[link|http://www.zmag.org/foleylegal.htm|liareaze]
very good essay on why the UN is a toothless tiger
point
************************************
"Also, when the Security Council actually outlined a broad array of means, in 1373, it did not mention force. Instead, it ordered member countries to
freeze terrorist assets, criminalize the financing and support of terrorists, exchange police information about terrorists, prevent movement of terrorists
through increased border controls, and capture and prosecute terrorists."
*****************************************

tough shit for sovereignty and national aspirations, take another 6k dead and like it.
**************************************
"SELF-DEFENSE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW The U.N. Charter provides a sweeping prohibition against the use of force, commanding in
Article 2(4) that, "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force ." Self-defense is the lone instance where a
nation can use force without prior approval from the U.N. Security Council. Contained in Article 51, the exception states:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the
United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in
the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and
responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore
international peace and security."
***************************************8


So Syria a member of the Security council who insists that it is the Jews, FBI and the CIA is responsible for the attacks has the right to tell us to quit. The UN is like the wonders of communism, works fine in theory but then add humans :(

***********************************
"The U.N. Security Council condemnation of the 1981 Israeli attack against the Iraqi nuclear reactor is precedent that works against those who defend
the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan as self-defense. Some international law scholars have argued that Israel's attack actually does meet the Caroline
standard, because destroying the reactor may have been Israel's last chance to avoid a nuclear attack. Given the enormity of the threat -- nuclear, not
conventional -- and Iraq's hostility toward Israel, the surgical strike was necessary, the argument goes. It must be noted, however, that these scholars
are in the minority, and that their argument suffers because there were other means available to Israel at the time, such as U.N. intervention or sanctions."
***********************

So we should impose sanctions against Afghanistan, oops they were already santioned ad nauseum. Take your dead and fuck you

****************************
What about the Taliban, whose army and government installations have been frequent U.S. targets? It appears that the Taliban has enabled Al-Qaeda,
which may or may not pose an "immediate, overwhelming" threat. But the Taliban itself does not. No terrorist acts have been attributed to them, and
there is no evidence that the Taliban is planning any immediate ones.
************************************
good point granted so the guy driving the assasin is not guilty of any crime, can you say accomplice?

full of holes in my opinion,
thanx,
bill