1999-AUG-29: United Nations Sub-commission on Human Rights: This group voted in favor of the abolition of the death penalty for people who were 18 years old or younger at the time of the crime. The resolution passed 14 to 5, with 5 abstentions. The resolution denounces six countries which have executed a total of 19 persons in this decade, who were children at the time of their crime: .** Iran, Pakistan, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, United States, and Yemen.** The Sub-commission also asked all countries which still use capital punishment to have a moratorium on executions during the year 2000.
It is a disgusting fact that the US rants about the education of Afghan women or Palestinian terrorism when it still condones barbarous acts within its own borders.
In GQ at the moment, there is a question about why some French and Germans are reacting badly to George Bush’s visit. The misguided OP refers to ‘how the US helped them out in the second world war’. Fortunately, somebody pointed out that the US didn’t do much to help out the Germans during either war. However, it is the OP’s attitude that provides the answer to his own question.
It is the United States’ continued hypocritical bellyaching about morality and freedom that irritates everyone so much. It sees itself as the saviour of the world and is prepared to bend the rules to convince itself of its own righteousness. The US media coverage of, for example, the Middle East conflict is laughably biased. When I watch CNN I feel like Winston Smith in 1984. Fighting violence with violence does NOT work and I cannot believe that the US can stand idly by for fear of upsetting the Jewish vote back at home. It is exactly the same as pandering to the savages who support killing children.
What, exactly, is your point? You’re anti-death penalty? Great, so am I. What does that have to do with education of Afghan women? Should we say nothing about education of Afghan women until we abolish the death penalty?
Then, you go on to talk about the Middle East. Here, you don’t want the U.S. to “stand idly by”. What do you want us to do, specifically?
Your arguments really just sound like crazed anti-U.S. vitrol. Perhaps you could explain yourself more clearly?
WHO in the US is bellyaching; WHERE are they doing so; ABOUT what issue?
You’ll see much discussion here about what appears to be isolationist policy adopted by the US government in respect of some issues and ostensibly on behalf of its citizens. In such threads you’ll often find as many US citizens disagreeing with the policy as you will people from other nations.
CNN hardly constitutes the “US media”, let alone the voice of the US government or its people.
Can we refine the OP to some specific issues which can be debated?
A UN report found something and the US didn’t adopt it’s recommendations or even take much notice of its findings - that’s the right of the US as a sovereign nation. The UN isn’t a world government whose findings every nation on this planet is required to take notice of or whose recommendations every nation is required to adopt.
In fact, the question “how much notice should any nation take of the UN?” is a whole other debate…
Does anyone really care what the UN says? I guess since you’re making a big deal out of what they said. By the way in the United States an 18 year old is an adult and as such is responsible for his crimes.
**
I don’t know if you noticed but the United States bitched about more then women not getting an education.
The only reason someone might say fighting violence with violence does not work is because they’ve never opened a history book. Violence certainly solved a lot of problems in the past and I’m sure it’ll be used to solve problems in the future.
Wait, wait–is this the same UN Sub-Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights whose membership includes such human rights luminaries as Cuba, China, Nigeria and Pakistan? Excuse me while, despite my opposition to the death penalty, I go over here and don’t care much what the UN has to say.
Sorry. More of an explanation may have been needed. I just finished reading an article on Napolean Beazley and the US Supreme Court’s decision not to grant him clemency even though he was a child when he committed the crime. In my fury, I alluded to reference this.
My point is that it is thoroughly frustrating to the large proportion of rest of the world (from France to Afghanistan) that the US moralises about issues when it is blatantly in breach of certain humanitarian issues. Testament to this is the fact that the five other countries in the entire world that condone the killing of minors (for whatever reason) also happen to be the countries that are amongst the most vilified for their humanitarian record.
I am not religious but the bible can provide some thoughtful guidance in a limited number of debates on morality…Something about logs and eyes etc…The fact that the education of Afghan women was used as a premise (albeit not the ONLY premise) for the invasion of Afghanistan is pretty revolting. I don’t think that a nation/individual is in a position to lecture another nation/individual about their morality when they are committing vile acts on their own soil/themselves. It is interesting that even Afghanistan is not on the list of countries that allows the execution of children.
My point about the Middle East was merely illustrative of US hypocrisy. However, the first stage to any resolution of this conflict would be for the US to substantiate its denunciations of violence in this area by withdrawing support from any nation that adopts violence. That applies both to the Israelis and to the Palestinians. The US often forgets that there are two sides to this argument.
With reference to my assertion that fighting violence with violence - I probably needed to qualify that too. In situations where there are conflicts between two distinct nations, there are certainly instances in which violence (war) has actually had beneficial results (eg WW2). However, I am not aware of a situation where violence has worked between two groups living in the same area (eg Northern Ireland). It has always been negotiation that has prevailed.
bmerton – Yet again, you begin a thread with what is little more than an ill-focused, emotionally-driven diatribe that, inevitably, generates bog standard national posturing from almost every respondent – one day you might just get the hang of things. ‘We’ hope.
How about, just for once, approaching this from a constructive position rather than the olde ‘US/bunch of wankers vs. Europe/high moral integrity’ chestnut ?
BTW, you might also try and bring yourself a little more up to date than the 29th August 1999. For example:
“Beazley is the first of four juvenile offenders scheduled for execution in the next three months. On June 5, Christopher Simmons’ death sentence is set to be carried out in Missouri. Texas is preparing to execute two more juvenile offenders in the next three months: T.J. Jones on August 8 and Toronto Patterson on August 28.”
<snip>
“Elsewhere in the world, only Congo and Iran are known to have executed juvenile offenders in the last three years. Each now explicitly repudiates the practice, making the United States the only country that continues to claim the legal authority to execute juvenile offenders.”
Thank you for the updated quote. CNN has been broadcasting a special documentary on the execution of Napoleon Beazley over the past couple of days. They actually used the original list of six countries that I referenced in the OP. You will, of course, note that your quote only uses the worldwide juvenile executions over the last three years. Both CNN and the source in the OP used information from the last ten years.
With regards to your initial response, I am not entirely sure how one approaches the question of state-sponsored killing of children in any more constructive manner than I have proposed. I am not here to discuss the legitimacy of capital punishment in general. I am interested in how a nation justifies imposing its morality on others when it is clearly unforgivably immoral itself.
This guy was 17 at the time, which is an adult, not a child. He murdered someone while attempting a car jacking. He deserves what he gets. And just becuase some people in the UN think that it is inhumane to have a death penalty, doesnt mean we have to agree.
Amazing that people cry and moan over the fates of 17 year old murderers and rapists, but rabidly defend abortion. Isn’t a life a life?
Of course, I am all for the death penalty, damn what the rest of the world may think. Most of the world’s population does not have running water or electricity, but that hardly means that we should also live in the 18th century. The same applies to the death penalty. Great, let them feed and cloth murderers and the like; I detest having my taxes go towards the upkeep of criminals.
Making policy is not about some global popularity contest. Who cares what Cuba or Iraq or France have to say about it? We are not a democracy, we are a Republic. We do what is right, not what is popular. In theory, at least.
Let me make it blindingly obvious for you then bmerton. Looking at the last three years puts the increasingly isolated position of the US Government in sharper relief e.g. In company only with the Congo and Iran, except they both now repudiate the killing of children by the State while the US does not.
If you don’t have the imagination or ability to get beyond “…disgusting fact…” “…hypocritical bellyaching…”, etc, etc… just take it straight to the damn Pit.
My goodness, a seemingly valid, emotionally-free, succinct point for debate !
<snipped> BWAHAHAHAHAAA, takes a breath BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You are joking right? The Taliban would kill whomever they wanted whenever they wanted to. A quote: “The Taliban closed schools to women. Not just the teachers. But to all young girls. It is against the law for a young girl to attend a school in Afghanistan. To attend school, women and young girls in Afghanistan risk floggings, death by stoning, or single shot execution.” From http://usembassy.state.gov/tokyo/wwwhgl0122.html .
Another quote: “Massacres. The Taliban have massacred hundreds of Afghan civilians, including women and children, in Yakaolang, Mazar-I-Sharif, Bamiyan, Qezelabad, and other towns. Many of the victims of these massacres were targeted because of their ethnic or religious identity.”
