The United Nations is a sick, racist, anti-Semitic, anti-life, immoral group of vile bureaucrats determined to impose their political correctness on us all.

An old article worth reading is this one:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2002-01-12&id=1063&searchText=

But it was this which really made me ashamed to have had such a big part in founding the UN:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/606487/posts

What civilised, democratic country wants to be a part of this vile cartel? What benefits does it bring? The UN seems united against one thing: Christ.

Would some sort of Democratic Nations or Civilised Nations be a better idea? We could allow in all countries that are democratic and work by the rule of law. We could have no truck with political correctness, terrorism or murdering the unborn and promoting immorality.

What do you think? Is it possible to start again and build a UN as it should have been, instead of staying in this vile mess that it currently is?

Peter.

'Vile cartel?' My goodness, Peter. I bet you were a hit on the high school debating team.

You might want to pick up a copy of a book I recently finished, by (conservative) humourist PJ O'Rourke. It's called The CEO of the Sofa and in an early chapter he effectively demonstrates what most thinking folks already realize about the UN...it's a well-meaning but largely ineffectual white elephant on today's political scene.
Hardly worth your working yourself up to that level of vitriol, really.

(PS-Not to impeach your sources, but I'd feel better if you could produce some non-ideological confirmation on that last article - CNN, a national newspaper, that sort of thing.)

We could have no truck with political correctness...

So what do you propose we replace it with? Complete callousness in the face of others' suffering? The concept of 'political correctness' is badly flawed, yes, but it's flawed in the right direction...just like the UN. Both need fixing, not abolishing. How we do that is, I suspect, best debated over on the RM board.

Frankly, Peter, if you want to have any impact at all on the world at large - let alone on the posters here at NitCentral - at some point you're gonna have to stop arguing black and white and realize that our society is actually composed of the shades of gray in the middle. Not that you have to abandon your principles - just learn to understand and work with those of others.

The United Nations is a sick, racist, anti-Semitic, anti-life, immoral group of vile bureaucrats determined to impose their political correctness on us all.

Peter, if you want to argue a point, please refrain from making unsupportable, fallacious generalizations (and that is redundant).

Now, with regard to reforming the UN into something better, what sort of broad policy objectives would this new institution have?

Would some sort of Democratic Nations or Civilised Nations be a better idea? We could allow in all countries that are democratic and work by the rule of law.

This sounds like the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). How would your idea provide structures to promote collective security or cooperation among states?

We could have no truck with political correctness, terrorism or murdering the unborn and promoting immorality.

What does the UN have to do with any of these, pray tell? As for the third issue, there are other forums here to discuss it. Your phrasing leaves something to be desired as well: do collections of undifferentiated cells rightly called "unborn?" But I digress.

And promoting immorality? How? The UN by and large adheres to an objective ethical standard, informed by ideals of human rights; religious morality, however, is subjective in nature.

So, what would your League of Democratic Nations do?

Actually, it's well documented that the UN is anti-Semitic. Why do you think the US walked out of the Durban conference last year?

Actually, I should say anti-Jewish, since Arabs are Semites as well.

So because something is not a matter of law it becomes subjective?! I think you REALLY need to think this through.

Did I mention any law? I should clarify that the UN is a SECULAR institution in which any one form of religious morality has no dominance.

Concerning Durban and such things, while many UN member countries propagate things about the "Zionist/Jewish conspiracy," there is nothing inherant to the UN that is anti-Jewish. That countries are able to pursue their racist views with some success shows that the UN is in need of great reform, though.

A secular institution guarantees nonthing. Communism was a "secular" ideology, as were most "-isms" of the past three centuries.

The reason the US no longer pays UN dues is due to the organizations support of "family planning". Of course, it's a futile effort, as overpopulation is a ghost of a threat (What are food prices again?), and population growth slows down only when children are no longer a economic resource. As an example, the Japanese will become extinct in the 22nd century something at the current rate of growth.

The ultimate problem is that an international organization is only as good as the countries in it (The Axis were also a organization with more realistic dreams of world unity). All the rouge states get a vote in the UN. All the states that practice slavery, or terrorism, or just oppressive governments get a vote. And they control the Agenda. as the UN is ran by representives.

Oh, in the mid 60's or 70's, the Arab nations pushed through a UN resolution saying Zionism is racism.

Don't take it personal[ly].

Gee now why would I do that? ¬_¬

Pesti, I agree that the UN is only as good as the nations that make it up, so isn't it better to start again with at least the provision that the nation in question be a democracy?

Peter.

Pesti, I agree that the UN is only as good as the nations that make it up, so isn't it better to start again with at least the provision that the nation in question be a democracy?

But this would defeat many of the UN's objectives, especially as it applies to collective security. Without the UN's status as a global organization for all states, it would lack the legitimacy to impose ceasefires or embargoes or sanctions on non-democratic countries like Iraq. Similarly, it would exclude important powers like China or countries with weak democratic institutions like Nigeria or Pakistan.

Maybe, however, a reformed UN could do more to promote democracy and human rights. Problem is, the current organization includes concepts of state sovereignty, which run counter to things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

to answer the original question (not peters post: i don't liked that):

Yes, we need the UN, but it should be reformed. For example, many actions have been prevented because the council has to vote unanomiously (sp?), and one country (russia, china, USA) always vetoed out of political reasons (the whole Isreal-Arab problem) or because the offending country itself voted against measures.

secondly, members should pay their dues on time.

thirdly, they should take the UN seriously. It's not off and on, when you think it helps your country or renomee you are in, but when sth. is demanded of you, you are out.

fourthly (?), there should be a strong army to help the UN resolutions be put through (yes, I'm a pacifist and generally against armies and wars, but I'd much prefer an UN army against an intervention by the US for US interests only).

fifthly, the Charta of Human Rights (which supposedly all Members signed??) should be enforced (made into local laws)in each Member state at once (that means the USA, too: birth control, no more Capital punshiment!!!)

I wish for a truly universal (that is, not-american dominated), strong UN that enforces peace and the UN charta instead of debating their heads off before doing sth., being almost bancrupt because nobody pays, and being not respected by the big coutnries, so there is room for improvement. I also think that it is the seed for a federation like Star Trek.

Yes, we need the UN, but it should be reformed. For example, many actions have been prevented because the council has to vote unanomiously (sp?), and one country (russia, china, USA) always vetoed out of political reasons (the whole
Isreal-Arab problem) or because the offending country itself voted against measures.

I should clarify that the Security Council does not need to vote unanimously, but all five permanent members' votes (US, UK, France, China, Russia) are required for a resolution to pass.

As an American, I've got to disagree with you. I will support nothing that puts anything over the Federal government. Although the feds may not be always right, at least mechanisms exist for their removal. (If you read some of my posts I think
they are rarely right.)

Parochialism should not be the basis for sound policy. In any case, would you prefer an anarchic international system where states make war against each other in a race to the bottom? Or is a legitimately-constructed global government capable of enforcing the law somehow a worse situation than anarchy?

Face it, we're moving inexorably toward global government. The Security Council already IS "above" the US or any other government. Its resolutions are enforceable and MUST be followed by all UN members (which currently includes just about every country). The catch is that the governments of the US, the UK, France, Russia, and China all must consent to resolutions of the Council. The idea behind these vetoes was that the "Great Powers" would cooperate to maintain collective security in recognition that this is in the interest of everyone.

Blue, perhaps you've never heard of something called the Social Contract? We agree to be subject to the law (this applies to states as well) in exchange for having some part in shaping the law (voting, etc.) - we are both subjects to and authors of the law. The state may be "above" us, but so long as we participate in the institutions of that state, we should have nothing to complain about. Unless, of course, we're hopelessly idealistic Objectivists who frankly don't get how the world really works.

Blue is not arguing (at least not in the quoted statement -- although I suspect that in general you are correct in assuming that he does not agree that a "Global Community" government is better than carefully negotiated treaties among nations) against any kind of globally cooperative system. What he is saying is that even in a republican ( or if you prefer representationally democratic) government, to the extent that each level of government is further removed from a connection to the people it "represents," and therefore further removed from the Social Contract. And the UN, the World Court, and other current "Global Communities" don't even pretend to be representational, nor is there any proposal to make them accountable to anyone but their current leaders' prejudices.

