Violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

For the text I refer you to http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.

It seems that the United States is specifically violating Articles 5, 8, 9, 10 in the case of the Guantanamo prisoners (and thousands of others all over the world).

Though not legally binding, it is interesting to note that it was adopted in 1948 by the countries of Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China,Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador,Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Siam (Thailand), Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.

It is also interesting to note that countries abstaining from the adoption vote were: Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, Yugoslavia. Saudi put itself in some very dubious company.

Similarly, violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm

Articles 7, 9, 10 and 15. These are legally binding on the signatory states. It is interesting to note that the U.S. and Great Britian have ratified this covenant as have Iraq and Afghanistan, but that Saudi Arabia and China have not.

Would anyone care to debate whether the actions of the U.S. are or are not a gross violation of these international norms?

well here in UK the war criminal fucker Phony Blair has got his pit bull teeth stuck into wanting to severely lengthen the time 'suspected terrorists' are 'detained'...ie., imprisoned. which isn't as long as the US internemnt of innocent people but is of the same ilk

i persnally am exploring that behind all of this is a move towards a a global police state. AFTER ALL THE SAME FUKEING EVIL SCUM who are staging terrorist atrocities are THE same ones who then fight like hell--as Bilderberger Blair is doing, to have our rights taken away from us......! CUI BONO

Any law that is not enforceable is nothing but political/diplomatic hot air!

Who enforces these "laws" on human rights? How large is their army? What are the punishments for violation of those "laws"?

Anyone can make a law, but enforcing that law is a whole different thing. And if it can't be enforced, what is it? Nothing! Just idealistic bullshit.

Baron Max

Baron, you SIGNED it!

so bmax...theones in Quantanemo Bay are just phantoms are they?...not REAL people locked up by a fascist law?

Baron, you SIGNED it!

Sure, but what does it mean? And wasn't it under a different administration? And what if some future administration refuses to acknowledge it? We vote into office new/different politicians every term ....isn't that almost like a whole new government? What if we voted into power a neo-nazi group of politicians? Would you expect that they'd follow all that bullshit?

And again .......who enforces those rules and laws? And if no one can enforce them, are they really valid?

And, duendy, ....what the hell are you talking about????? Can you please learn English and learn how to make sentences? Please?

Baron Max

oh baron baron...such a little thing to have to learn. but how pray will YOU get back the soul you lost LOOOOOOONG ago?

bmax is right, if there is no one to enforce the law, then is it really a law?

p.s. although, I believe that when a country signs it, it becomes part of that country's own national laws. but that is only what is supposed to happen. if that were really the case, bush and every senator who voted for the war, would be in prison for attacking another country.

bmax is right, if there is no one to enforce the law, then is it really a law?

Yeah! There's a law in Oklahoma City that makes it illegal (and a jail offense!) to lick an icecream cone in public on Sunday ....now that's LICK, not eat icecream, but to LICK the icecream. That's still a law on the books, but since it is not enforced, ....does that law mean anything at all? To anyone?

If we had a gazillion laws, but no cops and no judges and no courts, .....what does it mean to have laws? ...even if 90% of the people agree with the laws?

So we can talk about/discuss "iinternational laws" if we want to, but does it really mean anything? Perhaps nothing more than ...psycho-babble? Philosophy as discussed by old men sipping port wine and smoking big cigars?

oh baron baron...such a little thing to have to learn.

Yes, it is. But I'm trying ....I'm really, really trying. And I just hope you can help me learn by answering some of the above points.

Baron Max

Then be honest and just admit you don't give a shit about laws, about the rest of the world and drop the charade about freedom and all that other bullshit like democracy.

At least cancel the treaty. Be a man, and not some pussy. If countries can be men and pussies.

But that is what you look like to the rest of the world, cry babies and pussies. Not some mighty enforcer of freedom. Just a sneaky bully. A loser.

Then be honest and just admit you don't give a shit about laws, about the rest of the world and drop the charade about freedom and all that other bullshit like democracy.

Hmm, I thought I was being honest! I don't give a shit about other nations, other people, other groups, other cultures, other (fill in the blank) ....I care about the United States of America. I care about freedom for Americans, I couldn't care less about freedom for (fill in the blank). I care about democracy for Americans, I couldn't care less about democracy for (fill in the blank).

If the US Marines want to invade (fill in the blank), I don't care ...no, I'll cheer them on and do everything I can to help them. If the US Army wants to kill (fill in the blank), then I say, "They need the marksmanship training!"

If America doesn't like (fill in the blank), and American wants to force them to do things our way or how we want, then I say, "Go to it! Good luck, boys!"

If America wants to sink Africa beneath the waves of the ocean, I say, "Go to it, boys! We don't need that fuckin' continent anyway!"

Baron Max

I'm talking about your pussy country, not you.

Hmm, I thought I was being honest! I don't give a shit about other nations, other people, other groups, other cultures, other (fill in the blank) ....I care about the United States of America. I care about freedom for Americans, I couldn't care less about freedom for (fill in the blank). I care about democracy for Americans, I couldn't care less about democracy for (fill in the blank).

If the US Marines want to invade (fill in the blank), I don't care ...no, I'll cheer them on and do everything I can to help them. If the US Army wants to kill (fill in the blank), then I say, "They need the marksmanship training!"

If America doesn't like (fill in the blank), and American wants to force them to do things our way or how we want, then I say, "Go to it! Good luck, boys!"

If America wants to sink Africa beneath the waves of the ocean, I say, "Go to it, boys! We don't need that fuckin' continent anyway!"

Baron Max
Baron... after reading that, I think I love you. ;)

So well are all the "DEATH TO IRAN!" threads?? They have been violating that law for decades. China! What about China! I guess that whole thing with the students and the tanks never happened LOL.

If you pansies are going to sit here and yell at the U.S. then you damn well better apply your wrath to the other countries on there that do the exact same thing (and in many cases a whole lot more. I dont remember the U.S. calling out Tanks to deal with students....).

I thought I was being honest! I don't give a shit about ...

No one will ever accuse you of not being honest, Baron. You would have done a lot better living in the nineteenth century, though. That was the last time your position was a tenable one. Don't you see that it's no longer a matter of us or them anymore? We've reached a point where it can't be us or them; it's got to be us and them - the only other choice is extinction.

You're the one who is constantly harping on hypocrisy in the world - and I applaud you on that. It may also be true that I am just a fucking hypocrite myself for espousing a position (adherence to international standards for all peoples) while not being willing to actually risk my comfortable life to make that happen. My actual actions (or nonactions) speak the same truths you say out loud. Be that as it may, I wonder if your position stops at the water's edge, so to speak. You say you care about freedom for Americans?

Unconditionally?

...you damn well better apply your wrath to the other countries on there that do the exact same thing ...

Absolutely! I wish the U.S. government WOULD apply the same standard everywhere. I could castigate a dozen countries right off the top of my head who violate international standards all the time... let's see - Saudi, Indonesia, Sudan, Colombia, North Korea, China, Russia, Algeria, Israel, Uzbekhistan, Myanmar, Congo. The U.S. has a moral obligation to take on all of these countries' terrible human rights records. But I happen to live in the U.S. and so I think that's the only country I can do much about.

Don't you see that it's no longer a matter of us or them anymore? We've reached a point where it can't be us or them; it's got to be us and them - the only other choice is extinction.

I disagree! What ye're saying is just your opinion ...which is no better or no worse than anyone else's. If we'd take a stronger position, instead of cow to the (rioters, insurgents, liberal doo-gooders, whimpy asses, etc.) we'd be much better off. I'm tired of lying down and rolling over for all of those bastards ....it's time to take off the gloves and fight for what we believe in and for our very lives!

Personally, I think most of the problems in the world have been caused by that whimpy, idealistic, liberal doo-gooder crap! People only understand power! And that means guns and bombs!

Some of the rest of your post I don't understand. You've couched it in some kind of psycho-babble crap that hides the actual meanings. Can't people speak/write in plain English anymore?

Baron Max

Sure, but what does it mean? And wasn't it under a different administration? And what if some future administration refuses to acknowledge it? We vote into office new/different politicians every term ....isn't that almost like a whole new government? What if we voted into power a neo-nazi group of politicians? Would you expect that they'd follow all that bullshit?

And again .......who enforces those rules and laws? And if no one can enforce them, are they really valid?

And, duendy, ....what the hell are you talking about????? Can you please learn English and learn how to make sentences? Please?

Baron Max

you know, he has a point. international law is bullshit because of how its enforced. its up to the permanent members of the UN security council most of the time, and they almost never subject themselves to the authority of any international body if they can avoid it, but they are constantly singling out some developing nation for sanctions or intervention. the problem with international law enforcement is that half the laws arent binding unless the country agrees after the fact to submit to the enforcing body's authority. do you think the US or the UK or China is ever going to do something that stupid? no way. the fairness of international law pretty much depends on which administrations are in power in the big countries at the time, and to what extent they abuse power and refuse to admit it. everyone knows that in all likelihood the US tortures and kills prisoners of war, but the big difference is that we dont videotape it and send it to the insurgents, we just do it secretly and then deny it later. you think Bush or Rumsfeld stay awake at night worrying that we've violated international law, no they probably laugh at the thought of it.

The problem with this bullshit called "international law" is that it's nothing more than a few liberal doo-gooders trying to tell others how to live and what to do. It's nothing more than the OPINION of a FEW! Why is their opinion any better than someone else's opinion on how to live and what to do?

The "few" have been trying to tell the "majority" how to live and what to do since the beginnings of human history, yet here, with "international law", some are actually advocating that we all abide by the wishes of those few people. Why?

High n' mighty ideals, with no power to back it up. But even more interesting, if we gave those people the power to back it up, most of those who now advocate "international law" would be the very first to cry foul!! Now ain't that a kick in the ass?? ...LOL!

Baron Max

Why should we then care about the opinion of the few of you?

I think "caring" about people is a normal human instinct ...but on a PERSONAL level only, not on a national or governmental level. When the "personal" caring is taken over by the government, it becomes nothing more than the government stealing from one group to give to another ...which ain't very nice. In fact, some/many would call that oppression, wouldn't they?

If each human "cared for" those that they knew, or family members, then no one would be REQIURED to care for them. As it is, humans don't care for their own ...they expect others or governments to care in their place! That sucks!

And lastly, if all of the people who CLAIMED to care about people actually DID something for them, there'd probably be a LOT less hunger and poverty. But, no, that's not what they do ...they try to force others to care.

Baron Max

Spurious: If, by the 'few of you' you mean the United States of America, I would have to say its because we are willing to bloody our knuckles enforcing our will and word.

The problem with this bullshit called "international law" is that it's nothing more than a few liberal doo-gooders trying to tell others how to live and what to do. It's nothing more than the OPINION of a FEW! Why is their opinion any better than someone else's opinion on how to live and what to do?

The "few" have been trying to tell the "majority" how to live and what to do since the beginnings of human history, yet here, with "international law", some are actually advocating that we all abide by the wishes of those few people. Why?

High n' mighty ideals, with no power to back it up. But even more interesting, if we gave those people the power to back it up, most of those who now advocate "international law" would be the very first to cry foul!! Now ain't that a kick in the ass?? ...LOL!

Baron Max

the kids with the biggest guns rule the sandbox. face it.
most international law has no teeth and probably won't anytime soon. and its development has a lot less to do with liberal do-gooders than it does with huge corporations that operate in multiple countries trying to carve out new markets and create safe bases of operations for themselves. sure, theres some stuff like the world court and the universal declaration of human rights...etc, but those kind of laws are just there to placate the masses or to ensure the facade of equality in a world thats absurdly unbalanced. the majority of international law exists to make it possible for huge countries to trade with each other, or to completely rob smaller countries of land, resources, and personal freedoms. the enforcement of that kind of law pretty much depends on who is fucking who out of what, and how big their national muscles are.

The problem with this bullshit called "international law" is that it's nothing more than a few liberal doo-gooders trying to tell others how to live and what to do.

Not at all. Delegates to the United Nations are appointed by and act on behalf of their governments. If they are "liberal do-gooders", then that is obviously what their governments want, and, by extension, what the people want (for the democratic UN member nations).

On the other hand, it is obvious you know very little about the UN and how it works, or you wouldn't make such a clearly incorrect statement. History shows that the UN is more often about pragmatism and compromise than about idealism.

It's nothing more than the OPINION of a FEW! Why is their opinion any better than someone else's opinion on how to live and what to do?

Delegates are representatives. Understand?

The "few" have been trying to tell the "majority" how to live and what to do since the beginnings of human history, yet here, with "international law", some are actually advocating that we all abide by the wishes of those few people. Why?

These are not wishes of "a few people" as you claim. Representatives, Baron, representatives.

High n' mighty ideals, with no power to back it up.

Not quite right. The UN has as much power as its member states are willing to cede to it. Which isn't much, but isn't nothing, either.

But even more interesting, if we gave those people the power to back it up, most of those who now advocate "international law" would be the very first to cry foul!! Now ain't that a kick in the ass?? ...LOL!

Empty conjecture, based on nothing, as far as I can tell.

Spurious: If, by the 'few of you' you mean the United States of America, I would have to say its because we are willing to bloody our knuckles enforcing our will and word.



you sound identical to a terrorist

Some of the rest of your post I don't understand. You've couched it in some kind of psycho-babble crap that hides the actual meanings. Can't people speak/write in plain English anymore?

Baron Max

I thought I made it very plain. I suggested that I may be full of shit talking about holding my and other countries accountable through international law. This is because ALL I do is talk, and talk is cheap. I do not put anything real on the line. Fairly straightforward with no "psychobabble", whatever that is.

You said

I don't give a shit about other nations, other people, other groups, other cultures, other (fill in the blank) ....I care about the United States of America. I care about freedom for Americans, I couldn't care less about freedom for (fill in the blank). I care about democracy for Americans, I couldn't care less about democracy for (fill in the blank).

and I asked you if you extend this caring unconditionally to all Americans. Do you?

Violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

For the text I refer you to http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.

It seems that the United States is specifically violating Articles 5, 8, 9, 10 in the case of the Guantanamo prisoners (and thousands of others all over the world).

Though not legally binding, it is

You are right and you are wrong.
It is true, the declaration as a whole is not legally binding, but the customary international rights that are codified in it are legally binding to international subjects.
That is to say, some articles (particulary the first 12 or so) of the declaration are binding, the problem is that there is next to no means to enforce them against the USA (or China, or Russia for that matter), though it has been enforced against. smaller countries. These major countries are too powerful and aren't shy to abuse their power.

and by who was it inforced? the very people who want to be exept from the ICC which was set up to make SURE it was inforced

By the international community through the UN, several war tribunals and by individual countries (Belgium, UK, others) through the erga omnes principle (but the latter mainly against individual war criminals and criminals against humanity).

