[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
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. [/QUOTE]
Never passed a written federal law to make the U.S signature regarding the Vienna conventions valid, you mean? Just to clarify. Sorry, I'm being so boring. :op I'm isolated and without the chance to get the facts right due to problems with the mail service and the blocking of most news websites here at school because it was creating a kind of...people all rushing to read the news and creating quite a mess and there's no way to attend everyone's demand, and some people spend the whoooole day reading things and so on and other people can't acess the web to check e-mails. Quite a mess!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
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]
Yeah, now I see what's the issue. I didn't know it was about the right to consular assistance embodied in such an important treaty! Well, I'm all for international law. But if the U.S, according to its own legislation, didn't make the treaty valid, so legally Texas is not obliged to follow it!? It'd be, of course, desirable if the assistance should be granted, despite the legal quibbles, but, well, the extent to which Texas is above the law, I don't know, because treaties must go through a legal ritual, so to speak, before being enforceable inside each nation which agreed to its terms during the summits.
I don't know how it works in the U.S...
Now, that being said, I think yes, it'd be good if all nations made these treaties fully enforceable! It's desirable. I'm all for international law, maybe because our government tramples over it so often by supporting the FARC or deporting Cuban athletes, without giving them the chance to appeal to any court, to Castro's dictatorship, violating international law and, well, our Constitution in a quite egregious way. Human Rights Watch wrote a letter to our Minister of Justice because of this. What a shame. :-(
Well, I agree with you that it opens a dangerous precedent, though! If people begin to get consular assistance denied, wow, that's not good...
So thank you very much, ok? And sorry! The last couple of days have been a mess here. But thanks for the reply.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]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.[/QUOTE]
Yes. For example. If the U.S. did "sign" this worthless declaration, then suppose we caught Osama Bin Laden. Stop Laughing. Seriously, if we did catch him, then we would have to turn him over to Afghanistan... which is where he is currently operating a network of terrorists.
Hmmmm, I wonder why we didn't sign it?
Probably because we THOUGHT about it first, as most civilized countries did not. And go ahead, accuse the U.S. of barbarism, but signing this document has not stopped any act of violence ever.
Yes. For example. If the U.S. did "sign" this worthless declaration, then suppose we caught Osama Bin Laden. Stop Laughing. Seriously, if we did catch him, then we would have to turn him over to Afghanistan... which is where he is currently operating a network of terrorists.
Hmmmm, I wonder why we didn't sign it?
Probably because we THOUGHT about it first, as most civilized countries did not. And go ahead, accuse the U.S. of barbarism, but signing this document has not stopped any act of violence ever.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
[QUOTE]Now, what are you more afraid of? Feudalism or the Third Reich? Actually, don't choose. Both examples are equally exaggerated and silly.[/QUOTE]
Ridiculous argument that is completely beside the point and is no more than a conscious rhetorical device. Please don't take me to be this stupid.
In short, you have demonstrated the fallibility of power, but have provided *nothing* whatsoever that makes centralized power more dangerous than non-centralized power.[/QUOTE]
The superfluous parts aside, I will now respond. I wasn't taking you to be stupid - if I were doing that, I simply wouldn't respond to you. I was merely pointing out that my ideal is as close to feudalism as your ideal is to Nazi Germany, and you very well know this.
Now, is centralized power more dangerous than decentralized power? I can't fathom it being otherwise, but to that point, we could argue endlessly, and I simply do not have a war chest of examples that could match yours. Perhaps someone better informed in history would make a more formidable opponent for you.
[QUOTE]Now, what are you more afraid of? Feudalism or the Third Reich? Actually, don't choose. Both examples are equally exaggerated and silly.[/QUOTE]
Ridiculous argument that is completely beside the point and is no more than a conscious rhetorical device. Please don't take me to be this stupid.
In short, you have demonstrated the fallibility of power, but have provided *nothing* whatsoever that makes centralized power more dangerous than non-centralized power.[/QUOTE]
The superfluous parts aside, I will now respond. I wasn't taking you to be stupid - if I were doing that, I simply wouldn't respond to you. I was merely pointing out that my ideal is as close to feudalism as your ideal is to Nazi Germany, and you very well know this.
Now, is centralized power more dangerous than decentralized power? I can't fathom it being otherwise, but to that point, we could argue endlessly, and I simply do not have a war chest of examples that could match yours. Perhaps someone better informed in history would make a more formidable opponent for you.
