Why the US can't be sanctioned by the UN when US invaded aggreesively other independent countries?

Question

Afganistan and Iraq had been conquered, invaded and colonized by the US and it's allied in last Gulf Wars without the authority of the UN for being suspected of supporting Al-Qaida without proof and being suspected of possesing of WMD which were all found to be false. In United Nations membership, who punish these aggreesors countries like US if she violated laws and regulations of UN? I had found out that the US had been accrued of billions of debt from UN for not paying her regular dues a long time ago? Why the US can't be suspened as a member? Is she ruled the UN and entire universe? This is an Irony for the world allowing a nation to grab, rape, colonize, invade other nations without sanctioning?

Answer 1

They did punish Reagan and found him guilty of Crimes against Humanity. The US was fined, but we never paid it!

Bush will get his turn as well as he is trying every means in his powwer from getting prosecuted as a War Criminal, which he is! The US Supreme Court has already ruled that he has violated the Geneva Conventions, not once but twice!

Now this dribbling murderer had congress submit a law:

S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act of 2006

Which takes away power of the courts to prosecute him for any violation of the Geneva Conventions, changes the words and redefines what constitutes torture, and , get this, gives him the power to make the definition.

In it it precludes any court review of Military Tribunal, strips habeas corpus from the Constitution.

It precludes any court to hear charges against him and he made that retroactive.

Treaty obligations not establishing grounds for certain claims. S. 3930 would prohibit a person from invoking the Geneva Conventions or related protocols as a source of rights in a habeas corpus petition or other civil action brought in a United States court (state, territory, or federal) to which the United States, or current or former employee/officer/armed forces member/agent, is a party.



The legislation, for the purposes of this section, defines the “Geneva Conventions” as the: Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (6 UST 3114); Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of the Armed Forces at Sea (6 UST 3217); Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (6 UST 3316); and Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (6 UST 3516).

Additional prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. S. 3930 would further prohibit cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of persons in the custody or under the physical control of the U.S. government, regardless of nationality or physical location. The legislation requires the President to take actions necessary to ensure compliance, including establishing administrative rules and procedures.



The bill would define “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” as it is prohibited in the by the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, defined in the U.S. Reservations, Declarations and Understandings to the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (December 10, 1984).



Implementation of treaty obligations. S. 3930 would establish that the grave breaches and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishments identified by the legislation constitute violations of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.



The legislation would establish that the amended War Crimes Offense fully satisfies the U.S. obligation under Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention (the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316).



The measure would prohibit US Courts from using foreign or international law as a basis for interpreting conduct listed in the grave breaches section of the War Crimes Offense (subsection (d)).

Habeas Corpus matters. S. 3930 would amend the Habeas Corpus provisions of the United States Code to strip U.S. courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider a writ of habeas corpus (petition to seek release from unlawful detention) by or on the behalf of an alien detained by the U.S. who has been determined by the U.S. to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

The legislation would also strip U.S. courts of jurisdiction to hear or consider any other action against the U.S. or its agents relating to the detention, transfer, treatment, trial, or conditions of confinement of an alien who is or was detained by the U.S. and has been determined by the U.S. to be properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

These changes would take effect on the date of enactment and would apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of enactment.
The legislation would establish that the amended War Crimes Offense fully satisfies the U.S. obligation under Article 129 of the Third Geneva Convention (the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316).

The measure would prohibit US Courts from using foreign or international law as a basis for interpreting conduct listed in the grave breaches section of the War Crimes Offense (subsection (d)).

S. 3930 would both recognize the President’s inherent authority under the Constitution and authorize the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and to establish higher standards and administration regulations for violations of treaty obligations, including those which do not rise to the level of grave breaches. The legislation would order the President to publish those interpretations in the Federal Register as an Executive Order. Any such Order would be authoritative as a matter of U.S. law, with the exception of changes to the definition of grave breaches. The legislation states, however, that nothing in the section pertaining to the interpretation by the President is meant to affect the constitutional functions and responsibilities of Congress and the judicial branch.

“Geneva Conventions” is defined the same as in Sec. 5. Treaty Obligations Not Establishing Grounds For Certain Claims, except that the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, done at Geneva August 12, 1949 is referenced as 6 UST 3217 in this section.

I swear, Republicans have become a tumor on the United States and OUR Constitution!

Congress can't give the Court's authority to Bush. or chop sections out of the US Constitution!

Hopefully, Bush will be charged once out of office as I don't think any Democrat will pardon him (like Ford did Nixon) or the new president will have any authority over the World Court, that Bush tried to withdraw from!

As a Final insult, we get to pick up all his lawyer fees, as this is clearly Unconstitutional!

Answer 2

First even the democrats agree and accept the war in Afganistan as justified. So no one should disagree with our need to be there.

They can wonder how we can win since Russia with a million troops could not win but the reason to be there is a good one for all parties.

Next of course the US has not paid many dues to the UN since the UN fraud and misuse of the money it does get.

And because the US is on the main committee of the UN, without its permission it can't be sanctionedr really.

Next of course the UN should be disbanned, it has not beeen a good funtioning thing for years, and actually never worked well. Why the US has not kicked them out of the US years ago is beyond me

Answer 3

Its VERY simple. "THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OWNS THE UNITED NATIONS!!!" Its all a scheme. I wish they could. But they cant. The U.S. is one of the founding members. Hell one of the two HQ's, is Located in the heart of America, NYC. Nothing can go through the U.N. without the U.S. approval. The same with China, Russia, France, Great Britian, etc. All the major nations.

Answer 4

I like where your question is going except for a couple of key points.

1 The United States is a sovreign country and can declare war "legally" against anyone it wishes.

2 The U.N is merely a tool for the U.S to wield its power through another dynamic. Any country foolish enough to join should be aware that they are giving up some of their sovreign powers.

If you are looking to the U.N for answers, believe me its a dead end.

Answer 5

I think US foreign policy is considerably moderate, considering the hostility of mad dog groups and countries against the US.
If it was different regime in the US, most of these places would be flattened, considering the fact that the US is by far the most powerful country in the world.

Answer 6

Many say, and I agree that the UN is nothing more than a paper lion, or a toothless puppy.

Answer 7

I'm sure that anyone who is strong enough to think for themselves and not be brainwashed by this government will agree. I'm proud of my American people, the public, but I'm embarrased that this government is made up of bunch of bullies! I can tell you this much America thinks their gunna get away with it. But trust me America is going to face MAJOR, Major military threats-sooner or later. And sadly my people will suffer. Financially we are screwed!!

Answer 8

Because U.S is so big a shameless and powerful heister that anyone can't get control of it.

Answer 9

lets put it this way americas judgement day is coming and its coming hard and fast

Answer 10

GOOD QUESTION!

Because the UN has no backbone, that is why.