Consider the following points listed from “Article 29,” Resolutions adopted on the reports of the Sixth Committee by the United Nations General Assembly in 1994.

Declaration of Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism…

The General Assembly

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Recalling the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on the Strengthening of international Security, 54/ the Definition of Aggression, the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 59/

Deeply disturbed by the world-wide persistence of acts of international terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including those in which States are directly or indirectly involved, which endanger or take innocent Lives, have a deleterious effect on international relations and may jeopardize the security of States,

Deeply concerned by the increase, in many regions of the world, of acts of terrorism based on intolerance or extremism,

Concerned at the growing and dangerous Links between terrorist groups, drug traffickers and their paramilitary gangs, which have resorted to all types of violence, thus endangering the constitutional order of States and violating basic human rights,

Convinced of the desirability for closer coordination and cooperation among States in combating crimes closely connected with terrorism, including drug trafficking, unlawful arms trade, money laundering and smuggling of nuclear and other potentially deadly materials, and bearing in mind the role that could be played by both the United Nations and regional organizations in this respect, Firmly determined to eliminate international terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, Convinced that the suppression of acts of international terrorism, including those in which States are directly or indirectly involved, is an essential element for the maintenance of international peace and security,…

* 1

The text continues in the same vein. Then, in section I, it proceeds to list and condemn every conceivable act of terrorism, and make recommendations to member states.

Since September 11, 2001, the United States of North America, under the current presidential administration, and inspired by neoconservative political theory has attempted to carry alone the responsibility for elimination of the Jijadist brand of international terrorism. The failure of that single state approach (though thinly disguised with a tissue paper construction of coalition states) has been adequately demonstrated during the past four years. Of course, that approach involved the invasion of a foreign state in which the United Nations, and later a board within the United States itself found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and no connection between that state and jijadist activity. Instead, the invasion of that state has created a situation in which Jijadists take direct responsibility for the creation of a civil war in that state.

I realize that the proposal of a United Nations that possesses the power to maintain an international antiterrorist force of its own is a radical suggestion, one that possibly transgresses the nationalistic norm of world order today. It is however, one that I feel is necessary under the circumstance in which we find ourselves. It was not the United States of America Trade Center that was destroyed on September 11, 2001. Instead, it was the World Trade Center that was destroyed. Lest we should forget, citizens from nations all over the world lost their lives in that terrorist attack. I shall list a few nations’ losses here; 1) Japan 26, 2) Germany 11, 3) Australia10, 4) Canada 25, 5) Columbia 17, 6) Jamaica 16, 7) South Korea 28, 8) United Kingdom 67, 9) Honduras 1, 10) India 1, and I could list so many more. *2 Additionally, a point might be made that the attack was on the Western democracies rather than the United States of North America alone. The attack was, none the less international. I also list a very few of the attacks against other nations in the year 2002, in Bangladesh, a movie theater, 10 civilians killed, Palhalgam, Kashmir, India, 10 civilians killed, Lashkar el toba, India, 27 civilians killed, Dagestan, Russia, 42 killed, Restaurant in Haifa, Israel 35 killed. If I continued, I could create a huge catalogue with thousands of attacks and thousands upon thousands of innocent civilian deaths. *3 It is time we fought this hideous disease from an international position as opposed to a limited and limiting nationalistic unilateral preemptive approach. A United Nations with a permanent peace keeping force and empowered to use that force by its member states would have the teeth necessary to do away with International Terrorism. In addition, a United Nations that had (ACTUAL) basic guidelines for invoking an “International State of Emergency,” guidelines that required the submission of troops from member nations according to their ability to provide these, would provide an international peace keeping force that could be used to fight international terrorists without burdening any one nation or group of nations with the difficult task.

*1 United Nations General Assembly Declaration 1994, http://meaindia.nic.in/warterror/background/unga-94.htm, viewed Saturday, August 12, 2006, 9:06 AM EDT.

*2 “Non-American Casualties of the September 11, 2001 Attacks,” Wickipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-American_casualties_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks, Last modified August 18, 2006. Viewed Saturday, August 19, 2006, 9:42 AM EDT.

*3 The Institute for Counter Terrorism, http://www.ict.org.il/, Viewed Saturday, Autust 19, 2006, 10:01 AM EDT.

Based on my journal entry dated August 8, 2006, “The Foiled Terrorist Plot, International Terrorism, and the New Rome,” I looked at United Nations proposals for an International Convention on Terrorism, and found that there is no agreement among the world’s nations as to what would constitute such a convention. Indeed, the nations of the world have not managed to approve a definition of international terrorism. Oh yes, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has composed a mountain of written material on the subject, but has not been able to vote to accept a worldwide policy on international terrorism. This despite the fact that the UNGA has recognized for at least ten years that an international approach to terrorism is necessary. For instance, in December of 1994 the UNGA did approve a policy that enumerated “measures to eliminate international terrorism” without a vote. *

“Attempts to suppress international terrorism on a selective geographical basis had little hope of lasting success, the representative of India told the Sixth Committee this afternoon, as it concluded its discussion of measures to eliminate international terrorism. Efforts by the rich industrialized countries to limit the battle to their own territories and the Middle East were no substitute for a comprehensive international approach, he said.” *2

That statement by the representative from India would imply that the United States own anti terrorist activity is part of the solution, NOT, and I repeat, NOT THE SOLUTION. Of course each nation is responsible for the suppression of home grown terrorism within its own borders, and participation at the international level to prevent and destroy international terrorism. The documents written by the UNGA's Sixth Committee, the organization responsible for UN policy on international terrorism so states. At the same time, states must not instigate or organize terrorist activities.

