U.S. in a Post-U.N. World

[Aleph-Null]

The idea that death sentences or places like Guan are in violation of human rights speaks to the idiocism that is Europe. The idea that a nation is more or less civilized based on the presence of "the death penalty" is utterly absurd. In fact, I would venture to say that Europe's lack of "the death penalty" makes it less civilized, not more as European crime rates continue to soar while those in America continue to decline.

As for bigfatron, obviously you are mistaken, the U.N. beauracracy is a gigantic leviathan supported by media agencies around the world, public school systems which speak of the necessity of the agency, and little moronic simpletons like yourself, all comprise of the sprawling and corrupt beauracracy that is the U.N., yourself, a sleeper agent activated by the presence of opposing elements to jump to the organization's defense.

As for Guantanomo or Abu Graib, I've got no problem with it and think you can kiss my butt. And for the rest, I'll be working until Saturday so we'll see if I have the time to respond further to the rest of these inane remarks.

 

[Aleph-Null]

Sorry you failed to understand my point, I'll try again. A body that has power delegated to it by its members is not and cannot be a government. This is obvious, since in such a case withdrawal of the delegated power immediately removes legitimacy, whereas a government remains legitimate unless and until it is replaced by due process.

Sadly, I really feel like I am wasting my time here....

You are not only big and fat, but apparently stupid as well. If in one breath you call the U.S. a government, and the next you seem to suggest that it is not a government at all. This must be the third time that you have contradicted yourself. Obviously this organization has deemed itself qualified to seperate "legal" from "illegal" and as for the U.S. its powers are likewise delegated to it by the 50 States. All in all, you have been and remain a bastion for contradictory thinking.

Moderator Action: Ken, you are reaching (or have already crossed) the borderline of what is acceptable. Stop calling people stupid or other designations. Consider yourself warned ! - Rik

 

[Princeps]

The idea that death sentences or places like Guan are in violation of human rights speaks to the idiocism that is Europe. The idea that a nation is more or less civilized based on the presence of "the death penalty" is utterly absurd. In fact, I would venture to say that Europe's lack of "the death penalty" makes it less civilized, not more as European crime rates continue to soar while those in America continue to decline.

The Capitol punisment is not a punisment at all, it is a revenge

It is primitive to think that if you give death penalty to one the others don’t do crimes anymore.
Society has no right to kill its citizens, unless it is a very serious emergency.
Damn well it makes society more sadistic if it kills its citizens!

I live in country that doesn’t have a death penalty and the criminality rate has remained rather low.
Also these ‘’out-of-sight-out-of-minds’’ punishments where you give anything between 25-100 years to someone, aren’t efficient as some people might think; they just cost more to the society.


Anyway here's some arguments against the death penatly:

# he death penalty is killing. All killing is wrong, therefore the death penalty is wrong. According to Victor Hugo: «Que dit la loi? Tu ne tueras pas! Comment le dit-elle? En tuant!» ("What says the law? You will not kill! How does it say it? By killing!")
# The death penalty is violation of human rights.
# Torture and cruelty are wrong. Some executions are botched and the executed suffer extended pain. Even those who die instantly suffer mental anguish leading up to the execution.
#Criminal proceedings are fallible. Many people facing the death penalty have been exonerated, sometimes only minutes before their scheduled execution. Others, however, have been executed before evidence clearing them is discovered. While criminal trials not involving the death penalty can also involve mistakes, there is at least the opportunity for those mistakes to be corrected. This has been particularly relevant in cases where new forensic methods (such as DNA) have become available.
# Since in many cases at least the defendants are financially indigent and therefore end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are often less than stellar, opponents argue that the prosecution has an unfair advantage; however, in recent years some death-penalty advocates have gone on record as being open to the concept of using the French inquisitorial system for capital cases instead of the adversarial proceedings currently followed in virtually all American courts today, thus addressing this issue. In addition, some states that have the death penalty - most notably New York State - have established an office of "Capital Defender," either appointed by the state's governor or popularly elected.
# The race of the person to be executed can also affect the likelihood of the sentence they receive. Death-penalty advocates counter this by pointing out that most murders where the killer and victim are of the same race tend to be "crimes of passion" while inter-racial murders are usually "felony murders;" that is to say, murders which were perpetrated during the commission of some other felony (most commonly either armed robbery or forcible rape), the point being that juries are more likely to impose the death penalty in cases where the offender has killed a total stranger than in those where some deep-seated, personal revenge motive may be present.

