NationStates Jolt Archive

Italy's centre-left government wants to "campaign at the United Nations for a global ban on the death penalty", and has the support of the Italian right-wing Opposition (source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6226687.stm)).

Now UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Mun has said that the death penalty is a matter for individual countries to decide on, and that it is not a matter for the UN (source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20060103-ban-ki-moon-death-penalty.html)).

A large majority of UN member countries have already abolished the death penalty, but Ban's native South Korea has not. Nor has Ban's main supporter, the United States (the US is the only Western country not to have abolished the death penalty).

Abolitionist nations include the 27 member countries of the EU, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Nepal, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and dozens of others in South and Central America, Europe (all European countries except Belarus and Russia; Russia is abolitionist in practice if not in theory), Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. Even Myanmar is abolitionist in practice.

Retentionist countries include Saudi Arabia, Belarus, China, North Korea, the United States, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Zimbabwe.

I surely wish there was a global ban on the death penalty. If kaczyski brings it back to Poland, who knows what he will make punishible by death. (think "spanish inquisition" if you are stumped on this)

If kaczyski brings it back to Poland

Is that likely? Surely it would violate the terms of Poland's membership in the Council of Europe, and go against EU policy (see EU policy on the death penalty (http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm)).

Now UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Mun has said that the death penalty is a matter for individual countries to decide on, and that it is not a matter for the UN.

I like him already.

Russia is abolitionist in practice if not in theory

I find that statement rather difficult to believe.

Retentionist countries include Saudi Arabia, Belarus, China, North Korea, the United States, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Zimbabwe.
Nice to see the company the US is keeping.

Is that likely? Surely it would violate the terms of Poland's membership in the Council of Europe, and go against EU policy (see EU policy on the death penalty (http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/EurHRConvProt13Decl.htm)).

indeed, but kaczynski doesn't seem to care. Something needs to be done to get that idiot out of office.

indeed, but kaczynski doesn't seem to care. Something needs to be done to get that idiot out of office.

For a small fee I can arrange to have your situation corrected.

I find that statement rather difficult to believe.

There's a moratorium on the death penalty in Russia, imposed both by the President and a high court. Also, Russia is a member of the Council of Europe, which prevents it from making use of the death penalty (although it hasn't banned it officially).

Hence it's abolitionist in practice.


indeed, but kaczynski doesn't seem to care. Something needs to be done to get that idiot out of office.

From what I know of him, I do hope Poland gets rid of him soon. When's the next election? Who's likely to replace him?

Hmm... I don't really understand those who are in favor of the death penalty. In the Netherlands they have a life sentence that is literaly for life. No parole possible, the only way you can leave is in a coffin. Currently 34 prisoners are waiting until they die.

You might wonder if this isn't even a worse sentence compared with the death penalty, being aware for years how life changes around you and not being a part of it...

Hmm... I don't really understand those who are in favor of the death penalty. In the Netherlands they have a life sentence that is literaly for life. No parole possible, the only way you can leave is in a coffin. Currently 34 prisoners are waiting until they die.

You might wonder if this isn't even a worse sentence compared with the death penalty, being aware for years how life changes around you and not being a part of it...

IOW, it could be argued that life in prison is inhumane.....

There's a moratorium on the death penalty in Russia, imposed both by the President and a high court. Also, Russia is a member of the Council of Europe, which prevents it from making use of the death penalty (although it hasn't banned it officially).

Hence it's abolitionist in practice.

*cough*Polonium*cough*

I surely wish there was a global ban on the death penalty. If kaczyski brings it back to Poland, who knows what he will make punishible by death. (think "spanish inquisition" if you are stumped on this)Poland is a member of the EU, thus it won't have the death penalty back.

*cough*Polonium*cough*wrong *cough*:rolleyes:

... think "spanish inquisition" if you are stumped on this


http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/961/spanishinq0go.jpg

wrong *cough*:rolleyes:

Well, I'm convinced. :rolleyes:

Nice to see the company the US is keeping.You should see its company as one of the rogue states.

Well, I'm convinced. :rolleyes:The polonium incident has nothing at all to do with death penalty in the Russian legal system.
Want a pretzel?

Turkmen-"boils people alive"-istan is on the abolitionist side? What's going on there? Unless this is a sign of a new, friendlier Turkmenistan...

Hmm... I don't really understand those who are in favor of the death penalty. In the Netherlands they have a life sentence that is literaly for life. No parole possible, the only way you can leave is in a coffin. Currently 34 prisoners are waiting until they die.

You might wonder if this isn't even a worse sentence compared with the death penalty, being aware for years how life changes around you and not being a part of it...

I think that this is actually a rather decent idea. They assmunches die in prison, but we don't have to waste the taxpayers dollars on barbituates.

But, the US and Japan both make use of the death penalty, and I doubt that anything that Prodi could propose would ever pass by these two.

I think that this is actually a rather decent idea. They assmunches die in prison, but we don't have to waste the taxpayers dollars on barbituates.

But, the US and Japan both make use of the death penalty, and I doubt that anything that Prodi could propose would ever pass by these two.Why? The US is already having some death penalty issues. Do all states of the US have death penalty?

Italy's centre-left government wants to "campaign at the United Nations for a global ban on the death penalty", and has the support of the Italian right-wing Opposition (source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6226687.stm)).

Now UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Mun has said that the death penalty is a matter for individual countries to decide on, and that it is not a matter for the UN (source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20060103-ban-ki-moon-death-penalty.html)).

A large majority of UN member countries have already abolished the death penalty, but Ban's native South Korea has not. Nor has Ban's main supporter, the United States (the US is the only Western country not to have abolished the death penalty).

Abolitionist nations include the 27 member countries of the EU, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Nepal, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and dozens of others in South and Central America, Europe (all European countries except Belarus and Russia; Russia is abolitionist in practice if not in theory), Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. Even Myanmar is abolitionist in practice.

Retentionist countries include Saudi Arabia, Belarus, China, North Korea, the United States, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Zimbabwe.
As much as I intensely dislike the death penalty, it's something for its member states to decide, not the UN.

Retentionist countries include Saudi Arabia, Belarus, China, North Korea, the United States, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Zimbabwe.

USA should fit right in among those countries. Afterall, they are known for their democratic values and personal freedoms.

Why? The US is already having some death penalty issues.

I'm not passing moral judgement on the death penalty, nor am I offering support for, or opposition to, said action. I am just saying that the chances of this proposition are somewhere between zero and none, because of the continued support of the US and Japanese governments for the death penalty.

Do all states of the US have death penalty?
No, but the federal government makes use of the death penalty, as do a majority of the states.

Nice to see the company the US is keeping.

That's hardly a fair comparison. Half of the world’s population supports it and half the world is without it, the number of countries is irrelevant. When population is counted one must realize that both China and India have legal capital punishment, and in addition to these both Japan and South Korea have it as well and they are not generally thought of as backwards countries. And obviously everyone knows that America has it by a State to State basis.

How can Italy expect that they should be able to dictate the policy of the other half of the world? In fact, if mere population of supporters and detractors are counted, I have no particular reason to think that the anti-capital punishment crowd would win a popular vote contest.

The vast majority of Peace officers in American support the institution of Capital Punishment, but less than half of convicts support Capital Punishment. Interesting Data of opinions here…

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=23&did=1266

Why? The US is already having some death penalty issues. Do all states of the US have death penalty?

No, and in fact Michigan was the first democratic government to abolish the death penalty in 1847.

I favor the death penalty. It is the price one pays for unjustly taking the life of another.

Life imprisonment doesn't cut it, even if without chance of parole. Where there is life, there is hope. The government may change, a national leader may exercise a pardon, the condemned might escape, the legislative process may create a law that frees the condemned.

If one decides to unjustly take the life of another, one must pay the price, just as one pays for a shirt bought from a store.

It comes down to choice and the consequences of that choice.

Turkmen-"boils people alive"-istan is on the abolitionist side? What's going on there? Unless this is a sign of a new, friendlier Turkmenistan...You have the wrong -stan. Turkmenistan has abolished the death penalty, and I haven't heard of it breaking this law. This doesn't say much though. But just because they have abolished the death penalty doesn't mean they won't have any show trials anymore.

Uzbekistan is the state that boils people to death. It also suffocates prisioners using a blocked up gas mask so there is no external proof of suffocation. They claim they will abolish the death penalty in 2008. And they have already repealed the death penalty for two offences for which my government has praised them. Those offences were 'genocide' and 'armed agression against another state'. The two offences that are punishable by death that remain are 'murder' and 'attempting to otherthrow the government'. At the time when the other two offences were repealed the definition of 'otherthrow the government' was widened to mean pretty much anything the government wanted it to.

