[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Third, the army would be so large and powerful, that...[/QUOTE]
*I'd get very afraid!*
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Third, the army would be so large and powerful, that...[/QUOTE]
*I'd get very afraid!*[/QUOTE]
Yes one huge army is scary. A thousand smaller ones are at least as scary, though.
*I'd get very afraid!*[/QUOTE]
Yes one huge army is scary. A thousand smaller ones are at least as scary, though.
Being from Texas, I'm trying to find something to argue back at you, TQ. And all those accusing Texas of going too far. Instead, I'll just remind you of this:
Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16.
Those were the girls that were gang raped and murdered.
Gang raped and murdered. Did you read that OK ThomasQuinn?
I'm glad this happened in Texas, punishment was perfectly fine. Sorry you folks couldn't enjoy years of appeals and letters to the victims family from this ass. It would have been nice if he could have rubbed it in and then got let off on a technicality and gone free. It's too bad that Jennifer or Elizabeth weren't directly related to TQ or those of you who think this criminal deserved better treatment. Then maybe you'd think differently.
Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16.
Those were the girls that were gang raped and murdered.
Gang raped and murdered. Did you read that OK ThomasQuinn?
I'm glad this happened in Texas, punishment was perfectly fine. Sorry you folks couldn't enjoy years of appeals and letters to the victims family from this ass. It would have been nice if he could have rubbed it in and then got let off on a technicality and gone free. It's too bad that Jennifer or Elizabeth weren't directly related to TQ or those of you who think this criminal deserved better treatment. Then maybe you'd think differently.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The US scores points for implementing democracy (to some degree) much earlier than most of the rest of the world, and not having replaced its constitution ever, but content-wise, it closely resembles the laws of the Dutch United Provinces in the 17th/18th century, British constitutionalism [/QUOTE]
I think I see the problem here. You're still pissed off about the American Revolution.
Well, get over it. We're not needing England, France, or piddly ass Denmark anymore and haven't for quite a while.
See, the constitution has been "changed" several times. They're called amendments. And you don't "replace" a constitution... unless it was a half ass plan in the first place. You sound like Terrell Owens. "I don't like my contract and would like a new one the year after I signed a 4 year contract."
I think I see the problem here. You're still pissed off about the American Revolution.
Well, get over it. We're not needing England, France, or piddly ass Denmark anymore and haven't for quite a while.
See, the constitution has been "changed" several times. They're called amendments. And you don't "replace" a constitution... unless it was a half ass plan in the first place. You sound like Terrell Owens. "I don't like my contract and would like a new one the year after I signed a 4 year contract."
When you think about power in the United States, don't think of it as always coming from the top down (as in an international treaty that the president has signed). Think of it as coming from the bottom up (as in the rights of the individual or the state), or sideways (as in the balance of powers). Then when things get really interestin', there are a few ricochets.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The US scores points for implementing democracy (to some degree) much earlier than most of the rest of the world, and not having replaced its constitution ever, but content-wise, it closely resembles the laws of the Dutch United Provinces in the 17th/18th century, British constitutionalism [/QUOTE]
I think I see the problem here. You're still pissed off about the American Revolution.
Well, get over it. We're not needing England, France, or piddly ass Denmark anymore and haven't for quite a while.
See, the constitution has been "changed" several times. They're called amendments. And you don't "replace" a constitution... unless it was a half ass plan in the first place. You sound like Terrell Owens. "I don't like my contract and would like a new one the year after I signed a 4 year contract."[/QUOTE]
Would you like to me to give you a short summary of the number of constitutions France has had since the revolution of 1789? Or Germany since the unification in the 1870s? And those aren't even extreme examples! The US is *literally* the only only nation more than a few years old that has never replaced its constitution by a new one. An amendment is something completely different, revising a specific point of a constitution. The Netherlands have one every few years.
Who ever said that I opposed the Revolution? You weren't justified for the reasons you stated at the time (there was no English oppression, as King George was essentially a good chap, if a little conservative; then again, so are you), but I'm anti-colonial, so I support it. That does not, however, mean that Texas can go 'round acting like it owns the world, ignoring it's own country's treaties and tweaking its nose at the world. Remember what happened when the Confederacy tried that!
I think I see the problem here. You're still pissed off about the American Revolution.
Well, get over it. We're not needing England, France, or piddly ass Denmark anymore and haven't for quite a while.