The broader a level of "government" is, the more essential it is that it be accountable to the levels below it and ultimately to the people it has contracted with. That is the whole point of the Bill of Rights, especially the ninth and tenth ammendments to the US Constitution, and ever since the Civil War (and even more so since the New Deal), the bureaucrats and ideologues in the Federal government have done their best to undermine this most essential part of the contract. Imagine how much futher the bureaucrats and ideologues of a Global Community will take it when there is no "signed contract" to point out their heavy-handedness.

Blue,

BTW, you think the UN is U.S. dominated? Really? I think if it wasn't for the U.S. veto on the Security Council it would be seriously outvoted.

I did not mean that the UN is US dominated, I meant that I prefer an UN intervention over an US only intervention. When the US intervenes somewhere, its often not to push through an UN resolution, but to pursue very blantantly US interestes (and many people just don't like the US government talking about Human Rights but caring only about US interests. It sound like hypocrisy.)

ducks quickly before bashing starts :-)

Blue,

Should the person next to you be able to tell you what to do? How do we judge the difference between "Don't put your finger in that light socket," and, "Don't criticize the Blue Gameranian"? More importantly, who judges that difference?

Question first: What is a blue gameranian, and why should you not criticize it?

You mean, when you see your neighbor beating up his wife, you wouldn't intervene or call at least the police?

The common basis on which the member states are judged aren't arbitratirarily (sp?), its the Human Rights convention. So North Korea et al need to implement parts of it, too, and nobody would take your right of free speech away.

Yes, it is better to govern less (because of bureaucracy) but that doesn't mean there should be no laws enforced at all. I mean, the UN doesn't try to tell people what clothes to wear, but it tells them how the working conditions in the clothes industry should be. (to take one random example).
That's why I'm no Liberatarian (sp?), because good laws protect the weak; the strong /rich/ powerful/ influential get what they want anyway. In an anarchy, the poor/ less influential people are hurt more than the rich - look at some of the african countries. Rich people hire bodyguards and lawyers, poor have no such choice, so they suffer.

The social contract is an idea by an english philosopher (can't remember which one) that society works on an unwritten contract. You may not have heard about it, but that doesn't mean you aren't part of it or bound by it. To paraphrase an old 5tupid phrase: "if you don't like it here, why don't you go into the jungle" (that would be the only way of having absolute freedom: to live alone, without other people.)

What exactly is the meaning or defintion of Parochialism?

constanze, you might want to look at this site. You probably won't like the viewpoints expressed there, but you might get a better insight into why many Americans are opposed to "global government", Kyoto, the ICC, etc...

BTW, your English is much, much , mucho grande better than my German.

Better than your Spanish, too..

Esta Su inglés es mucho, mucho mejor que mi español.

Just so ya know...

What he is saying is that even in a republican (or if you prefer representationally democratic) government, to the extent that each level of government is further removed from a connection
to the people it "represents," and therefore further removed from the Social Contract.

That's quite true, and it's the precise cause of the (ahem) legitimacy problems of the IMF, WTO, and other international governmental organizations. Direct elections to some sort of "Global Community" government would certainly be in order eventually... it may be some time in coming.

And the UN, the World Court, and other current "Global Communities" don't even pretend to be representational, nor is there any proposal to make them accountable to anyone but their current leaders' prejudices.

First let my provide some clarification: there is the International Court of Justice (which ostensibly resolves conflicts between states) and the new International Criminal Court, which can prosecute individuals for war crimes, etc. (not retroactively, btw).

Secondly, the ICC is accountable to the Assembled Parties; that is, those states which have ratified the Rome Statute. It's not representational, but since when should criminal courts be subject to representative legislatures? I suppose that's an issue for another board. In any case, the UN is not representational, as you said: each member state gets one vote in the General Assembly and any other commissions and councils in the UN. It's the same with the Security Council, except that the permanent members have vetoes, ostensibly because of their status as Great Powers. It's not democratic in the least, of course, but that is due solely to the sovereign equality of nation-states.

The broader a level of "government" is, the more essential it is that it be accountable to the levels below it and ultimately to the people it has contracted with.

Yes.

That is the whole point of the Bill of Rights, especially the ninth and tenth ammendments to the US Constitution, and ever since the Civil War (and even more so since the New Deal), the bureaucrats and ideologues in the Federal government have done their best to undermine this most essential part of the contract.

Without granting all the negative connotations of what you've said, the tendency to increased centralization in the US is due largely to the relatively limited taxation powers of state governments vs. the federal government. In other words, the role and scope of government has changed since the 19th (or 18th) Century, and orthodox constitutional interpretations were insufficient to these new demands.

Imagine how much further the bureaucrats and ideologues of a Global Community will take it when there is no "signed contract" to point out their heavy-handedness.

I am not advocating some sort of extra-constitutional (and thus extra-legal) Global Community. Rather, I think that all existing IGOs should be united under a single - and accountable - global authority. Such a government would concern itself primarily with "matters of global concern" - international trade and economy, disease control, prevention and resolution of conflict/warfare, environmental issues, and a myriad of other things that are currently under the mandate of different IGOs. A Global Community wouldn't micromanage, not just because of constitutional prohibitions, but because it would be practically impossible for a single authority to try to interfere greatly in the daily lives of six billion people spread across six continents.

Should the people of Prince Edward Island be able to tell the Quebecois what to do? How about the reverse, should Quebecois being able to tell members of Prince Edward Island what to do? Instead of Prince Edward Island lets change it to
Madagascar.

You can ask the same question for people within a province or within a town. Why should my neighbour be able to tell me what to do? Of course, that's not how government works. We ALL participate in some capacity - we vote - and then we abide by the community's decisions (or the authorities set up to act in trust for it). These decisions are subject only to the previously agreed upon basic principles of our community - our Constitution. That's the Social Contract. Is it perfect? No, but can you think of something better?

Ok, back to JoshG., I’ve never heard of the social contract. Was the social contract in force when that girl was gang raped because a court
ordered it? Will they judge me too? (I hope this serves as an answer to your “social contract” question.)

What are you talking about? The Social Contract was originated by Thomas Hobbes, and developed further by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (among others). It forms the "unwritten" agreement through which we form political units.

1) Parochialism...Policy statement. Stating it does not is not the same as proving it. (I know, your questions are designed to make me prove it. But I better highlight it as statement you made with no proof. Stalin was right about repetition, after all.)

Shall I waste time proving general principles? And why must all your responses include comparisons between posters and dictators?

2) The first Question. The term "race to the bottom" is biased in itself. Why not say, "Soar to the top"? If you don't like the equally biased alternative I'll answer that with the extraneous section cut out. Just a reminder, "In any case, would you prefer an anarchic international system where states make war against each other?" (paraphrased to unbias the question.)

Ridiculous - the statement is not "biased." It's a metaphor. Ever heard of Game Theory? I've explained why it applies many times before - need I do so again?

Yes. I prefer anarchy to totalitarianism where the autocrat (or bureaucrat) can "make" people behave. (You want him to have no power? What about stopping wars? Can you do that without the power to "make" people behave?)

It's not a choice between anarchy and totalitarianism, unless all government constitutes such (a dubious claim to be sure).

And what is the "good" side of anarchy? Without the limitations on our rights and actions imposed by government, we have the right to everything, and thus nothing. Totalitarianism and anarchy are both extremes, and in either case we have no guarantees of personal safety - or much anything else.

a) Show me a "legitimately-constructed global government". Even if it is perfect (Say God or Goddess or Gamera comes down and sets it up) humans will run it. Even if 1,000 bureaucratic administrators are OK the 1,001st might be a problem.

I see... so because perfection is unattainable, we should refrain from entering into institutional arrangements?

b)Who get to decide the law the "legitmately-constructed global government (is)
capable of enforcing"? (A judging panel from Rwanda, The Peoples Republic of North Korea, Cuba, Algeria, and Canada?)

Presumably the same way all international institutions are constructed - lots of multilateral negotiation. In other words, states will decide on at least a provisional legal framework. Elections would be held, followed by a constitutional conference (or something), and then it would be submitted for ratification by the People.

I'll close with a quote. (It's from memory and I may mangle it.) "That Government which governs least governs best." (For foreigners who may be unfamiliar with the quote, it is Thomas Jefferson.)

Of course, there's a problem with that quote. If, say, it implies that workplace safety regulations (or something similar, perhaps the protection of property rights) are "bad," then it cannot be considered a valid conclusion. Or else you could an asterisk, noting that "beyond a certain level of 'governing,' less is more."