Again your rather zealously supportive attitude towards the capitol punishment shows your fascist attitude.

 

[CurtSibling]

The idea that death sentences or places like Guan are in violation of human rights speaks to the idiocism that is Europe. The idea that a nation is more or less civilized based on the presence of "the death penalty" is utterly absurd. In fact, I would venture to say that Europe's lack of "the death penalty" makes it less civilized, not more as European crime rates continue to soar while those in America continue to decline.

As for bigfatron, obviously you are mistaken, the U.N. beauracracy is a gigantic leviathan supported by media agencies around the world, public school systems which speak of the necessity of the agency, and little moronic simpletons like yourself, all comprise of the sprawling and corrupt beauracracy that is the U.N., yourself, a sleeper agent activated by the presence of opposing elements to jump to the organization's defense.

As for Guantanomo or Abu Graib, I've got no problem with it and think you can kiss my butt. And for the rest, I'll be working until Saturday so we'll see if I have the time to respond further to the rest of these inane remarks.

When bereft of logical or intellectual currency, the only thing left is to be insulting, eh?

Put it this way, Kenny:
Your arguments are based on your own views, and as such you still refuse
to back up or support your postition with anything other than half-baked
comments, childish contempt for manners and close-mindedness.

Back it up, or give it up.

At first I was in semi-agreement with some of your words, but now you have lost my support.

You refuse to debate, only rant.

Not very impressive.

Please present structured supporting data for stating that Europe is idiotic.
Funny how we have electronic industries and universities, seeing as we are all so cretinous.
That is hundreds of millions of people you are insulting.

We await your evidence.

.

 

[CurtSibling]

Again your rather zealously supportive attitude towards the capitol punishment shows your fascist attitude.

Any self-respecting fascist would argue with more aplomb and logic...

.......

 

[IglooDame]

If you want to threadjack about the death penalty I'll be happy to accomodate.

Anyway here's some arguments against the death penatly:

# he death penalty is killing. All killing is wrong, therefore the death penalty is wrong. According to Victor Hugo: «Que dit la loi? Tu ne tueras pas! Comment le dit-elle? En tuant!» ("What says the law? You will not kill! How does it say it? By killing!")

"All killing is wrong" - Use a less vague term than 'wrong' please, as it is easy to justify the killing of a person to stop the in-progress murders of a hundred innocents.

# The death penalty is violation of human rights.

According to whose definition of human rights, please?

# Torture and cruelty are wrong. Some executions are botched and the executed suffer extended pain. Even those who die instantly suffer mental anguish leading up to the execution.

Mental anguish attributable to impending punishment for one's crimes is hardly cruel in and of itself. And I agree that botched executions are very bad, but it is hardly state policy to botch the executions.

#Criminal proceedings are fallible. Many people facing the death penalty have been exonerated, sometimes only minutes before their scheduled execution. Others, however, have been executed before evidence clearing them is discovered. While criminal trials not involving the death penalty can also involve mistakes, there is at least the opportunity for those mistakes to be corrected. This has been particularly relevant in cases where new forensic methods (such as DNA) have become available

The only argument in your post that I agree with, and the one that makes me other than a firm death-penalty supporter.

# Since in many cases at least the defendants are financially indigent and therefore end up being represented by court-appointed attorneys whose credentials are often less than stellar, opponents argue that the prosecution has an unfair advantage; however, in recent years some death-penalty advocates have gone on record as being open to the concept of using the French inquisitorial system for capital cases instead of the adversarial proceedings currently followed in virtually all American courts today, thus addressing this issue. In addition, some states that have the death penalty - most notably New York State - have established an office of "Capital Defender," either appointed by the state's governor or popularly elected.

Are we banning jail sentences because people may not have been represented adequately? You're indicting the entire criminal justice system, not merely capital punishment here.

# The race of the person to be executed can also affect the likelihood of the sentence they receive. Death-penalty advocates counter this by pointing out that most murders where the killer and victim are of the same race tend to be "crimes of passion" while inter-racial murders are usually "felony murders;" that is to say, murders which were perpetrated during the commission of some other felony (most commonly either armed robbery or forcible rape), the point being that juries are more likely to impose the death penalty in cases where the offender has killed a total stranger than in those where some deep-seated, personal revenge motive may be present.

