Human rights

[reedkiller 0]

I would like to start a topic on human rights and the UN.

For reference visit

this site

Over the past few years all the main players in the "war on terror" (how one can stop terror with war I don't know) have violated human rights. For example:

Iraq and Afghanistan have violated most rights

America has violated "the right to equality before the law", "the right to appeal a conviction" as well as minor violations of other rights with "camp X-ray" (please note that in the eye of the law no guilty people are being held there as one is innocent until proven guilty). Evidence is also surfacing of Iraqi's being tortured with out trial by British troops. This also breaches the Geneva Convention.

Does it matter if some Iraqi that the western world does not know about is illegally held/tortured/killed?

how should international law be enforced?

Please do not make this topic in to a good war bad war argument.

[Renagade 0]

ppls rights are soooooo last century

[Donnervogel 0]

ppls rights are soooooo last century

now I know why you've chosen that avatar ;)

[reedkiller 0]

LOL! a forum full of despots

[FallenPaladin 0]

No, it isn`t, reed.

Whole Gallia is supressed by the [insert country which violates UN law] , but a little village full of openminded persons is giving a last stand here on the BIS forums. Those heros defend freedom and morale and they have a magic drink. And I`m the guy which fall into it as baby... ;)

We had a lot of discussions about topics like this regarding the violation of UN law, but unfortunately there`s no insight and positive reaction from people who live in countries which do so. Well, most of them just ignore the violating of laws and find some excuses for themselves, but not all. Sadly the majority does so. We other people are called leftwing, which is kinda funny, because here in Germany I`d be quite in the middle, just a little right of it. I`d be a Bavarian if I could! Not with that belly and leather shorts, of course.

[FSPilot 0]

I'd like to know of one UN member that hasn't violated a single UN law.

[Warin 0]

I'd like to know of one UN member that hasn't violated a single UN law.

The fabled FSPilot leap of logic surfaces again!

It isnt about breaking UN laws. It's about fundamental human rights, and the fact that some nations support groups and leaders who have little regard for them. Do some reaing on Amnesty International about human rights records in places like Pakistan. Or for a real eye opener, in most of latin America in the 80's.

[Bernadotte 0]

I'd like to know of one UN member that hasn't violated a single UN law.

FS Pilot defending himself in traffic court:

"I'd like to know of one judge who has never exceeded the speed limit."  

[Guest]

I'd like to know of one UN member that hasn't violated a single UN law.

Iceland

[FSPilot 0]

Are you kidding? All that ice money has corrupted that country!

[NZXSHADOWS 0]

We have human rights?Nobody told me.

[Necromancer- 0]

actually depends...

Imo a death penalty would not violate human rights, if death occures quickly.

In my country, penalties are too light for several crimes.

for murder you get at least 10 years.

for death by fault you get at least 7 years.

You also get treated as a hotel guest, compared to prisons in other countries like the USA.

[killagee 0]

I'd like to know of one UN member that hasn't violated a single UN law.

New Zealand!

[Donnervogel 0]

I'd like to know of one UN member that hasn't violated a single UN law.

This is ridicolous.

I'd like to know one country that has never had a citizen breaking it's law.

See the flaw in you statement?

Laws are created because bad things are happening. When those things wouldn't happen there would be no need for those laws. So the UN created laws. Now the reason for it is to show people what they can do and what not. what is legal and what not. The people or government can breake the law. But they know that it's illegal. and that makes it a crime. Now it's important how the country deals with that crime. If there is a fair and independent investigation and when the criminals are convicted according to human rights then the country has done what it can. The real problem are countries that have those incidents but don't investigate them.

Secoundly there are human rights that are constantly broken. Good Example is the right for freedom of movement. Most criminal has restricted or even suspended freedom of movement. Now actually you've broke a human right when you put somebody in prison. But nobody would say anything because this is in the interest of the citizens of the country.

Also the criminal was violating more important human rights before. Otherwise he wouldn't be in prison ( I assume he was convicted correctly). So this "universal" human right is constantly getting restricted for some people. Therefore every nation with a correct justice system is constantly violating human rights. But would anyone say anything?

Would you acuse a state as a "criminal" when it's putting criminals in prison?

[Renagade 0]

actually depends...

Imo a death penalty would not violate human rights, if death occures quickly.

In my country, penalties are too light for several crimes.

for murder you get at least 10 years.

for death by fault you get at least 7 years.

You also get treated as a hotel guest, compared to prisons in other countries like the USA.

laws are sketchy though asides from child abuse.

Something ok in one country is a nasty crime in another.

Say if someone broke into ur house and went for u in the USA and u shot him in the leg that would be ok but there was an incident here were some drunk guy bust into someone elses house,says he thought it was his house in court, and got shot in the face with an air rifle.The guy who shot him got the shit end of the stick

Also the police and courts are far from being perfect and in some instances go over the line

[reedkiller 0]

What about the death penalty?

I am against it as I belive that a punishment should keep the public and the convicted safe (as prison does) and not just be a form of revenge. Personaly I would prefer death to a life in prison.

[Supah 0]

Well that maybe dictated by how you view the task of a prison system.

Two most prevelant i come across are:

1. Protect society from the perpatrator by keeping them away from them. This way you need live imprisonment but the death penalty would fit in with this line of thinking. This is most similar to what the US has i believe

2. Reeducate the perpatrator so he/she can be reintegrated in to society. This would lead to much shorter prison sentences and has very little if no place for the death penalty. This is wat is practised by some european nations.

I am not saying that the on is better then the other. Both have their serious flaws.

