America blocks yet another UN treaty

[Buck Birdseed]

Strange, Sweden has had a (widely followed) law prohibiting smacking for decades now, and I don't notice any particular changes in levels of delinquency...

[Ecthy]

Do you still get smacked by your parents?

[Kyle]

Originally posted by 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??

Let's go this way then. Say it's a 17 year old who does this. If they're not tried as an adult, he could very well be released when he's 18 (21 in some states?). That is totally unacceptable.

[Wraith]

--"Say first a 13year old is not mature enough.... And now as he did this crimes it prooves he matured faster than other kids his age??"

If he's not mature enough, he's not mature enough. If he is mature (and a 13 year old boy committing rape soulds like he's a bit precocious is some way), then he should be handled as such. Kyle's given you an example of what I mean.

Now, on to the treaty.
Let's see here...

Article 1 is a definition, fine.

Article 2 is non-discrimination, no problem.

Article 3 is ambiguous enough that it seems to be highly encouraging a state-nanny system.

Article 4 is partly okay, and partly a complete misuse of terms. Their "economic rights" are properly called entitlements.

Article 5 seems to say no state-nanny, but it's a bit early in the proposal for contradictions.

Article 6 is short an nicely ambiguous again. Section 1 is no problem, but section 2 is a call for massive welfare.

Article 7 part 1 seems to call for some sort of national ID (or supra-national ID) system to be put in place ("shall be registered").

Article 8 is just strange. I didn't realize that identy-theft of children was such a big problem that the UN needed to step in.

Article 9 is fairly meaningless, given all the loopholes. It just means the government can only take kids away if they fill out the paperwork first.
("Here's the reciept for your husband, and here's my reciept for your reciept" -- Brazil)

Article 10 seems okay, but again full of loopholes.

Article 11 seems okay again, but lacking in detail.

Article 12 is fine.

Article 13 is also fine, but section two allows too many loopholes for it to be meaningless (public morals?)

Article 14 ditto

Article 15 ditto (what is up with all this public morality crud?)

Article 16 is okay.

Article 17 is a bit strange, especially section e. Children's books, etc, are quite profitable, so there's not really any need to encourage them.

Article 18 starts good with section 1, but sections 2 and 3 negate it.

Article 19 is, in part, okay, but we're back to the state-nanny thing.

Article 20 doesn't seem anything new, and wouldn't be a problem except for the loophole of "whose own best interests". I hate that phrase in legal documents.

Article 21 isn't a big deal but is, like most UN proposals, probably more state control than stricly necessary.

Article 22 would have really ticked off Janet Reno

Article 23 is another welfare clause

Article 24 is another welfare clause, and again confuses entitlements with "rights".

Article 25 seems kind of out of place. It'd fit better as a sub-clause in one of the articles dealing with state placement of children in the first place.

Article 26 is another welfare clause.

Article 27 is another welfare clause. These guys need a dictionary.

Article 28 is another welfare clause. This one requires a compulsory state education system.
("A tax supported, compulsary educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state." -- Isabel Patterson)

Article 29 is a bunch of newspeak. I'm really dissapointed that the Progressive Theory of Education has taken over the UN as well.

Article 30 is phrased somewhat strangely, but not objectionably so.

Article 31 is either okay or another welfare clause, depending on interpretation.

Article 32 is somewhat okay, but could easily be misused. I speak as someone who had to get a waiver from the state to begin my first job in high-school.

Article 33 is a silly statement of support for the War on Drugs.

Article 34 is fine.

Article 35 is fine.

Article 36 is very vague, and open to misuse.

Article 37 isn't too bad, but it reaches too far in proscribing punishments.

Article 38 isn't bad, although section 4 isn't exactly easy to do, especially when dictators like to use human shields.

Article 39 is another welfare program

Article 40 is partly okay. Excepting the "dignity and worth" crud and the age limit on penal code violations.

Article 41 is fine.

Section 2:
Article 42 is a call for propoganda.

Article 43 is an expansion of the UN. I'm sure this commission will be as well respected as the current UN commission on human rights

Article 44 is still more of the expansion. The UN must be looking to increase its budget.

Article 45 is more about the expansion.

Section 3:
Article 46 - 49 are about ratification process.

Article 50 is the amendment process

Article 51 allows for exceptions.

Article 52 allows for "denunciations" (apparently meaning withdrawing from), but requires a 1 year notice.

Article 53 and 54 are just details about who gets the last level of paperwork.

I can't say that ratifying this would be a good thing.

Wraith
"Gifted!? You're barely multicellular!"
-- Duckman

[Saint Marcus]

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.

Doesn't international law supercede domestic law? It does here.

I can't say that ratifying this would be a good thing.

If you think it's such a bad treaty, then why have all but 1 of the world's nations signed and ratified it? In other words, you are right and the rest of the world is wrong? Same with nuclear test bans, landmine bans, Kyoto, etc

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by 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.

a)
As usual you haven't actually read anything I wroten in the thread. I have not argued for this threaty at all. To quote myself: "I think the US position is that they don't want to sign that kinds of agreement, not that they are actually planning to break the essence of them. In a chase like this i can easily accept that.". (I'm for banning of physical abuse of children since i think it's a bad way of raisning them and also legally questionable. But that doesn't mean that I'm at all promoting this threaty.) That shows that the latter part of your post is complete BS, now for the first part.

b)
I asked you in a nice and civil way what the not being able to dicipline ones children meant in the context of the threaty.

As you thinking that I called you a child-abuser is totally created in your own mind as I didn't even knew you had any. maybe it's you feeling guilty I don't know. I suspect that your inabilty to conduct a sensible argument with fellow adults makes it even harder for you to reason with children...