“States, guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and other relevant rules of international law, must refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts, in territories of other States, or acquiescing in or encouraging activities within their territories directed towards the commission of such acts;” *3

I cannot find a statement in the UNGA published policies that sanction unilateral action by a single nation or group of nations outside the purview of the UNGA against international terrorism as expressed through the occupation of any nation with the purpose of eliminating terrorist activity in that nation. Thus, it would appear that the preemptive strike in Iraq is not legal in the eyes of the UNGA, though that body has taken no steps to censure the United States. Suffice it to say, that much of the world community of states views that invasion as, at a minimum, not sanctioned by the United Nations.

Of course, the United States approach to International Terrorism has long been suspect. Consider a bizarre move by the Bush administration in 2004, the lobbying of the United States for the release of international terrorists Guillermo Novo Sampol, Pedro Remon, and Gaspar Jimenez in Panama. These men were responsible collectively for various international acts of terror that included the following; “…fired a bazooka at the United Nations headquarters in New York, served time in connection with the first state-sponsored act of terrorism in the United States, or actively participated in secret groups that claimed responsibility for dozens of bombings in New York, New Jersey and Florida…” *4

Ah well, I realize that this president and his administration are responsible for implementing a neoconservative preemptive international policy that makes no sense on many levels, is downright dangerous, and may be responsible, at least in part, for creating international tensions that lead the way to possible worldwide conflict. Is it too late to hope that we may create a new Democratic Party majority in Congress and Senate this fall in order to put a curb on the Neoconservative misdirection of this President and his administration, thus allowing a change in our nation’s failed unilateral approach to international terrorism?



*1 “Article 29,” United Nations General Assembly Declaration 1994: Resolutions adopted on the reports of the Sixth Committee, http://meaindia.nic.in/warterror/background/unga-94.htm, viewed Saturday, August 12, 2006, 9:30 AM EDT.

*2 GA/L/3013, Sixth Committee, United Nations Press Release http://www0.un.org/apps/press/ter.asp, November 1, 1996, viewed Saturday, August 12, 2006, 9:22 AM EDT.

*3 “Part II, #4, Article 29,” United Nations General Assembly Declaration 1994: Resolutions adopted on the reports of the Sixth Committee, http://meaindia.nic.in/warterror/background/unga-94.htm, viewed Saturday, August 12, 2006, 9:30 AM EDT.

#4 Sanchez, Marcela, “Moral Misstep, in the washingtonpost.com. http://www.washingtonpost.com/. Friday, September 4, 2004. Viewed Sunday, August 13, 2006, 9:42 AM, EDT.

What does the arrest of 24 terrorists at London’s Heathrow airport have to do with our political process?

I do not wish to minimize the mass murder horror that would have taken place had not British police prevented the deployment of explosive devices in carry-on luggage. However, since 9/11/2001 American voters have created a Republican House and Senate, and reelected a Republican President thus placing a Neoconservative government in complete control of the United States. As a result we have a reactionary and anachronistic Supreme Court, the disruption of the checks and balances put into place by the nations founding fathers, the removal of the cornerstone of American domestic policy – separation of church and state, disastrous profligate spending by the Federal government, and the invasion of two foreign countries (the wrong war against terror). In short we have a government that has done little to actually protect us against terrorist cells present within the United States.

Of course, this most recent terrorist event was to have been instigated on foreign soil, and it was, after all, prevented.

Never the less, I am a pessimist I suppose because I no longer trust the average U.S. voter to be able to think his/her way out of a paper bag, much less cut through the complex fabric of interwoven issues involved here.

Oh, and what are these issues, Isaac?

