International Law, Peacekeepers and Socialism

International Law, Peacekeepers and Socialism

What do these three have in common? There are all pie in the sky ideas that do not work.

International Socialism does not work because there is no way to prevent people from abusing Socialism by not doing enough to prevent needing Socialism.

International Law does not work because it limits good people from limiting evil people. When guns are outlawed, the only people with guns will be outlaws.

The proof of the failure of international Law and Socialism is International Peacekeepers. They used to be called Observers and in reality they are still observers even though they have been authorized to shoot the guns that they carry. Unfortunately they violate International Law if they shoot their guns, so they end up being just observers.

UN Observers/Pacificists

There are a lot of international organizations like the UN, international red cross, amnesty international, etc., that take a very pious position, but I think that they can all be summed up in one word, "Observers". The Geneva Convention is an international document of pious positions that do more harm than good.

The UN and other international organizations are observers. They watch a rape, but never get their hands dirty by doing anything to stop the rape. They keep statistics on rape and pass pious legislation that rape is horrible and should be outlawed, but then they watch the rapes occur.

The UN is always there to offer food, water and assistance to both the raper and the rape victim. This only creates a situation where another rape is inevitable.

The UN and other international organizations never make a mistake because they never do anything, thus they are worthless.

The most unfortunate thing is that American Socialists/democrats/liberals have allowed International Law to become Civil Law (and maybe even Military Law) by signing International Treaties, because signing a treaty means the treaty automatically becomes law.

I have concerns that a self extracting treaty is a violation of the Constitution, because the Constitution says only Congress can make laws. The Constitution says Congress has the following power;

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or
Officer thereof.

The American Socialists/democrats/liberals do not realize that the American Military will become as worthless as the UN Peacekeepers by signing self-extracting treaties.

The following is a discussion of how democrats have traded the security of the American Military for the worthlessness of International Law. Clintons dependence on International Law allowed the Islamic Terrorists to grow to where they could attack America and kill three thousand Americans and to stage acts of terror at many places in the world.

-------------------------

Human Rights Treaties Becoming Part of US Law:
Q & A

Human Rights in the US & the International Community — Foundation: Unit V. International Human Rights in the Domestic US Context — Human Rights Treaties Becoming Part of US Law: Q & A


1. Can a president "un-sign" a treaty?
President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 1998. This is the treaty that created the International Criminal Court (ICC). While Clinton had concerns about the treaty, he signed to allow the US to participate in development of the rules of the court. However, when President George W. Bush came to office in 2001, he was so strongly opposed to the ICC that he took the unprecedented step of "un-signing" the treaty. The US today is not party to the Rome Statute, and is therefore not a participant in the assembly of states that governs the ICC.


2. Does the US ever attach RUDs?
The US is known for attaching many RUDs to the human rights treaties to which it is a party.

* The US has attached numerous reservations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Some states have charged it with undermining the object and purpose of the treaty as a whole. For example, the US has an RUD to the ICCPR that states the US understands "cruel and unusual punishment" to exclude the death penalty.


* In another RUD in the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the US basically redefines the understanding of "racial discrimination".

RUDs are usually attached to the treaty by the Senate in the course of giving its advice and consent, but the president may also propose RUDs.

3. What's the difference between a self-executing treaty and a non-self-executing treaty?


* Self-executing treaties become part of US federal law automatically upon ratification. If a human rights treaty, such as the 1951 Refugee Convention, is self-executing, the treaty is the equivalent of US federal law. Private citizens may use the treaty as the basis for a lawsuit against a public authority (such as the federal government) that may have allegedly violated a right afforded to an individual under that treaty.

* Non-self-executing treaties require legislation to be passed to implement the treaty into national law to give it domestic effect. Non-self-executing treaties may not be used as the basis of a lawsuit in a US court, since they are not yet part of US law. Some human rights treaties are explicitly non-self-executing — such as the Genocide Convention — and actually require that states pass domestic legislation in order to make its rights violations illegal under their domestic law. So even though the US signed the Genocide Convention in 1948, the international crime of genocide was not a crime punishable under US law until the US passed the Genocide Convention Implementation Act in 1988.

A treaty's language usually says whether it is to be considered self- or non-self-executing. If it does not, one has to wait until someone tries to use it as the basis for a legal claim, and then a court will decide.

Please substantiate the claim that somehow the Geneva Convention does more harm than good.

Please indicate how your are not any different to the UN as an observer with pious positions and no real actions.

