call upon Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power to turn their attention simultaneously toward Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and every other nation-state that is engaging in the brutal suppression of human rights that are to be protected under the international law. It is a waste not to understand that now is the time to stand up. All the Arab states, and others. are being moved by the common people, Arabs and otherwise, to move to multi-party democracy. This is a development in the right direction. It is not the end-all-be-all, but we must make more progress and stop wasting time in a failing attempt to placate reactionaries.
Saudi Arabia may well be the worst offender since it is perhaps the last absolute monarchy on the face of the Earth. It has seemed to me that if the people of Arabia could get themselves out from under the stifling monarchy, they could do a great deal in close cooperation with their Arab neighbors (free and open democratic societies) in, among other things, transitioning soon from the killer oil-economy.
Why in the world are the Arabs of Saudi Arabia allowing themselves to be treated as infants? Why aren't they making collective, democratic decisions concerning the remaining oil resources, etc.? Why are they allowing one man, who has no more right to make the decisions than does anyone else, to make all the decisions thereby holding back the people?
Why is the US treating this monarch with kid gloves? Let him grow up. He's an old man now. It's time. Let him go out of this world with some real truth under his belt rather than his delusional idea that he is special by reason of his coerciveness and willingness to crack down on all would-be democrats, etc.
There is no justification for Obama, Clinton, Rice, and Power claiming that killing dozens of peacefully assembled protesters with legitimate grievances is somehow not a crime against humanity. It's time we see the deliberate murder of anyone who is peacefully protesting and with legitimate grievances as a crime against humanity because it is.
It's time that the nations of the world start being consistent. If local policing to keep the peace is proper, barring the rise of police states, then it is proper that policing be done on a macro level as well. This is not to suggest that all individual choice should be done away with.
In peaceful democracies, people have a great deal of autonomy or choice. They simply balance their behavior against the proper needs and wants of others. Thoughtfulness and considerateness are best.
The recent behavior of the Japanese in the face of their huge catastrophe is a case in point. They wisely understand that unbridled selfishness will serve no good end in their situation. I'm sure they don't consider themselves perfected in such things, but they are showing the better side of their cultural upbringing.
We should all take the best of the best and make it the new normal globally rather than insisting that pockets cling to backwardness simply because someone who is now rich will have to change — such as the oil-rich, for the sake of the whole, having to find a different income stream. We can help each other find different streams. We don't need to leave anyone behind if everyone is willing to be brought forward. Be willing.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)