What do the US and Somalia have in common?

[Al B. Sure!]

why didnt we sign it anyway? did this treaty require us to ban beating children or something?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
MtG:

what did I say? Army accepts 18 year olds generally but a 17 year old High school graduate will be accepted... i also said that the world wars did result in enlistment by 16 year olds...

if i dont know what i'm talking about then neither do you because you repeated me

I had a forum hiccup when repositioning text in my post, it autoposted without the highlighted text.

I edited to clarify that the only issue wrt high school graduation is availability of MOS. Since combat branch MOS are the hardest to fill, especially infantry (11-Bravo, Charlie, Delta or Mike), there's no problem for a 17 year old dropout to join up in the Army or Marines. Things are a little tighter in the Navy and especially the Air Force, but that's just because of the different MOS they are looking for.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Look at it this way. The signatories include such notable bastions of human rights and stringent child labor law enforcement as Thailand, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia.

The fact that someone signs an international treaty is insignificant. It's what they do or fail to do that counts.

And it can be argued that the most powerful nation in the world not signing it makes a mockery of the convention, encouraging those nations - many of whose child labour is probably working in US clothing sweatshops such as Nike, Gap etc...

Secondly as you point out actions speak louder than words given that the US is the only industrialised nation in the world that executes its own children!

So at least it is being honest about that fact that it is abusing accepted human rights...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Name me some children we've executed and why.

And if an international treaty or convention is signed by a bunch of ****hole countries that don't even pretend to abide by it's requirements, it's already a mockery. We just don't legitimize that mockery by endorsing it.

As far as who benefits from child labor, I'm no fan of multinational corporations who abuse third world labor, but they didn't create the abusive labor practices, they just moved to where they exist. And where are your clothes made?

[Dis]

I'm not sure what it is now.

But back when I joined you neede parental permission to join the service under 18. I was 17 when I joined.

The other requirement was you had to turn 18 when you are in boot camp or earlier.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
why didnt we sign it anyway? did this treaty require us to ban beating children or something?

The reason we didn't sign it was that it would have made our practice of allowing 17 year olds to enlist illegal. IIRC everything else in the convention is already illegal here, and has been for almost a century.

[Berzerker]

At least Somalia has an excuse, being a lawless anarchy and a hotbed for international terrorism...

Actually, life has improved there quite a bit because of anarchy.

[Combat Ingrid]

As you might know, the "brightest beacon for freedom and democracy" is illegally keeping children at the Guantanamo camp...

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/113/nation/About_6_juveniles_found_in_Guantanamo_camp+.shtml

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Combat Ingrid
As you might know, the "brightest beacon for freedom and democracy" is illegally keeping underage children at the Guantanamo camp...

How can children be underage? And under what law is it illegal to detain people engaging in military action against you?

[Combat Ingrid]

Edited out "underage"...
In response to your second question: how about international law? Not that international law applies to the US, of course

[oedo]

Re: What do the US and Somalia have in common?

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Apparently the US and Somalia are the only two countries in the World not to have signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child...

Can someone please tell me why this is the case?

because else they would have to set the children free, which are held in the guantanamo camp.
those stupid bastards.

here´s one link about it:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/weekly/newsnat-22apr2003-35.htm

and here´s some more:

http://www.google.de/search?q=guantanamo+children&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=de&meta=

oops, appearently I haven´t been the first one posting about it.
remarkable about the google link is, there seems to be no source from cnn or fox, let away New York Post. I wonder how it comes

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Actually, life has improved there quite a bit because of anarchy.

Would that be the anarchy of the de facto states of Somaliland and Puntland or the anarchy of the organised Islamic councils in the south of the country? Perhaps the anarchy of the never-heard-from-again government in Mogadishu that was formed a few years back.

The north of the country is halfway decently organised and people are finding local authority in the rest of it. Its just that when people think of Somalia, they think of "Black Hawk Down" and starved masses.

Either way, it's not classical political anarchist theory in action. The State just got replaced with a handful of semi-adhoc States, not a State-less society.

[Sava]

What do the US and Somalia have in common?

We're both run by corrupt leaders.

[Arrian]

The reason we didn't sign it was that it would have made our practice of allowing 17 year olds to enlist illegal. IIRC everything else in the convention is already illegal here, and has been for almost a century.

That's the answer, folks.

Gitmo? From the Globe article posted by Ingrid:

The juveniles, described as between the ages of 13 and 15, were declared ''enemy combatants'' when they were arrested fighting against US troops in Central Asia...

Cry me a ****ing river.

-Arrian

[Adam Smith]

This troll keeps popping up every couple months. I already posted this once before. You really need to find some fresh topics.

IIRC, at least one reason the US has not ratified this treaty is that it would require the explicit consent of both parents in order to undertake an international adoption. Since most international adoptees are abandoned by their parents (e.g., China) this would effectively halt international adoptions, leaving thousands of children each year in orphanages or worse. The US is by far the largest destination of international adpotees, and is currently negotiating to amend the treaty in this regard.