Forced pregnancy, A crime against humanity : UN

[SterileNeedles]

The UN did clarify what they meant by 'forced pregnancy' and unfortunately it is not what we all thought:

The UN.org

Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy. (Article 7 Para 2 f)

Source  

[Akhakhu]

I think it DID mean what we all thought, but that they were coerced into backpeddling by the US.  

[SterileNeedles]

Kukushka

I think it DID mean what we all thought, but that they were coerced into backpeddling by the US.

Oook...I suppose we can assume things. I for one don't believe that, but that's my own opinion...  

[nobhdy]

Kukushka

I think it DID mean what we all thought, but that they were coerced into backpeddling by the US.

U.S. simply doesn't have that kind of power, mate. If it did, they all would have joined us in Iraq and various other expiditions that they disagree with us on. The U.N. serves as a check on all powerful nations. Especially, U.S.

They would simply not retreat because of U.S.  

[Lord Setar]

nobhdy

Kukushka

I think it DID mean what we all thought, but that they were coerced into backpeddling by the US.

U.S. simply doesn't have that kind of power, mate. If it did, they all would have joined us in Iraq and various other expiditions that they disagree with us on. The U.N. serves as a check on all powerful nations. Especially, U.S.

They would simply not retreat because of U.S.

The UN are quite notorious for kissing up to the US though. Otherwise they would have had Bush placed in front of a tribunal by now, which is where he should be.  

[nobhdy]

Lord Setar

nobhdy

Kukushka

I think it DID mean what we all thought, but that they were coerced into backpeddling by the US.

U.S. simply doesn't have that kind of power, mate. If it did, they all would have joined us in Iraq and various other expiditions that they disagree with us on. The U.N. serves as a check on all powerful nations. Especially, U.S.

They would simply not retreat because of U.S.

The UN are quite notorious for kissing up to the US though. Otherwise they would have had Bush placed in front of a tribunal by now, which is where he should be.

And what are the charges, if I may inquire?  

[Lord Setar]

nobhdy

Lord Setar

nobhdy

Kukushka

I think it DID mean what we all thought, but that they were coerced into backpeddling by the US.

U.S. simply doesn't have that kind of power, mate. If it did, they all would have joined us in Iraq and various other expiditions that they disagree with us on. The U.N. serves as a check on all powerful nations. Especially, U.S.

They would simply not retreat because of U.S.

The UN are quite notorious for kissing up to the US though. Otherwise they would have had Bush placed in front of a tribunal by now, which is where he should be.

And what are the charges, if I may inquire?

Crimes against humanity. And if none of them do apply(Guatanamo Bay isn't really open to the media) he should be impeached for violating the Due Process clause of the Constitution(4th Amendment). He ADMITTED to violating the Constitution and he is GETTING AWAY with it.  

[nobhdy]

Lord Setar

nobhdy

Lord Setar

nobhdy

Kukushka

I think it DID mean what we all thought, but that they were coerced into backpeddling by the US.

U.S. simply doesn't have that kind of power, mate. If it did, they all would have joined us in Iraq and various other expiditions that they disagree with us on. The U.N. serves as a check on all powerful nations. Especially, U.S.

They would simply not retreat because of U.S.

The UN are quite notorious for kissing up to the US though. Otherwise they would have had Bush placed in front of a tribunal by now, which is where he should be.

And what are the charges, if I may inquire?

Crimes against humanity. And if none of them do apply(Guatanamo Bay isn't really open to the media) he should be impeached for violating the Due Process clause of the Constitution(4th Amendment). He ADMITTED to violating the Constitution and he is GETTING AWAY with it.

Due process if 5th amendment, friend, and prisoners of war have never recieved it. Did we systematically try all of the German POWs during WWII? No. Has any country in the history of the world ever had trials for every POW? No.

You are refering to captured "Enemy Combatants," are you not? No American citizen has yet had their rights taken away.  

[Lord Setar]

nobhdy

Lord Setar

nobhdy

Lord Setar

nobhdy

Kukushka

I think it DID mean what we all thought, but that they were coerced into backpeddling by the US.

U.S. simply doesn't have that kind of power, mate. If it did, they all would have joined us in Iraq and various other expiditions that they disagree with us on. The U.N. serves as a check on all powerful nations. Especially, U.S.

They would simply not retreat because of U.S.

The UN are quite notorious for kissing up to the US though. Otherwise they would have had Bush placed in front of a tribunal by now, which is where he should be.

