Group items tagged

"A democratically elected Hamas is still a terrorist organization."

Hamas has targeted and killed many civilians, and Israel's occupation has contributed to a violent political environment.

Steven A. Cook, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, started off the evening by acknowledging several facts, which he immediately said were entirely irrelevant. Yes, he said, Hamas was legitimately elected freely and fairly. Yes, Israel has illegally occupied the West Bank and, until recently, Gaza. Yes, Hamas has done much good with its social programs. But, he said, none of that matters. Hamas' central charter calls for the violent overthrow of Israel. Hamas continues to kill innocent civilians. The group must lay down its arms and renounce its violent charter. Until then, Cook said, Hamas can only be labeled a terrorist group.

Moreover, over the past decade, worldwide production of illicit drugs has risen dramatically: opium and marijuana production has roughly doubled and coca production tripled. Also, street prices of cocaine and heroin have fallen significantly in the past 20 years, reflecting increased availability.

Problem More than 14 million Americans buy illicit drugs and use them at least once per month, spending by most conservative estimates over $60 billion annually in a diverse and fragmented criminal market. Such drugs are to varying degrees injurious to the health, judgment, productivity and general well-being of their users. Total economic costs to U. S. society associated with drug abuse are estimated by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to be $160 billion. The addictive nature of many of these drugs, their high price, and their illegality play a role in more than half the street crime in the United States. The U. S. illicit drug market generates enormous profits that enable the growth of diversified international criminal organizations, and extend their reach into local neighborhoods, legitimate business, and even national governments. Such profits provide drug trafficking organizations with the resources to effectively evade and compete with law enforcement agencies, to penetrate legitimate economic structures, and, in some instances, to challenge the authority of national governments.

Despite the military's obvious ability to support drug law enforcement organizations, questions remain as to the overall effectiveness of a major military role in narcotics interdiction. Proponents of substantially increasing the military's role in supporting civilian law enforcement narcotics interdiction activity argue that narcotics trafficking poses a national security threat to the United States; that only the military is equipped and has the resources to counter powerful trafficking organizations; and that counter drug support provides the military with beneficial, realistic training.

President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia warned the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, on Friday that Georgia’s joining NATO would deepen the conflict between the former Soviet states.

Mr. Medvedev told Mr. Saakashvili that his quest for NATO membership would not help resolve the simmering tensions in the separatist Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Mexico's drug cartels would continue to be, in the words of the Justice Department's National Drug Threat Assessment for 2009, "the greatest drug-trafficking threat to the United States."

Under the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution, Kosovo was granted the status of an autonomous province with virtually the same rights and responsibilities as the six Yugoslav republics, granting Kosovo an implied right of secession. Kosovo's autonomy included its own identity, territory, international-relations powers, and representation in all organs of the Yugoslav Federation. As a result, Serbian actions to deprive Kosovo of its autonomy, beginning in 1989, were clearly inconsistent with the existing Yugoslav Constitution and law and with accepted international practice.South Ossetia had no such right under the Soviet Union. According to Article 72 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution only the 15 republics possessed the right to secede from the union. Georgia emerged from the Soviet Union as an internationally recognized, independent state, and South Ossetia was considered part of its territory.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are two breakaway republics in the Caucasus with disputed status over whether they are a part of Georgia or sovereign states.[1] The Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia were recognised following the 2008 South Ossetia War between Russia and Georgia

South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia during the 1991–1992 South Ossetia War on 29 May 1992, with its Constitution referring to the "Republic of South Ossetia".[6][7][8] Abkhazia declared its independence after its war with Georgia in 1992–1993. Its Constitution was adopted on 26 November 1994.[9][10

Kosovo's declaration of independence on 17 February 2008 and its divided international acceptance prompted speculation that there could be implications for the frozen South Caucasus situation.

Of course, one can argue that the territorial integrity of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Moldova has already been recognized by many international organizations and by the majority of states in the world. The UN Security Council, notably, adopted many resolutions affirming the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia and Azerbaijan.47 That is why one could conclude that this standpoint reflects already the position of the international community, according to which the secession of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh has not been recognized (apart from Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru in Abkhazia’s and S. Ossetia’s case).

The Court did not state in the Opinion that Kosovo through its declaration of independence effectively seceded from Serbia and thus the new state of “Kosovo” emerged. As it did not call into question the validity of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), which legitimizes the presence of international territorial administration in Kosovo, one can conclude that this resolution is still in force until a new resolution is adopted by the Council. In fact, according to this resolution, Kosovo shall only be given substantial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia). Hence it can be stated that, from a legal point of view, Kosovo still can be seen as part of Serbia.