The International Criminal Court is a strange case, and shows hypocrisy of the USA on the highest international legal level.
They have nothing against that criminals of other countries are tried, but they won't allow its' own (war) criminals to be prosecuted, that is to say, mainly the soldiers in Afghanistan, Iraq and possibly other countries.

Delegates to the United Nations are appointed by and act on behalf of their governments. If they are "liberal do-gooders", then that is obviously what their governments want, and, by extension, what the people want (for the democratic UN member nations).

"...and, by extension, what the people want."??? Is that true of the UN delegate from Libya? Iran? Saudi Arabia? ...or a host of other such nations? I'd say a very small percentage of the UN delegates are from "democratic" nations. So what does that make the UN? You still think that the UN is actually representative of "the people"?

And just to keep you thinking ....what do you mean when you say "...the people"? Who, exactly, are "the people" of any nation? Is that the majority? Or is it the majority of those in power at that time? Just who are "the people"??

Delegates are representatives. Understand?

No, I don't understand. Please explain ...unless you've done so in answer to my questions above.

The UN has as much power as its member states are willing to cede to it. Which isn't much, but isn't nothing, either.

Then none of those member states must give a shit about all of the "wars" going on in the world, huh? African nations are hacking people to death all day, every day, and the UN does nothing? Sudan is a major "war zone", but the UN does nothing about it? Is that because none of the member nations give a shit ....or 'cause they ain't got the power to DO shit?

Oops, I forgot .....they can sit around, drinking fine wine, and make assine accusations and worse "laws" ...which they have no power to enforce!

Baron Max

and I asked you if you extend this caring unconditionally to all Americans. Do you?

It's a completely different and distinct issue. And more importantly, the parameters of "caring" are completely different.

The first issue is to take care of the United States of America. Then, when that's secure from any and all threats from the outside, we begin to take care of threats from the inside. The point about "caring" is, in fact, the same, but the criteria is completely different.

Baron Max

Baron Max:

"...and, by extension, what the people want."??? Is that true of the UN delegate from Libya? Iran? Saudi Arabia?

Are those countries democracies? Are their leaders fairly elected representatives? If so, then presumably their UN delegates are representative, too. If not, then the qualification I made in my previous post is applicable.

...or a host of other such nations? I'd say a very small percentage of the UN delegates are from "democratic" nations. So what does that make the UN?

It makes the UN a collection of delegates representing their respective states. Not a bunch of liberal do-gooders, like you said it was.

You still think that the UN is actually representative of "the people"?

Which people?

And just to keep you thinking ....what do you mean when you say "...the people"? Who, exactly, are "the people" of any nation? Is that the majority? Or is it the majority of those in power at that time? Just who are "the people"??

You tell me, then I'll tell you whether the UN is representative of them.

Have you forgotten your initial claim? You seem to be going off on a tangent.

Then none of those member states must give a shit about all of the "wars" going on in the world, huh? African nations are hacking people to death all day, every day, and the UN does nothing? Sudan is a major "war zone", but the UN does nothing about it? Is that because none of the member nations give a shit ....or 'cause they ain't got the power to DO shit?

First, it is not true that the UN does nothing. The UN is a collection of many organisations. It has political arms in the General Assembly and the Security Council, as well as humanitarian and other components, such as UNICEF, UNHCR, etc. etc. You seem to think it is only political. On the political side, have you ever heard of UN peace keeping forces?

Secondly, while we're on politics, do you realise that the UN is often prevented from acting by a difference of opinion among its members states? In the Security Council, for example, there are countries which have an absolute power to veto actions unilaterally. (BTW, the US uses its veto power regularly.)

Oops, I forgot .....they can sit around, drinking fine wine, and make assine accusations and worse "laws" ...which they have no power to enforce!

The UN has some informative web sites. Maybe you should take a look, and find out something about the organisation.

International laws are mainly made up by super powers to dictate whatever they wish to weaker nations. Americans,Chinese, Russians, Britons and the French.. have never had any real respect for human rights or democracy, they have been exploiting these stuff to secure their own interests at any cost. This is the essential reason behind the widespread injustice and international turmoil we experience today.

I have a European friend who believes in this philosophy:" Whoever has the power, has the right!" and we know that power does not necessarily mean economic or technologic might, it can be the power to terrorize and the power to destroy, So ,though he hates Al-Qaeda, he had to confess that they are RIGHT!:) I believe most of my American friends who post in this thread secretly share his confession!!

There is probably no solution for this problem unless all and every important country in the world gets powerful enough to deter the others from bullying them! That's why I believe that every country should have nukes. It sure won't be worse than it is now!

It's a completely different and distinct issue. And more importantly, the parameters of "caring" are completely different.

The first issue is to take care of the United States of America. Then, when that's secure from any and all threats from the outside, we begin to take care of threats from the inside. The point about "caring" is, in fact, the same, but the criteria is completely different.

Baron Max

So you draw a distinction between the health of the state and the health of its citizens, is that right?

International laws are mainly made up by super powers to dictate whatever they wish to weaker nations. Americans,Chinese, Russians, Britons and the French.. have never had any real respect for human rights or democracy, they have been exploiting these stuff to secure their own interests at any cost. This is the essential reason behind the widespread injustice and international turmoil we experience today.

True enough. Just as local laws are often used by the locally powerful to advance their interests. This is not sufficient reason to disregard local law, nor does it make local or international law inherently evil just because it is used as an instrument of evil.

International law has indeed been composed under the (strongarm?) leadership of the Great Powers, who paradoxically refuse to be bound by it. That is truly injustice. Baron Max has been going on about how there is no mechanism to enforce international law on those who refuse to be bound by it. This is true in one sense because there is no authority strong enough to pit itself against the Great Powers. In another sense, though, the nations who flout reasonable standards of behavior will, over time, marginalize and weaken themselves until they are no longer Great Powers. Like Great Britain, for example.

So you draw a distinction between the health of the state and the health of its citizens, is that right?

Huh? I have no idea how you got that from my posts ...try reading them again.

Baron Max

...the nations who flout reasonable standards of behavior will, over time, marginalize and weaken themselves until they are no longer Great Powers.

And who determines what is "reasonable standards of behavior"? The liberal idealists of the world? The Christians? The Muslims? The Jews? The rich? The poor?

But, Te Jen, you're like a lot of people .....they have their OWN ideals, then look into their crystal ball and point to some FUTURE event to help support those ideals. Don't you find that a foolish way to discuss things?

And just think ...at some point in the future, even if the present-day powerful nations are gone, some OTHER nation(s) will then be "the power". The question is, of course, will anything really change? Being as how humans are the way they are, my answer would be 'NO'.

Baron Max

True enough. Just as local laws are often used by the locally powerful to advance their interests. This is not sufficient reason to disregard local law, nor does it make local or international law inherently evil just because it is used as an instrument of evil.

