[Cyrien]

The President ... shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
-U.S. Constitution

However the U.S. supreme Court has ruled that it is ok to sue the President while he is in office for actions he has taken that were not related to his official duties.
IE: Couldn't sue him for firing you.

What the President and his people say about something is irrelevant. It is upto the Supreme Court to interpret the law and the Constitution, not the President or the Congress.

Resolution 57/57 expressed its opposition to an arms race in space; the United States, Israel, and Micronesia were the only no votes.

Resolution 57/58 called for nuclear weapons states to reduce their non-strategic nuclear arsenals; the United States joined with the UK and France in voting no. Resolution 57/59 urged a nuclear-free world; the six no votes all came from nuclear weapons states: the United States, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, and Israel.

Resolution 57/62 aimed to uphold the authority of the 1925 Geneva Protocols banning the use of chemical and biological weapons. The resolution called upon states which had signed the Protocols with reservations to withdraw their reservations. The only non-affirmative votes were the abstentions from the United States, Israel, and Micronesia. (The United States signed the Protocols with reservations.)

Jimbob hit a large part of everything on the head. There is no such thing as being biased. Look at things as they are. How often has the US born the brunt of cost or action but been asked to not hold the leadership position?

As to the various resolutions...

I think that looking at just that information is totally irrelevant to viewing the US votes. Also this is throwing a double standard once again. How many people actually think passing a resolution to totally ban Nuclear weapons would actually result in a nuclear weapon free world?
It wouldn't certain reputable nations would be expected to comply and demonstrate compliance. Other nations wouldn't comply and if they said the did wouldn't demonstrate that compliance in any meaningful way. Then what do you have? The "responsible" world nations don't have them and a few rogue nations, such as North Korea, do. What deterent do you have to stop them from using those weapons now? You can invade them? How effective is that when an entire invading force can be vaporized in an instant?
This is the problem of at least some (and some would argue all) diplomacy needing to be backed with at least equal or greater force.

And what about the resolutions that the US voted yes on and other nations voted against? Hrmm? Conveniantly overlooked? Such as:

Resolution for a report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (57/9) only North Korea voted no.

Resolution dealing with the law of the sea (57/141) only Turkey voted no.

Resolution on conventional arms control on the regional and subregional level (57/77), only India voted no.

Resolution appealing to states to offer scholarships to Palestinian refugees for higher education (57/120) Israel was the lone abstainer and no votes of no.

You can look at other areas and see many nations that vote in what they see as their interests. Yet the United States and a few other nations are singled out for these activities and pointed at for wrong doing?

And of course there is the level of authority held by UN resolutions? How many actually do what they are supposed to effectively?

The UN has no power and each of the nations that is a member seeks to use it to gain power for themselves while controlling the power of the other nations. This easily shows why the US and other powerful nations have more vetoes in their name than other nations. They have more power to guard against and more nations want to weaken them.

The United Nations is made up of nations but it certainly isn't United and you can forget all about unbiased.

[ April 24, 2003, 19:16: Message edited by: Cyrien ]