Thanks for undercutting your own argument here.

Again your rather zealously supportive attitude towards the capitol punishment shows your fascist attitude.

Support for capital punishment does not equal fascism in any way, but thanks for invoking Godwin's Law.

 

[Princeps]

If you want to threadjack about the death penalty I'll be happy to accomodate.

Whoops, This is not ''The Americans'' thread, but the UN thread...

Sorry.



but I couldn't resist...

''Human rights are the standards of behavior as accepted within legal systems concerning 1) what is essential to human survival, 2) integrity and autonomy of the person, and 3) fulfillment of the human potential in society. These rights commonly include the right to life....''

 

[IglooDame]

Whoops, This is not ''The Americans'' thread, but the UN thread...

Sorry.



but I couldn't resist...

''Human rights are the standards of behavior as accepted within legal systems concerning 1) what is essential to human survival, 2) integrity and autonomy of the person, and 3) fulfillment of the human potential in society. These rights commonly include the right to life....''

You'll have to do better - all countries routinely deny 2) and 3) to convicted felons; they throw them in prison.

And we'd both better resist better in the future lest a mod slap down our threadly diversion.

[/threadjack]

 

[bigfatron]

The idea that death sentences or places like Guan are in violation of human rights speaks to the idiocism that is Europe. The idea that a nation is more or less civilized based on the presence of "the death penalty" is utterly absurd. In fact, I would venture to say that Europe's lack of "the death penalty" makes it less civilized, not more as European crime rates continue to soar while those in America continue to decline.

As for bigfatron, obviously you are mistaken, the U.N. beauracracy is a gigantic leviathan supported by media agencies around the world, public school systems which speak of the necessity of the agency, and little moronic simpletons like yourself, all comprise of the sprawling and corrupt beauracracy that is the U.N., yourself, a sleeper agent activated by the presence of opposing elements to jump to the organization's defense.

As for Guantanomo or Abu Graib, I've got no problem with it and think you can kiss my butt. And for the rest, I'll be working until Saturday so we'll see if I have the time to respond further to the rest of these inane remarks.

Re congruence of death penalty and civilised democracy
Countries with the death sentence in active use: US, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Uzbehkistan, IIRC - 'nuff said really.

You keep describing the UN beaurocracy as sprawling and 'a gigantic leviathan' yet can't answer the central question - big compared to what? Including ALL its staff it about the size of the beaurocracy of Cyprus, a small (if worthy) nation state!

Yes there has been corruption a the UN, and I thinkmost people agree it needs reforming - that doesn't excuse the unsupported and generally inaccurate statements you keep making about it.

Clearly you don't have a problem with Guantanomo Bay, etc, I could have guessed that, but fortunately you are not yet the global arbiter of human rights, and long may that remain the case!

 

[IglooDame]

You keep describing the UN beaurocracy as sprawling and 'a gigantic leviathan' yet can't answer the central question - big compared to what? Including ALL its staff it about the size of the beaurocracy of Cyprus, a small (if worthy) nation state!

The UN does not maintain any of the following in a conventional national government sense (or to the extent that it does, it does so by treating each country as a single citizen):

A police force, a judicial system, a taxation system, a welfare/human services department, and a standing military. About the only thing the UN truly handles internally is various international regulatory agencies, and even those are farmed out to some degree. I would not expect it to have the same size bureaucracy of Cyprus as it does not accomplish many of the functions required of Cyprus'.

 

[bigfatron]

You are not only big and fat, but apparently stupid as well. If in one breath you call the U.S. a government, and the next you seem to suggest that it is not a government at all. This must be the third time that you have contradicted yourself. Obviously this organization has deemed itself qualified to seperate "legal" from "illegal" and as for the U.S. its powers are likewise delegated to it by the 50 States. All in all, you have been and remain a bastion for contradictory thinking.

Moderator Action: Ken, you are reaching (or have already crossed) the borderline of what is acceptable. Stop calling people stupid or other designations. Consider yourself warned ! - Rik

Ken, you lack the cultural references I appreciate, but I am neither big, nor fat, nor called Ron! English soccer fans will get it though....

Either you have misread or I have mistyped, but let me try to make it clear:

The US administration IS a government - it governs and is the ultimate source of law for its territory (and before the argument is made, I appreciate it is subservient to the Consitution, but even that can be amended by the government in specific circumstances).

If you disagree on the grounds of state delegation of authority, consider this - would a state be able freely to leave the federal state? Is its right to do so freely and constitutionally acknowledged? Whenever discussed on here, no-one has been able to realistically conceive of a state being allowed to exit the Federal USA on a vote of its legislature.

The UN has authority DELEGATED to it by nation states that decide to join (which is pretty much all of them), including the delegated authority to create certain types of international law and to enforce that law (although dissension amongst its members means this right is rarely exercised in practice). Any nation can leave at any time at its absolute discretion.

This is the same as the EU, World Bank, International Postal Union and other treaty-based international organisations. They have powers that are delegated and delimited by the treaties signed by their members; in contrast governments have powers that are inherent and limited only by their constitution (if they have one).

Hopefully this is clear enough - if you believe there is a contradiction in this then please, let me know...

 

[grahamiam]

Most Americans today do not wish to see the U.N. reformed, but rather abolished all together.

This is a reply to the opening post.

Can you please qualify this quote? According to the latest poll by the CCFR, this is simply untrue. In fact, most Americans seem to want the UN strengthened. I've extracted relevant pages for review from thier latest report (YR 2004), the whole report can be seen at the CCFR (Chicago Council on Foreign Relations) website.

Ref. question 90, "When dealing with international problems, the US should be more willings to make decisions within the United Nations even if this means that the United States will sometimes have to go along with a policy that is not its first choice."
66% agree, 29% disagree.

Sorry, but it seems to me that most Americans do not share your view of abolishing the U.N.

 

[Aleph-Null]

I've yet to see anyone back up any comments with any sources or links. I, on the otherhand have been so kind as to reference the U.N. resolutions regarding the Iraq-Kuwait Situation and did provide a link earlier.

Also, "rik" you may wish to better peruse the threads before you go singling me out for insulting. Perhaps you are merely "bias" towards your friends or those who share your biases. Either way, I will not tolerate it and suggest you play equal-opportunity moderator and punish "subtle insults" just as much as "not-so-subtle" insults if you truly wish to uphold a standard of limiting ad-hominem attacks Mr. Big Moderator Man.

Obviously bigfatron you lack the cultural references to understand that all government is delegated by the people, that each organization is given governing responsibility by those people which have erected said institution for the benefit of the governed. If the U.N. is not a governing body then it exists for no purpose whatsoever because every beauracracy is a government of 'something' and therefore makes stronger the case that it should be disbanded for being the useless organization that it is, incapable of fulfilling its duly appointed obligations.

Not only is the U.N. a governing beauracracy but is one who's advocates advocate and cling to a belief of "manifest destiny" Represented in various books, video games (such as HALO) and the like.

As far as the death penalty goes, it is my unalterable view that THE PEOPLE reserve the right to sentence to death those who have committed violent crimes such as murder. The liberal experiment regarding the removal of the death penalty continues to be young and in the experimental stage, and as we have seen, its benefit has been minimal if any at all to society.

If the death penalty is illegal than so is your ability to respond to war waged on you by your neighbors. Perhaps you were not opposed to the death penalty when it involved executing member's of Hitler's Nazi Party? Or the soldier who fought for him? The death penalty is an Act of Self Defense.

How many people must die before you use the death penalty? A million? A hundred thousand? How many until the death penalty is a just punishment? I'll tell you how many, ONE.

 

[Aleph-Null]

This is a reply to the opening post.

Can you please qualify this quote? According to the latest poll by the CCFR, this is simply untrue. In fact, most Americans seem to want the UN strengthened. I've extracted relevant pages for review from thier latest report (YR 2004), the whole report can be seen at the CCFR (Chicago Council on Foreign Relations) website.

Ref. question 90, "When dealing with international problems, the US should be more willings to make decisions within the United Nations even if this means that the United States will sometimes have to go along with a policy that is not its first choice."
66% agree, 29% disagree.

Sorry, but it seems to me that most Americans do not share your view of abolishing the U.N.

i doubt that organization viewed favorably by only 37% of the population is an organization that population intends to strengthen so its blunders can be even more magnificent in the future.