Until I can hope in my transmogrifier and go to Liberia as routinely as going to the store a strong world government addresses problems that do not exist. Until then it is hard to govern less than anarchy.

Two words: "Bull" and the other one won't show up here. There are a distressing number of global problems in this world, such as, oh, nuclear arms proliferation, AIDS, the "Brown Clouds" of toxic chemicals over Asia and other regions, climate change, tropical diseases, warfare, terrorism, drugs, regional economic crises, trade wars, the ozone layer... need I go on?

Oh, and the transmogrifier only changed the shape of objects, people, etc. It didn't "beam" people across the world. Someone's not up-to-date on Calvin and Hobbes...

Thanks TomM. Yes that is 99.9999999999% of the gist of my post, however I refuse responsibility for what other people say I say. Berry

Point taken. It's just that constanze quoted a line where you clearly decried the Federal government, but said that an arbitrary world government would be even worse, and somehow inferred from it that you were a Hearst-like jingoist in favor of American superiority. <Personal Interpretation>(You didn't turn the explosion of the Maine into a excuse to charge up San Juan Hill, you just asked for the Blue Gammerian to leave you alone -- at least that's the way I read your posts.)</Personal Interpretation>

Sorry, TomM, I'm just rolling on the floor laughing about it. I mean you could say, "What [he] means is he eats babies and will release Ebola."

("What Berry says is that babbies are juicy and tender and without government protection mohair growers would starve.")

ROTFL <Sarcasm>Would I do that?</Sarcasm> O.K. Butting back out again now....

JoshG: I should clarify that the Security Council does not need to vote unanimously, but all five permanent members' votes (US, UK, France, China, Russia) are required for a resolution to pass.
Luigi Novi: Well, don't all members intend to be "permanent" ones when they join? The U.S., U.K., France, China and Russia are the charter members} (Pick, pick, pick! )

No, the "Big 5" are "permanent" members of the Security Council.

The big five are "permanent members of the Security Council because their seats there are written into the charter*. the other seats (six?) are filled by different countries for limited terms. All 100+ countries are equal members of the larger, but weaker General Assembly.


The permanent members' votes are counted separately from the other SC members. If any one of them votes "No," the resolution fails. To pass it needs both a majority and the unanimous approval of the permanent members.

*Actually Taiwan was the fifth permanent member until the US stopped pretending that Chaing Kai-Scheck (SP?) ran China, at which time its permanent seat was transferred to "Red China."

To pass it needs both a majority and the unanimous approval of the permanent members.

Not quite. It needs the assent of all the permanent members. A permanent member can abstain. However if a permanent member votes no, the measure is vetoed.

October 24th is UN day. Gee, can't wait. Excitement is too much. Will pass out from excitement. Gotta... hold... on. Concetrate...darn it. Must...invade...Iraq

Blue Berry,

Thanks for referencing the UN Charta.

Pity no country does all of this.

I have to correct you there: in the German constitution, as well as several other european countries, the UN charta is included.
(That means we are a free, democratic country, even if we don't have the right to arm bears.)

Also, the European Union as a whole put the charta into its founding contract.
(see the discussion on another board about why turkey can't become a member at the moment.)

(Specifically article #5. If there is a time bomb set to go off in 30 seconds and the perpetrator is in custody I want the cops to be able to say, "tell me where you hid or I will beat you senseless." Call me nuts but I'd rather not die because of his right to be free from torture.)

You know, thats where the trouble starts. Every policeman in every country that uses torture will tell you that the people concerned are dangerous terrorists and that a confession is needed (The fact that torture also frightens people from further activities is a bonus). There have been enough instances in the US reported already about the police forcing suspects to confess whatever fit the evidence at that time, so the case was nicely closed. With the "War on terror", people who are suspects loose a lot of their inalienable rights.

In fact, this view of torture being important goes back to the middle ages, when the roman concept of "in dubio pro reo" (=If in doubt, its in favour of the accused) was turned on its head not only by the inquisition but by the worldly authorities: If somebody was accused or suspected, he must be guilty. But in order to be sentenced, he had to confess (this was also important for religious reasons: without confession there could be no forgiving). If he didn't confess, it didn't mean he was innocent, it meant that he was resisting and stubborn, so he had to be tortured harder. I don't know if you can imagine how horrible torture can be, but sooner or later people will confess everything.

How often do you have somebody who you know is responsible for the timebomb in the hands of the police right before the bomb goes off, as in your example? How many times is it only a suspect, who was at the wrong place at the wrong time? How many times do you find the suspect with ample time to disarm the bomb? How many times can the suspect be found only after the bomb exploded, using evidence?

The romans thought it would be much more important to let a few guilty slip through because their guilt couldn't be proven accurately enough than submit many innocent people to punishment who couldn't prove their innocence (because its almost impossible to prove you are innocent.).

Blue,

The right to arm bears has to do with giving guns to hairy woodland creatures. Either you for got the "" or you don't know the order of words is important there. It is the right to bear arms.

You mean rednecks *aren't* hairy woodland creatures? Yes, I forgot the and I know it should be the right to bear arms.

Do German schools have detention?...

You mean, staying after school? My own school time is so long past I can't remember. But I think not, as the mothers would raise hell against the teachers if the kids are late for lunch (school ends around noon, and my mom was always mad when I took my time coming home and arrived late.)

Also, how long does it take to gain German citizenship? ...

Unfortunately, the idea in the law is still related to "german blood", that is, if your parents are german, then you are a german citizen. If you are born in germany, you have your parents' citizenship. But a few years ago, under a lot of populist and right-wing debate, the red-green coalition changed the law a bit to allow children of foreign citizens born in germany to have the german citizenship as second. Once they turn 18, they have to decide for one citizenship, however. I don't know how exactly a person gets the german citizenship at the moment, I would have to do some lengthy research. (I do not agree with the concept of the blood, because I think its too antiquated, but many countries besides germany have it. Thats no excuse for having outdated laws, but an observation.)

And the human rights apply to everybody, regardless of citizenship. That's what's so important about them.

You may think this an attack on Germany, but it is not. It is about Germany because you hold up Germany as perfect....

No, I certainly don't. I know many areas where german laws and so on should be improved. I just point out the individual bits where germany is better, because by comparing and looking whats better you can understand and improve.

Did you hear the story about the french airport employee? It was in the news here. A moslem, foreign airport worker was arrested in france last week because in the trunk of his car weapons and explosives were found. I can hear what everybody is thinking now because it fits so nicely with the way the media presents the ideas about moslems. But this week he was released. It had turned out that the guy who had called him in to the police had put the stuff in the trunk to frame him in a family feud.

How would the story have run in America? Would the police have believed his protests of innocence? Would they have investigated further once they had a suspect? Or would they rather have forced a confession to fit with the evidence? How would you feel if the police thinks you are responsible for the time bomb in a building and torture you to get the knowledge, but in reality you where just walking down the street to buy milk? (Perhaps you think as a white men you are less likely to be a suspect, or that you live in the "right" neighborhood?)

You still didn't answer how the police knows the suspect they hold is the bomblayer or only a suspect who may turn out innocent after further investigation.

Blue,

After he is brought in "for questioning" the police get out the thumbscrews and rubber hoses. After they beat a confession out of him they will have no need to actually do their jobs and ask basic questions like, "Does anyone have motive and opportunity to frame this guy?" Then the courts railroad him and he is executed.

I use the "" although it should be obvious I was sarcastic because that seems to be about what you were expecting.

I don't see why you are sarcarstic about it. Look at the law students' iniative about death sententences, started a few years ago. Just looking at the documents from the trials and the evidence, they found alarming amounts of gross miscarriage of justice. Many sentences were pended to investigate the individual cases further. Some courts saw the overwhelming evidence and let the individuals go free. Gov. Ryan of Illinois started a commission to investigate. What the commission found was so overwhelming that ryan pardonded everybody on the death list in illinois two days ago. (I wrote it on another board around here.)

Cops show may not show how the confession is forced and contrary evidence suppressed, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And railroading seems to happen quite often according to the shows.

How would it have "played" in America? Probably the same way as in France. I'm not familiar with the story, but if the French police let a guy go after finding explosives and weapons in his trunk because he said, "Gee, how did those get there?" then they are not doing a good job.

Thats not what I said *at all*: read my account again. I'm not proposing the police don't take it seriously. I just wonder after what I heard about real life research (not cop shows - but on the shows I see the railroading) how high the chance of a muslim, foreigner would have been that the police continued the investigation until they found out he had been framed. From all I've heard, esp. after Sept. 11th, I thought it more likely that the guy would end up in military confinement somewhere.

In your way of thinking, he would also be beaten with rubber hoses, because he might have hidden a time bomb already in the airport and he might be lying.

If somebody walks up to a policemen to say "I placed a timebomb in that building which will blow up in 3 mins." I would expect the police to evacuate the building, and lead the guy to nice mental doctor (because he sure is crazy). (In the 70s, when the red brigades were placing bombs in europe, they would sometimes call the police or send a letter several hours before, so the building could be evacuated, as they wanted to destroy the symbol, e.g. a bank, but not take the lives of innocent bystanders and working populace.)

The scenario you suggests doesn't make any sense. I've often heard of bomblayers giving warning or admitting to it by letter or phone before or afterwards, but not by going up in person to the police. (They already think the police are bad guys anyway, and what would they gain by surrendering themselves to the enemy? Even madman follow some internal logic: to die during the deed is heroic; to be killed accidentally by some policeman after you gave yourself up is not clever or heroic, you are a looser.)

As I've tried to point out in the first posts, once you start finding reasons for torture, it will be applied to everything. Forced confessions have been used already by several policemen although they are definetly forbidden, so can you imagine what would happen if torture is allowed "in extreme circumstances"? Everybody would apply that.

I didn't want to discuss the right to arm bears but I mentioned because several times now I've heard the opinion from americans that germany (or europe) are police dicatorships because the citizens aren't allowed to bear arms, only the police do. (Surprisingly enough, citizens can get weapons in germany and europe, too! Its just a little bit more difficult, and its not written in the constitution (because that's where the important rights are written) and citizens here don't expect weapons as a natural right.

(In germany, we know that weapons don't guarantee a democracy at all. Before hitler took power, there was a lot of street fighting going on between reds and browns (commies and fascists) streetfighters (they could easily recruit the hungry people without adequate social security, providing for them because the industry gave huge amounts to the partys). The common people were sick of this fighting and wanted peace and stability and food. When Hitler promised that and because everybody was afraid of the commies, he and the other right-wingers won. And the fact that neither the general populace nor the leaders of the weimar republic were in favour of democracy, believed in it and human rights, or helped it, hitler's ascent was easy.)

If somebody walks up to a policemen to say "I placed a timebomb in that building which will blow up in 3 mins." I would expect the police to evacuate the building, and lead the guy to nice mental doctor (because he sure is crazy).

No, evacuate the building, and lead the guy to the building and say "Show us". Unless he's suicidal, he should point out the bomb.

Unless he's suicidal, he should point out the bomb.

but real terrorists are willing to die for the cause, they just want to die with glamour, and not during interrogation by the police because they gave themselves up.

The other thing I know about bomb threats was our teacher warning us before final exams not to do it, because if sb. calls in anonymously, the police will usually find him, and then all the students who missed the final exams can sue the caller. (and its more stress to go up twice).

I'm frankly disgusted that you would suggest that gun control necessarily leads to Kristalnacht. And, when it comes down to it, a professional army will beat an assortment of disorganized, untrained, and unready citizens.

Blue,

yes, it is a language thing: We don't have the cops show in germany (I guess now you mean the one show where the tv cameras follow real cops around live?) - I was referring to the normal (fiction) american cops shows or law shows, some of which are shown in germany in the translated version. (There are some fiction cop shows produced in germany, too, from action-and-chase to detectives, but I was referring to the impression I get about the American system watching american shows, looking for the general trend in how things are portrayed.)

About Hitler:

I don't know where you got this from. One of the first steps hitler took was to take away human rights and normal citizens right, not gun control. For example, the right to not open letters, freedom of speech... When I talked about street fighting, I wasn't talking about the chicago of the 1920s or 30s, everybody shooting around with machine guns; people can do serious harm with sticks, stones and knife, if they are ganging up and keep on beating.

The Reichskristallnacht was a secretly operated by the state "outrage" against the jews after a young jew had attacked. Like josh pointed out, citizens have a bad stand against real army.

Oh, Timothy McVeigh was not a real terrorist. Carlos the Jackal was not a real terrorist. Thanks for clearing that up, constanze.

I'm not familiar with the details of the case, but did Timothy McVeigh go up to the police before the detonation? I thought he was found after dective work. Carlos the jackal was an international terrorist and assassin, caught after detective work. But maybe you have special sources that say different?

McVeigh was pulled in by Oklahoma State Police after the bombing for a traffic violation of some sort. I don't remember the exact details, but the trooper ended up bringing him into custody. Later, they realized that the sketches of John Doe #1 strongly resembled McVeigh and the connection was made.

Blue,

a while back you said I heard on the BBC that Scottish schools have been successfully sued for violating the students rights under article 13 and 9 with reference to article 7.

Do you know how this worked out in court? You say "successfully sued", but do you happen to know the details of the practice and what the court gave as explanation?

I know that when I was at school, we pupils knew that it was unjust and therefore not allowed to keep the whole class for punishment if a few students made trouble. Some of the teachers argued that the whole class missed the lesson because of the noise level, so it was not punishment, but the chance to make up for the missed time. Usually it amounted to not more than 5 or 10 min. into the break, because, like I said, after school everybody had to get home in time.

Picking out single pupils for detention wasn't done for the same reason. If some pupils were too noisy, they were spoken to sternly, got a letter home or a bad behaviour grade.

But practices vary, so if the scottish school practiced regularly an unjust form like keeping the whole class for a long time for minor infractions of single students and calling it punishment, I can see how they might win.

I think a letter to the parent or bad grade works better, too, than having some kids sitting around for one hour - he isn't learning during that time, is he?

I'm not sure, but I think I heard at least the theoretical argument that people who suffer from claustrophobia might argue against imprisonment (at least in a normal prison) because it would be unusually cruel for them compared to the normal person. But obviously, Article 13 refers to freedom of movement. It doesn't mean that if you do sth. bad you can't be punished with prison. It means e.g. that Indians are allowed to live outside the reservations. (certain prohibited zones, like military installations, are exempt of course).
Also, in Article 9 the keyword is arbitrary: if you are imprisoned because you look happy when you head of state dies or because you wear a green shirt to your blue eyes its arbitrary. If you broke the law, are arrested by the police, are lead to a judge in 24 hrs, are tried before a fair court and sentenced to not-cruel punishment, prison can follow.

Blue,

It was my understanding that the Commies and Fascists used squirt guns with prussic (sp?) acid to kill each other sometimes. Why not ban squirt guns? Of the rights Hitler took away (in the name of security to send chills through many spines) were not any of them gun related? If he didn't, were the Fascists and Commies totally gun free? If guns never are used by the populace against their oppressors, why did the that Jewish ghetto uprising want them so badly?

Once again, I don't know where you heard this. The whole issue probably belongs over to a different board, I guess. I don't know about prussic acid or squirt guns. I was talking about the different reasons why the first democracy, the weimar republic, failed:
- there were no democrats, that is, neither the populace nor the politicans believed that the system would work (as today many people want to change democracy and declare the whole system instead of single aspects as corrupt.) This was partly caused by the development during the Deutsche Reich (1871-1919) when bismarck and the kaiser derised the parliament as talking shop etc.

- the constitution was based on the paulskirche, and written by idealists, who thought that everybody would support democracy, so there were no laws to protect against extremists who wanted to get rid of it. E.g, there was no 5% hurdle, and the small parties used their presence in parliament to disrupt and delay the debates, so the contempt of the common people about the talking politicans who didn't solve their problems grew.

- the street fighting (with whatever methods, be it squirt guns, sticks, knives) upset the populace (there are always innocent bystanders) so they wanted a different government.

Once hitler won the election, he made two laws which suspended the basic rights of the citizens, and one which shut down parliament and gave him total control. One guise was the burning reichstag, which he used as example to change laws in order to fight terror and unrest more effectivley.

Once a dictatorship was established, the question of resistance and gun ownership is a different one. I only wanted to point out that by arming every citizen you can't protect a democracy, because there are other factors (multicausal again. And it means interaction between the different causes, too, as in the chaos theory, meaning complex systems can't be predicted linear.)

Resistance against a dictatorship is different than protecting an existing democracy.

And guns never were widespread in germany. There are some hunting areas, and rich people who own hunting guns, esp. in the former provinces in the east, but never much of that gun craziness or fascination in the general populace. Remember also the economic situation: those who had guns would rather sell them off to get sth. to eat. I don't know how many guns were left over from the soldiers, but not enough to figure in the history books.

I choose this example because of my history lessons it comes first to mind. If you like, we can look at South america, where guns are used very often in revolutions, but that doesn't establish a stable democracy. Or how did guns help the people of chile when the right-wing conspiracy murdered allende and established a dictatorship again?


As for Timothy McViegh, he was to rebut real terrorists are willing to die for the cause, they just want to die with glamour, and not during interrogation by the police because they gave themselves up.--constanze Oh, sorry, I forgot I didn't rebut it. I just cite an example that disproves what you wrote. Same thing about how Carlos the Jackal was not really a terrorist. (Tell that to the OPEC minsters he held hostsage.)

I only wanted to say that according to what I heard and read real terrorists don't give themselves up to the police for nothing (or simply to taunt them.) I still don't understand why Timotyh McVeigh and Carlos disprove that statement if they were caught by detective work. When did they go up to the police and say "I put a time bomb in that building that will explode in 3 min." as in your example? McVeigh parking nearby to watch that it worked is not the same - then everybody close by could be arrested, and that could be you, too.

...Unforntunately "arbitrary" is one of those squishy words that can be debated...

When you punish a group of people for sth. only a few of them did, its unjust and arbitrary. There is nothing squishy about that. Most of the pupils at my school knew that it was strictly forbidden.

It was my understanding that the Commies and Fascists used squirt guns with prussic (sp?) acid to kill each other sometimes.

If the acid was strong enough to kill someone they'd need one hell of a strong "squirt gun" to hold and fire acid without it disintegrating the gun.

When you punish a group gun owners of people for sth. only a few of them did guns used in crime, its unjust and arbitrary.

That, however, is the nature of the law. It applies to everyone. I hardly see how it is "punishing" gun owners to place restrictions on firearm ownership. What is unjust or arbitrary about that?

In any case, "arbitrary acts" are performed when power is exercised arbitrarily; that is, without legal constraint or justification. So, if you are arrested but denied access to counsel, knowledge of what crime you've committed, etc, you are being subjected to an arbitrary exercise of power. If am arbitrarily imprisoned, it would be an extra-legal act.

I don't see how this applies to gun control.

Blue,

Pick a side and stay there. Timothy McVeigh and Carlos the Jackal were not $tupid enough to go up to a cop and say, "Hey, arrest me." That was my point. You claimed that all terrorists plan to die. I provided two examples that did not. The only way to defend your universal statement is by proving Carlos and McVeigh were not terrorists.

My side, or rather argument, wasn't that all terrorists *plan* to die; (they will accept it as last resort to further their cause) it was that no real terrorist goes up to the police as in your example when you tried to justify using torture. Some guy who walks up to the police and says "there is a time bomb in that building" is most likely a maniac (nevertheless, the police always takes it seriously.)

About the gun question: I don't understand the question either. Sometimes I can't help the feeling that you like to twist my words around to fit your argument when it should be clear why I was using simple terms - because I don't know the specific terms in English.

I'm not defending seizing property, (which will happen for many other reasons, too, like building a highway), I pointed out that having armed citizens around doesn't help a people to keep their democracy. That is my point.

Michael Moore, in his Bowling for Columbine, asked one guy whether everybody should own atomic weapons and nuclear sideproducts and the like, or whether these items should be controlled. How would you answer this question?

Introducing gun control is not the same as seizing property, besides. Gun control means registering the guns, qualifing before you can get a gun and so on. What happens to those who not comply with the (potiental) new law about gun control is not arbitrarily anymore.

Of course I also think that gun control is good and important, but then we would have to argue all the reasons pro and con seperately, not mixing them up.

You claimed that all terrorists plan to die. - Blue

No, she didn't.

As she's explained repeatedly, and you've even quoted, she said all terrorists are willing to die for their causes. She did not say all terrorists die "plan to die." She said they're willing to die.


Let me ask you, if you are in the building would you rather be blown up than have the cop break some fingers to save your life? - Blue

The problem with your question is that the fact that there is a bomb is a given in your scenario. In the real world, a bomb threat does not mean there is, in fact, a bomb.

What if this "terrorist" was mentally ill and there was no bomb? What if this "terrorist" was joking (Example: Coming out of the bathroom: "WHEW! I just set a bomb in there...")? What if the "terrorist" is a foreigner and misspoke?

How is finger-breaking or any other kind of torture justified in those scenarios?

Let me ask you a question using a real-life scenario... last summer, a woman in Georgia reported that three Arab men were talking about setting off some kind of bomb in Miami. The police caught the alleged terrorists in Florida, detaining and questioning them. It turned out they weren't terrorists after all, but med students who decided to "get back" at the ignorant woman staring at them suspiciously and making them uncomfortable in the restaurant.

Do you think torturing them during questioning would have been justified?

The Economist's cover story looked at this very issue two weeks ago:

Fighting terrorism - Is torture ever justified? (Jan 9th 2003)

Some selective quotations (emphases mine):

"[...]Even if you allow, as many will not, that torture might be justified under the most extreme circumstances, it would be difficult to confine its use to those very rare cases. Any system that allowed torture in tightly controlled situations would risk eroding into wider use. To legalise is to encourage. Israel tried to limit use of physical coercion to extreme cases, but its security forces have ended up using such methods far more widely than was initially foreseen.

"If America were to sanction torture, to begin with in extremely rare cases, there might be some immediate gains in security. Much as one would like to believe that torture never succeeds in extracting vital information, history says otherwise. But, for the democratic West, any such gains would be outweighed by greater harm. The prohibition against torture expresses one of the West's most powerful taboos—and some taboos (like that against the use of nuclear weapons) are worth preserving even at heavy cost. Though many authoritarian regimes use torture, not one of even these openly admits it. A decision by the United States to employ some forms of torture, no matter how limited the circumstances, would shatter the taboo. The morale of the West in what may be a long war against terrorism would be gravely set back: to stay strong, the liberal democracies need to be certain that they are better than their enemies.

"[...]There is room for discussion about what the limits should be. Given the gravity of the terrorist threat, vigorous questioning short of torture—prolonged interrogations, mild sleep deprivation, perhaps the use of truth serum—might be justified in some cases. Such tactics have ambiguous standing in international law. Some are occasionally employed against ordinary criminals. But there is a line which democracies cross at their peril: threatening or inflicting actual bodily harm. On one side of that line stand societies sure of their civilised values. That is the side America and its allies must choose."

Let me ask you a question using a real-life scenario... last summer, a woman in Georgia reported that three Arab men were talking about setting off some kind of bomb in Miami. The police caught the alleged terrorists in Florida, detaining and questioning them. It turned out they weren't terrorists after all, but med students who decided to "get back" at the ignorant woman staring at them suspiciously and making them uncomfortable in the restaurant.

Actually they didn't even try to get back at anyone. They weren't even taking any notice of her. She simply thought she heard them talking about bombing something and called the cops. The idea that they were trying to play a joke or get back at her came from Bill O'Reilly who on the night after the arrest went on his show debating what to do about this "prank" never once did he suggest that the woman was simply wrong.

Thanks Darth and Josh, that was the point I was trying to get across. I thought I said right at the beginning if one starts using torture for some reasons, ti will be used for many reasons. Must be my bad language that blue doesn't understand what I meant.

I did not realize that, Brian. My perception had always been that it was a prank...

Lucky for that woman, those "Arab terrorists" made it easy for her... discussing their plans loudly in public in perfect, unaccented English.

Darth, same with lots of people, the media reported it that way for the first couple of days and after when the truth came out it was hidden in the middle of the paper, or soundbyte inbetween stories.

Fine, then if I'm going to take your scenario as written...

Since there's only three minutes (or two minutes and 58 seconds), I would rather the cops detain the individual and attempt to evacuate as many people as possible from the building than worry about where the bomb might be. Torture, in your example, would be a completely fruitless endeavor. Unless we're living in a Lethal Weapon movie, bombs are not deactivated two seconds before detonation... three minutes is hardly enough time to question (much less torture) the terrorist and then check out to see if the bomb is indeed where he said it was and then deactivate it.

