|
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes that is odd
Seems their priorities are skewed.
If I had to pick between speaking out against the mass murder of thousands of sudanese who have done nothing wrong but to be born with the wrong skin color/religion, and speaking out in defense of a man who aided saddam in killing hundreds of innocent civilians I'd have to go with the sudanese.
Obviously the UN feels differently and I wish they'd explain why.
well, couldnt the same be said about America and Iraq/sudan?
I dont quite see how the UNs lack of vocality concerning Sudan (sickening though it may be) negates the correctness of them intervening when other human rights offences are beign committed(?)
I would hazard a guess that the people voting for the first choice are doing so more out of spite towards yourself than a genuine belief however.
Voted : Yes that is odd
Don't foget all the people that are executed in places like China, Iran, Burma and the rest. The UN had nothing to say about that. The UN is a disgusting piece of filth, and the only reason why it has not yet been thrown in the trash is because of the weak reasoning of "It's better nothing."
Usually when something is broken and doesn't work, I throw it away and attempt to replace it with something that does. Indeed, I am different.
"well, couldnt the same be said about America and Iraq/sudan? "
The founding document of the US doesn't include these phrases:
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
- - - - - - - -
The UN does contain those words. Those exact words actually, I copied it directly from their charter. They are obligated to act in the good of all mankind, like preventing genocide worldwide. Whereas the US may choose to prevent atrocities abroad, but we are under no obligation to, they are. That's about like the cops sitting idly by while the criminals rape and pillage at will, then when you ask them why they aren't doing anything they point at you and say "well you haven't done anything either, lay off."
" I dont quite see how the UNs lack of vocality concerning Sudan (sickening though it may be) negates the correctness of them intervening when other human rights offences are beign committed(?"
Their selective use of the "human rights' card is in question. They don't say anything when innocent people die, but every time there is a chance to attack the US or Israel they chime in with the same tired routine. Namely, defending the human rights of a mass murderer about to receive his fair punishment.
Voted : Yes that is odd
Louise Arbour is a brainwashed drone or on drugs. There is nothing in the UN charter or "international law" that prohibits the imposition of the death penalty (which I strongly oppose). Its all a bunch of politically correct hogwash spewed by some cretin who barely bats an eyelash at the genocide in Sudan and other place. Disgusting hypocrites.
Article 6
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.
3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to derogate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all cases.
5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.
6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.
Article 6
Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in
Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide
Article 3 shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
She should try reading these things sometime. How do these people sleep at night? They let people like Saddam Hussein torture people and commit genocide and say nothing. Then 500 years too late someone peeps out response trying to save those who committed the genocide. What about those who were victims?
Where is your shame?
I cannot believe that most people voted 'No, this guy is more worth protecting than those others'?
I am under the impression that they are mindless doctrine obsessed drones, whom place their political doctrines above morality. That is dangerous. I am not saying for sure that they are like that, however, I am definitely under a strong position that they are.
That is I am under a strong Impression that they are.
|
|
