Not because of the Death penalty, you should know that. The US violates the human rights agreement because some US states put minors and mentaly disabled people to death, thats the violation.Originally posted by: CPA
According to this and Amnesty International, the US also violates human rights by our use of the death penalty. Oh dear, what shall we do
Um.... I beg to differ. One of the primary sources of international law is treaties between nations. Thus, a document such as this signed by many nations is in many cases interpreted as international law.
However, we all must realize that international law is not a black and white thing. And nations do blatantly ignore international law when it suits them. The United States happens to be a rather egregious offender in this regard.
Slaman, you can't do anything about it for a couple of reasons. The first is that a citizen cannot sue the United States Government. Secondly, while other nations can sue the U.S. in the International Court of Justice, only a country that could show damages would be allowed to bring charges. Even if that happened, there's no assurance that the U.S. would actually consent to the judicial verdict, even though in theory the U.S. is bound to do so. The U.S. just happens to have the biggest guns around, both economically and militarily. If they ignore international law, basically, what is anyone else gonna do?
Originally posted by: FoBoT
i thought this was about US law and not international law?
slaman is asserting that a US court would hold the US government in violation of US law
at least that is how i understood his first post
Okay... but even in that context... a citizen can't sue the U.S. government. So there's no forum in which to adjudicate this issue. So it's all moot.
Originally posted by: NogginBoink
Originally posted by: FoBoT
i thought this was about US law and not international law?
slaman is asserting that a US court would hold the US government in violation of US law
at least that is how i understood his first post
Okay... but even in that context... a citizen can't sue the U.S. government. So there's no forum in which to adjudicate this issue. So it's all moot.
so there is no failsafe to stop the US government to brake its own law?
only in theory, that would be the United States people/voters, but since only 25 % of eligible voters vote, and most vote like sheep for either the democrat or republican party, then no, in reality, there is no way to stop the US government from breaking US or international laws
the party in power in the US can pretty much do as much as the US citizens let it, but then, isn't that the definition of government?
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
By the way, this is not an Anti-Israel or Anti-US thread. He's just trying to show that violence can be mildly hazardous to one's health. Uh huh.
You bring up some interesting points. I guess the term "internationally-recognized" isn't truly so in the US Law - and that I was unaware of. I did not know they specifically said WHICH internationally-recognized human rights they were referring to. I assumed "internationally-recognized" meant the UN Document I posted that was signed by all participating members - including the US. That, theoretically, should be the internationally-recognized human rights. But of course, it's US law, so whatever is spelled out in the law itself is what takes precedent.
Regarding "relevant findings" - many NGOs including the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and B'Tselem (an Israeli NGO).
Heh - you brought up Jenin. The UN immediately passed a resolution that an independent investiong would be launched comprised of members from a number of nations. After denying access, Israel delayed for many days until the investigation was called a "fact-finding" mission. Again, after many delays, the investigation request was WITHDRAWN. During this time, no ambulances, paramedics, or even the Red Cross was allowed in. There was a news blackout taking place.
THREE WEEKS LATER the UN envoy arrived in Jenin and STILL found over 50 people dead - of which only 18 were militants - over 30 were women, children, and elderly non-combantants.
Do you need a specific number of civilians dead before something is called a massacre?
what?? is there realy nothing in the legal system that prevents the government for braking the law???Originally posted by: FoBoT
only in theory, that would be the United States people/voters, but since only 25 % of eligible voters vote, and most vote like sheep for either the democrat or republican party, then no, in reality, there is no way to stop the US government from breaking US or international laws
the party in power in the US can pretty much do as much as the US citizens let it, but then, isn't that the definition of government?
I'm very very surprised because this is a GIGANTIC flaw:Q
that isn't exactly what i meant,
its a matter of enforcing it
who is going to enforce the penalty for the broken law? who is going to make the piece of the governement, be it the executive or whichever stop doing the "illegal" act in question?
we have many recent examples of our Justice Department, part of the executive branch ignoring rulings by US courts or ignoring warrants or orders from US courts, so even if a court told the executive branch to stop doing something, it doesn't always happen. in those cases, it takes public outcry to force compliance. if everybody is too busy watching football and drinking beer , then who is there to notice/do the "outcrying" ?
bah, what do i know
i am pretty jaded on our political system/government
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
OK, now you are just being rediculous. Were the 18 militants wearing militant uniforms? No? So you're just accepting the PA's word (because they dont violate human rights, obviously) that these were the only militants among the dead? They STILL found over 50 dead, eh? Thats quite a downgrade from the over 500 dead originally claimed by the PA, dontcha think? Oh, btw, 33 Israeli soldiers were killed in Jenin too. The Israelis were quite open about it, actually. They said originally that they had killed between 45-55 - mostly fighters - in Jenin. But they didnt want the UN to stick their big fat anti-semitic noses (remember the Zionism = Racisim conference?) where they dont belong just because the PA decided to make up some outragous claims. BTW, the UN group was being led by the former head of the Red Cross, a group which repeatedly refuses Israel's Magen David Adom (MDA) entry into the Red Cross based on the fact that it has a religious symbol as it's logo. Which isn't even true. But even if it were, they had absolutely no problem instantly accepting the palestinian's Red Crescent into it's fold. I can see a cause for Israel's hesitation. I'm sure that the former head of the Red Cross is an expert in applying bandages, I doubt he's much of an expert on guerilla warfare and how to combat it. But when Israel requested to have several military expert included on the team, they were initially refused by the UN, later the UN agreed to replace some secondary, no-voice "advisers", with military men. Witchunt, pure and simple.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
That's true. Zionism has nothing to do with saying that one race is better than another. But I expected you to jump in and pick up on one word of my previous post in an attempt to discredit the whole thing. It's your typical MO. Truth is, You and I have argued about anything remotely related to the Middle East ten times over. I know what you believe and you know what I believe. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind.
