It seems to me, that if you are asking for immunity up-front, you already know that
something has been done that without immunity, would land somebody in the slammer. From Fox News:
Mammoth new green climate fund wants United Nations-style diplomatic immunity, even though it’s not part of the UN
“EXCLUSIVE: The Green Climate Fund, which is supposed to help mobilize as much as $100 billion a year to lower global greenhouse gases, is seeking a broad blanket of U.N.-style immunity that would shield its operations from any kind of legal process, including civil and criminal prosecution, in the countries where it operates. There’s just one problem: it is not part of the United Nations.”
Whether the fund, which was formally created at a U.N. climate conference in Durban, South Africa last December, will get all the money it wants to spend is open to question in an era of economic slowdown and fiscal austerity. Its spending goal comes atop some $30 billion in “fast start-up” money that has been pledged by U.N. member states to such climate change activities.
A 24-nation interim board of trustees for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is slated to hold its first meeting next month in Switzerland to organize the fund’s secretariat and to get it running by November, as well as find a permanent home for the GCF’s operations. The board expects to spend about $6.7 million between now and June of next year.
But before it is fully operational, the GCF’s creators—194 countries that belong to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and who are also U.N. members—want it to be immune from legal challenges and lawsuits, not to mention outside inspections, much like the United Nations itself cannot be affected by decisions rendered by a sovereign nation’s government or judicial system.
Despite its name, the UNFCCC was informed in 2006 by the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs that it was not considered a U.N. “organ,” and therefore could not claim immunity for its subordinate bodies or personnel under the General Convention that has authorized U.N. immunity since the end of World War II.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The UN has no laws against what most people would consider crimes.
Theft, fraud, bribery, are all perfectly legal at the United Nations.
Green activists, known for their high moral standing, getting diplomatic immunity??
Be afraid, very afraid….
Question: Does this mean they can sabotage or damage a coal fired power station (like Greenpiss did at the UK King North Power station for instance) and not be prosecuted?
whose/which are the allegedly corrupt dictatorships/oligarchs/’democracies’ in the UN ?
what alleged crimes have they committed ?
I believe that access to green climate funds is dependant on acceptance of immunity provisions, a kind of bribe.
I think that it’s about time for the US to reduce payments to the UN, and proportionately increase provision of health and infrastructure materials to impoverished nations.
The UN is what the best white collar criminals aspire to.
We need to get as many nations as possible to resign from that wretched pit of humanity.
UNFCCC should stand for Useless Nefarious Fu!?ing Climate Criminals Conundrum
I write my representatives on a regular basis pressing for US resignation from that criminal money pit…
What are they worried about? They can always claim:
“I was only following orders.”
Makes you wonder what they have planned if they think they need immunity from any and all legal processes.
Sounds a lot like a criminal trying to set up a plea bargain before he tells you anything useful.
Larry
Dirty little secret. Let’s hope this gets a lot of attention. On the other hand, the attention is vulnerable to misdirection. The article itself exemplifies the usual sleight of mind, by saying this fund was set up by 194 countries, as if the entire world was already lined up behind the fund, its mission and its need to work around those pesky details like real people being immunized from real accountability for real acts that would be crimes under real laws that everyone else must obey. That characterization obscures the fact that there was no vote by 194 countries, no agreement by 194 countries to waive their core police powers and grant this band of gypsies a worldwide get-out-of-jail card. What an incredible scam this is shaping up to be. Consider that the predicate for getting UN immunity is that one is governed by UN systems of accountability in lieu of national ones. I think the UN systems are a bad joke, often a cover for criminal corruption or incompetence. But at least they’re a system. If this crew gets the UN immunity, will they be covered by UN accountability? Or will they just cash these checks and do as they please? If the latter, save me a place, I want some of that action.
When you can’t get your scam past the UN itself, you know you’re over the line …
w.
Can I be appointed king of Earth please I really want that job! I’d make a good King!
Looks like Australia is waking up.. finally. Although they don’t mention it (but Abbot does) one of the main reasons is the Carbon Tax. Gillard will also decimate her party in The Federal election.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-election-2012-campbell-newman-anna-bligh-poll-march-24/story-fnbt5t29-1226308814170
The issue is not only diplomatic immunity such that the local countries cannot lay criminal charges against individuals working for the entity but rather a complete lack of the local government’s right to investigate and oversee the expenditures which is a natural consequence of taxation without representation.
Trillions of dollars of carbon taxes are being proposed to fund these “United Nations” entities. How much say does the American taxpayer or the UK taxpayer have concerning UN expenditures and policy?
Money is power. The carbon tax is a tax. The “green tax”, is proposed to be transferred to these UN entities which can then us the “green tax” to create local political support by spreading the benefits of the scams. (Scams require a hook.)
Humans are not robots. Oversight is required to prevent corruption. Have governments every had a problem with corruption?
In this case the solution is simple. Zero Western “green taxes” provided to the UN and any UN entities.
It appears however we need to speak up. For some unexplained reason our government is proposing a green tax which will be transferred to UN entities.
