US Cuts Funding For UNESCO After Palestinian Vote

[Purveyor]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

By BRADLEY KLAPPER, Associated Press – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is cutting off funding for the U.N. cultural agency because it approved a Palestinian bid for full membership.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland says Monday's vote triggers a long-standing congressional restriction on funding to U.N. bodies that recognize Palestine as a state before an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is reached.

Nuland says UNESCO's decision was "regrettable, premature and undermines our shared goal to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace" between Israelis and Palestinians.

She says the U.S. would refrain from making a $60 million payment it planned to make in November.

MORE...

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5idTAwG2MTRN_EyJAcVCkOIwBH3ng?docId=30ca0cc89e5b41b2b88f4c224f5df2da

[mike_c]

1. my government does not represent me or my interests....

:cry:

NOT in my name.

[teddy51]

3. I'm afraid that our Government ceased to be "By the people, for the people"

along time ago.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. Would you have preferred the government to violate the law 'in your name?'

[mike_c]

64. LOL, the government MAKES the laws...

...so that's a bit of a straw man, don't you think? But in the interests of rhetorical response, sure. My first preference would be for my government to NOT create legislation that runs counter to my values, but failing that, I would prefer that they not obey laws that run counter to my values. Upholding the law is only one of those values when it doesn't conflict with more important values, like social justice for oppressed people. Making oppression the law doesn't make it right.

[Roland99]

2. Oh, FFS! What is this? Third grade?

Obama's gonna take his ball and go home crying to his mommy!


fucking pathetic.

[msanthrope]

12. Do you want the President to defy a law of Congress? This is a LAW. nt

[Blue_Tires]

17. It would be nice if someone in congress had the stones to repeal it...

Sadly only the GOP can force through the repeal of stuff they don't like overnight

[Roland99]

18. He's been issuing all kinds of Executive Orders to his liking lately.

not that he'd try and do the right thing here, though.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

21. Since i'm not in the US, do any of the EO's he has signed lately

cancel an existing law or just blatantly ignore it?

[24601]

31. EOs don't cancel laws. They must be within the scope of a

President's Article II authorities.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

41. Indeed, which is also why i asked my question :)

I figured it might help the poster actually consider what he said once more.

[No Elephants]

43. EOs are not supposed to override laws of Congress. To claim flatly that they don't

(regardless of what they are supposed to do) ignores history.

A POTUS can act ultra vires. If he or she does, and no one in Congress sues or impeaches, the POTUS may get away with it, at least as far as the law is concerned.

And, if voters accept it, rationalize it or make excuses for it, he or she will get away with it politically as well.

Should that happen? Not IMO, but, then again, I've always thought the rule of law was a good idea, whether I am measuring Republicans by that standard or Democrats, Nixon or Reagan or Poppy of Dummya, or FDR or Truman or Clinton or Obama.

[24601]

66. The question wasn't about overriding, but of "canceling" a law.

The making of a law normally requires both the congress and president. Once passed, both of those co-equal branches may have it's own interpretation of what it really means - and those differences are up to the courts.

The best case of an EO overriding a law is when Congress unconstitutionally overreached and/or encroached relative to inherent Article II authorities. The post-Lincoln (1867) Tenure of Act is an example that was overridden or circumvented by Presidents of both parties; however, it wasn't canceled until repealed in 1887.

Then the USSC, in dicta from a similar case - Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), noted that it had been unconstitutional.

[No Elephants]

42. He's already being sued for violating the Constitution re: Libya by Reps

from both the left and the right.

He does seem to be selective about what he will defer to Congress on, even if he seems to have Constitutional power to act, and what he will proceed on without Congress, even if the Constitution vouchsafes something to Congress.

Please see also, Replies 43 and 44.

Odd use of "cancel" and "blatantly," btw.

Violating a law or the Constitution does not "cancel" the law violated or the Constitution. And ignoring either suffices. One need not "blatantly ignore.

[msanthrope]

58. He is not being sued over Libya. Suit was tossed last month. The Reps had no standing to sue.

And I think a bullet to the head pretty much stopped the appeal process, non?

