Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 74

Thread: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

  1. #41
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by earthworm View Post
    There must be more to this, much more...The world is not that stupid....is it ??
    But there must be a good reason why this has not been signed..
    Being lumped in with Somalia... the ultimate insult..
    Again, what is the compelling reason for the US to ratify this treaty? Taiwan is not a signatory and I don't see any problems for children here. It isn't needed here in Taiwan nor is it needed in the US.
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  2. #42
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Again, what is the compelling reason for the US to ratify this treaty? Taiwan is not a signatory and I don't see any problems for children here. It isn't needed here in Taiwan nor is it needed in the US.
    Message and Image. Pure and simple. There is no reason what so ever for a modern western nation to sign things like human rights treaties, non aggression treaties and so on, because they simply do not apply in any way to our domestic situation. However we do sign such things because the image gained from doing so is considerably positive in doing so and the message for especially international politics is huge.

    Signing the treaty (and ratifying) the treat on non discrimination against Women, or this treaty the OP posted, does nothing that the US, or EU does not already have. However it sends a message and image that we seriously believe in such things and join the rest of the world in signing such a document to show our intent and frankly points out the countries that do not agree with such things. Those that do not sign it all fit in a certain category and it is not a category the US or any European country would want to be in. I mean who the hell wants to be in the same boat on women's rights as Iran and Saudi Arabia? But until recently (in fact not sure that the treaty has been ratified yet by the US), the US was in the same boat as these nations on the issue of discrimination against women.

    There can not be any erosion of US (or any countries) U.S. Rights if the treaty encompasses already all of US law on the subject. Does signing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which the US did) erode US rights in any way? Of course not!
    PeteEU

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Who cares if we sign it or not. If we violate it, whats the UN going to do about it? Write us a nasty little letter? I say we go ahead and sign a bunch of UN documents and violate all of them, just to show the UN what a worthless, toothless hag it has become.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  4. #44
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    Who cares if we sign it or not. If we violate it, whats the UN going to do about it? Write us a nasty little letter? I say we go ahead and sign a bunch of UN documents and violate all of them, just to show the UN what a worthless, toothless hag it has become.
    That is because you seam have zero clue on what the UN is... like most American's. The UN has never had and never will have a "police function" that the UN can unilaterally use to "punish" member nations. The UN is nothing more than a gather point of nations on this planet to discuss global issues in a peaceful way. If these members see an issue with a member country that threatens regional or world stability, then yes the countries via the UN can do something about it if they agree.

    But back to the issue at had.. you say so what if we sign it or not. If the US violate it? Does that mean you are for child exploitation and child workers? I would say that if the US did violate in an organised way, then the US far more to worry about internally than any outside force. If god forbid the US did violate this treaty (after signing and ratifying it), the shame of exploiting children should be big enough to stop such practices .. well hopefully.
    PeteEU

  5. #45
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    That is because you seam have zero clue on what the UN is... like most American's. The UN has never had and never will have a "police function" that the UN can unilaterally use to "punish" member nations. The UN is nothing more than a gather point of nations on this planet to discuss global issues in a peaceful way. If these members see an issue with a member country that threatens regional or world stability, then yes the countries via the UN can do something about it if they agree.

    But back to the issue at had.. you say so what if we sign it or not. If the US violate it? Does that mean you are for child exploitation and child workers? I would say that if the US did violate in an organised way, then the US far more to worry about internally than any outside force. If god forbid the US did violate this treaty (after signing and ratifying it), the shame of exploiting children should be big enough to stop such practices .. well hopefully.
    We don't have a systematic problem of child exploitation in this country. Yes, some children grow up in cults. I was one of them myself. But for all the small incidents that do happen in this country, a majority of this country does not exploit chidren in the manner you speak of. Despite our not ratifying this worthless treaty(really, if all nations except the US and Somalia have signed it, why do other countries have worse exploitation of children than we do?), our nation is not systematically enslaving children. All you argument is based on is IF, IF, IF. Take a look at the reality of the situation, and make your argument from there, instead of using worst case scenarios that don't exist to build your weak case. We don't need this treaty, and signing it is just one of those stupid time wasters, just so we can have Europeans pat us on the back. It means nothing, because it cannot be enforced. Its an empty gesture, just like every other damn resolution that comes out of the UN.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  6. #46
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    We don't have a systematic problem of child exploitation in this country. Yes, some children grow up in cults. I was one of them myself. But for all the small incidents that do happen in this country, a majority of this country does not exploit chidren in the manner you speak of. Despite our not ratifying this worthless treaty(really, if all nations except the US and Somalia have signed it, why do other countries have worse exploitation of children than we do?), our nation is not systematically enslaving children. All you argument is based on is IF, IF, IF. Take a look at the reality of the situation, and make your argument from there, instead of using worst case scenarios that don't exist to build your weak case. We don't need this treaty, and signing it is just one of those stupid time wasters, just so we can have Europeans pat us on the back. It means nothing, because it cannot be enforced. Its an empty gesture, just like every other damn resolution that comes out of the UN.
    No you dont get it.