 

[grahamiam]

i doubt that organization viewed favorably by only 37% of the population is an organization that population intends to strengthen so its blunders can be even more magnificent in the future.

i provided backup, now you provide it.

edit: poll you sight is from Aug, 2003. Data I sighted was from 2004, a little more recent. Also, question was "1. Do you think the United Nations is doing a good job or a poor job in trying to solve the problems it has had to face?" and 37% said good, while 60% said poor. I have not been able to find an update to this poll to get a more recent reading. However, that poll never asked if they want the UN abolished.

 

[CurtSibling]

Hint to Ken:
This is a privately owned site. You are in no position to tell the mods what to do.

PS
For the record, I approve of your stance on the death penalty.
But your stance on the UN needs to be better justified.

.

 

[Rik Meleet]

(..)
Also, "rik" you may wish to better peruse the threads before you go singling me out for insulting. Perhaps you are merely "bias" towards your friends or those who share your biases. Either way, I will not tolerate it and suggest you play equal-opportunity moderator and punish "subtle insults" just as much as "not-so-subtle" insults if you truly wish to uphold a standard of limiting ad-hominem attacks Mr. Big Moderator Man.

(..)

Moderator Action: KenScott - It seems you need a 3 day vacation to read the forum rules. No publicly debating moderator actions. - Rik
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[bigfatron]

The UN does not maintain any of the following in a conventional national government sense (or to the extent that it does, it does so by treating each country as a single citizen):

A police force, a judicial system, a taxation system, a welfare/human services department, and a standing military. About the only thing the UN truly handles internally is various international regulatory agencies, and even those are farmed out to some degree. I would not expect it to have the same size bureaucracy of Cyprus as it does not accomplish many of the functions required of Cyprus'.

I fully agree, what you have listed are the key functions of sovereign government - I am trying to demonstrate to KenScott that the UN is not a government, but have been struggling to get through. You may just have made it where I couldn't!

 

[bigfatron]

I've yet to see anyone back up any comments with any sources or links. I, on the otherhand have been so kind as to reference the U.N. resolutions regarding the Iraq-Kuwait Situation and did provide a link earlier.

Also, "rik" you may wish to better peruse the threads before you go singling me out for insulting. Perhaps you are merely "bias" towards your friends or those who share your biases. Either way, I will not tolerate it and suggest you play equal-opportunity moderator and punish "subtle insults" just as much as "not-so-subtle" insults if you truly wish to uphold a standard of limiting ad-hominem attacks Mr. Big Moderator Man.

Obviously bigfatron you lack the cultural references to understand that all government is delegated by the people, that each organization is given governing responsibility by those people which have erected said institution for the benefit of the governed. If the U.N. is not a governing body then it exists for no purpose whatsoever because every beauracracy is a government of 'something' and therefore makes stronger the case that it should be disbanded for being the useless organization that it is, incapable of fulfilling its duly appointed obligations.

Not only is the U.N. a governing beauracracy but is one who's advocates advocate and cling to a belief of "manifest destiny" Represented in various books, video games (such as HALO) and the like.

As far as the death penalty goes, it is my unalterable view that THE PEOPLE reserve the right to sentence to death those who have committed violent crimes such as murder. The liberal experiment regarding the removal of the death penalty continues to be young and in the experimental stage, and as we have seen, its benefit has been minimal if any at all to society.

If the death penalty is illegal than so is your ability to respond to war waged on you by your neighbors. Perhaps you were not opposed to the death penalty when it involved executing member's of Hitler's Nazi Party? Or the soldier who fought for him? The death penalty is an Act of Self Defense.

How many people must die before you use the death penalty? A million? A hundred thousand? How many until the death penalty is a just punishment? I'll tell you how many, ONE.

I'm not here to debate the death penalty; that's for anothr thread. Let's stick with whether the UN is a governemnt shall we?

I appreciate as an American your government gains its legitimacy from the people, as all democracies/republics do, and all countries should IMHO.

However you confuse legitimacy and authority - there have been many non-democratic governments that still exercise authority without the legitimacy that democracy bestows.

Yes, the continuing membership of the UN of the US and other nations gives the UN legitimacy, as membership of other associations (International or otherwise) gives legitimacy to those associations.

However, the UN has no inherent authority, no authority which is not delegated to it, and that authority can be removed by reversal of that delegation decision, i.e. abrogation of the treaty concerned.

Inherent authority aka sovereignty is the defining characteristic of a nation state - something the UN is not.

 

[bigfatron]

Oops - didn't notice Ken was banned. Seems a bit unfair to argue with someone wearing a gag!