[msanthrope]

38. EO's don't override laws of Congress. Civics Fail. nt

[No Elephants]

44. At least not in theory, they don't. In real life, though, theory does not always hold.

They are not SUPPOSED to override laws of Congress or encroach on a power that the Constitution gives exclusively to Congress.

In practice, however, that is not so clear. Not with Obama and not with other Presidents of both Parties.

No one is SUPPOSED to jaywalk, either, but many do and many get away with it.

[msanthrope]

57. Perhaps you live in a 'real life' where SCOTUS decisions do not exist?

From your post, I am guessing that you are conflating 'EOs' with 'signing statements.'

You might want to read the Youngstown case, since it, and its progeny, tend to form opinions on Executive Power that matter.

EOs do not override the laws of Congress because our Founders did not want rule by Executive Fiat.

[azurnoir]

4. oh well that was a well known fact prior to the vote

word has it that the Palestinians will also seek membership in WHO and that the US will follow suit with that too, can ya feel the influence diminishing?

[Ghost Dog]

6. Yes, the loss of influence (and respect) is already palpable.

Such unprincipled realpolitik can be truly soul-destroying (culture-demeaning) for any nation, any people.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Hopefully Russia and China will fund the shortfall

assuming they're less childish than th USA.

[Crowman1979]

59. Well theoretically it was China's money that we were using anyway.

[tyne]

7. Good

decision.

[No Elephants]

45. Apparently, it was already the law.

[snooper2]

56. Stupid ass decision/law -- Fuck Israel and fuck US politicians who are their puppets

[WCGreen]

8. It seems the plucky go alone Isreali's of Exodus, the movie and the book...

have reached maturity and demand our complete fealty.

[Goldstein1984]

9. Shameful

We deserve what is coming.

[Cognitive_Resonance]

10. It is shameful. We're on the wrong side of history. nt

[No Elephants]

46. We seem to have a gift for that.

Original Americans, slaves, women--all before we wrote the Constitution--where slavery, racism and gender discrimination were enshrine for a very long time.

Various wars to protect the interests of American businesses, then American imperialism.

Interning the Japanese.

Korea.

Vietnam.

Arresting and spying on peace demonstrators.

Kent State.

The Kleptocracy and bailouts.

Arresting the 99%

Things that we can never remedy, and usually don't even try very hard to remedy In fact, we don't seem to try very hard to avoid repeating history.

[valerief]

11. Of the money, for the money, by the money.

I guess Lincoln's sentiment "that government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth" has perished from this earth.

[No Elephants]

49. In fairness to the lanky one, he was not predicting the future but issuing a challenge to citizens.

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

The union did hold together, which is what those interred at Gettysburg fought for. And, thanks to Abe, there was a new birth of freedom, in the form of the Emancipation Proclamation.

Beyond that, citizens did not do a great job of preserving the ideals for which the union was (allegedly) formed.

Now we have a 99% movement, but it's numbers are sparse. Most of us are not participating, or even donating, even the political junkies of DU.


We have met the enemy (and, for most of the time since 1776, they've been us).

[Harmony Blue]

13. So the U.S. decides to take their ball home

because the democratic majority in the U.N. votes in favor of Palestinians membership into UNESCO.

Cry me a river U.S. government.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

14. To those on this thread

This was done in accordance with a more then *15* years old legislation , it wasn't something Obama wanted to do methinks

***

Legislation dating back more than 15 years stipulates a complete cutoff of American financing to any United Nations agency that accepts the Palestinians as a full member. Unesco — the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization — depends on the United States for 22 percent of its budget, about $70 million a year.

The Obama administration and Unesco had tried to avert the approval and diplomats had desperately negotiated with Congress, the Palestinians and other Unesco member states to find a resolution that would preserve the agency’s budget.

[harun]

20. Wow, our Congress sure hates Palestinians.

[Divernan]

29. We'll all wait breathlessly for Obama to urge repeal of this anti-Palestinian legislation.

[avaistheone1]

30. How changealicious.

[No Elephants]

47. Agree on the legislation. Submit that you cannot read Obama's mind, though.

Also submit, everything is not about Obama, nor should criticizing Obama (or trying to protect Obama from criticism( the be all and end all of every discussion.