Without being able to support my view with loads of facts I do believe that a centralization of power is dangerous. Just because the abuse of power - which is inevitable imo - has worse consequences. For example in the EU we lost a lot of self-determination by handing over power to autocrats in Brussels nobody actually voted for. I don't think it's beneficial for the majority of people because the powerful EU officials are just as easily corrupted as a local mayor and therefore the life of the average citizen is getting worse while the big lobbying corporate interests are the winners of the whole EU idea. I think that all power is corrupting people, therefore it should be limited whenever possible.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Without being able to support my view with loads of facts I do believe that a centralization of power is dangerous. Just because the abuse of power - which is inevitable imo - has worse consequences. For example in the EU we lost a lot of self-determination by handing over power to autocrats in Brussels nobody actually voted for. I don't think it's beneficial for the majority of people because the powerful EU officials are just as easily corrupted as a local mayor and therefore the life of the average citizen is getting worse while the big lobbying corporate interests are the winners of the whole EU idea. I think that all power is corrupting people, therefore it should be limited whenever possible.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed. My voice is barely heard by my own small local govt. assembly but it's totally lost when it comes to bigger institutions. What makes the democracy gap in the EU even worse is the amount of corruption by its officials. Not only are they not being held to account for this, they are, in fact, making it harder for corruption to be uncovered.
[/QUOTE]
Indeed. My voice is barely heard by my own small local govt. assembly but it's totally lost when it comes to bigger institutions. What makes the democracy gap in the EU even worse is the amount of corruption by its officials. Not only are they not being held to account for this, they are, in fact, making it harder for corruption to be uncovered.
The alternative to the EU is war. Simple as that. European countries can either coöperate intensely, like the EU is meant to guarantee, turning Europe into a Federation, or we can have another series of Great Power wars (the Balkan-wars in the 1910s, the first and second World Wars; before that, the Franco-Prussian and Napoleonic wars, etc. etc.). Anyone denying that is fooling him or herself.
As for the Brussels 'autocrats': they are *elected*. Most Europeans don't bother voting for the European offices, but that is their problem. If you can't be bothered to vote for a European Parliament member, that's your problem. Don't go whining how they aren't democratic after you've had your chance.
As for the Brussels 'autocrats': they are *elected*. Most Europeans don't bother voting for the European offices, but that is their problem. If you can't be bothered to vote for a European Parliament member, that's your problem. Don't go whining how they aren't democratic after you've had your chance.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The alternative to the EU is war. Simple as that. European countries can either coöperate intensely, like the EU is meant to guarantee, turning Europe into a Federation, or we can have another series of Great Power wars (the Balkan-wars in the 1910s, the first and second World Wars; before that, the Franco-Prussian and Napoleonic wars, etc. etc.). Anyone denying that is fooling him or herself.
As for the Brussels 'autocrats': they are *elected*. Most Europeans don't bother voting for the European offices, but that is their problem. If you can't be bothered to vote for a European Parliament member, that's your problem. Don't go whining how they aren't democratic after you've had your chance.[/QUOTE]
No that's not the two options available or indeed the argument. The EU has done much to eliminate the social, econimic and political problems that led to two world wars but no one seriously suggests that if we don't have even more integration and unaccountability then Western Europe will somehow be plunged into another Euro war.
As for voting, that's a side issue so save your insults for someone who gives a shit. My point is that the further the individual gets from the decision makers, the more his/her voice is unheard. It's not a difficult point to grasp.
As for the Brussels 'autocrats': they are *elected*. Most Europeans don't bother voting for the European offices, but that is their problem. If you can't be bothered to vote for a European Parliament member, that's your problem. Don't go whining how they aren't democratic after you've had your chance.[/QUOTE]
No that's not the two options available or indeed the argument. The EU has done much to eliminate the social, econimic and political problems that led to two world wars but no one seriously suggests that if we don't have even more integration and unaccountability then Western Europe will somehow be plunged into another Euro war.
As for voting, that's a side issue so save your insults for someone who gives a shit. My point is that the further the individual gets from the decision makers, the more his/her voice is unheard. It's not a difficult point to grasp.
First of all I am not "whining". Secondly, the commission is not elected by the European Parliament but the members are delegated by the national administrations, so that does not really count as a democratic legitimation in my book. The parliament does not have the legislative power like national democratic parliaments. Thirdly, it's truly nonsense that the alternative to the EU is war between the EU countries. I can think of other forms of economical cooperation without delegating so much power to bureaucrats in Brussels.
Edit: Holly already said it all - I am a slow poster.
Edit: Holly already said it all - I am a slow poster.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Edit: Holly already said it all - I am a slow poster.
[/QUOTE]
But a beautiful person :)
Edit: Holly already said it all - I am a slow poster.
[/QUOTE]
But a beautiful person :)
Commenting on the title of this thread, I think I need to remind Caspar that Texas has always been above the law.
So "Don't mess with Texas", Truly stands for it's motto, considering that you have Chuck Norris to enforce it.
So "Don't mess with Texas", Truly stands for it's motto, considering that you have Chuck Norris to enforce it.
@ Holly, YV:
I really don't give a light that you don't believe the alternative is war; those people who matter, i.e. those who actually spend years and years researching European history, international relations and social studies agree. Hell, even the textbook by J.P. McKay, 'A History of Western Society', which is used in most European history courses at universities that use English-language textbooks, states war on the medium or long term as the likely result of a Europe that does not cooperate more closely.
I really don't give a light that you don't believe the alternative is war; those people who matter, i.e. those who actually spend years and years researching European history, international relations and social studies agree. Hell, even the textbook by J.P. McKay, 'A History of Western Society', which is used in most European history courses at universities that use English-language textbooks, states war on the medium or long term as the likely result of a Europe that does not cooperate more closely.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]those people who matter[/QUOTE]
An interesting turn of phrase. Are only the elites allowed to express an opinion now?
An interesting turn of phrase. Are only the elites allowed to express an opinion now?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]those people who matter[/QUOTE]
An interesting turn of phrase. Are only the elites allowed to express an opinion now? [/QUOTE]
No; only those who are willing to consider the situation at hand without resorting to easy, politically correct non-thinking.
And I'll tell you this: I'd still rather be elitist than a populist.
An interesting turn of phrase. Are only the elites allowed to express an opinion now? [/QUOTE]
No; only those who are willing to consider the situation at hand without resorting to easy, politically correct non-thinking.
And I'll tell you this: I'd still rather be elitist than a populist.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]those people who matter[/QUOTE]
An interesting turn of phrase. Are only the elites allowed to express an opinion now? [/QUOTE]
No; only those who are willing to consider the situation at hand without resorting to easy, politically correct non-thinking.
And I'll tell you this: I'd still rather be elitist than a populist.[/QUOTE]
I have conisdered the situation at hand and I have not resorted to easy, politically correct non-thinking. In fact, it is more politically correct and non-thinking to just be "pro-Europe" as you are. Where's the evidence that war will result if we keep the current level of co-operation instead of encouraging further integration. Provide some proof.
An interesting turn of phrase. Are only the elites allowed to express an opinion now? [/QUOTE]
No; only those who are willing to consider the situation at hand without resorting to easy, politically correct non-thinking.
And I'll tell you this: I'd still rather be elitist than a populist.[/QUOTE]
I have conisdered the situation at hand and I have not resorted to easy, politically correct non-thinking. In fact, it is more politically correct and non-thinking to just be "pro-Europe" as you are. Where's the evidence that war will result if we keep the current level of co-operation instead of encouraging further integration. Provide some proof.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Holly2003 wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]those people who matter[/QUOTE]
An interesting turn of phrase. Are only the elites allowed to express an opinion now? [/QUOTE]
No; only those who are willing to consider the situation at hand without resorting to easy, politically correct non-thinking.
And I'll tell you this: I'd still rather be elitist than a populist.[/QUOTE]
I have conisdered the situation at hand and I have not resorted to easy, politically correct non-thinking. In fact, it is more politically correct and non-thinking to just be "pro-Europe" as you are. Where's the evidence that war will result if we keep the current level of co-operation instead of encouraging further integration. Provide some proof.[/QUOTE]
There is never proof of something before it has happened. At best it can be demonstrated that it is likely, but I cannot do so in just a few lines. I recommend you read the textbook I cited as an introduction to European history. If that is not convincing enough, have you not realized that throughout Europe, nationalism (see: Balkan, Belgium and Basques in this case) and extremism (currently surfacing in the form of new or increased support for far-right parties), militarization in some parts (Italy is a good example), other legislation resorted to in the past only in case of war (a law making it a criminal offense not to carry your identity documents at all time in The Netherlands, for instanse) or not even possible at the time (the excessive camera monitoring in Great Britain to name but one example). Police are being more heavily armed and given greater discretion in the use of violence. Xenophobia is raging, at the moment against non-Western targets, but already having shifted from anti-black in the '80s, to include anti-Islamic and anti-Eastern Europe sentiments increasingly. Do you need any more?
An interesting turn of phrase. Are only the elites allowed to express an opinion now? [/QUOTE]
No; only those who are willing to consider the situation at hand without resorting to easy, politically correct non-thinking.
And I'll tell you this: I'd still rather be elitist than a populist.[/QUOTE]
I have conisdered the situation at hand and I have not resorted to easy, politically correct non-thinking. In fact, it is more politically correct and non-thinking to just be "pro-Europe" as you are. Where's the evidence that war will result if we keep the current level of co-operation instead of encouraging further integration. Provide some proof.[/QUOTE]
There is never proof of something before it has happened. At best it can be demonstrated that it is likely, but I cannot do so in just a few lines. I recommend you read the textbook I cited as an introduction to European history. If that is not convincing enough, have you not realized that throughout Europe, nationalism (see: Balkan, Belgium and Basques in this case) and extremism (currently surfacing in the form of new or increased support for far-right parties), militarization in some parts (Italy is a good example), other legislation resorted to in the past only in case of war (a law making it a criminal offense not to carry your identity documents at all time in The Netherlands, for instanse) or not even possible at the time (the excessive camera monitoring in Great Britain to name but one example). Police are being more heavily armed and given greater discretion in the use of violence. Xenophobia is raging, at the moment against non-Western targets, but already having shifted from anti-black in the '80s, to include anti-Islamic and anti-Eastern Europe sentiments increasingly. Do you need any more?