And what are the charges, if I may inquire?

Crimes against humanity. And if none of them do apply(Guatanamo Bay isn't really open to the media) he should be impeached for violating the Due Process clause of the Constitution(4th Amendment). He ADMITTED to violating the Constitution and he is GETTING AWAY with it.

Due process if 5th amendment, friend, and prisoners of war have never recieved it. Did we systematically try all of the German POWs during WWII? No. Has any country in the history of the world ever had trials for every POW? No.

You are refering to captured "Enemy Combatants," are you not? No American citizen has yet had their rights taken away.

Guatanamo Bay is not enemy combatants, I believe it's people suspected of terrorism that aren't combatants. Those do deserve due process.  

[nobhdy]

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." -Fifth Amendment of the Constitution

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -Declaration of Independence
----------------------------------------------
Well, if what you are saying is true, then our government has become destructive to those ends. I don't think you understand that we own the government, not the other way around. The people own the government, and it is accountable to us. If they violate those 3 basic rights, without due process of the law, then we have every right to abolish the government.

I guess what I'm saying is, if he really did what you are claiming to the extent that you are claiming, why haven't we? Sounds to me like you are just spouting that trite, unfounded democratic propaghanda.  

[[Ernie]]

nobhdy

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." -Fifth Amendment of the Constitution

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." -Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence has NOTHING to do with legality. It was simply a long and polite way of telling the British government "GTFO".

Quote:

Well, if what you are saying is true, then our government has become destructive to those ends. I don't think you understand that we own the government, not the other way around. The people own the government, and it is accountable to us. If they violate those 3 basic rights, without due process of the law, then we have every right to abolish the government.

We are SUPPOSED to "own" the government. Just because it's written down on a piece of paper doesn't mean we actually do.

If we "own" the government, what the hell is the Electoral College still doing here? The only government officials the people--and ONLY the people, none of this Electoral College business--can elect are the legislators. It's the most officials numerically, yes, but we do not "own" our government if the most powerful figure in the country is really chosen by a group of people supposedly representing the people, and the highest court officials are picked by the president.

Quote:

I guess what I'm saying is, if he really did what you are claiming to the extent that you are claiming, why haven't we?

Why didn't we abolish the government when they didn't give racial minorities their civil rights?
Why didn't we abolish the government when they ignored Womens' Suffrage?
Why didn't we abolish the government when they upheld anti-sodomy laws?

Because the majority of the population didn't give a flying ******** to mention the fact that abolishing the government isn't something done on a whim, and is not necessary to overturn unfair and stupid laws and statutes. Just because we CAN doesn't mean we MUST. There are other ways to fix our government.

And, there isn't much we can do. How would YOU suggest getting Bush to change his policies?

Quote:

Sounds to me like you are just spouting that trite, unfounded democratic propaghanda.

Your logic train seems to have fallen off a bridge, because I'm not understanding how "the Constitution says we're allowed to do x if y happens" automatically means "since we haven't done x, than y must not have happened". You have yet to truly prove your ambiguous point.  

[nobhdy]

[Ernie]

The Declaration of Independence has NOTHING to do with legality. It was simply a long and polite way of telling the British government "GTFO".

Actually, the Declaration of Independence is an essential human rights doctrine that transcends U.S. law. It is the basis for all nations and governments and how they should be accountable to the people. Plus, Supreme Court Justices do use it as a basis for some of their opinions...

[Ernie]

We are SUPPOSED to "own" the government. Just because it's written down on a piece of paper doesn't mean we actually do.

If we "own" the government, what the hell is the Electoral College still doing here? The only government officials the people--and ONLY the people, none of this Electoral College business--can elect are the legislators. It's the most officials numerically, yes, but we do not "own" our government if the most powerful figure in the country is really chosen by a group of people supposedly representing the people, and the highest court officials are picked by the president.

Come on. We own the government. Just the fact that you think we don't is ignorant. I wouldn't dare live in a nation where the government wasn't accountable to us, its supervisors. Your electoral college point doesn't make any sense to me, so I am afraid I cannot respond to it.

Plus, the President is not the definitively most powerful figure in the country. The congress and the Supreme Court keeps him in check. He really has very little power by himself. Plus, ultimately, he is accountable to us.

[Ernie]

Why didn't we abolish the government when they didn't give racial minorities their civil rights?
Why didn't we abolish the government when they ignored Womens' Suffrage?
Why didn't we abolish the government when they upheld anti-sodomy laws?