There usually is a bigger picture

[plumbob]

15. How very...."democratic".....

and for those who say "it's the law", aren't there laws against executing US citizens without a trial? Seems like we don't care about that one, or rights to assemble and many others.

But this one? Oh, this is a big one.


Right?

I am fully aware that this is a sick country, but I hate to have it thrown RIGHT in my face.

[Purveyor]

16. +1 n/t

[harun]

19. These actions are an embarrassment to the U.S. and foolish.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. So this is how the US behaves when it doesn't get its way...

This whole setup where every vote is of equal worth is a real problem! What a pity it's not set up like the Security Council, where the US has veto power and can just ignore the will of the majority ;)

[Matilda]

35. And in a wonderful gesture of complete subervience,

Australia voted against Palestine's entry to UNESCO.

We didn't even have the guts to abstain.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

23. Did Clinton veto this legislation?

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. So, in other words, The Obama Administration followed the law

[plumbob]

26. Why THIS one, I wonder?

Aren't there laws against executing US citizens without a trial? Seems like we don't care about that one, or rights to assemble and many others.

But this one? Oh, this is a big one.


Right?

I am fully aware that this is a sick country, but I hate to have it thrown RIGHT in my face.

[24601]

33. There isn't any such Federal law. While the Constitution requires

due process do deprive one of life, it doesn't say anything about that due process requiring a trial.

And the Constitution generally doesn't address rights of "citizens" but of persons.

If Awlaki wanted a trial - he could have had one in Yemen or the US. He exercised his freedom of choice and chose another path - one the consequences.

Here;s the applicable 5th Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

1. There was a federal Grand Jury Indictment.

2. He wasn't put into double jeopardy

3. He never had to testify against himself

4. The courts declined the opportunity to rule that the process used lacked due process

[plumbob]

39. So any US citizen who is indicted and not allowed to testify against themselves

is subject to immediate execution?

Interesting.

So why worry about the law and aid to Palestinians when we could care less about life and death? It's just money.

BTW, courts declining an opportunity to rule is not an affirmation of anything.


So life<money?

Like I said, it's a sick country we live in.

[No Elephants]

52. Please do not confuse the law with a poster's rationalizations of summary executions with

what the Constitution says or means.

Even the SCOTUS has ruled that past SCOTUS decisions have been wrong, e.g, Brown v. Bd. of Ed. overruled Plessy v. Ferguson. Who knows? Some day the SCOTUS might even make so bold as to overrule a DU post. Life is full of strange happenings.

(I know you personally don't confuse posts and the meaning of the Constitution. I'm just posting a general advisory.)

[plumbob]

54. Yes, thanks. It IS amazing how hard some folks work to rationalize

totalitarianism, isn't it?

[24601]

65. Don't replace my words with yours. If you believe you can cite

the law you seek - have at it.

[plumbob]

67. See reply 61 and 62, to start.

no need to go further

[No Elephants]

51. So, you think the right of counsel, the right to confront witnesses, etc.

were all surplusage in the Constitution?

That you can meet all those requirements simply by executing people wherever you find them, the hell with arrest and trial?

That summary execution without trial satisfies the due process requirements of the 14th amendment, as well as the right to counsel, etc.?

How about "deemed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which courts have said is what the Constitution means?

If summary execution without trial satisfies all the Constitutional requirements that were so, why in hell would anyone neeed a Bill of Rights in the Constitution?

Please tell me you are not serious. And if you are serious, what limits do you place on the right of government to shoot down people it has declared dangerous wherever it finds them?



"4. The courts declined the opportunity to rule that the process used lacked due process"


If true, that proves absolutely nothing.

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. Which specific laws have been violated?

[plumbob]

61. Start with the 6th Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Summary execution would seem to be ruled out here.

[plumbob]

62. Or the 8th:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Unless you think drone strikes are kind treatment of US citizens.

[No Elephants]

50. Way I read the OP, the US has a law that resulted in this and maybe thinking folk should think about

that law, among other things.

Please see also, Reply 47.

[hack89]

27. Good. nt

[Divernan]

28. Let's bar US funding to Israel until an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is reached!

"Soon after the vote, the United States cut funding to the organization because of a U.S. law that bars funding an organization that has Palestine as a member before an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is reached."

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Poll_Blind]

32. LOL! You can ALWAYS count on OBAMA!

:bounce:

PB

[ClarkUSA]

68. Why are you blaming President Obama for following a law passed by Congress long ago?

[Bill McBlueState]

34. anyone know how to donate to UNESCO?

Seems like they could use the American people's help if the war-addicted bums in our government won't do it.

On edit: http://donate.unesco.org/en/Pages/ProgrammeSelection.aspx

I just donated $25. Sorry, world, my government sucks.

[Exultant Democracy]

36. US cuts off nose to spite own face

[Little Tich]

37. This can be seen as an unsuccessful attempt at bullying.

It's okay that the US has a strong pro-Israel bias, but it's not okay to impose that view on the rest of the world by blackmail. Unesco has a good reputation, and much of it's work is greatly appreciated. Why is it so important to hamper the Palestinian attempts at statebuilding that the US is prepared to destroy the work of Unesco?

[The Northerner]

40. K&R n/t

[pampango]

48. Juan Cole: UNESCO Palestine Vote Isolates US Further

http://www.juancole.com/2011/11/unesco-palestine-vote-isolates-us-further.html

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization recognized Palestine as a full member on Monday setting off a crisis between the United States and the United Nations that seems likely to further isolate Washington in the world and reduce its influence.

The UNESCO vote could start an avalanche of such acceptances among various UN bodies. Although Palestine is unlikely now to get a majority next month at the UN Security Council, there is always next year. And the admission of Palestine by large numbers of UNO organizations might anyway have a similar effect to a UNSC majority vote.

Since a law passed by Congress in the 1990s forbids the US from funding UN bodies that recognize Palestine, the Obama administration has no choice but to withdraw the $80 million a year it gives UNESCO, which is a fifth of the agency’s budget. But what this step really means is that the US loses influence over UNESCO, and indeed, it might well lose its membership in the organization. UNESCO may have to close some offices and lose employees. Or someone else, such as Saudi Arabia or China, might pick up the $80 million, gaining influence over UNESCO at US expense.

The overwhelming influence in the US Congress of the Israel lobbies (including those of the Christian Zionists) are leading the US down a path of increasing international isolation and weakness. The US vote against Palestine is the headline on the Arab satellite television news programs, and even in India and Russia it is a vote that makes the US look like an ogre.

[No Elephants]

53. The law is the law. Question is, should this be the law? If not, what should we do?

Do we, as taxpayers who fund that circus of lawmakers and lobbyists and revolving door travelers in Washington, D.C. we charitably continue to call our government, have any control over elected officials anymore?

If not, is it really our government?

If not, what, if anything, are we prepared to do about it besides pound our keyboards and post, as though posting were actually taking political action?

Sometimes, I think "Religion nothing--Posting is the new opiate of the masses."

[reformist2]

55. Sounds like the world is leaving us behind...

in more ways than one.

[ClarkUSA]

69. "Canada to cease ‘voluntary payments’ to UNESCO in protest..."

"Canada to cease ‘voluntary payments’ to UNESCO in protest of its inclusion of Palestine as a full member": http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/01/canada-to-cease-voluntary-payments-to-unesco-in-protest-of-its-inclusion-of-palestine-as-a-full-member/

[firehorse]

70. I'm tired of Israel getting a free pass of 'no criticism' by the U.S.

UNESCO is about protecting heritage sights. We should approve of all countries joining in. We should not pull out just because Palestine is not an ally of Israel.

Where is the common sense here? Israel has done things like spy on the U.S. yet we still kiss their ass, and rarely go against them because we are their ally and we don't ever want to look anti-semitic. It's possible to criticize and not agree with plenty of things Israel does and it shouldn't have to be filtered through a constant lense of assuming any criticism means anti semitic.