International law has indeed been composed under the (strongarm?) leadership of the Great Powers, who paradoxically refuse to be bound by it. That is truly injustice. Baron Max has been going on about how there is no mechanism to enforce international law on those who refuse to be bound by it. This is true in one sense because there is no authority strong enough to pit itself against the Great Powers. In another sense, though, the nations who flout reasonable standards of behavior will, over time, marginalize and weaken themselves until they are no longer Great Powers. Like Great Britain, for example.

the normal state of international politics is fluctuating hegemony. if the current "great powers" fail to adapt to the changing cultural, economic, and military conditions of the loose global confederacy that has emerged since the end of the second world war, then they will no longer be the great powers. undoubtedly though, some other power will rise to replace them. international law and its selective enforcement is largely a reflection of which powers have the most influence on the world political stage right now, if those powers were to change, so would international law and the countries it is used to control. international law is therefore not representative of a "reasonable standard of behavior" in any real sense, because it isnt a standard that applies evenly across the laws' jurisdiction. in addition to that, standards have to be nearly universally accepted as valid in order to be standards. i would argue that international law in the past 50 or so years has been largely dictated by 5 or 6 large military and economic powerhouse countries who legislate in their own best interests with little regard for any agreement or disagreement that other nations involved would offer. this doesnt represent any multinational consensus of what represents "justice", because that concept is largely determined by cultural and religious factors that vary widely depending on the region of the world you find yourself in. international law is more often a set of nearly arbitrary rules that the powerful countries can manipulate and use to justify "peacekeeping actions" (war) when they are broken, or can totally trivialize when they themselves transgress. this differs from the theory of law within a sovreign nation, where it normally is a "reasonable standard of behavior" that applies for the most part equally across the strata of society and enjoys the support of a popular consensus that violation of it should be punished in the interest of some greater good. in that situation it becomes difficult for a senator or a priest to murder someone and say "i dont abide by that law because it isnt my tradition or custom, or the law of my neighboorhood" although they believe it should apply to people in the poorer sections of town.
the biggest challenge to international law is national sovreignty and independence. in retrospect, why would a country like iraq want to submit to the authority of a body controlled by countries who would love nothing more than to steal its most valuable natural resource, knowing full well that there would be no challenge raised to such an action were it to take place? they wouldn't, and they shouldn't have, because look where it got them. and everyone can go on and on about how Sadaam Hussein was a cruel and evil dictator who tortured his own people, but how many other countries are there in the world where the same conditions exist, yet international bodies are motionless and silent on the issue? international law is not a set of rules for acceptable conduct, its a set of justifications for violations of national sovreignty. im sure at some point, this will come back to be revisited upon the now great powers, but that doesn't mean that the ones who replace them will lend any more legitimacy to "global law enforcement" in terms of it being representative of a sense of justice or fairness.

You said:

I care about the United States of America. I care about freedom for Americans...
Baron Max

To which I replied

... I asked you if you extend this caring unconditionally to all Americans.

To which you responded

It's a completely different and distinct issue. And more importantly, the parameters of "caring" are completely different.

The first issue is to take care of the United States of America. Then, when that's secure from any and all threats from the outside, we begin to take care of threats from the inside.

This, to me, indicates that you separate the security of the nation from the security of those who live in it. I got that from the "completely different and distinct issue" part. So to clarify, I asked you if indeed you do draw a distinction between the health of the state and the health of the citizenry. If so, do you feel that the security of the state is of greater importance than that of the citizens? (I used the word "health" rather metaphorically).

Regarding "reasonable standards of behavior"... you seem stuck on the notion that a small group of ideologues is responsible for cooking them up. I disagree. International norms are the product of consensus, just like the laws of any competent democracy. As far as the flow of history is concerned, I think that the evolution of international law is akin to the evolution of law in formerly lawless territories. Like the United States. I like to think of international law as similar to the Wild West of the 19th century. It took a fair amount of time and struggle to subdue the formerly lawless areas - and now things are more or less peaceful without resort to massive applications of violence. I can see a similar process occuring worldwide.

This, to me, indicates that you separate the security of the nation from the security of those who live in it. ..... If so, do you feel that the security of the state is of greater importance than that of the citizens?

I would have to say 'Yes'. Without the "state", in most nations of the world, there is no security for the individuals. How can there be? ..unless the citizens take up their own arms to protect themselves. But then, by doing so, aren't they, in fact, becoming "the state"?

In fact, I'm sitting here typing this and wondering how, exactly, individual citizens could possibly be secure WITHOUT the security of the state??? Can that be possible in human societies?

...you seem stuck on the notion that a small group of ideologues is responsible for cooking them up. I disagree. International norms are the product of consensus, just like the laws of any competent democracy.

Consensus? Surely you jest!??! When, in the course of human events, has there EVER been a consensus on anything??

And I still think that I'm right ....a small, powerful group of people/nations IS responsible for the notion of international laws, norms, rules, etc. We might talk, as James R. did, of "representation" of the people, but that's far, far from a consensus of the people of the world.

No, I think such issues as "human rights" and "international law" is idealistic bullshit. It's been touted for so long, on so many tv shows/newscasts, by so many people (mostly liberals!), that people now just take it to be true .....which is nothing more than how ALL propaganda becomes "true". Say it long enough and often enough, and people will believe it.

If "international law" actually meant anything, then the UN or such body would have the power to enforce those laws. As it is, it's all nothing but idealistic talk, allegations and accusations without any teeth. Anyone can make such laws ....like me or you. They'd amount to the same thing.

...formerly lawless areas - and now things are more or less peaceful without resort to massive applications of violence. I can see a similar process occuring worldwide.

I think you should think a bit more seriously about that. It's my thought that there is far, far more conflict and crime in the world today than EVER before in history. The world is NOT more peaceful, but more violent ...and worse, it's more violent on an individual basis like never before. Think about it ....where on Earth is there really any peace? Maybe a few ...but for each one you name, I can probably name many that are in violent conflict.

And what does "international law" DO about any of that conflict?

Baron Max

If "international law" actually meant anything, then the UN or such body would have the power to enforce those laws.
Not really. For starters, UN regulates only a small portion of all the international laws that are out there. Second - international law is not municipal law, it doesn't work by the vertical hierarchy, but the horizontal, i.e., all international subjects enforce these (to the best of their ability and wish) among themselves with no central institution.
It's different and it's hard to enforce, but it works well for most cases,
alas you hear about it in press only when someone has done a wrongful act and that hasn't been settled.
States and international organisations employ international law every day in their relations.

States and international organisations employ international law every day in their relations.

Well, of course they do!! It's to their benefit! If it weren't, however, they wouldn't comply with it and no one would/could do jack-shit about it. And that's just the point ......without enforcement, there is no law. People work together for mutual benefit, but that doesn't mean it's "law".

Think about it ....imagine removing all police and enforcement agencies from, say, New York City. How long do you think the "laws" would be followed? ...other than, of course, those that were mutually beneficial. I.e., most traffic laws would be followed, more or less, because of ease of travel. But what about theft? What about murder? what about rape? What about assault? Do you really, seriously, think that NYC would last a week?

Baron Max

Of course, international law works (or doesn't work) on the principle of mutual benefit of the participants (there is regional int.l., general int.l. and universal.int.l.) or the benefit of the international community as a whole.
It's not municipal law and should not be regarded as such.

That's exactly what I'm saying, Avatar .........we call it "law", when it's really nothing but common courtesy and being nice to others!

International shipping is a good example of "common courtesy" that has evolved over years of nations sailing into another nations harbors/waters. We like to call it "international law", but it isn't! It's just sailors doing what they've been doing for a gazillion years!

But what you and others seem to fail to realize is that if someone broke one of those "laws", it doesn't matter, because nothing can be done if the "criminal" doesn't want to acknowledge it. And if so, then "international law" is nothing but hot air!

It is a nice-sounding term, however, .....sorta' like "love", huh? Nice-sounding and sweet, but when one partner does something that the other doesn't like, they fight like cats n' dogs. Where'd the "love" go??????? (or, where'd the "law" go???)