I surely wish there was a global ban on the death penalty. If kaczyski brings it back to Poland, who knows what he will make punishible by death. (think "spanish inquisition" if you are stumped on this)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAVJ9ZyghlA

:D

Now UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Mun has said that the death penalty is a matter for individual countries to decide on, and that it is not a matter for the UN (source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20060103-ban-ki-moon-death-penalty.html)).

He's right.

As much as I intensely dislike the death penalty, it's something for its member states to decide, not the UN.

Hear, hear!

Sounds like the new "UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Mun has said that the death penalty is a matter for individual countries to decide on" is on the right track. It really isn't the UN's place to dictate such laws to other soveriegn nations. I'm pro-Death Penalty and think it's a necessary deterent to criminals who would other wise go out and commit the most horrendous crimes against the People.

He's right.

I can't help but feel a sneaking suspicion that a need not to piss of Seoul or Washington may have had something to do with it.

I'm pro-Death Penalty and think it's a necessary deterent to criminals who would other wise go out and commit the most horrendous crimes against the People.
We don't have the death penalty, and we don't have that problem either. And hasn't it been well-disproven that the death penalty is a "deterrent"?

(someone with links back me up here, all I have is memory)

We don't have the death penalty, and we don't have that problem either.

Irish people are too cool to be criminals, so obviously Ireland doesn't have a crime problem. :D

Latest development: "UN chief urges Iraq to suspend executions" (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070107-Ban-ki-Moon-execution.html).

Nice to see the company the US is keeping.

And what would you be implying?

Yes Asian and African countries should listen to European crybabies about the death penalty. Or Europeans can keep their European values to themselves - ultimately we'll ignore them anyway.

Yes Asian and African countries should listen to European crybabies about the death penalty. Or Europeans can keep their European values to themselves - ultimately we'll ignore them anyway.

I wasn't aware that Ban Ki-Mun (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20070107-Ban-ki-Moon-execution.html) was European. And here was me thinking he was Korean. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, I find it ironic of you to claim that Japan has a history of ignoring European values.

This issue has absolutely no place in the UN. It is for the individual nations to decide.

I'm pro-Death Penalty and think it's a necessary deterent to criminals who would other wise go out and commit the most horrendous crimes against the People.

Like, say, killing people?

This issue has absolutely no place in the UN. It is for the individual nations to decide.

While I would agree that it in principle is for individual nations to decide - and while I don't support the death penalty primarily due to the possibility of error - I believe that the issue has a place in the UN, due to the whole "right to life" thing which is an important central tenant in the organisation.

I doubt much will come of it though, but I wouldn't mind an international debate on the matter.

No, Saint-Newly. Like say, murdering people. There IS a difference. Of course, I am opposed to the death penalty for other reasons. Anyway, the United Nations, though, has no business in the matter. In fact, that illegitimate organization of pencil pushers has no business doing anything. Other than their decision to avoid the war in Iraq (doubtlessly cowardice instead of actual insight), when was the last time they did something right? Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=I2SFT5PVNXEYVQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/01/03/wsudan03.xml) is what their peacekeeping forces have been up to.

In fact, that illegitimate organization

Beg pardon? I'd be curious to hear your definition of "illegitimate". No doubt a highly creative one.


Other than their decision to avoid the war in Iraq (doubtlessly cowardice instead of actual insight),


Oh, this is getting fun. Cowardice... how, exactly? Go on, amuse me.


when was the last time they did something right?

Are you honestly telling us you're really that ignorant?

I admire your courage in displaying your ignorance for all to see.

No, Saint-Newly. Like say, murdering people. There IS a difference.

The difference is that the government doesn't like murdering, and they do like killing. Groovy.

And I just adore your suggestion that the UN didn't support the war in Iraq because they're cowards! You do know that UN officials aren't typically called up to fight, right?
You didn't?
Aww! Bless!

Excellent.

Yes Asian and African countries should listen to European crybabies about the death penalty. Or Europeans can keep their European values to themselves - ultimately we'll ignore them anyway.
Most Asian and African countries have abolished it. American and European values are fundamentally the same... you should listen to us.

Irish people are too cool to be criminals, so obviously Ireland doesn't have a crime problem. :D
I meant we don't have the kind of out-of-control murder rates that America has!

Most Asian and African countries have abolished it. American and European values are fundamentally the same... you should listen to us.

Weeeell...