First, international terrorism has nothing to do with specific nations, though it is based on hate of Western nations and most certainly our specific current government. I hope the following points serve to clarify the seeming conflict within my first statement. Second, international terrorism has everything to do with the religious conflict known as the Medieval Crusades that occurred during the first three centuries of the second millennium - the current invasion of Iraq being viewed by Islamic terrorists as just one more Western crusade against Islam. In fact, many of the young jihadists wrong headedly see 9/11/2001 as having been accomplished by the Bush government in order to excuse the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Third, a return to fundamentalism in both Western Judeo-Christian and Middle-eastern Muslim practice exacerbates the underlying religious conflict that causes international terrorism. That religious conflict itself goes back thousands of years to the point in time at which Arab and Jew separated from the same family of tribes. Fourth, the worldwide oil based economy that has created two separate populations - one rich and one poor - directly affects all the factors that contribute to the evolution of international terrorism. Finally, no nation, no political body, especially those here in the United States is dealing with the underlying fabric upon which the pattern of international terrorism is printed. Specifically, the neoconservative, fundamentalist government we are saddled with has taken a defensive national approach to a problem that is “preternational.” *

Instead, we should and must look for international and global as opposed to purely nationalistic solutions based on wars against foreign nations. The prevention of the current diabolical terrorist plot by the British was accomplished with the cooperation of and tips from the government of Pakistan, a Muslim nation. The 24 terrorists arrested so far are all British citizens though practicing Muslims. Both of these facts point to the religious as opposed to the nationalistic basis for international terrorism.

It is important to point out that international terrorists, though Muslim, do not practice Islam as the vast majority of Muslims do. Islam is a religion of peace. I also believe that Christianity is a religion of peace, though I would have a difficult time supporting these statements based on bloody history.

I personally hope that Americans will eventually be able to focus on the actual situation as opposed to the artificial one created and nurtured by the politics of fear used by the Bush administration in order to practice a Neoconservative approach to government that views the United States as the new Rome. It has proven to be a disastrous and failed approach to international terrorism in the first decade of the Twenty-first Century.


* I have coined the word “preternational” based on the Latin, praeter beyond – beyond national concerns.

About one hundred Iraqi civilians are killed everyday. Iraq civilians killed to date is estimated at between 36,980 and 41,446 by Iraq Body Count. According to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count United States casualties approach 2600. In private, and sometimes publicly United States and United Kingdom officials are pessimistic about the outcome in Iraq. See “Private pessimism on Iraq Grows,” from the BBC news. The United States recently sent more troops to Iraq. Even so, there aren’t enough troops to cover the war. Thus, a desperate Pentagon has begun to move troops from one hot spot to another allowing terrorists to disrupt pacified areas once again. Additionally, the Pentagon's plan doesn't seem to be very successful. See the BBC, "Bagdad Blasts Kill 19."

These days I rarely see news covering Iraq on the networks, CNN, or FOX. Instead, I see Anderson Cooper and others ducking as Hezbollah bombs and missiles land in Israeli cities. In order to find current updates on Iraq, I have to go to the BBC. At the same time, a recent Harris Poll shows that fifty percent of Americans still believe that Iraq possessed WMD in 2002 an increase of fourteen percent above last year.

The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900-million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.*

What on earth is going on?

Have Americans and our news media become mental?

The President has only partially admitted to the mistake. Conservative talk show radio has still to admit the mistake. FOX News purposefully obfuscates the situation by reporting hypotheses as news. Quite probably guilt is one of the culprits, and those who favored the Neocon / Bush plan of preemptive warfare and the subsequent invasion of Iraq four years ago are now refusing to accept reality. Additionally, the news media gets to track the Israeli versus Hezbollah war and doesn’t have to feel badly about not reporting a more balanced approach to the Iraq war in the present or past, one that, for instance, included Iraqi civilian deaths along with American, and contrary political views concerning preemptive warfare.

If possible, the war in Iraq is more frightening than one might suspect because of the purposeful and sometimes subliminal obfuscation of our government, the news media, and the people of this nation. Today, an informed American democracy and its citizenry look like the impossible dream.


*Hanley, Charles J. (AP Special Correspondent). “Half of U.S. Still Believes Iraq Had WMD,” in ABC News, U.S., http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2279553. Sunday, August 6, 2006. Viewed Sunday, August 6, 2006, 3:41 PM EDT.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 includes a cunning Conservative Ploy to once again limit your freedom of speech.

Mr. Bush signed the law on July 21st of this year in order to commemorate the murder of Adam Walsh. Adam Walsh was 6 years old; when on July 27, 1981 he was kidnapped and subsequently murdered. The boy’s severed head was discovered two weeks later, but the body was never recovered. A history of botched confessions and lost evidence has prevented the conviction of Adam’s possible murderer, serial killer Ottis Toole. The law provides for a national registry of sex offenders, a good thing. Additionally, it aims to curb child pornography, another laudable goal.

However, the law also includes provisions that require almost any picture of a nude person posted on line be tracked and that secondary producers keep personal information on the model and person(s) posting for government reference. Within the structure of the law artworks that include nudes, family photographs of semi nude and nude children, and personal blogs that contain these become legitimate targets for Federal government interference, and the possible accusation, and conviction of individuals not associated with child pornography in any way. Thus the law as written by Congress and signed by this President purposefully conflates* artwork and individual personal photographs with child pornography, murder, and serial killers.

For more information on how you can fight misguided censorship, go to The Free Speech Coalition where you can download a “pdf” file of The Adam Walsh Protection and Safety Act, also known as HR4472.

* To join various things together into a unified whole.