God given rights?

[Whiskey16]

Charles, I am awaiting you to provide evidential support of external 'dictatorial' entities telling your state (the USA) how to behave (Charles: "I think that as an American it is up to my fellow Americans to make that decision for our nation, not a bunch of strangers in other countries....")

That is certainly not my position, but yours. In terms of this topic, with citation in terms of history and present treaties I have demonstrated it to be ungrounded, as the USA has freely made its own decision to often author and ratify those concerning human rights treaties. Without recognition, you dismiss that line of reasoning. Given that, I expect you to be able to offer support into this discussion for your countering position of being told how to behave.

 

[Whiskey16]

A global foundation as a starting place. Yet you have demonstrated to be so ideologically dismissive as to deny such published ideals -- particularly attached to the United Nations -- as having any worth. An interacting society brings pressure for change. Not immediate for all, to be sure. There will always be those who are so anti-social and individualistic as to go their own way. But over time, the reaction against the socially defining grain returns greater consequences, and thereby a greater pressure to adequately act and participate.

As society and states progress, more human rights treaties with be drafted, amended, and ratified by more states. While in the post-WWII period the USA was amongst the most enthusiastic to help draft founding human rights principles and then help author and sign many of following original treaties, it remains lagging behind in ratification. That said, despite Charles' claims, the USA remains a free and sovereign state to sign and ratify what it chooses. Certainly not all individuals accept nor tolerate what their governing representatives and societies enter into law, but those personal opinions may not frivolously invalidate what laws are present and for what those individuals remain legally bound by.

As promised, here is a list of international human rights treaties as ratified by the USA (the first date being the signing, and the second ratification:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]5 Oct 1977 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]8 Jun 1992 [/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]28 Sep 1966 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]21 Oct 1994[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]Protocol amending the Slavery Convention[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]16 Dec 1953[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]7 Mar 1956 (Acceptance)[/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]18 Apr 1988 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]21 Oct 1994 [/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]5 Jul 2000[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]23 Dec 2002 [/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]2 Dec 1999 [/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Abolition of Forced Labour Convention[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]25 Sep 1991 [/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]11 Dec 1948 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]25 Nov 1988 [/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]12 Aug 1949 [/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]2 Aug 1955 (rat/acced) [/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea [/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]12 Aug 1949 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2 Aug 1955 (rat/acced)[/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]12 Aug 1949 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2 Aug 1955 (rat/acced)[/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]12 Aug 1949 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]2 Aug 1955 (rat/acced) [/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]21 Dec 1979[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]7 Dec 1984 [/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]12 Jan 1998[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]26 Jun 2002[/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]10 Jan 2000 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]26 Jun 2002[/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]International Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]16 Dec 1970 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]14 Sep 1971[/SIZE]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against International Protected Persons[/FONT]

[SIZE=-1]28 Dec 1973 [/SIZE]​

[SIZE=-1]26 Oct 1976 [/SIZE]​

There remain plenty more international human rights treaties that the USA has not yet signed nor ratified.

Of all that USA ratified law and the remainder (University of Minnesota Human Rights Library) to at least be signed by the USA, Charles, the challenge remains upon you to enter into discussion evidence to support your position of external entities dictating and telling you how to behave.

Further, as you raise a concern/fear against being told how to behave, therefore among those laws of your land, what specific principles do you contest?

 

[Moonbeam]

Further, as you raise a concern/fear against being told how to behave, therefore among those laws of your land, what specific principles do you contest?

I think I understand where CK is coming from. What I am not so sure about is why you have a problem with his opinions.

Do you fine it objectionable that people believe the UN is hypocritical when many countries that sign on to UN human rights treaties do not practice them at home. Do they or do they not do that and do you like it if you think they do.

Do you want to empower an organization to enforce rights in one country, say the US, but not in China? Would you like an organization outside your own country to have that power when it is clear by your own ethical standards that you have the superior morality?