See, the constitution has been "changed" several times. They're called amendments. And you don't "replace" a constitution... unless it was a half ass plan in the first place. You sound like Terrell Owens. "I don't like my contract and would like a new one the year after I signed a 4 year contract."[/QUOTE]
Would you like to me to give you a short summary of the number of constitutions France has had since the revolution of 1789? Or Germany since the unification in the 1870s? And those aren't even extreme examples! The US is *literally* the only only nation more than a few years old that has never replaced its constitution by a new one. An amendment is something completely different, revising a specific point of a constitution. The Netherlands have one every few years.
Who ever said that I opposed the Revolution? You weren't justified for the reasons you stated at the time (there was no English oppression, as King George was essentially a good chap, if a little conservative; then again, so are you), but I'm anti-colonial, so I support it. That does not, however, mean that Texas can go 'round acting like it owns the world, ignoring it's own country's treaties and tweaking its nose at the world. Remember what happened when the Confederacy tried that!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]rickashays. [/QUOTE]
*afraid. Not finding in the dictionary :-( *
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yes one huge army is scary. A thousand smaller ones are at least as scary, though. [/QUOTE]
*shuddering with fear* Why can't we all live in peace? Why is it necessary for humanity to have a huge army or thousand smaller ones?
Though I must say: scary. But at least, if there are a thousand smaller ones, they can check on each other.
Isn't that reasonable?
*afraid. Not finding in the dictionary :-( *
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Thomas Quinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yes one huge army is scary. A thousand smaller ones are at least as scary, though. [/QUOTE]
*shuddering with fear* Why can't we all live in peace? Why is it necessary for humanity to have a huge army or thousand smaller ones?
Though I must say: scary. But at least, if there are a thousand smaller ones, they can check on each other.
Isn't that reasonable?
Sorry, Yara. My spelling is terrible and I should always look stuff up. I meant "ricochet". And how about that? It is a French word. I always thought it was slang for some reason. Anyway, I was just trying to use a word that the cowboys would use (shooting off a gun and having the bullet hit something and bounce off of it).
Anyway, my point was about the Federalism issue in this situation. The states have certain powers. According to the news articles about this situation, until federal legislation is passed, Texas can continue to have the power to do what they want in these situations. They don't necessarily have to follow something that Bush decided to sign. Anyway, that is how I understand it.
Anyway, my point was about the Federalism issue in this situation. The states have certain powers. According to the news articles about this situation, until federal legislation is passed, Texas can continue to have the power to do what they want in these situations. They don't necessarily have to follow something that Bush decided to sign. Anyway, that is how I understand it.
Yes, the states themselves have the power to govern themselves. It actually works pretty good and has for several years.
So yes, the original argument, could, for all intents and purposes, be used everytime a state has carried out a specific sentence. It seems that our ol' friend TQ is just stirring up something here, for what? I'm not sure. I mean I'm sure some Mexican has been punished in, say Florida. Didn't we break international laws then as well, TQ?
But the original story IS about the two girls who were raped and murdered, isn't it?
So yes, the original argument, could, for all intents and purposes, be used everytime a state has carried out a specific sentence. It seems that our ol' friend TQ is just stirring up something here, for what? I'm not sure. I mean I'm sure some Mexican has been punished in, say Florida. Didn't we break international laws then as well, TQ?
But the original story IS about the two girls who were raped and murdered, isn't it?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Sorry, Yara. My spelling is terrible and I should always look stuff up. I meant "ricochet". [/QUOTE]
No! English is not my mother tongue and that's all, no need to say sorry, it's just that I didn't find the word. Oh, you're always kind and helpful and all. :-) Yes, ricochet helps because we have this word, well, a similar word here, with the same meaning: "ricochetear", it's a verb. ;-))
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Anyway, my point was about the Federalism issue in this situation. The states have certain powers. According to the news articles about this situation, until federal legislation is passed, Texas can continue to have the power to do what they want in these situations. They don't necessarily have to follow something that Bush decided to sign. Anyway, that is how I understand it.[/QUOTE]
I see. So why are people saying that Texas is above the law? Just because it has its own legislation as a federal state? That wouldn't be a fair critique. I have always had a doubt, by the way: does international law forbids death penalty? Or it doesn't say anything in this regard?