Baron Max

But what you and others seem to fail to realize is that if someone broke one of those "laws", it doesn't matter, because nothing can be done if the "criminal" doesn't want to acknowledge it. And if so, then "international law" is nothing but hot air!
Not really, it matters if the criminal is weaker than those who wish to enforce it.
Nobody asked Yugoslavia for a permission when NATO and later UN forces moved in.

Of course this applies only to public international law,
private international law is enforced through international courts to which jurisdiction the parties have usually agreed upon signing a bonding treaty.

Not really, it matters if the criminal is weaker than those who wish to enforce it. Nobody asked Yugoslavia for a permission when NATO and later UN forces moved in.

Ahh, yes ....now we've gotten to the meat of the matter: FORCE OF ARMS!

I've said it before and I'll say it again .....law and/or rights come ONLY from the muzzle of a gun. He who has the biggest, most powerful gun, makes and enforces the laws ...regardless of who is for it or against it.

And thus, "international law" is bullshit for heated, argumentative discussions with liberals! :)

Baron Max

It works quite well on the regional level in Europe,
mostly because most countries are on a simmilar level of development and attitude to rights
and feel the political pressure to follow the international law.
If there were not the three global super powers I'm almost sure that it would work quite well on a global level (maybe excluding Africa).

Baron Max:

No, I think such issues as "human rights" and "international law" is idealistic bullshit. It's been touted for so long, on so many tv shows/newscasts, by so many people (mostly liberals!), that people now just take it to be true ...

Just out of interest, do you think the same thing about your US Bill of Rights?

It's my thought that there is far, far more conflict and crime in the world today than EVER before in history. The world is NOT more peaceful, but more violent

This suggests to me that you don't know much history. I completely disagree with your assessment. The average citizen has much less exposure to violence on a personal level today than at any other time in world history.

Baron Max: Just out of interest, do you think the same thing about your US Bill of Rights?

No, of course not ....we can ENFORCE those laws ...and that's what makes them viable laws. Without the ability to enforce them, laws are nothing but wimpy, mamby-pamby bullshit.

This suggests to me that you don't know much history. I completely disagree with your assessment. The average citizen has much less exposure to violence on a personal level today than at any other time in world history.

Hmm, well, I disagree with your disagreement! I'd suggest that YOU look a bit closer at human history.

Baron Max

If there were not the three global super powers I'm almost sure that it would work quite well on a global level (maybe excluding Africa).

Yeah, sure. *IF* the rabbit hadn't stopped to take a shit, the fox wouldn't have caught him, too! *IF* is one of those words that can be used to show/prove anything that anyone wants ...but it's usually meaningless.

Baron Max

You can start by enforcing international law by making it against the law in your OWN country to brake the international laws.

Et voila...they have the same status as your own precious laws.

So anyone who sets up an illegal prison in the US government or as a citizen, and anyone who commits torture on US soil or anyone who commits torture and is a US citizen can be 'punished' for breaking the law.

Simple isn't it.

You can start by enforcing international law by making it against the law in your OWN country to brake the international laws.

No, a nation shouldn't and wouldn't make such laws without it being in their best interest and having national benefits. And that being the case, the ideal of "international law" is still nothing more than national law forced upon other, weaker nations. And we're right back to the concept of enforcement ...and the power of the gun!

Simple isn't it.

Yes, Spurious, "international law" IS simple ...just like all such speech or rambling rhetoric. Anyone can SAY anything, but for it to mean something, there must be much more attached to it. And that, of course, is my main point in all of this ....it's just talk for talking's sake, nothing more. ...unless one can back it up with police/military power.

You know it as well as I do, yet you continue to post as if calling something "international law" is all it takes for it to BE law. You know better than that, so why are you persisting in your argument? And that's true even if every nation on Earth except one agrees to call it "international law" ....if that one nation is the most powerful and does NOT agree, then it's "international law" in name only!! ...nothing more than some ideal to be discussed over wine and cigars!!

Baron Max

we weren't discussing if it was in a nations best interest. You were claiming international laws couldn't be enforced and that is why they are bad. I told you how to enforce them and now there is suddenly another problem.

Who cares what you think about international law. Your people have chosen to accept the laws. Now make them legal and enforce them,.

You were claiming international laws couldn't be enforced and that is why they are bad.

Huh? I never once said that those laws were "bad"! Where did you get that? I just said that laws, any laws, which can't be enforced are nothing. It's just about like me making a law that says girls in California between the ages of 14 and 21 can't date men!! I think that's probably a good law, but how in hell can I enforce it?? ...LOL! And so, my law, maybe a good one, is nothing but so much hot air! Ditto for "international law".

I told you how to enforce them and now there is suddenly another problem.

...LOL! You said: "You can start by enforcing international law by making it against the law in your OWN country to brake the international laws."

But, Spurious, if we made such a law, then it would NOT be an "international law", it would be a national law ...AND... more importantly, it would be ENFORCEABLE because we have the police and military might to enforce it.

Who cares what you think about international law.

I agree. I also agree that it's the same thing if some nation doesn't care about "international law". A nation, any nation, that does NOT care about it make "international law" nothing but a joke! I.e., any nation can thumb it's nose at it without anything happening. That ain't much of a law, is it?

Baron Max

PS - Unless you can come up with some arguement other than "I'm right, ye're wrong", I'm done with this issue. Because ye're right .....I don't care!

International law is only unenforceable because we want it that way. Let's have some real international law, and get rid of veto power for the permanent members of the UN, along with the establishment of an effective UN military force.

Yes, ye're right, Spider ....let's have the "representatives" of all nations get together and decide just how the people of all nations should operate and live. Then if other nations don't do what those "representatives" have outlined, then they are in violation of "international law" and will be invaded and forced to comply or die!

Yeah, Spider, I like it! When do we start such proceedings? I'm anxious to begin telling the people of other nations of the world how to live, by damn!!!! I can use the practice in shooting people!! :)

Baron Max

Economic sanctions would precede military intervention, which, unlike today, would be used only as a last resort.

Economic sanctions would precede military intervention, ...

You mean like the economic sanctions against Iraq ...which for years did nothing to make Saddam comply with anything, and brought the economy of Iraq the point of the people of Iraq to the point of dire poverty and sickness and ill-health?

I do like, however, that you've so quickly agreed that a few people should tell everyone else on the planet exactly how to live and what to do!! Do you REALLY think that would be a good thing?

Baron Max

So international law is not impossible, it's only ineffective because powerful nations want to be free to break it. These laws are not overly controlling at present, and only the broadest agreements could even be made between such diverse nations.

So international law is not impossible, it's only ineffective because powerful nations want to be free to break it.

Well, not just powerful nations! Robert Mugabe has been subjecting his own people to numerous horrors for years and years, but no one is doing jack-shit about it. On the other hand, people are ranting and raving about the US in Iraq ...even tho' Saddam had been subjecting his people to horrors for thirty years and thumbing his nose at the UN and "international law". And I certainly would NOT call Iraq or Rawanda "powerful nations", would you?

..., and only the broadest agreements could even be made between such diverse nations.

Agreed. But if the laws are so damned broad, so as to include every nation on Earth, they'll have to be VERY BROAD indeed. And so why even have them?

And worse, it's still the more powerful (or even the most "advanced"?) trying to FORCE other nations to do what they might not want or like. That ain't nice, is it? And likewise, even any small group of people (representatives) telling, and trying to force, other nations how to live is equally not nice, is it?

Baron Max

I think that's probably a good law, but how in hell can I enforce it?? ...



You are not supposed to enforce law unless you are working for the criminal justice system.

duh...

Baron:

Do you know how international law works? Here's a beginners' guide:

1. States meet up and negotiate on laws.
2. States sign up to a treaty, by which they promise to implement the agreed international law.
3. States then legislate locally to provide enforcement mechanisms to abide by their treaty obligations.

States are not forced to sign treaties, in the ordinary course of events. They enter into international agreements voluntarily.

States are not forced to sign treaties, in the ordinary course of events.
Actually by international law such forced treaties are legally void, but that regards only military force, or threats with military force. Does not apply to economic pressure, etc.

...
1. States meet up and negotiate on laws.
2. States sign up to a treaty, by which they promise to implement the agreed international law.
3. States then legislate locally to provide enforcement mechanisms to abide by their treaty obligations.

So, ....let's see now, ...representatives of states get together and vote to pass a bunch of laws which they claim are legal and binding for all nations of the world? Right? "Representatives of states" = bunch o' politicians? And you claim that it's valid and right? (Note: I'm sure that ye're like a lot of people ....you didn't "approve" of John Bolton's appointment to the UN!! And yet he "represents" the people of the USA.)

Do you give the validity to any and all "representatives" of all nations? I.e., if the representatives of the US, Britian and Australia vote to go to war against Iraq, you agree without reservation? I know that you've made mention that those representatives should be from "democratic nations", but what of all of the other nations of the world? Does Rawanda have a representative who looks out for the interests of the people of Rawanda? Does the representative of Libya care about the interests of Libyans?

James, you should examine more closely just who and what these "representatives" are before you give such unequivocal approval!! I'd also be curious just how this group of people is given such power over other nations of the world ...some even without "representation"?

Such power is not to be taken lightly. Such power, the few telling the many how and what to do, is not too good, is it? But you seem so avidly approving of giving just a few politicians that vast power. Why? How?

Baron Max

Representatives of the governments, not people. International Law doesn't care what regime (democracy, theocracy, etc) a particular country has.

Representatives of the governments, not people. International Law doesn't care what regime (democracy, theocracy, etc) a particular country has.

I'm not sure what ye're saying there??

Are you saying that you approve that a bunch of people, politicians, from different nations and cultural backgrounds, should be permitted to tell all of us on the entire Earth how to live and what to do? You approve of that???

Baron Max

My approval or disproval means nothing, just stating the law.

to tell all of us on the entire Earth how to live and what to do?
Don't exagarate (sp), international law mainly deals with relations between international subjects, not the people.

Baron:

I think you're losing track of your argument again. Earlier, you were arguing the UN is powerless. Now, you seem to be saying that delegates to the UN have power, but do not necessarily represent their people. So, which is it?

So, ....let's see now, ...representatives of states get together and vote to pass a bunch of laws which they claim are legal and binding for all nations of the world? Right?

Wrong. States which are not signatories to UN treaties are not bound by them. How could they be?

"Representatives of states" = bunch o' politicians? And you claim that it's valid and right?

Can you think of a better procedure?

Do you give the validity to any and all "representatives" of all nations?

Here's where that pragmatism I mentioned before comes in. You may not like the representations of the government of Zimbabwe, for example, but do you cut Zimbabwe out of the UN completely, or do you maintain a diplomatic channel? The current government of Zimbabwe is the only representative of the state, as things stand right now.

How would YOU try to change things in Zimbabwe? Do you think the international community can exert ANY influence at all? If I have you right, you will say that Zimbabwe won't change as the result of anything the UN does, and therefore the UN is powerless. Right?

I.e., if the representatives of the US, Britian and Australia vote to go to war against Iraq, you agree without reservation?

No. I've already said I disagreed with that decision.

James, you should examine more closely just who and what these "representatives" are before you give such unequivocal approval!! I'd also be curious just how this group of people is given such power over other nations of the world ...some even without "representation"?

I think you need to work out for yourself whether you actually think these people have power or not. Then we can discuss this further.

Do you think the international community can exert ANY influence at all? If I have you right, you will say that Zimbabwe won't change as the result of anything the UN does, and therefore the UN is powerless. Right?

I think ye're reading me all wrong, James. YOU (and a few others) are saying/implying that the UN does have power ...by claiming that treaties and laws are valid and actually have meaning! Yet they allow/permit/don't do a fuckin' thing about such conflicts as Zimbabwe, etc. So my contention is that either the UN doesn't give a shit ...OR... they really are powerless.

If the UN doesn't give a shit, then none of their laws can/should be valid.

If the UN is really so powerless, then none of their laws, treaties and rules (international law) means absolutelly nothing to anyone (except for you and a few others!).

I think you need to work out for yourself whether you actually think these people have power or not. Then we can discuss this further.

No, James ....it's YOU that needs to work it out! Ye're the one who claims that treaties, rules, laws, etc have meaning and are valid .....yet nothing is done to prevent or punish any breaking of those rules and laws. A body which makes rules, laws, but does nothing when those laws are broken can't be taken seriously by anyone with any powers of reasoning.

This thread was begun about "human rights" issues ...and there are violations of UN-designated "human rights" all over the world, in almost every nation of the world (UN members or not). And yet the UN does nothing about it. How can you or anyone give any credence to those UN declarations?

As I said earlier, the UN making international rules and laws is no different to me making up a bunch of laws and rules, and claiming that they're valid over the entire world. I'm just as effective, just as powerful in enforcing those rules as is the UN ......zilch!!

If the UN can't or won't do anything about the conflicts in, say Central Africa, then their rules and laws are nothing but hot air ...like so many other politicians in the world ...HOT AIR.

Baron Max

I've been away for awhile, and just finished catching up on this thread.

A few observations and questions:

Baron Max is correct in saying that the U.N. has no teeth and cannot personally enforce the declarations issued under its banner. But to conclude therefore that the rules ratified by its member states are therefore worthless does not logically follow. I suspect that he would agree with all of the statements of principle enumerated in the declaration and the covenenant, but maybe he could comment on that.

The thread (like many in Sciforums) basically boiled down to two positions - the use of bare-knuckled force to make one nation and its way of life dominant, or the use of cooperation, consensus and constructive pressure to make the entire world more secure.

Maybe a mix of the two is a better option - a standard of behaviour (which the aforemetioned declarations are) backed up by the application of force against any regime that violates them. The problem is that I don't know if there is enough force or political will to wield it available to deal with all the violations extant today. Darfur is only the latest example, but imagine what would be necessary to quell that genocide. Or the United States - we have a regime that believes that naked force is going to crush the will of the Islamic world, when there is ample evidence that naked force is the ONLY thing that fuels the minority fundamentalist ideology. As a result the very nation that sponsored the creation of the U.N. and fomented the declaration and covenenant has chosen to ignore it.

The responsibility, as usual, falls upon the citizens of the strongest nations to decide how they mean to be led - and if we mean to toss a hundred years of international diplomacy, then we ought to at least be honest about it instead of hypocritically pretending to adhere to tradition and law while flouting it at every turn.

But to conclude therefore that the rules ratified by its member states are therefore worthless does not logically follow.

Well, if any nation with the power to violate those rules whenever they want to, then how can you call those rules anything EXCEPT worthless?

Rules and laws are only as valid as the power to enforce them. Otherwise, it's nothing more than psycho-babble bullshit ....nice to talk about, to discuss over wine and cigars, but worthless in the realities of the world.

Darfur is only the latest example, but imagine what would be necessary to quell that genocide.

Good example. The UN and western nations stand back and wring their hands and wail about how horrible it is, yet do absolutely nothing about it except high-n'-mighty-sounding words of rhetoric -- psycho-babble bullshit.