Silence is consent. Democracy only protects if people are informed and get involved.
“According to an official of the U.S. Treasury, which strongly supports the existence of the GCF, the full extent of the immunities still remains to be worked out by the fund board, although the wording of various UNFCCC resolutions indicate that immunities like those held by the U.N. are clearly envisaged.
Even beyond the U.N., immunities from outside inspection and legal action have become a hallmark of international organizations, whose members often consider them a necessity to keep their operations, and their officials, from facing harassment in national courts. Among others, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), an organization initially sparked by Bill Gates, has been granted such immunities under U.S. law, according to the International Organizations Immunities Act. The World Bank, among other development finance institutions, also enjoys immunities.
Critics of such immunities, on the other hand, say that they are a barrier to proper external oversight of vast amounts of international spending, a potential facilitator of corruption, and a dangerous weapon against the protection of property rights and other civil rights of those affected by the institutions’ actions.
“Immunities amount to a veil of secrecy,” says Bea Edwards, executive director of the Government Accountability Project, a Washington-based whistleblower protection organization.
“They are an immunity from external audit or oversight. They build in a structural conflict of interest at any immune institution for any internal oversight mechanism.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/22/mammoth-new-green-climate-fund-wants-un-style-diplomatic-immunity-even-though/#ixzz1q1GfTYeW
Un-fricking-believable. These bozos actually think that they should be above the law? They want carte blanche to do anything that they want? What’s next concentration camps for Deniers?
[snip]
$100 Billion sloshing around, no democratic control and legal immunity – what could possibly go wrong?
It really is time our “representatives” were forced to publicly justify everything that they have signed their populations up to.
So….I wonder if the UN immune from prosecution of Crimes Against Humanity?……. I suppose it probably is. Wow, that’d be rich.
Environmentalists, the fourth Reich.
Let’s face it they probably know what they are going to do to the citizens of poor countries. They will be hunted from their land, slaughtered by local militia, all to appease Gaia. Think Papua New Guinea on a globalized scale. Why wouldn’t they seek diplomatic immunity for crimes against humanity in advance? The modern rent-seeking environmentalist motto is “Dying to save you”.
We are in desperation territory here. As the world realises it has spent the farm and is in serious debt the fuzzy feel good stuff is shifted to the backburner prior being given to the cat. For those of you who don’t believe in a superior being just think how convenient it is that just when the greenies started getting going the wheels fall off. Here in Aus the Queensland warmist party are being slaughtered at the polls and the guy taking over wants to bin the green schemes to save money. How nice is that?????
unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who don’t pay taxes but devise taxes for others to pay…. now why would that be a bad idea? What could possibly go wrong?
You can do a lot of damage with $100bn/yr. IIRC, most of it is slated for carbon-compensation ‘rentals’ to worthy victims of hypothetical damage from undetectable negative consequences of speculative human contributions to retro-temporal interactions of atmospheric and ocean temperatures and the trace gas CO2. Moral hazard, anyone?
I want to make it unequivocally clear to everyone that I am prepared to make the grand sacrifice and become a senior advisor and/or executive of this fund, I have all the right qualifications:
1. I have a couple of degrees and lots of experience in stuff,
2. I am prepared to accept a large untaxable salary,
3. I am prepared to work up to three days per month,
4. I am prepared to travel, as long as its always first class and 5 star hotels,
5. I am prepared to occasionally read stuff,
6. I am sufficiently well informed about ‘climate science’ to mislead the public and politicians by lying convincingly about the facts, just like the other leaders of this industry.
7. I have several suits, which I can wear when required.
8. I can say the word ‘denier’, while simultaneously contorting my face with supposed disgust.
9. I enjoy good food and drink.
10. I can grow a beard, if required.
Patchy have I forgotten anything? Perhaps you can help, you are a master at this sort of thing.
Sparks says:
March 24, 2012 at 1:08 am
Can I be appointed king of Earth please I really want that job! I’d make a good King!
I now appoint you king of the Earth. That will be £1,000,000,000 please.
[SNIP: Too much like a political endorsement and not directly related to the thread. Sorry. -REP]
The intention seems to be to avoid RICO-like prosecutions where cross-border activities like incitement and funded attacks on person or property would normally attract criminal charges.
The funding would also be re-directable without consequence. Thus audits would report that expenses were correctly recorded but there would be no consequences for not spending it on the allocated line items.
Read the Copenhagen Agreement to see the overall plan for the $100 Billion.
It ought to be unbelievable, under any reasonable definition of civilisation, that anybody would try this on. That it’s not only believable but actually happening says a lot about the state of international politics today, and none of it favourable.
The way this is portrayed means that it can even be a front for the greatest drugs operation the world has ever seen and nothing could be done about it.
Aside from this there is the now near certainty that soon climate science will have to face up to responsibility for the fraudulent claims of the “proven” nature of the science and damages for the cash wasted on CO2 controls and research.
No climate science based operation should be given this protection from paying damages for its mistakes and even more so for deliberately encouraging criminal damage to installations based on their own AGW religion’s views.