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, People's Republic of China, Taiwan, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Jordan, North Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Syria, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, and Yemen were countries in Asia where the capital punishment was used in 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation#Africa).

And Egypt, Somalia and Sudan in Africa. However, most countries in Asia and Africa have not abolished it (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Death_Penalty_World_Map2.png).

Most Asian and African countries have abolished it.

Indeed. South Africa, Angola, Bhutan, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Sao Tome e Principe, Senegal, the Seychelles, Timor Leste, Turkmenistan and Turkey have all abolished the death penalty.

And that's not counting the Pacific, where Australia, the Marshall Islands, the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Micronesia, New Zealand, Palau, Samoa, Tuvalu and Vanuatu are also abolitionist.

In addition, Algeria, Benin, Brunei, Burkina Faso, the DR Congo, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Kyrgizstan, Madagascar, Malawi, the Maldives, Mali, Morocco, Mauritania, Myanmar, Nauru, Niger, PNG, the CAR, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Togo, Tonga and Tunisie are also abolitionist in practice. (That's just for the Asia-Pacific area and Africa.)

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-countries-eng

1. Abolitionist for all crimes
Countries whose laws do not provide for the death penalty for any crime:
ANDORRA, ANGOLA, ARMENIA, AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, AZERBAIJAN, BELGIUM, BHUTAN, BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, BULGARIA, CAMBODIA, CANADA, CAPE VERDE, COLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, COTE D'IVOIRE, CROATIA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, DJIBOUTI, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, ECUADOR, ESTONIA, FINLAND, FRANCE, GEORGIA, GERMANY,GREECE, GUINEA-BISSAU, HAITI, HONDURAS, HUNGARY, ICELAND, IRELAND, ITALY, KIRIBATI, LIBERIA, LIECHTENSTEIN, LITHUANIA, LUXEMBOURG, MACEDONIA (former Yugoslav Republic), MALTA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, MAURITIUS, MEXICO, MICRONESIA (Federated States), MOLDOVA, MONACO, MONTENEGRO, MOZAMBIQUE, NAMIBIA, NEPAL, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NIUE, NORWAY, PALAU, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SAMOA, SAN MARINO, SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE, SENEGAL, SERBIA, SEYCHELLES, SLOVAK REPUBLIC, SLOVENIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, TIMOR-LESTE, TURKEY, TURKMENISTAN, TUVALU, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM, URUGUAY, VANUATU, VATICAN CITY STATE, VENEZUELA

2. Abolitionist for ordinary crimes only
Countries whose laws provide for the death penalty only for exceptional crimes such as crimes under military law or crimes committed in exceptional circumstances:
ALBANIA, ARGENTINA, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, CHILE, COOK ISLANDS, EL SALVADOR, FIJI, ISRAEL, LATVIA, PERU

3. Abolitionist in practice
Countries which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes such as murder but can be considered abolitionist in practice in that they have not executed anyone during the past 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions. The list also includes countries which have made an international commitment not to use the death penalty:
ALGERIA, BENIN, BRUNEI DARUSSALAM, BURKINA FASO, CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, CONGO (Republic), GABON, GAMBIA, GHANA, GRENADA, KENYA, KYRGYZSTAN, MADAGASCAR, MALAWI, MALDIVES, MALI, MAURITANIA, MOROCCO, MYANMAR, NAURU, NIGER, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, SRI LANKA, SURINAME, SWAZILAND, TOGO, TONGA, TUNISIA

4. Retentionist
Countries and territories which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes:
AFGHANISTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBYA, MALAYSIA, MONGOLIA, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE

Abolitionist for all crimes: 88
Abolitionist for ordinary crimes only: 11
Abolitionist in practice: 29

Total abolitionist in law or practice: 128
Retentionist: 69

It would really be a complete waste of the UN's valuable time :rolleyes: to debate the issue and then vote for a global ban on the Death Penalty considering the fact that two countries holding veto pens (USA and China) would definately veto it.

Beg pardon? I'd be curious to hear your definition of "illegitimate". No doubt a highly creative one.