No. From an independent HRW Report 22 were unarmed civilians comprised of women, children, elderly, and disabled. The other 30 had links to Palestinian resistance groups. Both sides accept this fact. 45-55 "fighters" killed - no. It was also 23 IDF soldiers killed, not 33. Without going into detail of why the IDF shouldn't have been there in the first place, it is easy to conclude that during the Jenin incursion, 0 Israeli civilians were killed, and over 20 Palestinians.
Again you are wrong. For the initial denial of entrance into Jenin, Israel was fighting about the WORDING of the mission. They didn't want it to be called an "investigation" - they wanted it to be called a "fact-finding" mission. That is a pathetic delaying attempt. Stop crying anti-semitism at every single thing. 22 Palestinian civilians WERE KILLED BY ISRAELI FORCES. That warrants an independent investigation. It has nothing to do with zionism, religion, or anti-semitism. The SECOND reason Israel used for denying access to the mission was that they didn't want the UN mission to interview soldiers. I'll let you make your own conclusions about whether or not Israel is hiding anything. Both of these reasons are documented in any well-respected news source (BBC - most likely NOT on CNN). During this time, two independent human rights groups entered Jenin and document atrocious human rights violations committed by the IDF. HWR and Amnesty. It was only AFTER the first two things were satisfied that Israel brought up the military advisor thing.
Zionism = Racism? If not, Zionism surely is based on the principle of ethnic transfer - which, in my mind, is racist.
In 1895, Herzl, considered the founder of modern Zionism, wrote in his diary:
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)
Moshe Sharett, the first Israeli foreign minister, wrote in 1914:
We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. (Righteous Victims, p. 91)
Soon after the 1967 war, Moshe Dayan wrote in his memories regarding the ethnic cleansing and destruction of the 'Imwas, Bayt Nuba, Yalu, and big portion of the West Bank city of Qalqilya:
"[houses were destroyed] not in battle, but as punishment . . . and in order to CHASE AWAY the inhabitants . . . contrary to government policy." (Righteous Victims, p. 328)
As early as October 25, 1919 Winston Churchill predicted that Zionism implied the clearing of the indigenous population, he wrote:
"there are the Jews, whom we are pledged to introduce into Palestine, and who take it for granted the the local [Palestinian] population will be cleared out to suit their convenience." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 15)
On July 24 the Mapai Center held a full-scale debate regarding the Palestinian Arab question against the background of the ethnic cleansing of Ramla and Lydda. The majority apparently backed Ben-Gurion's policies of population transfer or ethnic cleansing. Shlomo Lavi, one of the influential leaders of the Mapai party, said that:
"the ... transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs out of the country in my eyes is one of the moss just, moral and correct that can be done. I have thought of this for many years." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 192)
This was seconded by Avraham Katznelson, another influential Mapai leader, who also said:
"more moral, from the viewpoint of universal human ethics, than the emptying of the Jewish state of the [Palestinian] Arabs and their transfer elsewhere .... This requires [the use of] force." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 192)
In an interview with the Sunday Times Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister between 1969-1974, stated in June 1969:
"It is not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them, they did not exist." (Iron Wall, p. 311)
In 1895, Herzl, considered the founder of modern Zionism, wrote in his diary:
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)
Moshe Sharett, the first Israeli foreign minister, wrote in 1914:
We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. (Righteous Victims, p. 91)
Soon after the 1967 war, Moshe Dayan wrote in his memories regarding the ethnic cleansing and destruction of the 'Imwas, Bayt Nuba, Yalu, and big portion of the West Bank city of Qalqilya:
"[houses were destroyed] not in battle, but as punishment . . . and in order to CHASE AWAY the inhabitants . . . contrary to government policy." (Righteous Victims, p. 328)
As early as October 25, 1919 Winston Churchill predicted that Zionism implied the clearing of the indigenous population, he wrote:
"there are the Jews, whom we are pledged to introduce into Palestine, and who take it for granted the the local [Palestinian] population will be cleared out to suit their convenience." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 15)
On July 24 the Mapai Center held a full-scale debate regarding the Palestinian Arab question against the background of the ethnic cleansing of Ramla and Lydda. The majority apparently backed Ben-Gurion's policies of population transfer or ethnic cleansing. Shlomo Lavi, one of the influential leaders of the Mapai party, said that:
"the ... transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs out of the country in my eyes is one of the moss just, moral and correct that can be done. I have thought of this for many years." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 192)
This was seconded by Avraham Katznelson, another influential Mapai leader, who also said:
"more moral, from the viewpoint of universal human ethics, than the emptying of the Jewish state of the [Palestinian] Arabs and their transfer elsewhere .... This requires [the use of] force." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 192)
In an interview with the Sunday Times Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister between 1969-1974, stated in June 1969:
"It is not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them, they did not exist." (Iron Wall, p. 311)
Interesting thread.
Are you saying because the U.S. contradicts itself in a law somewhere that anyone who points out the violation has a legal recourse?
In a perfect world, I guess.
As an instrument of our national and foreign policy, I have been asked to accomplish missions that surely violate some law or policy elsewhere,
perhaps even our own. The policy of the adminstration and the American people are what drives us to do what we do. Law is what we make it,
either written or not.
Are you saying because the U.S. contradicts itself in a law somewhere that anyone who points out the violation has a legal recourse?
In a perfect world, I guess.
As an instrument of our national and foreign policy, I have been asked to accomplish missions that surely violate some law or policy elsewhere,
perhaps even our own. The policy of the adminstration and the American people are what drives us to do what we do. Law is what we make it,
either written or not.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter