America blocks yet another UN treaty

[KrazyHorse]

The US doesn't have life imprisonment or capital punishment for minors

Yes it does. Bootstrapping by trying a 16 year old as an adult doesn't mean that when you kill him you aren't executing a minor. The US has killed, IIRC, 9 people in the last decade for crimes they committed as minors. You are among the 6 nations to have done so since 1990.

Like I said, if they want to help kids they could set a minimum age for military service, to say somewhere between 16 to 18. They didn't did they? I wonder why

The US blocked passage of a recent treaty that would have set minimum military age at 18 because of its heavy reliance on 16 and 17 year-old soldiers. I believe that the US and Canada are the only First World nations to allow minors to serve in the military.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I noticed that it said tha all kids should have access to "social security". Odd that they should choose the terminology used by the USA for it's largest social entitlement program. Does any other nation use the name "Social Security" for its welfare programs?

In the rest of the world 'social security' means welfare.

[DanS]

"Does any other nation use the name "Social Security" for its welfare programs?"

Strangelove: Yes, some English-speaking nations do. What "social security" means to Americans and what they mean to others can vary greatly, however. We mean something fairly specific.

[KrazyHorse]

Canada calls their program "Social Insurance"; I doubt the treaty was implying that we should all adopt the American system...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Krop, don't mind Chris... he's being an ******* again, as is his fashion.

--

Anyway, the treaty, unlike some others, does have major problems in social policy. It really infringes on some state rights legislation, such as when to try as an adult, etc. This does lead to some horrible problems. However, I think we should sign the treaty, but not ratify it... which in diplospeak means we approve of the sentiment, but not the actual provisions.

Actually there was a phrase in the treaty taking into consideration various legal definitions of age of majority. The phrase read something to the effect that the age limits listed in the treaty were not meant to supercede those limits prescribed by laws of the states.

Look, this treaty goes way beyond anything within the scope of the UN for anytime in the forseeable future. It should be for the most part a declaration of joint principles. The UN is certainly not going to mandate education for every child in those developing nations currently unable to afford it. The provision for "social security" is so nebulous as to be useless. There were a number of useful provisions, like the prohibition of child soldiers and the international sale of children that are within the jurisdiction of international law and could be formed into a treaty that has meaning. By burying these provisions among those that are impractical the treaty negates what good it could accomplish.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by DanS
"Does any other nation use the name "Social Security" for its welfare programs?"

Strangelove: Yes, some English-speaking nations do. What "social security" means to Americans and what they mean to others can vary greatly, however. We mean something fairly specific.

Nah, I was wondering if the UN wasn't suggesting issueing little rectangular cards with the seal of the US and a 9 digit number to every kid in the world.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The US doesn't have life imprisonment or capital punishment for minors

Yes it does. Bootstrapping by trying a 16 year old as an adult doesn't mean that when you kill him you aren't executing a minor. The US has killed, IIRC, 9 people in the last decade for crimes they committed as minors. You are among the 6 nations to have done so since 1990.

Like I said, if they want to help kids they could set a minimum age for military service, to say somewhere between 16 to 18. They didn't did they? I wonder why

The US blocked passage of a recent treaty that would have set minimum military age at 18 because of its heavy reliance on 16 and 17 year-old soldiers. I believe that the US and Canada are the only First World nations to allow minors to serve in the military.

First, the treaty does actually provide that individual states may set their own age limits.

Second, the US was one of about half the member states to sign the special protocol prohibiting the use of minors in armed conflicts. The protocol set 15 as the minimum age. Ninety states did not sign the special protocol on child soldiers. One hundred states did not sign the special protocol against child pornography, child prostitution and child slavery. The US signed that one too. What does it mean when half the members that wouldn't ratify the agreement on fighting child slavery, did sign the general convention?

[KrazyHorse]

It means that they have different problems than the US does.

[TCO]

It means they suck!!

[KrazyHorse]

You suck!

[Ecthy]

what a sophisticated discussion. very "German CS players' board"

[Kropotkin]

Yeah well, it seems to be without that exotic arnold schwartzenegger accent

[Ecthy]

they talk in German, but the same BS

"das heisst nun mal dass die anders sind."

"nein mann, das heisst dass die scheisse sind."

"du bist scheisse, ey!"

and so on...

[Ecthy]

BTW, Schwarzenegger speaks German with an accent, an American accent. Does he speak English with a German accent, too?

[Az]

back on topic , people . Kropotty , reply.