I'll give you my definition of "legitimate" and see if you can figure out what the antonym is all by yourself. From the United States Declaration of Independence, virtually plagarized from John Locke, albeit: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Just because we consent to our elected leaders (assuming one doesn't take the fact that the majority of the populace of Western nations don't vote to mean a lack of consent) does not mean their consent to an international body means we consent to it. If a girl consents to have sex with her boyfriend, does that mean he can transfer that given consent to one his international buddies (to make the metaphor blatantly obvious)? Obviously not. She has to consent to having sex with them as well. He can't do it for her. In the same way, without passing an Amendment, the United States Congress can't delegate its powers to me, as the people never gave me consent to govern them. The same goes for your precious EU and their repeated attempts at forcing a constitution down your throats. Actually, I lied. I explained the antonym for you. I was afraid you weren't going to get it without help. In fact, I am still somewhat convinced you won't get it. Moving on.


Oh, this is getting fun. Cowardice... how, exactly? Go on, amuse me.

It was just a guess, but given that the UN no more made accurate predictions of how things would turn out than the liberals here, or Bush et al, I don't see that there is any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. Given their track record, anyway. They didn't say something along the lines of, "Preventing nuclear prolifieration is impossible. We will have to just resign ourselves to the fact that despotic governments will continue to acquire them and hope that MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction) is enough to prevent their use. Besides, we don't believe Sadaam has a nuclear program anymore." They didn't do anything of the sort, no, they insisted that meetings and sanctions would do the trick. They were just as stupid as Bush, thinking they could control things they have neither the right nor resources to control.


Are you honestly telling us you're really that ignorant? I admire your courage in displaying your ignorance for all to see.

That's nice. Now, do you have any arguments or are you going to sling mud all day? Can you, or anyone, provide an example of something good the UN has done lately? Even my example, even excluding my cowardice theory, is merely a matter of them refusing to do something stupid, as opposed to actually doing good.

It would really be a complete waste of the UN's valuable time :rolleyes: to debate the issue and then vote for a global ban on the Death Penalty considering the fact that two countries holding veto pens (USA and China) would definately veto it.
They only have the power of veto in the Security Council. It might be brought forward as a debate before the General Assembly, and voted on there.

That's nice. Now, do you have any arguments or are you going to sling mud all day? Can you, or anyone, provide an example of something good the UN has done lately? Even my example, even excluding my cowardice theory, is merely a matter of them refusing to do something stupid, as opposed to actually doing good.
Here you go. One simple example.
http://www.unicef.org/media/media_37925.html

I'll give you my definition of "legitimate" and see if you can figure out what the antonym is all by yourself. From the United States Declaration of Independence, virtually plagarized from John Locke, albeit: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Just because we consent to our elected leaders (assuming one doesn't take the fact that the majority of the populace of Western nations don't vote to mean a lack of consent) does not mean their consent to an international body means we consent to it. If a girl consents to have sex with her boyfriend, does that mean he can transfer that given consent to one his international buddies (to make the metaphor blatantly obvious)? Obviously not. She has to consent to having sex with them as well. He can't do it for her. In the same way, without passing an Amendment, the United States Congress can't delegate its powers to me, as the people never gave me consent to govern them. The same goes for your precious EU and their repeated attempts at forcing a constitution down your throats. Actually, I lied. I explained the antonym for you. I was afraid you weren't going to get it without help. In fact, I am still somewhat convinced you won't get it. Moving on.


Interesting, but utterly beside the point. The United States government maintains the US as a member country of the UN, therefore the UN is legitimate from an official US perspective. Your personal definition is irrelevant. And your comparison is absolute rubbish.


It was just a guess, but given that the UN no more made accurate predictions of how things would turn out than the liberals here, or Bush et al, I don't see that there is any reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. Given their track record, anyway. They didn't say something along the lines of, "Preventing nuclear prolifieration is impossible. We will have to just resign ourselves to the fact that despotic governments will continue to acquire them and hope that MAD (Mutually-Assured Destruction) is enough to prevent their use. Besides, we don't believe Sadaam has a nuclear program anymore." They didn't do anything of the sort, no, they insisted that meetings and sanctions would do the trick. They were just as stupid as Bush, thinking they could control things they have neither the right nor resources to control.


Doesn't answer my question. Go back, learn to read, and try again.


Can you, or anyone, provide an example of something good the UN has done lately?

If you're too lazy or unwilling to do a bit of basic research yourself:


The WHO sub office in Abéché has donated the contents of a New Emergency Health Kit and of a Trauma Kit to the ICRC and to MSF-Holland to support the care of those wounded by the fighting.

A joint mission to Biltine to assess the situation of injured people is planned. The local hospital is known to lack essential supplies and drugs.