Your views strike me as ideologically motivated by some sacred cow issue personal to you that creates in your imagination enemies where none exist.

The UN can't enforce its ethical statements and can't even live up to them. I don't think any organization does. It's fine to have high minded principles but let's not fall in love with the body that issues them. Let us instead, in my opinion, hold sacred the principles that all men are born with rights, that their real source is rooted in the true nature of man and that true justice can't be practiced by rote or treaty or law but only by a loving heart.

It is contradictory to truth in my opinion, to externalize rights that are only recognized internally, that exist only internally. All outward manifestations of internal truth must necessarily fail because they express in word and thoughts things that are known only by feel. They are representations in the world of duality what can only exist in a state of unity. They are only the actions of a conscious mind present in the now. They are nothing more nor less than love.

You can't prove or defend love nor cause it to happen by force. Such needs are of the ego. Love is absolutely certain of itself. It is the ego that is tempted to force by doubts.

 

[Whiskey16]

I think I understand where CK is coming from. What I am not so sure about is why you have a problem with his opinions.

I have been consistently clear that he is incapable of supporting an ideological line common with conspiracy theorists that involves external entities dictating and telling the US how to behave.

That has been what he has presented in numerous examples and recorded with replying quotations to retain the integrity of challenging rebuttals. Therefore, as I have the respect of discussion to cite corroborating external sources for my position, it is not unreasonable to request the same in return.

With an inability to support the global power conspiracy reasoning, it is reasonable in a discussion to have such argumentative points retracted.

Do you fine it objectionable that people believe the UN is hypocritical when many countries that sign on to UN human rights treaties do not practice them at home. Do they or do they not do that and do you like it if you think they do.

It most certainly is objectionable, and yet an entirely different line of reasoning for the United Nations telling people how to behave. Sovereignty to ratify treaties and yet not fully implement those laws into domestic practice is a problem with many states -- notably with the inclusion of the USA for such hypocrisy and tardiness, so careful with a moral supremacist attitude for the USA:

Do you want to empower an organization to enforce rights in one country, say the US, but not in China? Would you like an organization outside your own country to have that power when it is clear by your own ethical standards that you have the superior morality?

What nonsense. Laws and treaties entered into domestic law are a separate issue than jurisdictions of the International Court of Justice who will not act into the domestic affairs of states unless referred to by the United Nations Security Council, of which the USA and China may veto, or other international institutions that require the approval of the signatory state to permit domestic appeal to such bodies.

The USA has not ratified the Rome Statute, therefore a USA based action and appeal to International Criminal Court is not possible. For the party states, the ICC can be appealed to if laws have been broken within their jurisdiction by external entities, even against those who are not party to that statute. A potential case can be against Israel for actions in the West Bank and Gaza strip if the State of Palestine choose to refer investigation and charges to the ICC. The same may be against a criminal action of the USA or its citizens outside of the USA's jurisdiction and upon that of another who does fall under the companionship of the Rome Statute. Again, none of these examples involve a dictating foreign entity telling how another state may behave in their own sovereign state. If one acts outside of their jurisdiction then they enter the realm of another. ie. Upon entering the state of Oregon, you fall under the jurisdiction of their state law, as well as US federal law, including the international treaties the federal state has ratified into law).

Your views strike me as ideologically motivated by some sacred cow issue personal to you that creates in your imagination enemies where none exist.

What twisted and argumentative absurdity! Demonstrate where I have imagined enemies!? Quote me. As I have done so for Charles on his numerous points, I fairly challenge your fabrication. I have supported my reasoning of states freely ratifying treaties upon their will. You and Charles fail to support your dictatorial fables, truly leaving ideology (UN black helicopter :\ conspiracies are common FUD in segments of the USA) as the lone basis for inventing a scenario of foreign entities enforcing their will upon you.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Since this thread has become completely derailed, and Whiskey refuses to cease with the personal comments and accusations, it is hereby locked.