At 12:56 PM 27/12/2001, D. Simmons wrote:

>   It was the International Court of Justice (I guess for propaganda purposes
>"World Court" sounds better) which, in a split decision said that the US
>mining of a Nicaraquan harbor was illegal ("condemned" for "terrorism" also
>sounds better for the purposes of propaganda).

It's commonly known as the world court.  The mining of a Nicaraguan habour
was actually an illegal use of force, not just illegal.  With the "USA-AOK"
blinkers removed, it's not a big leap to equate illegally mining the major
harbour of a country as part of an illegal blockade (remember, civilians
were the main users, Nicaragua not exactly being known for its naval might)
with international terrorism.

A split decision?  I don't think I'll let you get away with your
implication there.  Not only is a split of a court still a valid decision,
but twelve to three on the main items is pretty definite.  Fourteen to one
on the issue of whether the US breached its obligations to Nicaragua *and*
to international law is pretty definite as well.  Read the court summary -
I've helpfully included a link below - and then get back to us.

More information may be found here:

The Case - International Court of Justice
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/inussummary860627.htm

When the Pope Rebuked the U.S. at the World Court
http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/lawlibrary/asil/15oped.htm

What Everyone Should Know About Nicaragua
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1107-04.htm

Necessary Illusions (relevant section of Chomsky's work)
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/ni/ni-c04-s03.html

Alister



--

"Let us not fool ourselves, half a century after the adoption
of this Declaration (of Human Rights) and supposedly under its
protection, millions of people have died in the world without
reaching the age of 50 and without even knowing that there was
a universal document that should have protected them."
          Roberto Robaina, Cuba's Foreign Minister