__________________

“Our reason suffers the peculiar fate that … it is beset by questions which it cannot set aside, as they arise from the nature of Reason itself; but these questions it cannot answer, for they transcend all the powers of Reason.” - Immanuel Kant. Critique of Pure Reason. 1781

Wrong. They are all useful tools which have their place, but which you do not like.

__________________

Why is your world black and white?

It's ridiculous, you've proved nothing except your own ignorance. International Law is there for a reason. Peacekeepers are suited for countless tasks. Socialism is used in each and every country, in certain gradations. In fact, since this financial crisis set in, the US has become more socialist.

And liberals, socialists and democrats are not the same. But i know how much certain people love to throw everything on one pile to make it easier to judge. Sad really...

Peacekeeping can be effective when a clear majority of the populations involved actually want peace.

Sadly, this is not the case in many areas where peacekeepers are deployed.

Having said that, I have some serious issues with the UN in terms of resources consumed versus results delivered. All theological/eschatological concerns aside, the world is not ready for a unified government, and probably won't be for at least another two or three generations, if ever.

blook quote

Why is your world black and white?

It's ridiculous, you've proved nothing except your own ignorance. International Law is there for a reason. Peacekeepers are suited for countless tasks. Socialism is used in each and every country, in certain gradations. In fact, since this financial crisis set in, the US has become more socialist.

And liberals, socialists and democrats are not the same. But i know how much certain people love to throw everything on one pile to make it easier to judge. Sad really...

Response

Ever heard the old saying, "The devil is in the details."

I believe the devil wins in the gray areas. I believe God provided the Bible so that we would know the difference between good and evil. When you mix good and evil you have confusion.

International law is too Atheistic for me. Peacekeepers do not stop killing and create a false security. Socialism is invading America and with it Atheism. That is why I point out the danger of America adopting and being involved in International Law, Peacekeepers and Socialism.

I believe liberals, socialists and democrats share a common thinking.

TheNewWorldMan quote

Peacekeeping can be effective when a clear majority of the populations involved actually want peace.

Response

That sentence would seem to be an oxymoron. If the population wanted peace, there should be no need for peacekeepers.

Discussion

People are always looking for a way that works in their life and in their government, particularly during times of social and economic unrest. People are turning away from Christianity and toward Atheism.

I believe America before 1940 was a nation that based its laws on Christian Principles and was a Christian Nation. I want to both advocate the Christian Nation/World model and point out the problems of the Atheistic World/Nation model.

I wonder why we keep trying to debate with Clirus. He seems pretty much incapable of using and relating to facts. We should all be aware of that by now. What's the point anyway? He'll just talk about the conspiracy of the evil atheistic liberal news media to spread anti-christian things like love and peace anyway.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.





"no man can serve two masters; ye cannot serve both God and mammon." - Bible (Matthew 6:24)

A lot of gray areas were never specified in the Bible because such moral dilemmas are post-Biblical.

How so? Liberalism can refer to many things. In Australia, the term 'Liberal' actually denotes the Liberal Party - a conservative party. Liberalism may refer to classical liberalism the political philosophy. Unfortunately, in the US, the term has been confined (inappropriately I believe) to speak only of social liberals.

Nope. It was, and still is, and hopefully will remain, a secular nation.

__________________

“Our reason suffers the peculiar fate that … it is beset by questions which it cannot set aside, as they arise from the nature of Reason itself; but these questions it cannot answer, for they transcend all the powers of Reason.” - Immanuel Kant. Critique of Pure Reason. 1781

By the way Clirus, could you please reply to Post #2 on this thread. Thank-you.

__________________

“Our reason suffers the peculiar fate that … it is beset by questions which it cannot set aside, as they arise from the nature of Reason itself; but these questions it cannot answer, for they transcend all the powers of Reason.” - Immanuel Kant. Critique of Pure Reason. 1781

Surly you will enjoy heaven because that is the only place you will get all your questions answered.

If I failed to put "I believe" in front of every sentence that I wrote, please forgive me for my failure. In reality, everything that is said or written is an interpretation or an opinion of the things we observe. When there is proof (information) for an interpretation or opinion, I try to provide that, but surly you would not deny me an opinion even if there was no absolute proof.

Stating "I believe" is highly preferable to propaganda where only information that supports your opinion is presented and information that opposes your position is suppressed. People who use propaganda that they try to sell as truth are truly the great deceivers.

I also am going to have to ask you for forgiveness because I have not found a correct answer to your question that had no correct answer.

Proof that the question had no correct answer was the answer that you gave that you would provide aid and comfort to people like Hitler, Stalin and Bin Laden.