Attacks on ICJ by both parties reveals hostility to International Law.

[Classical_Liberal]

Personal note: Title was changed because it couldn't fit or be edited to fit on one line. The title was not changed in an inflammatory way

As a result, the bipartisan attacks against the ICJ should not be seen simply as a result of “pro-Israel” sentiment – particularly in light of the long term detrimental impact on Israel’s security should Israel continue its current policies – but part of a broader effort to undermine international law in order to give the United States freer reign in pursuing its policy objectives overseas.

For example, Democratic Congressman Gene Green of Texas claimed the ICJ ruling “sets dangerous precedents in international law that hinder and impede United States antiterrorism efforts.” In reality, the ruling has no bearing on legitimate anti-terrorism efforts, the ruling indeed may have implications regarding the legality of certain U.s. actions committed in the name of anti-terrorism. (For example, a nearly unanimous Congressional vote last year declared that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a legitimate part of the ongoing “war on terrorism.”).


More significant is that the court made a definitive ruling that states which are members of binding treaties, conventions and charters – such as the United Nations and the Fourth Geneva Convention – are obliged to ensure that other member states live up to their legal obligations under these agreements. Specifically, the Court insisted that every country that is party to the Fourth Geneva Convention must “ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.”

This is what the Bush Administration, the Democratic presidential and vice-presidential nominees, and an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress are so upset about: any such strict and uniform application of international law would interfere with U.S. policy objectives in the region which rely heavily on the use of military force, including conquest and occupation. This why any attempt to enforce international humanitarian law must be met by slander, condemnation and other attacks against the very credibility of the international organizations which inconveniently suggest that the United States and its allies are not somehow exempt from such legal obligations.......

the rest of this long and interesting article can be read here.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0806-05.htm

[madrchsod]

1. laws???

we don`t need no stink`n laws..

[dudeness]

2. so disappointing...

that democrats (politicians) will not embrace international laws