As to the crimes Microwace mentioned, oh, my, I almost fell off the chair, I think...well, I don't wish anyone's death, but I mean, I...it's so sad. :-( Such a brutal crime.
Mail service has been down for weeks and we're not even getting the newspapers here at school, and the online content I have access to is very limited, unfortunately.
So, I hope all these killings, and so on, be it in Texas or in Georgia, just stop!!
*hug*
No! English is not my mother tongue and that's all, no need to say sorry, it's just that I didn't find the word. Oh, you're always kind and helpful and all. :-) Yes, ricochet helps because we have this word, well, a similar word here, with the same meaning: "ricochetear", it's a verb. ;-))
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Donna13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Anyway, my point was about the Federalism issue in this situation. The states have certain powers. According to the news articles about this situation, until federal legislation is passed, Texas can continue to have the power to do what they want in these situations. They don't necessarily have to follow something that Bush decided to sign. Anyway, that is how I understand it.[/QUOTE]
I see. So why are people saying that Texas is above the law? Just because it has its own legislation as a federal state? That wouldn't be a fair critique. I have always had a doubt, by the way: does international law forbids death penalty? Or it doesn't say anything in this regard?
As to the crimes Microwace mentioned, oh, my, I almost fell off the chair, I think...well, I don't wish anyone's death, but I mean, I...it's so sad. :-( Such a brutal crime.
Mail service has been down for weeks and we're not even getting the newspapers here at school, and the online content I have access to is very limited, unfortunately.
So, I hope all these killings, and so on, be it in Texas or in Georgia, just stop!!
*hug*
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Yes, the states themselves have the power to govern themselves. It actually works pretty good and has for several years.
So yes, the original argument, could, for all intents and purposes, be used everytime a state has carried out a specific sentence. It seems that our ol' friend TQ is just stirring up something here, for what? I'm not sure. I mean I'm sure some Mexican has been punished in, say Florida. Didn't we break international laws then as well, TQ?
But the original story IS about the two girls who were raped and murdered, isn't it? [/QUOTE]
I never stated that I was opposed to this person being punished. I think he deserved a very, very long if not life sentence. I do not, however, believe that any human being ever has the right to take another human being's life if not in self-defense. This execution was explicitly forbidden by the International Court of Justice, and therefore, it is not just a violation of civilization, which Texas happily commits numerous times a year, but one of international law, which gives a legal way for the world to protest these outrageous acts of barbarism to be performed in a country that wishes to present itself as the enforcer of Western civilization. So long as any of the United States have the death penalty, the US will not be recognized as a civilized country. Because I will warn you: young Europeans are increasingly disgusted with the US; in fact, I am considered an Americanophile. If the United States won't consider public opinion of the world it considers itself to be the superpower of, the current generation will turn its back. The US are running out of allies fast these last few years. Arrogance is now the route to a decline reminiscent of the Roman Empire. Wise modesty can sustain your position.
I hope I've at least managed to humor you by keeping the United States plural in the above, which is of course your interpretation of that term if you are consistent in your reasoning as presented in your last few posts in this topic.
So yes, the original argument, could, for all intents and purposes, be used everytime a state has carried out a specific sentence. It seems that our ol' friend TQ is just stirring up something here, for what? I'm not sure. I mean I'm sure some Mexican has been punished in, say Florida. Didn't we break international laws then as well, TQ?
But the original story IS about the two girls who were raped and murdered, isn't it? [/QUOTE]
I never stated that I was opposed to this person being punished. I think he deserved a very, very long if not life sentence. I do not, however, believe that any human being ever has the right to take another human being's life if not in self-defense. This execution was explicitly forbidden by the International Court of Justice, and therefore, it is not just a violation of civilization, which Texas happily commits numerous times a year, but one of international law, which gives a legal way for the world to protest these outrageous acts of barbarism to be performed in a country that wishes to present itself as the enforcer of Western civilization. So long as any of the United States have the death penalty, the US will not be recognized as a civilized country. Because I will warn you: young Europeans are increasingly disgusted with the US; in fact, I am considered an Americanophile. If the United States won't consider public opinion of the world it considers itself to be the superpower of, the current generation will turn its back. The US are running out of allies fast these last few years. Arrogance is now the route to a decline reminiscent of the Roman Empire. Wise modesty can sustain your position.