Somehow, bmerton, I think you need to take the blinders off. If you don’t agree with the death penalty that is cool but comparing the US system to other systems just doesn’t work.
The US represents such key values as[ul][li] racial and religious tolerance []equlity of women[]a willingness to sacrifice in order to overthrow evil, tyrannical governments.[]Democracy and political freedom.[]Economic freedom civil liberties for individuals[/ul] No other country in the world comes close to matching the US combined record in these key areas (although the US is not the best in each and every area.)[/li]
It’s just silly to focus on the death penalty, as if that were the be-all and end-all of morality.
The reason for my responding to your quote was purely to highlight that the two sources of information used differing metrics. Given the low number of juvenile offenders as a percentage of population/lack of available information etc., it might actually be better to look at a ten year period over a three year period. However, I do not wish for this to degenerate into a pedantic exchange.
I am sorry that my use of emphatic language is preventing you from actually contributing to this debate.
First, “eluded” to doesn’t make sense, either. Second, I’m in favor of the death penalty in theory (y’know, if it was evenly and timely applied and all, which it ain’t), but I’m not in favor of executing those under 18 myself. I think that an arbitrary line has to be drawn somewhere, below which we just say “too young.” And I’d draw that line at 18. But I also recognize the line is arbitrary and could just as rationally be drawn at, say, 17 and 1/2. Which, IIRC, is how old Napoleon Beazley was. But what does that have to do with the education of Afghan women, anyway?
I don’t get this. It’s like you’re saying, if we’re wrong about A, we couldn’t possibly be right about B, C, and D. I don’t think that follows.
Right! Meanwhile forward-thinking humanitarian countries like Saudi Arabia will not execute a minor after full due process, but will allow girls to burn to death by refusing to allow them out of a burning building because they are not dressed appropriately, and death before immodesty.
Again, this devolves into an argument that no one erring on any one subject has the right or authority to speak on any other subject. I don’t think that follows.
I have not heard that offered as a reason for the invasion. To the contrary, I think the U.S. made it abundantly clear that the horrific plight of the Afghan women was not reason enough to intervene. We have known of the suffering of Afghan women for years, and did nothing. I think that the easing of the suffering of the Afghan women is (rightfully) cited as a positive collateral effect of the fall of the Taliban. But I’m not aware of any American who thinks it was a reason for the invasion. It pretty clearly was not.
First, one person’s “vile” act is another’s justice. Second, as I’ve already said, I don’t think acting immorally in one realm dictates a total abdication of moral authority – especially since the “immorality” of the act in question is a matter of opinion.
I think the U.S. is quite aware there are two sides to the issue. I am confident that the U.S. wishes the Israelis and Palestinians would work things out themselves without dragging us into it. But they won’t. And frankly, speaking only for myself, I’d love it if people who bitch and moan about the hypocrisy and moral equivocacy of the U.S. would stop turning to us for help. As I said in another thread, if you don’t like how we’d fix your sink, fix your own damn sink. I didn’t see the Europeans doing that in, say, Bosnia. That’s your back yard, my friend, not ours. So why the hell did we have to haul our immoral asses over there?
Ah, yes – negotiation. How’d that work with Afghanistan? How’s that working in the Middle East?
In short, these topics (and you’ve managed to raise several) are a hell of a lot more complex than your shot-gunned diatribe would seem to indicate you think they are.
‘kay bmerton you win. You just managed to motivate Sparc to almost argue the death penalty. That deserves kudos indeed! Such a load of belligerently dumb crap! I even forget what I thought your point was while I respond. Oh now I remember…you were saying that the US were off ‘their’ point!
Media coverage is quite often biased by definition and so are you. Which one are we supposed to take for granted to be correct?
And please provide any cite what so ever that proves that ‘we’ are so irritated as you claim!
Wow, and I was actually thinking of starting a Pit thread about that AI report and its inexcusable lack of anything resembling a sense of perspective. Then I stumble into a Great Debate that perfectly illustrates the same point I would have made. Nice job, bmerton!