[Guest]

The inspector general of the US Justice department releases report on post-11/9 treatment of illegal immigrants

Quote[/b] ]A review into the detention of hundreds of foreign nationals in the United States following the 11 September 2001 attacks has found significant problems in the way they were handled.

The report, by the inspector general of the US Justice Department, says some of the detainees were held in unduly harsh conditions and were subject to abuse.

In the wake of 11 September hundreds of illegal immigrants were rounded up

The report looks into the cases of 762 people who were living in the US illegally and were detained in the 11 months following the attacks.

It concludes that some had to wait more than a month before being charged with any offence, and that they remained in custody for weeks without any investigations taking place as to whether they actually had any links to terrorism.

Restrictive conditions

The report is particularly critical of conditions at the Metropolitan detention centre in New York.

Eighty-four of the detainees were held there under what the report calls highly restrictive conditions, including being locked up for at least 23 hours per day.

The US says it will use all means necessary to ensure its security

They were also subject to escort procedures that included hand-cuffs, leg-irons and heavy chains; and a limit of one legal telephone call per week, which the report says prevented them from obtaining timely advice.

Some detainees also suffered a pattern of physical and verbal abuse at the centre.

The Justice Department says its actions were fully within the law, adding that it makes no apologies for finding every legal way possible to protect the American public from terrorist attacks.

[Commander-598 0]

What about the death penalty?

I am against it as I belive that a punishment should keep the public and the convicted safe (as prison does) and not  just be a form of revenge. Personaly I would prefer death to a life in prison.

But, you forget that Life in Prison means regular meals that are better than what you get out of USMC Mess Tent.

You also forgot, that prison costs money to feed prisoners, build more prisons to accomodate the number of prisoners that will just take up space for the next 70 years, clothing, more food, and other small things that get expensive when its several hundred thousand small things.

And don't even think about releasing thme in order to make room. There was a state here in the US, that released a few prisoners because of cost and space. Most if not all were right back in 2 days later.

[Commander-598 0]

Quote[/b] ]2. Reeducate the perpatrator so he/she can be reintegrated in to society. This would lead to much shorter prison sentences and has very little if no place for the death penalty. This is wat is practised by some european nations.

Who pays to employ the "reeducateors" for the several hundred thousand inmates?

[Supah 0]

Quote[/b] ]2. Reeducate the perpatrator so he/she can be reintegrated in to society. This would lead to much shorter prison sentences and has very little if no place for the death penalty. This is wat is practised by some european nations.

Who pays to employ the "reeducateors" for the several hundred thousand inmates?

The same people who pay for the guards or executioners you need less in this system, the state I am not saying its the right approach, just that it is an approach often chosen.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

What about the death penalty?

I am against it as I belive that a punishment should keep the public and the convicted safe (as prison does) and not  just be a form of revenge. Personaly I would prefer death to a life in prison.

You're against the death penalty for the wrong reasons. You don't think that revenge should be a part of the system, but then you state that life in prison would be a harsher punishment, at least in your view. That means that not only do you want revenge to be part of the system, but you think that the form of revenge now is too soft on the criminals.

QED

Myself, I don't see the death penalty or any other form of punishment as revenge; rather, it's simply an extension of 'let the punishment fit the crime'. Since a murderer has terminated the life of another human, he has forfeited his own right to live. That simple. Therefore, he should be removed from society on a permanent basis, and death is the most humane way to accomplish that removal. We had a rather lengthy debate about this back in the day.

[Supah 0]

@ June 02 2003,01:17)]Myself, I don't see the death penalty or any other form of punishment as revenge; rather, it's simply an extension of 'let the punishment fit the crime'. Since a murderer has terminated the life of another human, he has forfeited his own right to live. That simple. Therefore, he should be removed from society on a permanent basis, and death is the most humane way to accomplish that removal. We had a rather lengthy debate about this back in the day.

Isnt that form of punishment a form of revenge? Secondly, cant you punish someone without going for the an eye for an eye way? And finally, what on earth does QED stand voor  

Edit: Typo, one does not punish things (besides PC's)

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ June 02 2003,01:17)]Myself, I don't see the death penalty or any other form of punishment as revenge; rather, it's simply an extension of 'let the punishment fit the crime'. Since a murderer has terminated the life of another human, he has forfeited his own right to live. That simple. Therefore, he should be removed from society on a permanent basis, and death is the most humane way to accomplish that removal. We had a rather lengthy debate about this back in the day.

Isnt that form of punishment a form of revenge? Secondly, cant you punish someone without going for the an eye for an eye way? And finally, what on earth does QED stand voor  

Edit: Typo, one does not punish things (besides PC's)

If you look at it from that view, any punishment is revenge. If I jaywalk, the citation I receive is the city's revenge upon me for violating their anti-jaywalking statutes. Any punishment can be seen as revenge, because it is a direct reaction to your action.

And it means Quod Erat Demonstrandum

[Supah 0]

@ June 02 2003,01:34)]If you look at it from that view, any punishment is revenge. If I jaywalk, the citation I receive is the city's revenge upon me for violating their anti-jaywalking statutes. Any punishment can be seen as revenge, because it is a direct reaction to your action.

And it means Quod Erat Demonstradum

True or a way to deter you from jaywalking again by punishing you in a financial way. By applying the death penalty you are not detering the criminal from anything. A point you could make is that you deter would be offenders but that has been proven not to work. There are still people killing each other in the states that do employ the death penalty. Excuse my ignorance but what does "Quod Erat Demonstradum" mean?