I hope I've at least managed to humor you by keeping the United States plural in the above, which is of course your interpretation of that term if you are consistent in your reasoning as presented in your last few posts in this topic.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Yara wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
So why are people saying that Texas is above the law? Just because it has its own legislation as a federal state? That wouldn't be a fair critique. I have always had a doubt, by the way: does international law forbids death penalty? Or it doesn't say anything in this regard?
[/QUOTE]
Texas is above the law because it ignored a decision by the International Court of Justice forbidding it, see my previous post.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights forbids it, as do a number of other treaties. The US consequently refuses to sign these treaties, making it the only country considered civilized to do so.
Article Three: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html; this is a legal document, so the language is to be taken very literally. This poses a problem with 'liberty' (though not with 'life' and 'security of person...'), as there is no separate clause stating that the above is void when removed through due process of law. Therefore, the definition of 'liberty' matters, but should probably be seen as civil rights, though many generations of lawyers can argue about this as it was written in an unclear manner. However, 'life' is there explicitly, so it cannot be taken away without being a violation of the act.
So why are people saying that Texas is above the law? Just because it has its own legislation as a federal state? That wouldn't be a fair critique. I have always had a doubt, by the way: does international law forbids death penalty? Or it doesn't say anything in this regard?
[/QUOTE]
Texas is above the law because it ignored a decision by the International Court of Justice forbidding it, see my previous post.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights forbids it, as do a number of other treaties. The US consequently refuses to sign these treaties, making it the only country considered civilized to do so.
Article Three: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html; this is a legal document, so the language is to be taken very literally. This poses a problem with 'liberty' (though not with 'life' and 'security of person...'), as there is no separate clause stating that the above is void when removed through due process of law. Therefore, the definition of 'liberty' matters, but should probably be seen as civil rights, though many generations of lawyers can argue about this as it was written in an unclear manner. However, 'life' is there explicitly, so it cannot be taken away without being a violation of the act.
"I see. So why are people saying that Texas is above the law? Just because it has its own legislation as a federal state? That wouldn't be a fair critique. I have always had a doubt, by the way: does international law forbids death penalty? Or it doesn't say anything in this regard?§
The issue is that Texas ignored and violated the Vienna conventions by denying a Mexican citizen consular assistance. Apparently, Mexico took the case to the High Court in Den Hague which ruled that the USA violated the Vienna convention which they signed. The US Supreme Court, however, ruled that the US administration cannot force Texas to go by the conventions because the US Congress never passed a written federal law to make the US signature valid. Although the US administration wanted the guy to get consular assistance, Texas refused and executed him without granting him any legal help from his country. I hope I summed this up correctly.
It's not about a rapist being executed, that's another story. It's about the fact that a US state purposefully ignored international law and denied a foreign citizen legal assistance from his own country. As a result American citizens might well be denied consular help in Mexico and elsewere. It's just not good when an international treaty that was signed over 40 years ago is not respected by the biggest power in the world. To make the world safer for all of us it is important that international law is respected by all nations that signed it. There should not be a back door like not passing the necessary national law. If you are arrested anywhere in the world you want to be sure you get legal help from your country no matter which crime you are accused of.
The issue is that Texas ignored and violated the Vienna conventions by denying a Mexican citizen consular assistance. Apparently, Mexico took the case to the High Court in Den Hague which ruled that the USA violated the Vienna convention which they signed. The US Supreme Court, however, ruled that the US administration cannot force Texas to go by the conventions because the US Congress never passed a written federal law to make the US signature valid. Although the US administration wanted the guy to get consular assistance, Texas refused and executed him without granting him any legal help from his country. I hope I summed this up correctly.
It's not about a rapist being executed, that's another story. It's about the fact that a US state purposefully ignored international law and denied a foreign citizen legal assistance from his own country. As a result American citizens might well be denied consular help in Mexico and elsewere. It's just not good when an international treaty that was signed over 40 years ago is not respected by the biggest power in the world. To make the world safer for all of us it is important that international law is respected by all nations that signed it. There should not be a back door like not passing the necessary national law. If you are arrested anywhere in the world you want to be sure you get legal help from your country no matter which crime you are accused of.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Texas is above the law because it ignored a decision by the International Court of Justice forbidding it, see my previous post. [/QUOTE]
I'll take a look at this. I'm currently unable to follow the newspapers, even if I have a bit more time. The mail service has been down for ages!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights forbids it, as do a number of other treaties. The US consequently refuses to sign these treaties, making it the only country considered civilized to do so.