I cannot provide you with a realistic answer because your question is not grounded in any way with reality. In the real world, a person who claims to have set a bomb isn't automatically a bomber.

But, yes, I would be willing to die rather than have a heinous act commited for my protection. I wouldn't want to die, but I would be willing to.

Uh, Blue?

Excerpts from the UN Charter:

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

So that makes pretty much every country in violation, when they filter the 'net.

Blue,

BTW, what reasoning ...allows the Germans to ban copies of Mein Kampf and still claim to be upholding Article #19

I already explained this on another board somewhere. The reasoning is, because of germanys history, we now know that
- propaganda works, that is, inciting people to hate certain races, looks, religions etc will cause bodily harm to come to others
- an unprotected democracy will fall, so anybody who calls for democracy to be abolished in favor of a strong leader or to do away with these corrupt politicans, is breaking the law.

A similar issue is when you incite a single person instead of a mass to a crime like murder. In germany, the person who does commit the murder will be punished, but if somebody talked him into doing it, he will be heavily punished, too. (I don't know if you have a similar law in america, but I think you do).

I know that other european states and america think that freedom of speech is more important than preserving the peace between nations, to protect people from race hatred and so on.

This brings back the old question, do people obey the spirit or the letter of the law? For a well-meaning person, its clear what the spirit or intent of Article 19 is, and for the same well-meaning person its clear that the german constitution is in compliance with it.

Exceptions to a right stop when another right is broken. My right to free speech stop when I call you names (I think its called libel?), because it breaks your right of personal honour, and you can sue me. (Or will you tell me that you don't have a law against libel (?) in the US?) The right to free speech stops when military secrets are concerned. It stops... there are some exceptions.

But a well-informed person can distinguish between a democratic country upholding the principles of the UN and a dictatorship or unfree country, where the propaganda says one thing, but another thing is practised.

For a few articles more:
Iraqis to File U.S. War Crimes Complaint
Lawsuits could make Belgium no go for meetings-U.S.

Here's the complete coverage: Overview War crimes complaint Franks

Other countries have similar laws: Voelkerstrafgesetzbuch

Clinton is interested in being the next Secretary General of the U.N.. He would make an excellent successor to Annan. Clinton surely commands more respect around the world than Bush. He also would show the world that an American leader can be well-informed, flexible, and open to dialogue (unlike another American leader who is inflexible, claims he and America is never wrong, and lacks any intellectual curiosity).

No American will ever serve as UN Secretary General again. Most of the world's powers see the UN as a means to contain US influence and hegemony. Putting an American period, let alone a former Head of State at the Head of the UN would be unlikely.

No American will ever serve as UN Secretary General again.

What do you mean, "again"? No American has served as SecGen, period.

Most of the world's powers see the UN as a means to contain US influence and hegemony.

Which, of course, is why the UN is headquartered in New York and why the US can disregard it whenever it desires.

I substantially distrust the United Nations. It is time for democratic nations like the US, Canada, Britain, Australia, Japan, New Zealand to withdraw their memberships.

The UN should never have allowed voting rights to nations that do not allow their citizens the full right to effect change in government through political organization and election. By that standard, the USSR should not have been allowed to be a member. Over the decades, dozens of other authoritarian nations were admitted and their ideology of authoritarian control has allowed them, and radical activist groups (like gender feminists and others) to push the organization to impose alien values on free nations.

I oppose the Rome Treaty because it supercedes national authority, and its courts are based on presumption of guilt unless proven innocent.

I oppose CEDAW because it doesn't do what those letters mean. It promotes abortion, rather than opposing prostitution, and the latter results in violence against women. CEDAW, by promoting abortion rights, is increasing mortality among women without any necessity.

I oppose Kyoto because the worst polluters and those whose pollution output shall be increasing have not signed the treaty. I can't count how many times I've inhaled the noxious blue exhaust of a vehicle that Kyoto should have been designed to stomp on! Just a week ago, a particularly bad vehicle drove by in the opposite direction, with what has to be the largest blue cloud of fumes I have ever seen a car put out. That's what Kyoto should be requiring national authorities to deal with.

I oppose the United Nations Children's Fund. When it still _really was_ UNICEF - the United Nations International Children's _Emergency_ Fund, it actually worked for children's interests. Now, it has been taken over by people the likes of whom run SIECUS, Planned Parenthood and such, and their focus is on this imagined "sexual rights" that they think children should have... and they also promote abortion around the world. I applaud President Bush's refusal to fund UNCF for that reason.

Now, I am pleased that the State Legislature in New York has raised opposition to the UN putting up another 35 storey building to expand their New York headquarters. Put the brakes on the UN's bloated and expanding bureaucracy. Give the UN enough leeway and time, and they'll start to levy income taxes directly on citizens of individual nations to pay for their operations, which will eventually include a UN Army and a UN police to supercede national armies and the assorted intra-national police forces. Except the UN police won't care about ordinary crime, no, they'll focus on "political crimes".

It is time the UN was booted out of New York. As far as I'm concerned, they can move to Beijing or wherever, and we can wave them goodbye. I have more faith in NATO than I do in the UN.

The last straw for me, if I had any shred of faith left (and I don't) would be the removal of the veto power held by the US, Britain and France. I feel sure that China doesn't use its veto responsibly. When the Korean conflict broke out in 1950, it was a good thing that the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN, because that left the US, Britain, France and China to support police action to beat the communist North Koreans back out of South Korea. Why was the USSR boycotting the UN? They wanted the UN to expel the present Chinese delegation -- the Republic of China -- and admit the People's Republic of China in its place.

I oppose the UN's admission of the People's Republic of China on the basis of expelling the Republic of China; we had two Germanys and we have two Koreas in the UN, so why not two Chinas until those two countries peacefully resolve their status. In any event, if the UN was ever to stand for national democracy, it would have preferred the Republic of China as a member, and at the least, preferred both be members. I'm ashamed that my own country, Canada, recognizes the PRC and not the ROC, even though the ROC has democracy and the PRC has slave labour and assorted other human rights violations. (Canada was even a year ahead of the UN in recognizing the PRC over the ROC.)

So, I say, GET LOST, United Nations! The UN is becoming the biggest threat to world freedom. Its fate will be like the League of Nations, though not for the same reason.

It is time for democratic nations like the US, Canada, Britain, Australia, Japan, New Zealand to withdraw their memberships.

Nice to see you don't consider "Old Europe" democratic. But I recpricate that many europeans here don't consider the US a real democratic and civilized nation by what's currently going on. (Theory partly ok, practice bad, and some barbaric spots.)

...By that standard, the USSR should not have been allowed to be a member....

In case you missed the news, the USSR is no longer a member. And the UN will be pretty lonely club if only the countries which really adhere to the Human Rights can join...

Isn't the excuse the western nations make for trading with China - despite its terrible human rights record and oppression - to achieve small changes this way, which wouldn't be possible if its totally isolated? (Of course, that doctrine doesn't apply to Cuba, funnily enough... Wonder why. )

I oppose the Rome Treaty because it supercedes national authority, and its courts are based on presumption of guilt unless proven innocent.

HUH??? Which Rome Treaty are you talking about? You must have been reading a mistranslation (or were you wearing your paranoia glasses?), because I haven't head of any treaty where courts are based on "guilty unless proven innocent". (But I have heard of a lot of miscarriage of justice in the US, leading to death sentences... )

I oppose CEDAW because it doesn't do what those letters mean. It promotes abortion, rather than opposing prostitution, and the latter results in violence against women. CEDAW, by promoting abortion rights, is increasing mortality among women without any necessity.

What is CEDAW? And promoting abortion isn't on any UN programme I've heard of. Instead, the UN tries to give underdeveloped nations a chance at development by introducing them to planned parenthood and family planning, including not only contraceptives, but also easy access to abortions. This reduces the mortality among the women many of which die in childbirth or are powered out by too many births. And a planned family of three children has a better chance of survival than a family of six children, all half-starved and sickly. (Or is this how you show love for children and the planet, by letting them starve when the enviroment and family can't support them?)

I oppose Kyoto because the worst polluters and those whose pollution output shall be increasing have not signed the treaty...

That's the US. Under Bush, who didn't put the treaty in front of the Senate/House. Because he doesn't care about pollution. If you care, what have you done to get the laws in the US changed? To get stricter laws than Kyoto enacted?

Give the UN enough leeway and time, and they'll start to levy income taxes directly on citizens of individual nations to pay for their operations, which will eventually include a UN Army and a UN police to supercede national armies and the assorted intra-national police forces. Except the UN police won't care about ordinary crime, no, they'll focus on "political crimes".

What have you been smoking? Where's this conspirational stuff coming from?

So, I say, GET LOST, United Nations! The UN is becoming the biggest threat to world freedom. ...

Well, I'm relieved that you're telling me that. And all this time, I've been afraid of the neocons taking over, passing legislation using terrorist threats as guises to erode away human and citizens rights. Or building big databases in the name of national security. And freedom being threatened when Bush leads the US into other unnecessary, brutal wars, and all hell breaks loose as result. But I don't need to worry about all that, since the UN is the real threat. Oh Boy.

Bush opposes UN Peacekeeper giving Emergnecy Contraception to rape victims in war tron African countries, countries where rape victims can be executed if they "didn't fight hard enough" to prevent it. Not surprisingly, the suicide rate among African women in those same war torn nations sky rocketed, and so did deaths from pregnancy complications. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1212-02.htm

Right Wing Straw Man: Well, yeah that's sad, but the babies dying are all black and African, so hey who's Lindsay Lohan dating now?

Another link that bolsters my case. http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/4260

Constanze, I am a Canadian. At the present time, I don't have a vote for US president or members of Congress. But I do have a vote for who represents me in Parliament, and through that, influence on which party governs Canada. In fact, I have run four times for Parliament on behalf of my party, such is my commitment to making a meaningful difference for the people around me.

I promote to my party (which does not presently govern) a policy where we would crack down on blatant polluters while relieving our country of Kyoto's anti-industrialized nation bias. I support a system where, before you get a motor vehicle licence, not only do you need to present proof of insurance, you also need to show proof that your vehicle meets emission standards for the make, age and condition of your vehicle. (Older vehicles pollute more, and cannot be as clean as a new vehicle, but steps can be taken to make it operate better than some old vehicles now operate.)

Did China sign Kyoto? They're industrializing and more and more people are buying cars. Is Brazil signing? They have terribly polluting cars. Most nations of the world don't have California's emission standards, most don't even have general North AMerican standards, and those are the nations where more and more cars are going to be sold with industrialization.

The USSR was a UN member from 1945 to 1991. Until Gorbachev came along in 1985, it was a ruthlessly authoritarian nation bent on world domination. That is the nation that should never have been in the UN. I know perfectly well that the USSR no longer exists, which is why I said "should not have been", not "shouldn't be".

CEDAW means "Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women"... except I think allowing women to be subject to the violence and exploitation of prostitution, and subjecting unwilling women to abortion is discriminatory. Instead, gender feminists and liberation feminists use CEDAW as a cover for pushing forced abortion on those who aren't certain in their own minds that aborting their babies is the best choice.

The Rome Treaty I speak about established the International Criminal Court. The ICC is a court that does not abide by the standard of justice established in Britain and followed by Commonwealth nations, the United States, Japan and a few other countries. Under the British standard, a person is presumed innocent unless the prosecution is able to prove guilt. The British also originated the concept of the jury trial (comes from the Magna Carta). A person being tried under the ICC can expect to be muzzled, under armed guard in the court room, not allowed to consult with a lawyer, and that lawyer (if that person is even on the accused's side) not being allowed to examine the evidence against the accused. Unless, with all this against him, the accused can prove innocence, the accused is presumed guilty.

Continuous quote here, Constanze:

"And promoting abortion isn't on any UN programme I've heard of. Instead, the UN tries to give underdeveloped nations a chance at development by introducing them to planned parenthood and family planning, including not only contraceptives, but also easy access to abortions." First you say, promoting abortion isn't on any UN programme, then you finish by saying it introduces easy access to abortions.

Pro abortion people are not pro-choice. They try to keep a person from choosing against an abortion. There was a nasty case in Toronto a year or so ago, a woman being escorted to pre-natal care, and a pro-abortionist threw mace at the people escorting her, disrupting the hospital, yet got off with a light sentence: mischief.

The UN is the logical organ of world authority if the "new world order" is world government. To enforce control, they'll need an army, and to maintain civil order, they'll need police. To maintain the new world order, they'll have to be a unified force with the same orders, not individual national, regional or municipal police forces. And once they get going, they'll harass people who voice an opinion, especially if it is as innocent as saying, "I don't believe homosexuality is a healthy behaviour."

Constanze, I am a Canadian...

Sorry, I assumed you to be an American.

Did China sign Kyoto? They're industrializing and more and more people are buying cars. Is Brazil signing? They have terribly polluting cars....

Yes, but the US is responsible for the biggest amount of pollution presently - cars are not the only source of pollution, big business is another one. Yes, I certainly wish for stricter codes to be enacted in China and other countries - but at the moment, every underdeveloped nation like Brazil which really can't afford to update their factories can point their fingers at the US - the richest nation on earth, with the highest pollution rate - saying, "As long as they don't want to save the planet, why should we do?".

CEDAW means "Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women"... except I think allowing women to be subject to the violence and exploitation of prostitution, and subjecting unwilling women to abortion is discriminatory...

You're mixing apples and pears. Prostitution can't be stopped overnight and is not related to offering hygienic abortions as part of planned family. Have you heard of the overpopulation problems the developing nations have? Have you looked at the growth rate in China and India? Yes, I think the ruthless way China forces woman to have abortions no matter how developed the baby is to enforce its one-child-per-family policy is tragic and not good. But on the whole scale, China went from 1 billion to 1.3 million. India went from 700 million to 1.3 billion. Where is the food going to come from for all these kids? Money for education, clothing, housing?

Every real, long-working development agency will tell you that once woman get more education, more rights and the choice to plan the family size, the health of the whole family improves, their survival chances get better etc. That's why empowering women and ending the discrimination common to patricharcial, authorian societes have against them is an important step to help the people in Africa, Asia, Latin America.

The Rome Treaty I speak about established the International Criminal Court. The ICC is a court that does not abide by the standard of justice established in Britain and followed by Commonwealth nations, the United States, Japan and a few other countries.

You must be reading a different version of the treaty, aims and proceedings for the ICC than I did.

Pro abortion people are not pro-choice. They try to keep a person from choosing against an abortion...

I was talking about planned parenthood, and offering hygienic, safe abortions. Which part means that the women will not be offered a real choice? Can you distinguish between a woman in a civilized country like USA or Canada, with resources at her hand if she decides to keep her baby, and the women in underdeveloped nations I was talking about, where getting another child in a large family is a serious risk?

The UN is the logical organ of world authority if the "new world order" is world government...

Once again, I'd like to know where you get this stuff from. What are you smoking/reading?

But you have enlightenede me considerably: now I know that right-wingers live not only in the US.

The British also originated the concept of the jury trial (comes from the Magna Carta).

The concept of a jury trial goes back to *long* before the British. Like, back to ancient days. In Aeschylus' play The Eumenides, the goddess Athena tries Orestes for his father's murder in front of a jury of twelve Athenians, reflecting the common practice in Athenian courts at the time. (They deadlock, and she breaks the tie with an innocent vote, setting Orestes free. In case anyone was curious.) Unless ancient Athens was actually located somewhere in England, the British did *not* come up with this idea.

Unless ancient Athens was actually located somewhere in England, the British did *not* come up with this idea.

Didn't you know? Ancient Greece was actually located on the continent of Atlantis, and was neighbor to Amorica.

;)

Over the decades, dozens of other authoritarian nations were admitted and their ideology of authoritarian control has allowed them, and radical activist groups (like gender feminists and others)

Name me one dictatorship that's highly praised by feminists. Most dictatorships (like the Taliban, the Saudies, Iran and even monarchs like Thiland) treat women horrably.

I oppose Kyoto because the worst polluters and those whose pollution output shall be increasing have not signed the treaty. I can't count how many times I've inhaled the noxious blue exhaust of a vehicle that Kyoto should have been designed to stomp on! Just a week ago, a particularly bad vehicle drove by in the opposite direction, with what has to be the largest blue cloud of fumes I have ever seen a car put out. That's what Kyoto should be requiring national authorities to deal with.


Wait so you oppose Kyoto because your country didn't sign it and won't abide by it?

GCapp, I would never have guessed you were Canadian from your posts if you hadn't flat out said so. Just goes to show me not everyone in your country fits the stereotypes. Thanks, I needed such a reminder.

Okay, none have ever served. Same point. That's why no American Pope will be elected either. You don't want an independent institution to be seen as a an agent of the hegemon.

The French and the Germans did dream of stopping the US from invading Iraq through use of the UN, and even now, Chirac seeks to weaken US power in the organization. Of course, moral authority and paper power aren't that useful.


The United Nations, it seemed like a good idea at the time:
I do agree, an Anglo Alliance of the UK, Canada, the ANZAC, and the US is probably the best hope for an effective international organization these days, for those living in the Anglosphere. I mean, just because you have a Justice Leauge doesn't mean there aren't things you need Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman for.

I do agree, an Anglo Alliance of the UK, Canada, the ANZAC, and the US is probably the best hope for an effective international organization these days, for those living in the Anglosphere.

Wow, that argument comes off as awfully racist, seeing as Anglo is a synonym(sp?) for WHITE!

...That's why no American Pope will be elected either...

Ummm, the UN doesn't elect the Pope, the Catholic Church does. And it doesn't state in their rules that the pope must be italian or european. There are enough Catholic bishops etc. around for it to be possible, whenever the next pope is elected. (How likely it is is another question. But the same goes for an African or South American or Asian pope: unlikely because they wouldn't have enough pull in the hierarchy and political power struggle, but possible.)

Brian Webber: While you would be correct if this was a discussion about the structure of American Society in the Southwest, Words have multiple meanings. In the context of international affairs it would mean "Speaks English" The Anglosphere would mean the English Speaking World. Which is an accurate description of the nations mentioned.

Constanze: You missed the point of that example. Independent International institutions wish to remain independent international institutions. Electing an American Pope would reduce the ability of the Roman Catholic Church to operate as a neutral or independent force in world politics. Same with the UN. It's an anology.

But electing a Pope from a communist country didn't reduce the ability of the Catholic Church to meddle in world politics? (It's certainly not a neutral force!)

And the UN isn't a neutral force when it comes to dictatorships of any kind, since they like to see the Human Rights etc. valid. They just don't do it the american way. While the UN (hopefully) won't elect a George Bush, I fail to see how a moderately intelligent, non-fanatic american UN president would render the UN non-neutral. (Or do you mean that americans are unable to make decisions beyond the good of their own country?)

And the UN isn't a neutral force when it comes to dictatorships of any kind, since they like to see the Human Rights etc. valid

Yes, that's why Libya was made chair of the Human Rights Commission in 2002.

Disclaimer: I think the UN is a good concept, poorly executed.

Scott: Was Libya one of the nations not to sign the Convention on the Right of the Child? The U>S. backed out beucase of the internaional child labor provisions, and the provision prohibiting the execution of anyone who was under the age of 18 when they committed their crime. It was us, and Iraq, and North Korea, and 4 other state terror sponsors who reserved the right to kill our kids.

constanze: Pope John Paul II was elected during a different geopolitical reality, we now live in a unipolar world. Electing an American Pope would send the wrong message, and give the American Synod excessive dominance over the Catholic Church.

Neutral: In their capacity as massive NGO's, and to their mission of humanitarian and arbitration, both the UN and the Catholic church must remain above politics (in theory) as they serve humanity rather than any one country, in theory.

The nationality of the man is for appearences.

Neutral: In their capacity as massive NGO's, and to their mission of humanitarian and arbitration, both the UN and the Catholic church must remain above politics (in theory) as they serve humanity rather than any one country, in theory.

Yes, I agree. The UN doesn't automatically take the side of one country against the other, it takes the side of humanity.

I still fail to see why an american UN-president would upset that neutrality. A european or african or asian UN-president comes from a certain country, too. I haven't heard that the UN -president has to give up his nationality when being elected. It's hoped that the individual who's chosen has enough integrity of character that s/he is able to think of the UN aims first, even if it would clash with his own country of origin.

The only way I can make sense of you saying that an american president wouldn't work is that no american is able to put other aims - the UN - before the USA - or that you expect a lot of clashes of USA vs UN regarding Human rights etc.

But I still have hope that some americans would be able to think beyond their own country.

Constanze: It's not a matter of capacity, it's a matter of appearence. Having a nation not on the security council in general, as the Chair of the UN, helps foster the image the UN is a true international body and not just a tool of the world's elite. If, let's say, the UN called for something the US also called for, like removing Missles from Iran, Iran could charge that Bill Clinton is a parrot of the US. If, let's say, Kofi said the same thing, the Iranians couldn't say that. In theory.

BTW, constanze, it's the UN Secretary General, not the UN-president.

I do agree, an Anglo Alliance of the UK, Canada, the ANZAC, and the US is probably the best hope for an effective international organization these days, for those living in the Anglosphere. I mean, just because you have a Justice Leauge doesn't mean there aren't things you need Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman for.

We already have the Commonwealth, ya know. Any such "Anglo Alliance" would simply be US-dominated. Sorry, not interested.

Neutral: In their capacity as massive NGO's, and to their mission of humanitarian and arbitration, both the UN and the Catholic church must remain above politics (in theory) as they serve humanity rather than any one country, in theory.

The UN is not an NGO.

I still fail to see why an american UN-president would upset that neutrality. A european or african or asian UN-president comes from a certain country, too. I haven't heard that the UN -president has to give up his nationality when being elected. It's hoped that the individual who's chosen has enough integrity of character that s/he is able to think of the UN aims first, even if it would clash with his own country of origin.

By convention the Secretary General is not supposed to come from the US, UK, France, Russia, or China, since only they have permanent seats on the Security Council.

Well, we also have NORAD, NATO, the former SEATO, the Coalition of the Willing, a common culture and history, et alt. The Anglo American Alliance is de facto, and probably is more solid than most de jure alliances. Assuming the Clash of Civilizations Thesis, it's likely to continue.

NGO: The UN plays many roles.

NGO stands for "Non-governmental Organization."

By definition, the UN is not "non-governmental."

NATO is an "Anglo Alliance" now?

The Anglo American Alliance is de facto, and probably is more solid than most de jure alliances.

It may appear that way now, but there have been obvious instances in the past when this has not been the case. Certainly, I doubt there will be warfare between the members of this "alliance," but the differences over Iraq show plainly that "a common culture and history" is not sufficient for the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada to support each other unconditionally.

Canada, of course, is far from a purely "Anglo" nation by any measure.

Most of the UN Staff is functionally independent of any government. Of course, I said it has the aspects of an NGO, not that it was an NGO.

NATO includes the United States, The United Kingdom, and Canada, and the chief NATO power node is the US. It's hard to not want to be in alliance with someone when you have signed a treaty to consider an attack upon them as an attack upon you.

Silly me, I also forgot NAFTA, which is far more important to long term American-Canadian relations than some war in the Levant. I mean, the Aussies tried to become part of East Asia at one point, and the UK is trying to become part of Europe. This is a strategic vision.

And I'm not predicting somekind of European Union-ish body between the Anglosphere, I am arguing that in the upcoming geopolitical order, a major political, commerical and military bloc will be an Anglosphere network, for at least the next 50 years.

...the Coalition of the Willing...

which includes countries like Poland and Spain - not exactly anglo-countries.

But then, it's more a coalition-of-those-who-need-the-money-the-US-promised/threatened to cut off than a coalition-of-those-who-agree-with-US-politics.

Again, who are the main power nodes?

Well, more like the Coalition of those who were not on Saddam's take.

OK Pesti, what about the Coaltion of countries that had Al Qaeda problems they can't deal with adequately becuase we pressured them to support the invasion of Iraq (you know, like the Phillipines?)?

The Phillipines had a problem with Islamic terrorism long before the Iraq invasion.

Scott: Yeah, that was my point. So why, a) are they fopcusing on helping us, and/or b) we know al qaeda cells are there, why don't we roll them up? Unlike, the Phillipines government would actually WANT our help!

The Phillipines had a problem with Islamic terrorism long before the Iraq invasion.

You cannot paint any so-called "Islamic terrorism" with an identical brush. The events in the Phillipines are entirely different from the goings-on in, say, Iraq, which are in turn different from terrorism in Israel.