But rmember, Darfur is not the only such place in the world. There are hundreds of such conflicts going on right now, at this very minute, and no one does a damned thing .....except ignore it or just talk about it and say how horrible it is. Or worse, make more stupid laws which won't be enforced, either!!!

I suspect that he (Baron Max) would agree with all of the statements of principle enumerated in the declaration and the covenenant, but maybe he could comment on that.

High-sounding rhetoric is nice to discuss over wine and cigars, but not good for much else. I mean, declaring a bunch of things as "nice" is not much different to declaring that (pick a beautiful woman) should go out with me and fuck my brains out! You see? Only that beautiful woman has the say in whether she fucks my brains out or not .....so what good is that declaration unless I can FORCE her to do it??

Baron Max

Well, if any nation with the power to violate those rules whenever they want to, then how can you call those rules anything EXCEPT worthless?

Rules and laws are only as valid as the power to enforce them. Otherwise, it's nothing more than psycho-babble bullshit ....nice to talk about, to discuss over wine and cigars, but worthless in the realities of the world.

I agree with you that in the immediate sense laws are indeed only as valid as the power to enforce compliance. But I believe that laws can also serve as a set of desired goals that we can work toward fullfilling. Take the "all men are created equal" bit. The guys who dreamed that up had absolutely no chance of seeing it happen, and we're still a hell of a long way from making it a reality. But every generation makes a little progress, and so I think it was worthwhile making the statement of principle.



Good example. The UN and western nations stand back and wring their hands and wail about how horrible it is, yet do absolutely nothing about it except high-n'-mighty-sounding words of rhetoric -- psycho-babble bullshit.

Absolutely right. The strong countries have no desire to spend blood and treasure on saving people who have nothing to give us in return. To me this means that the religious right currently ruling my country might as well turn in their hymnbooks because they're just a bunch of god-damned hypocrites.

...so what good is that declaration ...

You didn't answer the question. Do you agree with the statements of principle in the UNDHR and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or not?

Take the "all men are created equal" bit. The guys who dreamed that up had absolutely no chance of seeing it happen, ...

And yet, even as they spoke/wrote those high-sounding phrases, most of them owned slaves or knew of many who did. And it was accepted practice. Ditto for women being kept in the home and not permitted to vote or do much of anything except keep the house, take care of the children (unless they had slaves!), and be their sex partner at night (when they couldn't find some bar wench to take care of their needs in town!!).

See? It was all just basically psycho-babble bullshit that they enjoyed over good wine and fine cigars. That someone actually put it down on paper is absolutelly amaziing to me ....and probably scared most of them, too!

But I believe that laws can also serve as a set of desired goals that we can work toward fullfilling.

Oh, I agree. But why call them "laws" when they have no intention of enforcing them? I.e., why not call them what they are ....high-sounding, psycho-babble bullshit? With no enforcement, they're exactly the same things.

Do you agree with the statements of principle in the UNDHR and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or not?

I actually can't answer that honestly because I haven't studied them enough to form an opinion. I usually don't waste my time studying psycho-babble bullshit unless I'm chained to a chair and forced to do so with a gun pointed at my head. At the present, knowing what little I do, those rules/laws are nothing but political grandstanding and rhetoric to make one seem higher and mightier than the next politician ...political promises that they have no intention of keeping. So what good are those?

Baron Max

Fuck international law. My signed nation may have signed treaties on it, but I didn't.

...all just basically psycho-babble bullshit ....high-sounding, psycho-babble bullshit... don't waste my time studying psycho-babble bullshit...Baron Max

You are being a bit repetitive, as though saying something over and over makes it right or even meaningful. Since you aren't interested in actually reading these fairly short documents, let me give you a few selections to consider.

Declaration of Human Rights

Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 7

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Article 21

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.


Could you please explain to me how these statements constitute "psycho-babble bullshit"?

Could you please explain to me how these statements constitute "psycho-babble bullshit"?

Sure, they're just words on paper ...nothing more than that. Until there is enforcement for those words, anyone can violate any of those convenants with impunity. I.e., they're just words ...pyscho-babble bullshit.

It would be no different to, say, James R. making rules against posting certain topics here on the forum, then doing nothing when members keep posting those topics. The law/rule might be a good rule, but if he does nothing and people continue to violate his rules, what else can we call it? ...psycho-babble bullshit!

Baron Max

Sure, they're just words on paper ...nothing more than that. Until there is enforcement for those words, anyone can violate any of those convenants with impunity. I.e., they're just words ...pyscho-babble bullshit.

It would be no different to, say, James R. making rules against posting certain topics here on the forum, then doing nothing when members keep posting those topics. The law/rule might be a good rule, but if he does nothing and people continue to violate his rules, what else can we call it? ...psycho-babble bullshit!

Baron Max

I could go and kill you with impunity despite there being a law against murdering..so what? What kind of argument is this? One of sticking your head in the sand?

I could go and kill you with impunity despite there being a law against murdering..

How? Why would there be impunity? I don't understand.

Baron Max

How? Why would there be impunity? I don't understand.

I kill you and you are dead. Most murder cases aren't solved. I would make sure yours isn't. A paper law.


That makes it alright according to your logic.

I kill you and you are dead. Most murder cases aren't solved. I would make sure yours isn't. A paper law. That makes it alright according to your logic.

I'm not sure how you got that from what I've said???

If you murdered me and no one DID anything about it ....even though they KNEW that you did it, then ye're right, the law would be nothing! In that case, the law WOULD be nothing but a paper law -- and would be very similar to the bullshit "Human Rights Laws".

But that's not actually the case, is it? Nor is it what I was talking about. You must be able to see the difference ...unless you know a nation or a place where we could meet that didn't have murder laws?

Baron Max

I don't agree with you.

In the old days you could actually lynch black people with impunity despite there being a law against it and despite everybody knowing about it.

A law is a law. Don't give me that pussy shit about knowing about it and not acting upon it. Because if that was true then all those lynchings of black people were perfectly ok and shouldn't really be frowned upon.

Can you see the similarity between them? I can.

It is the same for the international treaty your country signed. Don't sign it then. Or cancel it. But as long as you sign a treaty you have to respect it.

Otherwise we can all go out on the streets and lynch whoever we want when the political climate is up for it. Maybe we could start lynching some muslims soon considering that the anti-muslim propaganda machine is working at full power at the moment.

But we are not lynching them yet. Just holding them captured and slightly torturing them.

Do you start to understand the concept of civilization here? Rights are to be protected as objectively as possible. It protects the innocent. It protects you and your neighbour from being lynched. Because you could be next Baron. You just don't seem to understand the urgency of civilized behaviour because you assume you will never end up at the receiving end. It is this selfish behaviour that is common in you and your fellow americans. And it makes you lose all perspective on matters because you can't think beyond yourself.

...they're just words on paper ...nothing more than that...Baron Max

If you aren't willing to discuss the merits of the ideas that kicked off this thread, then I guess we're done.

I don't agree with you. In the old days you could actually lynch black people with impunity despite there being a law against it and despite everybody knowing about it.

Yeah, but that wasn't murder ...because the killers would invent or make up some crimes that the blacks did, so everyone felt that they were justified. See? That's not immunity from the law, that's making your own legal case, trying them, convicting them, then hanging them. That's not the same thing as you murdering me in today's world.

A law is a law. Don't give me that pussy shit about knowing about it and not acting upon it. Because if that was true then all those lynchings of black people were perfectly ok and shouldn't really be frowned upon.