Because the majority of the population didn't give a flying ******** to mention the fact that abolishing the government isn't something done on a whim, and is not necessary to overturn unfair and stupid laws and statutes. Just because we CAN doesn't mean we MUST. There are other ways to fix our government.

And, there isn't much we can do. How would YOU suggest getting Bush to change his policies?

Did you read the passage from the declaration? It is our right to abolish or alter it. Alter it! We, the People, have great power in this country. You all need to realize it.

As far as Bush's policies, he has many that I disagree with. I'm not sure which ones you are talking about. If you could clarify, I would be more than happy to elaborate.

[Ernie]

Your logic train seems to have fallen off a bridge, because I'm not understanding how "the Constitution says we're allowed to do x if y happens" automatically means "since we haven't done x, than y must not have happened". You have yet to truly prove your ambiguous point.

That was not even my argument. I was attempting to make a reductio ad absurdium... I don't even know where you are getting that from. In fact, I never even referenced the constitution in the construction of my argument...  

[[Ernie]]

nobhdy

[Ernie]

The Declaration of Independence has NOTHING to do with legality. It was simply a long and polite way of telling the British government "GTFO".

Actually, the Declaration of Independence is an essential human rights doctrine that transcends U.S. law.

No, it does not. It is referenced as an inspirational document, not one that actual holds any water when it comes to issues of legality.

Quote:

It is the basis for all nations and governments and how they should be accountable to the people. Plus, Supreme Court Justices do use it as a basis for some of their opinions...

Proof?

Quote:

Come on. We own the government. Just the fact that you think we don't is ignorant.

Are you going to prove that we "own" the government? All I'm seeing is you continuing to say that we do and calling me ignorant for saying we don't, but I'm not seeing any proof from you that we DO. Burden of proof.

Quote:

I wouldn't dare live in a nation where the government wasn't accountable to us, its supervisors. Your electoral college point doesn't make any sense to me, so I am afraid I cannot respond to it.

The Electoral College is what ultimately votes for the President. Bush got in to the White House in 2000 because the Electoral College, NOT the people, voted for him. How can we the people be in control of the government if we do not elect the person who represents us and enforces our laws, as well as the people who interpret our laws?

Quote:

Plus, the President is not the definitively most powerful figure in the country. The congress and the Supreme Court keeps him in check. He really has very little power by himself. Plus, ultimately, he is accountable to us.

That is how it is supposed to work. But the government isn't always going to run the way it was meant to.

Quote:

Did you read the passage from the declaration?

Yes. And once again, the Declaration has no standing in contemporary US law.

Quote:

It is our right to abolish or alter it. Alter it! We, the People, have great power in this country. You all need to realize it.

...Where the hell did I say we had no power? Kindly stop condescending to me like I'm some ignorant school child. I know how my country works, kthx.

Quote:

As far as Bush's policies, he has many that I disagree with. I'm not sure which ones you are talking about. If you could clarify, I would be more than happy to elaborate.

I was talking about his policies regarding his little "War on Terror". The wiretapping, the PATRIOT Act, his ability to define what "torture" is, etc.

Quote:

That was not even my argument.

That's what it sounds like.

Quote:

I was attempting to make a reductio ad absurdium...

Which is...?

Quote:

I don't even know where you are getting that from. In fact, I never even referenced the constitution in the construction of my argument...

You referenced the Fifth Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights, which is a part of the Constitution.  

[nobhdy]

[Ernie]

No, it does not. It is referenced as an inspirational document, not one that actual holds any water when it comes to issues of legality.

That is precisely what the term "transcends," means, but it does detail how governments should act, and our rights as humans. That's all I said.

Quote:

Proof?

Ok, Justice Clarence Thomas cited it during his dissenting opinion on Grutter v. Bollinger. It took a quick search on google to uncover that. I could find plenty more, if you like.

Quote:

The Electoral College is what ultimately votes for the President. Bush got in to the White House in 2000 because the Electoral College, NOT the people, voted for him. How can we the people be in control of the government if we do not elect the person who represents us and enforces our laws, as well as the people who interpret our laws?

President is the only official that this is the case for. I admit, the once practical Electoral College is very antiquated and should no longer exist, but we still vote for every other position in this country(with the exception that I am about to cover). Now, if you said: "We don't own the country because our president is self-appointed" or "our president took over in a military coup" then I would agree with you, but seeing as we vote, and a method that we all know exists is carried out(the electoral college), I fail to see your point.