Article Three: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html; this is a legal document, so the language is to be taken very literally. This poses a problem with 'liberty' (though not with 'life' and 'security of person...'), as there is no separate clause stating that the above is void when removed through due process of law. Therefore, the definition of 'liberty' matters, but should probably be seen as civil rights, though many generations of lawyers can argue about this as it was written in an unclear manner. However, 'life' is there explicitly, so it cannot be taken away without being a violation of the act.[/QUOTE]
Well, it says about the right to life, but no right may be, in principle, absolute from a legal point of view: that much I learned, at least! So it may trample over other rights.
Isn't it open to interpretation whether it means ruling out the possibility of U.N member states of adopting the death penalty?
Now, may I abuse you!? :-) lol
Well...you're knowledgeable, I'm not, so it's a chance for me to learn, if you don't mind explaining me that.
What's...I don't know the word...what's the "status" of the "Universal Declaration" for the U.N member states? I mean, how enforceable is it? Being a signatary to the document is enough for it to be effective or does the Congress need to adapt it to a local, national bill or act?
Don't know if I made myself clear. :/
What about torture in international law? Do you know something about it? When it was first condemned by treaties and so on?
Well...sorry for "abusing you". Hahaha. But since you're there, and being helpful and open to debate, well, I think trying to sort out some doubt isn't a crime against queenzone!
:-))
Thanks for the reply. Take care.
Texas is above the law because it ignored a decision by the International Court of Justice forbidding it, see my previous post. [/QUOTE]
I'll take a look at this. I'm currently unable to follow the newspapers, even if I have a bit more time. The mail service has been down for ages!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights forbids it, as do a number of other treaties. The US consequently refuses to sign these treaties, making it the only country considered civilized to do so.
Article Three: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html; this is a legal document, so the language is to be taken very literally. This poses a problem with 'liberty' (though not with 'life' and 'security of person...'), as there is no separate clause stating that the above is void when removed through due process of law. Therefore, the definition of 'liberty' matters, but should probably be seen as civil rights, though many generations of lawyers can argue about this as it was written in an unclear manner. However, 'life' is there explicitly, so it cannot be taken away without being a violation of the act.[/QUOTE]
Well, it says about the right to life, but no right may be, in principle, absolute from a legal point of view: that much I learned, at least! So it may trample over other rights.
Isn't it open to interpretation whether it means ruling out the possibility of U.N member states of adopting the death penalty?
Now, may I abuse you!? :-) lol
Well...you're knowledgeable, I'm not, so it's a chance for me to learn, if you don't mind explaining me that.
What's...I don't know the word...what's the "status" of the "Universal Declaration" for the U.N member states? I mean, how enforceable is it? Being a signatary to the document is enough for it to be effective or does the Congress need to adapt it to a local, national bill or act?
Don't know if I made myself clear. :/
What about torture in international law? Do you know something about it? When it was first condemned by treaties and so on?
Well...sorry for "abusing you". Hahaha. But since you're there, and being helpful and open to debate, well, I think trying to sort out some doubt isn't a crime against queenzone!
:-))
Thanks for the reply. Take care.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a formal agreement that does not have power of law. I.e. it cannot technically be enforced, but it is the criterion by which the international community tends to accept or reject nations for closer ties and coöperation. Violation of the declaration can cause major diplomatic riots, as has happened in the past, but as I said, it cannot be enforced.
Torture is forbidden outright in a number of treaties, including the Geneva Conventions (I think this is covered in the Third Geneva Convention, but I'd have to look that up), and I think also in the New York Treaty (or is it called New York Convention? I'm in doubt), as well as numerous smaller treaties. A number of these treaties ARE enforceable by law...but you'll have to prove that there's torture going on.
And I much prefer helping someone over dealing with trolls or Treasure Moment clones stalking the forum :)
Torture is forbidden outright in a number of treaties, including the Geneva Conventions (I think this is covered in the Third Geneva Convention, but I'd have to look that up), and I think also in the New York Treaty (or is it called New York Convention? I'm in doubt), as well as numerous smaller treaties. A number of these treaties ARE enforceable by law...but you'll have to prove that there's torture going on.
And I much prefer helping someone over dealing with trolls or Treasure Moment clones stalking the forum :)