Well, actually, Spurious, the situation of which you speak is a damned good example of the idiocy of the "Univ. Dec. of H.R." ....in the deep south, there were laws against murder, yet people murdered blacks whenever they wanted to. And it was because there was no one to enforce those laws ....which is exactly the case with the UDHR. It's a law with no teeth, so the "hangings" continue all over the world.

But as long as you sign a treaty you have to respect it.

No, that's not true! If in the next election, we elect Baron Max and all of his cohorts into office, I'll cancel that agreement forthwith and tell the world to cram it up their asses! New government, new policies ...in with the new, out with the old.

Maybe we could start lynching some muslims soon considering that the anti-muslim propaganda machine is working at full power at the moment.

Or perhaps the Muslims can riot in major cities of France and loot, kill, burn, pillage and rape at will ...AND... with immunity! What's the difference?

Do you start to understand the concept of civilization here?

Yeah, it's still the same as it always was, it's just that now we have more mamby-pamby, liberal, doo-gooders who stand by and watch all of the violent conflicts and say, "Gee, we shouldn't do those things!"

Civilization is won with power and violence, and it's held with power and violence. Even if the mamby-pamby, doo-gooder liberals attempt an overthrow of the current govenrments of the world, they'll do so with guns and violence. Now ain't that gonna' be some irony??

It protects the innocent. It protects you and your neighbour from being lynched. Because you could be next Baron.

It doesn't protect me or anyone else at all!! Don't you watch the news or read the papers? Any vicious criminal could walk into someone's house right now, yours included, and murder your family with ease ...and with no one "protecting" them at all. And ye're right, I could be next ...if they can get by my 44 Magnum and my 38 Special! If they can, then no one else can protect me.

Baron Max

Baron Max:

Yeah, but that wasn't murder ...because the killers would invent or make up some crimes that the blacks did, so everyone felt that they were justified.

That only reason the killers needed was that the person was black. They hadn't committed any crimes.

Do you support the killing of innocent people just because they are black, Baron?

See? That's not immunity from the law, that's making your own legal case, trying them, convicting them, then hanging them. That's not the same thing as you murdering me in today's world.

What if I made up a crime that you supposedly committed? Would it be ok for me to hang you, then? It seems so, by your own argument.

Yeah, it's still the same as it always was, it's just that now we have more mamby-pamby, liberal, doo-gooders who stand by and watch all of the violent conflicts and say, "Gee, we shouldn't do those things!"

The namby-pamby liberals are the reason you have some rights, Baron. In your supposedly preferred world, it would be dog eat dog, might is right etc. Yet something tells me that you would not last long in such a world. You take your current world for granted, yet also feel free to grumble about how bad things are. Let's face it. You're a hypocrite, aren't you?

It doesn't protect me or anyone else at all!! Don't you watch the news or read the papers? Any vicious criminal could walk into someone's house right now, yours included, and murder your family with ease ...and with no one "protecting" them at all.

This is inconsistent with your comments in the thread about China about how harsh criminal laws are a crime deterrent. So, which is your real view?

p.s. although, I believe that when a country signs it, it becomes part of that country's own national laws. but that is only what is supposed to happen. if that were really the case, bush and every senator who voted for the war, would be in prison for attacking another country.
I am so sick of this. The war was not illegal. Hussain was in violation of the cease fire agreement that "ended" the first gulf war. For that reason alone invasion would be justified as mearly a continuation of the previous war against the party that violated the cease fire agreement.

I am so sick of this. The war was not illegal. Hussain was in violation of the cease fire agreement that "ended" the first gulf war. For that reason alone invasion would be justified as mearly a continuation of the previous war against the party that violated the cease fire agreement.
Of course it was illegal. You are not a lawyer, are you?
It would have been legal only in two cases:
1) The UN allow it;
2) Self defence against an act of agression.

Neither of these was true.

That only reason the killers needed was that the person was black. They hadn't committed any crimes.

You missed the part where I said they "invented" some crime ...the "reason" might have been 'cause the guy was black, but in an attempt to make it "legal", they pulled a few crimes out of their hats!

Do you support the killing of innocent people just because they are black, Baron?

Well, I'd have to say 'Yes' ...just like our basic national laws permit it. We call it "freedom" ..and that includes the freedom to kill innocent people whenever we want to, blacks included. There may or may not be consequences, but people are free to rape, assault and/or murder. So, yes, I support that freedom.

What if I made up a crime that you supposedly committed? Would it be ok for me to hang you, then? It seems so, by your own argument.

Well, the word "okay" might not be the right word, but, yes, I support your right to hang me ...in the name of freedom.

The namby-pamby liberals are the reason you have some rights, Baron.

I think that's probably correct, James. But, in my opinion, it's just gotten out of hand. Like anything, liberalism, taken to extremes is just as bad as the opposite.

This is inconsistent with your comments in the thread about China about how harsh criminal laws are a crime deterrent. So, which is your real view?

I think China, among others, looks more to the welfare of all of the people in order to protect its society. I think a balance in all things is the best way to go. To place the individual over and above the good of society is wrong. The society is the very reason that an individual even HAS any rights ...yet to place those rights, individual rights, above the society rights is ass-backwards and wrong. No, I don't think my thinking is inconsistent.

Baron Max

Baron:

To place the individual over and above the good of society is wrong. The society is the very reason that an individual even HAS any rights ...yet to place those rights, individual rights, above the society rights is ass-backwards and wrong. No, I don't think my thinking is inconsistent.

What is "society", by your definition? I think you define "society" as yourself, and perhaps your immediate family, but you don't go much beyond that. Clearly, you don't include people of other nations in your notion of society, since you don't think people of other nations are entitled to any rights. And you don't include people of other races in your society. I wonder if the other white people in your neighbourhood or town are part of your society and entitled to rights...

Baron: What is "society", by your definition?

James, I've been trying to figure that one out for ages! I don't have a good definition for it, but I don't think that it's what you and many others call it, either.

I think you define "society" as yourself, and perhaps your immediate family, but you don't go much beyond that.

Well, not quite, but close! I'm leaning toward a similar definition, but it goes a bit further than my own immediate family. It just doesn't include everyone on Earth, as yours probably does.

I think, for example, that New York City probably has numerous societies within it's boundaries, but I don't think that NYC actually IS a society in itself. Ditto for any other major city in the world. Mayberry might be considered a single society, but it's only tv make-believe.

But I grew up in a town not unlike Mayberry ...and I'd say that we had a single society -- but it damned sure was NOT part of the society of New York City!!

Clearly, you don't include people of other nations in your notion of society, since you don't think people of other nations are entitled to any rights.

They have their OWN society and it's not part of mine ...just like it's not part of the societies of New York City or London or Los Angeles or Melbourne or... Each nation might have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of different societies within its borders. Those societies might, just might, be actually part of the national society, but not necessarily!

And you don't include people of other races in your society.

Oh, sure I would! But they'd have to FIT INTO my society, we wouldn't fit into THEIRS! That's the difference. You'd even include people in your society vicious, blood-thristy killers who advocated the deaths of all members of your society!!! See how gullible and naive you are?

I wonder if the other white people in your neighbourhood or town are part of your society and entitled to rights...

Not all people would fit into my society ...and being white certainly wouldn't be a certain criteria! I know lots of white people that I'd love to shoot down like dirty, vicious, stinkin' animals!! So, if I get your meaning, ....no!

I've tried, several times, to get people's ideas about "society", but I've failed to get much help in the definition. Most seem to want to include every single person on Earth, regardless of what they are, what they want, what they like and who they hate. That don't seem right to me.

Baron Max