Now, are you honestly suggesting that we elect the Supreme Court? Don't you realize that because they aren't elected they are free to fairly make decisions without fear of not getting re-elected? Know what that means? They don't scare voters into voting for them with bogus things such as gay marriage and abortions and they decide strictly based on law. You can't honestly want to elect them, can you?

Quote:

That is how it is supposed to work. But the government isn't always going to run the way it was meant to.

You think that is fine?

Quote:

Yes. And once again, the Declaration has no standing in contemporary US law.

I can't say that I trust your source. It honestly has been cited in Supreme Court cases, and is fair grounds to be cited during Supreme Court cases.

Quote:

I was talking about his policies regarding his little "War on Terror". The wiretapping, the PATRIOT Act, his ability to define what "torture" is, etc.

Wiretapping: Federal Judges took care of that(with the aid of our free press, might I add).

Patriot Act: Bush didn't write it, Bush didn't pass it. Your congress wrote it, and your congress passed it. (Senate passed it 98-1).

Torture: If the point of this war is to prove to the world how great democracy is, then he will not do anything abhorrent to human dignity. That would be self-defeating.

Quote:

You referenced the Fifth Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights, which is a part of the Constitution.

It wasn't a central part of my argument, I just wanted to familiarize people with the due process clause.  

[[Ernie]]

nobhdy

[Ernie]

No, it does not. It is referenced as an inspirational document, not one that actual holds any water when it comes to issues of legality.

That is precisely what the term "transcends," means, but it does detail how governments should act, and our rights as humans. That's all I said.

I was taught that "transcends" means to overcome or be above something else.

Also, the Declaration doesn't create individual human rights. It names them, but it doesn't do diddly squat about actually enforcing them or making them.

Quote:

Quote:

Proof?

Ok, Justice Clarence Thomas cited it during his dissenting opinion on Grutter v. Bollinger. It took a quick search on google to uncover that. I could find plenty more, if you like.

Googled it myself. I concede, you were right that it can have some effect on law.

All the same. We can't legislate based on it.

Quote:

President is the only official that this is the case for. I admit, the once practical Electoral College is very antiquated and should no longer exist,

Agreed.

Quote:

but we still vote for every other position in this country(with the exception that I am about to cover). Now, if you said: "We don't own the country because our president is self-appointed" or "our president took over in a military coup" then I would agree with you, but seeing as we vote, and a method that we all know exists is carried out(the electoral college), I fail to see your point.

Yet the Electoral College is not required to vote as the area they are representing voted. Hence why Bush won in 2000. My point is that, no matter how the people vote, the Electoral College still has the ability to completely ignore that and vote as they please.

Quote:

Now, are you honestly suggesting that we elect the Supreme Court? Don't you realize that because they aren't elected they are free to fairly make decisions without fear of not getting re-elected? Know what that means? They don't scare voters into voting for them with bogus things such as gay marriage and abortions and they decide strictly based on law. You can't honestly want to elect them, can you?

Where the heck are you getting this? I said

[Ernie]

How can we the people be in control of the government if we do not elect the person who represents us and enforces our laws, as well as the people who interpret our laws?

There is NOTHING in there to suggest that I WANT to elect the Supreme Court. I was simply STATING that we don't elect them, as I'm sure you know.

Quote:

Quote:

That is how it is supposed to work. But the government isn't always going to run the way it was meant to.

You think that is fine?

Why the hell are you assuming that I am FOR something simply because I make statements about it? NOWHERE do you see me saying "I think the government can run however it pleases". I'm saying "just because the government is SUPPOSED to run one way does not mean that it WILL".

Quote:

Patriot Act: Bush didn't write it, Bush didn't pass it. Your congress wrote it, and your congress passed it. (Senate passed it 98-1).

But Bush didn't veto it either, and he signed it. He had the chance to veto it if he didn't agree with it or like it, but he didn't.

Quote:

Torture: If the point of this war is to prove to the world how great democracy is, then he will not do anything abhorrent to human dignity. That would be self-defeating.

He's "self-defeated" himself PLENTY of times. "I'm the decider", anyone?

And if the point of the war really is to prove how amazing democracy is, he's already screwed it up with his military tribunals (which has apparently been practiced during every war the US has participated in) and indefinitely holding so-called "terrorists".