Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I'd question the entire premise. NATO is fundamentally not supposed to be an active organisation - it's supposed to be a reactive organisation. Says so right there in Articles 1 and 5 of the NATO treaty.

Nowhere in this treaty is competence vested in any NATO bureaucracy to disseminate propaganda. At least not in any way I can decipher.

For that matter, nowhere in that treaty is competence vested in NATO to combat terrorism or other kinds of crime, except inasmuch as they pose a realistic threat to the sovereignty or territorial integrity of a member state. (And while we're at it, as far as I can read, Article 1 of the NATO treaty outright outlaws the terror bombing of Serbia in '01. Buy hey, who's counting...)

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 25th, 2009 at 11:37:32 AM EST
I'm not at all surprised that NATO is engaging in activities which are not explicitly provided for by its statutes.

Come to think of it... political organizations, politicians, IGO's, ... or military organizations have a long history of transgressing the law.

It's as if it were their raison d'être. It's a "l'état c'est moi" mentality - because... "we the people" are acting more like sheep than people.

by vladimir on Wed Feb 25th, 2009 at 03:15:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series