US capital punishment for crimes committed by minors.

Elle

I was referring to the first post- executing minors.

You think executing a mentally ill person is better than executing a the above? or have I misunderstood?

no, i edited the brackets out of your comment.

Reply 42

Elle

vienna95

no, i edited the brackets out of your comment.

...oh ok. If you want to blindly support Bush no matter what then it's your choice.

Reply 43

Elle

...oh ok. If you want to blindly support Bush no matter what then it's your choice.

Im not even convinced Vienna is a Bush supprter she just defends his foregn policy against critiscm and remark calling him an idiot etc....

Reply 44

Elle

...oh ok. If you want to blindly support Bush no matter what then it's your choice.

i thought you comment was satisfactory but it extends to more than just Bush. it would assume more credibility without that reference.

Reply 45

Cossack

she just defends.. against...remark calling him an idiot etc....

i dont think these remarks are particuarly valuable on a debate forum, or am i wrong?

Reply 46

[QUOTE="USUK1"]What??

USUK1

Because its a crap treaty and most the signatories will ignore it anyway. Iran! hah I bet they abide by it! The US congress doesn't believe in signing away sovereignty and thinks rightfully that it has the right to make its own laws without foreign influence.

Whatever Irans failing they do not execute childre, only the USA and COngo do this

Social progress!

USUK1

Letting murdererers free after 10 years,

Nowhere was this suggested

USUK1

paying huge amounts of
unemployment benefit which weaken the economy and increase taxes while promoting inefficiency and waste.

what about the disabled and epople who are unable to find work - would you rather they commited crime to get money

USUK1

Not spending anything on Defence

nowhere was this suggested

USUK1

Appeasing oppressive regimes

nowhere was this suggested

USUK1

Valuing the criminal more than the victim

nowhere was this suggested

USUK1

And so, so much more

really?

USUK1

If this is "social progress" then I am happy at being labeled "socially inept".

it isnt social progress - social progress is about schanging what is wrong in order to improve things

Reply 47

moncal

I can assure you that it wasn't an issue at that time. It isn't even an issue now besides in your american bashing mind. The U.S. can do no right but every wrong. Kind of hypocritical don't you think. What has your country done for the world?

Well for a start we follow the human rights charter... To take a balanced approach the US had done a lot of good things, but excecuting people for crimes they commited as minors is not one of them. If you search my other posts you will see that I have had quite a defending attitude when it comes to accusations against the US, but that doesnt mean I consider it OK for the state to simply ignore the civil and political rights they have agreed to give their citizens.

The US has been acting as a world police force, which would be OK had they followed the human rights charter and the geneva conventions. However, when the US ignores these fundamental rights and international laws then how do you expect to have any crediability and support for your policies? These are the sort of offenses that justify the French and German decisions not to support the US led invation of Iraq. Had it not been for the failures of the present5 US government to uphold the human rights they claim to defend I would have had a far more compelling attitude for these countries failure to support the liberation of teh Iraqi people. However, I cannot blaim them for chosing not to support a mlitary campaign led by a country which simply ignores the human rights it uses as a justification for its own actions.

Reply 48

USUK1

Because its a crap treaty and most the signatories will ignore it anyway.

If that is the case, is it not a little bit daft to use it as the justification for the war in Iraq? The US has gone to war claiming to try to defend this very treaty. Yet you propose they should ignore it. I would not have a problem with the US acting as a world police force had they only followed the agreed upon human rights and international laws that they have themselves insited on pushing forwards. Saddam is an asshole, ok, but how on earth is that an excuse for ignoring the human righst charter in US trials? More important, how on earth is violations of the human righst charter a justification for war when the Us doesnt eaven follow it themselves? By ignoring these fundamental rights the US is undermining all its crediability when they go to war based on violations of the human righst charter.

Reply 49

Sam2k

What don't you people understand? That little piece of fancy words has no authority within the U.S. The average American hasn't got a clue and doesn't want a clue what that treaty says. They don't give a horse's rear what anything but the constitution and the other documents that matter to us say. While some countries may live, die, and breathe under the U.N. charter, we are possesed with the ability to be do things our way.

Reply 50

material breach

moncal

wow a really admission there, the point is that sometimes you are wrong

Reply 51

The US has gone to war claiming to try to defend this very treaty. Yet you propose they should ignore it. I would not have a problem with the US acting as a world police force had they only followed the agreed upon human rights and international laws that they have themselves insited on pushing forwards. Saddam is an asshole, ok, but how on earth is that an excuse for ignoring the human righst charter in US trials? More important, how on earth is violations of the human righst charter a justification for war when the Us doesnt eaven follow it themselves? By ignoring these fundamental rights the US is undermining all its crediability when they go to war based on violations of the human righst charter.

erm but they didnt go to war for this reason. they went to war to protect the american people. which seems to be the difference in general.

Reply 52

vienna95

erm but they didnt go to war for this reason. they went to war to protect the american people. which seems to be the difference in general.

Well they have had a few interchanging reasons for going to war, claiming one or the other as it happens to fit (thats politics for you). Regardless I woud not say that either justification is particularely strong at the present, although Im glad they decided to remove Saddam.

Reply 53

moncal

Well the current administration doesnt foolow the constitution either... Also, what are we to think about a country that promises us to follow certain regulations only to tell us they dont care about them afterwards?

Mod Expression - Language Violation - Post Amended

Reply 54

Jonatan

Well the current administration doesnt foolow the constitution either...

Indeed Bush and his cronies are trying to Amend the constitution in order to limit their citizens civil liberties - of course this is acceptable in america as its wrapped up as safeguardng 'christian family values'.

Reply 55

Jonatan

Well they have had a few interchanging reasons for going to war, .

they had multiple reasons. some primary others with less value. some deal breakers, some of added benefit. the US would have gone into Iraq with or without the UN. the deal breaker was the threat posed to the US, whether this fitted the wish of the UN was secondary. id also be amazed to see any example of either Bush or Blair, at any time, asserting that the war was not about a threat to the wider world.

Reply 56

Cossack

entirely inaccurate.

Reply 57

USUK1

You obviously don't know what ur talking about so why don't you leave and go and watch tv. HOW THE HELL IS BUSH TRYING TO STEM US CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!!!!!!

Reply 58

vienna95

entirely inaccurate.

Ok, a more accurate account then. Bush tries to amend the constitution because he beleives that doing so will give him a lot of votes among conservatives and homophobes.

Reply 59