    My argument is not a bunch of "ifs".. it is about image and message. By signing these "worthless" treaties, we send the message that we believe in such things to countries around the world that dont necessary remotely live up to such things and are willing to commit to international treaties to prove to other nations that we are serious (especially if we dont live up to them ourselves 100% of the time). It also put those that do not sign such treaties in a bad light. Does it have any practical application signing or not signing it? Not really, but neither does signing the Human rights declaration or any other treaty, and yet I doubt you would claim that the US should withdraw from the Human rights declaration just because it is a "useless piece of paper".

    Quite a few treaties are "worthless" in context to local US or European laws, because they already cover the treaty material, but we have signed them any ways because of the intent, image and message that such a signing sends to countries that do not live up to the principles in the treaty.
    PeteEU

  7. #47
    Why so serious?

    Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,291

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    No you dont get it.

    My argument is not a bunch of "ifs".. it is about image and message. By signing these "worthless" treaties, we send the message that we believe in such things to countries around the world that dont necessary remotely live up to such things and are willing to commit to international treaties to prove to other nations that we are serious (especially if we dont live up to them ourselves 100% of the time). It also put those that do not sign such treaties in a bad light. Does it have any practical application signing or not signing it? Not really, but neither does signing the Human rights declaration or any other treaty, and yet I doubt you would claim that the US should withdraw from the Human rights declaration just because it is a "useless piece of paper".

    Quite a few treaties are "worthless" in context to local US or European laws, because they already cover the treaty material, but we have signed them any ways because of the intent, image and message that such a signing sends to countries that do not live up to the principles in the treaty.
    Treaties aren't benign in the least. They are binding documents that carry the force of law, and should be entered into with as much care and caution as a nation can muster. It's not about style, or shouldn't be, and they shouldn't be signed just so one can look good.
    "I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."

    --Albert Einstein, 1929

  8. #48
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    No you dont get it.

    My argument is not a bunch of "ifs".. it is about image and message. By signing these "worthless" treaties, we send the message that we believe in such things to countries around the world that dont necessary remotely live up to such things and are willing to commit to international treaties to prove to other nations that we are serious (especially if we dont live up to them ourselves 100% of the time). It also put those that do not sign such treaties in a bad light. Does it have any practical application signing or not signing it? Not really, but neither does signing the Human rights declaration or any other treaty, and yet I doubt you would claim that the US should withdraw from the Human rights declaration just because it is a "useless piece of paper".

    Quite a few treaties are "worthless" in context to local US or European laws, because they already cover the treaty material, but we have signed them any ways because of the intent, image and message that such a signing sends to countries that do not live up to the principles in the treaty.
    And thats the problem. Countries too busy, staring at themselves in the mirror, worried about their image to others, rather than being who they are and working towards actually making things better. Thats why documents like this one are absurd. Its nothing but a bunch of cheerleaders, trying to feel better about themselves.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  9. #49
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    No you dont get it.

    My argument is not a bunch of "ifs".. it is about image and message. By signing these "worthless" treaties, we send the message that we believe in such things to countries around the world that dont necessary remotely live up to such things and are willing to commit to international treaties to prove to other nations that we are serious (especially if we dont live up to them ourselves 100% of the time). It also put those that do not sign such treaties in a bad light. Does it have any practical application signing or not signing it? Not really, but neither does signing the Human rights declaration or any other treaty, and yet I doubt you would claim that the US should withdraw from the Human rights declaration just because it is a "useless piece of paper".

    Quite a few treaties are "worthless" in context to local US or European laws, because they already cover the treaty material, but we have signed them any ways because of the intent, image and message that such a signing sends to countries that do not live up to the principles in the treaty.
    Who is 'we', you and the little mouse in your pocket? Are you an American citizen? BTW, who jumped all over the US because GWB wouldn't sign that useless POS Kyoto Treaty? I think it was Europe, yeah.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #50
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,090

    Re: Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights

    Quote Originally Posted by Moon View Post
    Treaties aren't benign in the least. They are binding documents that carry the force of law, and should be entered into with as much care and caution as a nation can muster. It's not about style, or shouldn't be, and they shouldn't be signed just so one can look good.
    Bull****. Treaties are a piece of paper. The content of such treaties depend on what the countries want as content. If a treaty is designed with a "punishment" part then the treaty has more bite, however ultimately any country can say FU to the treaty and do what they want, without much consequence.

    Most treaties are nothing but documents of intent. However saying that, these documents of intent actually mean something to nations that cherish the principles of the content. Human rights for example. The Universal Declaration of Human rights is a treaty, with no "punishment" aspect in it. If a nation breaks human rights.. so what. However we cherish it because it's principles are an integral part of our democracies. But in principle, the UDHR is a worthless piece of paper from the view of nations that already live up to its principles and have those embedded in their own democratic tradition and legal framework.

    This document is a document of intent. Abuse of children world wide is a big issue. While the US and Europe has laws banning abuse of children for the most part, that does not mean that the intent of this document is any different than the intent of the UDHR. Is the US afraid of pissing off a bunch of religious freaks that abuse children? Or is the US just embarrassed that it's own legal system is not yet geared up 100% to combat the abuse of children when it conflicts with "religious beliefs"? To be frank, it is a sad day when religion is more important than the well being of our children.

    So as I said, this document is a document of intent, no different than the UDHR or any other treaty that dictates an intent of the signer to follow the principles of the document, either by changing ones laws or keeping laws in place that already live up to the document's intent.
    PeteEU

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •