America blocks yet another UN treaty

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Sprayber


You do understand that Bush isn't the one that has the final say on treaties right? Or are you just joining in on the latest anti-american circle jerk for the fun of it.

You mean article 48 hadn't granted the President complete control of the government and the ability to dissolve the Reichstag?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by red_jon



You mean article 48 hadn't granted the President complete control of the government and the ability to dissolve the Reichstag?

Not in this reality, no. In some other alternate reality maybe.

[Wraith]

It's hard to say without the actual treaty, but the CNN summary makes it look like at least half the so-called "rights" are actually nothing more than new entitlements. I see no reason to ratify something like that.

--"You haven't heard of minors standing trial for murder, being given life sentences?"

Minors are occasionally tried as adults. Usually when they commit some particularly nasty crime.
Not everyone matures at the same rate. Some "minors" are mature enough to be considered adults. All the above does is allow the judge and prosecutor some leeway in the matter.

Wraith
Am I supposed to be impressed?

[Shi Huangdi]

Go Bush! This is most definitely a bad treaty, and addition to it being a bad treaty, it covers domestic issues that have no cause to be handled at the international level.

[Chris 62]

First off, those who think Bush is behind this (your anti-Bush paranoia is astounding, BTW) are wrong, it's the US's favorite conservative, Jesse Helms that is blocking it.

Second, the US supreme court says that the cut off age on capital punishment is 16, the treaty calls for 18, so is in conflict with US law.

Third, many of the treaty provisions are the usual UN "Utopian" cluases that would be totally unworkable, parts of this treaty would prohibit parents from disaplining their own children!

It would be a miracle of even half the signees of this treaty upheld it in any way, this is just another of the UN's time wasters.

http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/feb98/usa4.html

The correct name of this is Convention on the Rights of the Child

Here is the compete text:

http://www.unicef.org/crc/crc.htm

There are 54 articles, and the reason some countries signed, was public relations, as this little article provides their way out of the treaty:

Article 52
A State Party may denounce the present Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.

This is just another example of how useless the UN truly is.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Chris 62
parts of this treaty would prohibit parents from disaplining their own children!

And what's the meaning of the word "diciplining" in this contex?

[Tom201]

Minors are occasionally tried as adults. Usually when they commit some particularly nasty crime.
Not everyone matures at the same rate. Some "minors" are mature enough to be considered adults. All the above does is allow the judge and prosecutor some leeway in the matter.

I dont really get this logic.
Say first a 13year old is not mature enough. Than he commits some nasty crime like raping 4 girls and kill them all (maybe add some cruelty in the murders to make it a more drastic example ). And now as he did this crimes it prooves he matured faster than other kids his age??

[Chris 62]

Your obvisously not a parent, so for you it would be meaningless in any context.

When you join us in this, ask me again.

[Kropotkin]

Well that was a immature and unfriendly answer even coming from you Chris.

[Chris 62]

It's an accurate answer, as your intention was to attempt to make it seem that I was some sort of discapline nut.

Don't blame me from knowing you so well, Kropotkin.

You should attempt to argue something worthwhile, not pointless show treaties.

[Ecthy]

192? 193?

[DanS]

Why would we sign and ratify a treaty with which we don't agree? I wonder about you guys sometimes...

[Chris 62]

193 according to the UN, Andy.

[Ecthy]

I kinda figured that, I was hoping someone could elaborate

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by DanS
Why would we sign and ratify a treaty with which we don't agree? I wonder about you guys sometimes...

It is even more interesting Dan, that nobody bothered to even look the treaty up (took me 30 seconds on goggle to find it), yet there they were, spitting condemnations, and rolling out the usual anti-Bush stuff, and Bush wasn't the one blocking it!