Elisabeth Zoller Quotes

This is a very important quotation in that there are some who believed—then and now—narrowly that self defense is limited to responding to only physical attacks on the United States per se. Kellogg made it clear that it includes attacks on the United States and any of its possessions. Most important it allows response to any “danger” to the United States. By this definition, for example, if Saddam had been developing weapons of mass destruction in the Iraq war, the pre-emptive attack would have been self-defense. Since the claim of weapons development was bogus, it was not self defense. The key variable a reasonable danger. Nations determine that by what others do and say. In 2011, if Iran were developing nuclear weapons the U. S. could attack as an act of self defense because the Iranian highest level officials have called for “death to the United States”. When they just had the intention to harm us, there was no danger. But when they add the means to harm us to the intention, that is a danger. Likewise other nations may act in self defense if a potential enemy threatens to endanger them and has the means to carry out the threats or desires.

The highest court in New York.

The United States should be One major problem at the time was that the Soviet Union was supporting and instigating revolutions in many parts of the world. When most nations of the UN wanted to provide peace keeping troops to quell the conflict, the Russians would veto and block the effort, Vandenberg wanted the UN to change the rules regarding the veto. The original right of veto for the major nations was originally included at the insistence of the United States and many Americans did not want to give it up or have any exceptions lest there be more. The Russians at that time also did not want to give up any of their veto powers. Another method that Vandenberg wanted to solve the Russian peacekeeping blockage problem was for America to engage in more collective security pacts so that action could be taken without UN Security Council unanimity by going around the UN.

The treaty to which he referred was The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. During the George W. Bush administration the CIA had tortured 3 captives in the War on Terror. The CIA destroyed the video tapes of the torture sessions and many Americans wanted President Obama to investigate and prosecute the torturers in accordance with the requirements of the treaty when there is a torture incident. However, a major ethical and legal complication was that the Bush Administration had issued an official legal memorandum to the CIA which said that the forms of torture that they used, water boarding, was not legally torture. Most legal scholars agree that this legal opinion was incorrect and America had previously prosecuted and punished the few American soldiers who had used Waterboarding. President Obama decided that since the CIA torturers, had been authorized in writing, that a criminal prosecution would be unfair. He also declined to have the Justice Department investigate the torture incidents, Many disagreed, and this quotation summarized their point of view. See {642428} for some of the language of the Convention.

An earlier version was written by Congressman Louis L. Ludlow, 1873-1950—see his quotation about it—{39681}. The proposed amendment was narrowly defeated.

The highest court in New York. Kent did not originate this concept. He was stating an age old principle of law: Posse vicinum impediri, ne in suo solo, sine alia causa suaque evidenti utilitate, munimentum nobis propinquum extruat, aut aliud quid faciat, unde justa formido periculi oriatur.

This constitutional interpretation is what has caused many conservative Americans to generally oppose treaties and trade pacts. They claim that U. S. sovereignty is whittled away whenever a treaty is signed. And a treaty can possibly not only nullify state law in some instances, but prevent a state from legislating in a given area. The number of treaties and international agreements that American Presidents have signed but Congress would not ratify is quite large.

At the time most Americans resented the UN opposition to the American invasion of Iraq, but when it became known that the WMD threat that the George W. Bush administration claimed was the threat to the US, was not true, most Americans turned on the Bush Administration and were no longer as upset with the UN which in this particular case turned out to be right.