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Kropotkin

a)
As usual you haven't actually read anything I wroten in the thread. I have not argued for this threaty at all. To quote myself: "I think the US position is that they don't want to sign that kinds of agreement, not that they are actually planning to break the essence of them. In a chase like this i can easily accept that.". (I'm for banning of physical abuse of children since i think it's a bad way of raisning them and also legally questionable. But that doesn't mean that I'm at all promoting this threaty.) That shows that the latter part of your post is complete BS, now for the first part.[/b]

Kro, the only thing that is BS is the things you post.
Shouldn't you be busy condeming Israel for something?

b)
I asked you in a nice and civil way what the not being able to dicipline ones children meant in the context of the threaty.

As you thinking that I called you a child-abuser is totally created in your own mind as I didn't even knew you had any. maybe it's you feeling guilty I don't know. I suspect that your inabilty to conduct a sensible argument with fellow adults makes it even harder for you to reason with children...

You an idiot, Kro, and I don't have time for another stupid argument with you.
It's highly unlikely you are intersted in anything I have to say except to disagree with it.

The best part of your post is "I don't know".

Describes you perfectly.

Now go find your Nazi friends, I'm sure another ME thread will be starting soon.

[Kropotkin]

Fine by me, you're hardly have anything interesting to say in any way. That you can't behave, puts word into peoples mouths and can't keep apart arguments from people and what you think of them is more of a problem for the people in your surroundings, not me.

[Az]

No, it's not a muslim tradition, period. It has (hardly) anything to do with Islam. As for 'growing out of it' beating up or killing people because you can is going on everywhere.

tough neighbourhood you live in? I must disagree generally. Don't you know that women are being killed around the muslim world for having ex-marital sex?

[Kropotkin]

Yes I know that it's quite common in a number of countries like Pakistan. The custom (if one wants to call that kind of behavoir for a custom) however is much older that Islam. It's not a general behavior in the entire muslim world just as it's not a general behavior for catholics to have sex with minors.

Men are controlling women with force and violence all over the world. If a chistian (or jew I suppose) beats his wife you don't call it a christan (or jewish) custom.

The behavior is pathetic to say the least and the custom we're talking about is common in a number of muslim worlds but it's however not right to say it's a muslim custom. It's a bit more complex than that. On the other hand it's bad that the reilgious authorites in the area doesn't show that it has no real support in the Koran but instead from time to time actually supports it. The mis-use of religious texts seems to be a quite universal custom.

[Dr Strangelove]

The convention mandates the protection of life before birth! Is this a condemnation of abortion? I'm surprised that Jesse Helms didn't drool opver this provision. Then again, I've always thought that the Republicans support for the pro-life cause was nothing but a hypocritical ploy to garner support for their economic programs. The end of abortion would jeopardise the coalition between ecomic conservatives and religious conservatives.

Note also that the US has indicated its intention to sign the document and has already signed the optional protocol on the use of children in armed conflicts and the one on the sale of children and their use in pornography. Not even half the nations have signed the later.

[Az]

well, call it mid-eastern culture then. Do you think that we should allow "cultural diversity" in this issue ? like , "we europeans consider men and women to be equal, but if our mideastern brethern consider women to be on a level lower than man , by quite a margin, it's o.k. with us. After all , it IS part of their cultural heritage. We can't force our morals on them , just because WE find the appropriate."

so , again, I'll paraphrase , so you'll be more happy about it. Many , or even most mid eastern countries don't give women the amount of freedom and protection by law , as they give to man, and in many cases turn a blind eye to a wide-spread problem of people killing their female family members because they had extra marital sex. This is against the human chapter ,and probably is a very grave violation of human rights to which all UN members are signatories, and thus , those UN member nations opperate against international law .

However , no security council resolutions have been passed on that issue, despite it being much more grave than say, the crisis in East Timor , or in the Middle East, with many more people being hurt, or their rights being violated . That shows that the UN is just another tool in RealPolitik games of power and will between nations and governments.

[Kropotkin]

I think you've missunderstod some parts of what I've been saying. I'm not supporting their right to behave like that at all. I find it disgusting and pathetic. I'm just pointing out that it's not a muslim custom.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


Doesn't international law supercede domestic law? It does here.

A treaty in the U.S. has the same status as a statute. Both are subject to the Constitution.

Most treaties are not law, however. They must be implemented by statute.

In the United State, the Federal Government has limited powers and cannot legislate generally. If a treaty calls for legislation in an area reserved for the States, Congress is not empowered to pass implementing legislation. If it tried, such legislation probably would be unconstitutional.

The treaty, as I understand it, is replete with requirements that directly affect so-called States rights. Examples include limitations on sentences for minors, what has to be taught in schools, etc.

This all leads back to an early point made here that the subject matter of this treaty is the "kind" of treaty that the U.S. cannot sign. It not primarily directed to relations between states, but to how states deal with their own domestic legal structure. Such treaties may have a noble purpose, but are ultimately unenforceable.

I give one example: Let us assume there is a treaty requiring direct election of a president by secret ballot, etc. If you followed the Gore v. Bush controversy in Florida, you would have noted two things. First, the United States does not have direct election of the president. We elect "electors" which are allocated to the states according to their number of representatives and senators. How these are actually chosen is completely up to state law. We found, for example, that the state legislature of Florida had the power to appoint the electors if the outcome of the vote was not "certified" by a date specified by U.S. law.

All of this would clearly violate a treaty requiring direct elections of president.

So, assume for the moment that Bush has been "illegally" elected under the treaty because Gore got more votes nationally. Is Holland actually going to recognize Gore as president? What rights of Holland have been violated?

I hope this helps.

Ned

[Dr Strangelove]

Actuall, it's not just that they're being killed for having extra-marital sex, rather they're being killed for having been the victims of rape! Rape is not quite the same thing as extramarital sex.