UNHCR and WHO will conduct a parallel mission to assess the situation of newly displaced people and the condition of the health care system.

Capacity building for Abéché hospital staff is organized by MSF-Holland. WHO is contributing by strengthening the laboratory capacities with equipment for bacteriological testing.

WHO's emergency activities in Chad are funded by ECHO and supported by a loan from the United Kingdom revolving emergency funds.


And:


In Ethiopia, WHO consultants continue to provide technical support to the Regional Health Bureaus (RHBs) in Amhara, Oromia, SNNPR, Tigray, Afar and Somalia Regions. Following WHO's recommendations, the Amhara RHB organized with WHO and UNICEF two missions to support and monitor response activities in North Gondar and West Gojjam zones.

Two consultants are being posted to the Gode Zone to strengthen WHO's presence in flood affected areas and support the flood crisis response.

In Eritrea, UNICEF and WHO are supporting the Government introduce community therapeutic feeding as a measure to treat acute malnutrition in children under five in their communities and families.

In Somalia, cases of diarrhoeal disease have increased from 2334 cases in September to 5733 cases in November. A UNICEF, WHO, WFP, OCHA/ UNDAC mission was conducted in Jilib district on 11 December. Thanks to the UN special flood-response operation involving helicopters and boats to deliver relief to inaccessible villages WHO distributed supplies in Kismayo.

In several villages of Middle/Lower Juba, Muslim Aid is establishing mobile health clinics using drugs donated by WHO, Muslim Aid-UK and Canada. WHO and Muslim Aid are establishing five mini-hospitals in South Somalia, as well as mobile clinics for IDPs in the Juba region and in Mogadishu.

WHO activities in the Horn of Africa are supported by grants from the CERF, as well as Sweden and Finland for Somalia and cluster coordination.

(Source (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/VBOL-6WLHJ2?OpenDocument))


It's not as sensationalist as hearing about failures and violence, but if you really wanted to know what the UN is actually doing, you could find out instead of whining ignorantly about its lack of action. The UN saves lives.

For more, look here (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/dbc.nsf/doc100?OpenForm), or be a grown-up and search the UN website (http://www.un.org/english/) yourself.

It would really be a complete waste of the UN's valuable time :rolleyes: to debate the issue and then vote for a global ban on the Death Penalty considering the fact that two countries holding veto pens (USA and China) would definately veto it.

It's always possible that the US will see the light and put a ban on the death penalty.

And hasn't it been well-disproven that the death penalty is a "deterrent"?

To my mind the death penalty has little to do with deterrence. It can't really be a detereence because most of the crimes that should be elligible are preclude the kinds consideration that would lead someone to say "I might die so I shouldn't do this." The death penalty is about two simple things: that some crimes demand someone be officially and permantently removed from society, and that society has better ways to spend it's money than providing for convicts it has agreeed can never be reintegrated.

Thats the issue in a nutshell, people who argue about deterrence are just avoiding what the death penalty really is.

While I would agree that it in principle is for individual nations to decide - and while I don't support the death penalty primarily due to the possibility of error - I believe that the issue has a place in the UN, due to the whole "right to life" thing which is an important central tenant in the organisation.

The UN is a dipomatic organization, not a legislative one. It simply cannot dictate domestic policy to member states, that is beyond it's purview. The best the UN could do is make a statement or try to convince memeber states to sign a treaty which would lack any kind of real enforcement scheme. Thats the way it should be.

The UN has no buisness trying to become a legislative body. It is composed of unelected ambassadors from states with radically differing cultures and histories. My county requires that elected officials ratify laws, anyone who attempts to circumvent that process by handing domestic policy decisions over to unelected foreign oligarchs is either a fool a tyrant.

Most Asian and African countries have abolished it. American and European values are fundamentally the same... you should listen to us.

It doesn't really count as "most asian countries" if India, China, and Japan are all still using it. Sure, you have a numeric majority of countries, but you completely ignore population. All you really have is a majority of political elites in small countries. The argument seems somewhat intellectually dishonest.

Also, arguing that American and European values are essentially the same is also somewhat dishonest. The US has a much stronger emphasis on the individual, a much more suspicious eye towards government, and a more socially darwinist perspective. Further we are both currently and historically far less homogenous than any of the European countries. The US is a nation built on immigration which means we have more groups of people looking for different outcomes. The disparity in diversity between the US and Europe is something one cannot ignore when it comes to values. It leads to more decentralization and less consensus.

You can argue whether these factors should generally lead us to be more or less in favor of a give topic, but you need to recognized that we are not fundamentally the same.

I hope they do it.

The only good thing about this Korean fellow is he might start pushing for action on the North...

The UN is a dipomatic organization, not a legislative one.
I know.

It simply cannot dictate domestic policy to member states, that is beyond it's purview.
It won't.

The best the UN could do is make a statement or try to convince memeber states to sign a treaty which would lack any kind of real enforcement scheme. Thats the way it should be.
And that's what they seek. A treaty the member states can agree on, or a resolution calling on all the member states to abolish the death penalty. Nobody expects anything else than that.

The UN has no buisness trying to become a legislative body.
It's not trying to either. Not in this case at least. It is composed of unelected ambassadors from states with radically differing cultures and histories. My county requires that elected officials ratify laws, anyone who attempts to circumvent that process by handing domestic policy decisions over to unelected foreign oligarchs is either a fool a tyrant.
Lucky you.

I hope they do it.

The only good thing about this Korean fellow is he might start pushing for action on the North...

Even if what you say is true which I seriously doubt but that "one good thing" is a heck of a lot more than what I can say about Annan.

Nice to see the company the US is keeping.

I was going to say that a fairly high proportion of them are also in the "Axis of Evil", or might be future candidates for it, at least.

Nice to see the company the US is keeping.

I was going to say that a fairly high proportion of them are also in the "Axis of Evil", or might be future candidates for it, at least.

They only have the power of veto in the Security Council. It might be brought forward as a debate before the General Assembly, and voted on there.

Allright, lets say that happens. What is the overall effect? Lets ignore the small countries for a second because we all know they won't be the ones duking it out. The UN decides to ban execution and India, Japan, China, or the US executes someone. What happens next? There certainly won't be any military consequences (remember who runs the security council). I doubt there will be any real economic consequences because India and China have labor the world wants while the US and Japan have consumers, products, and capital. So we've ruled out military enforcement and economic sanctions, what other enforcement means are left? Complaining loudly?

Interesting, but utterly beside the point. The United States government maintains the US as a member country of the UN, therefore the UN is legitimate from an official US perspective. Your personal definition is irrelevant. And your comparison is absolute rubbish.

Oh no, he states a position I just refuted without any supporting argument whatsoever and follows up by calling my comparison rubbish, also without any support! What ever shall I do!


Doesn't answer my question. Go back, learn to read, and try again.

Yes, it does. I admitted that I was only guessing at the reason based on the fact that the UN gave me no reason to guess otherwise.


If you're too lazy or unwilling to do a bit of basic research yourself:

Mea culpa. Sorry, I should have clarified: I meant anything good they have done that couldn't have been done alone by the member nations or charity groups such as the Red Cross. I know this seems like I am just changing my challenge now that the one I first proposed has been met. I understand that. Again, my fault.

It's always possible that the US will see the light and put a ban on the death penalty.

Some states already have a moratorium. Thats one of the great things about the federal system: different states can try different things and then everyone gets to see the consequences and benefits of given policy. At the same time you have a central government that play referee and steps in when a state decides to try something that violates the basic rights set out in the constitution.

And that's what they seek. A treaty the member states can agree on, or a resolution calling on all the member states to abolish the death penalty. Nobody expects anything else than that.


I just don't see the point. You're not breaking any new ground, at best you're spending time in an attempt to pat yourselves on the back for being progressive? Shame states that use the death penalty into stopping? Make a statement? Its masturbation.

The UN would better spend it's time rooting out internal corruption or streamlining it's methods for delivering aid to people who need it. I just don't see why the UN would waste time and money on something that means nothing when they could spend those resources on the things its good at.

Allright, lets say that happens. What is the overall effect? Lets ignore the small countries for a second because we all know they won't be the ones duking it out. The UN decides to ban execution and India, Japan, China, or the US executes someone. What happens next? There certainly won't be any military consequences (remember who runs the security council). I doubt there will be any real economic consequences because India and China have labor the world wants while the US and Japan have consumers, products, and capital. So we've ruled out military enforcement and economic sanctions, what other enforcement means are left? Complaining loudly?
That would be diplomatic measures?

First of all, India, Japan, China, or the US wouldn't sign anything if they planned to continue executing anyone.

Secondly, it would be the same as when member states won't follow a non-binding resolution: It is a potential political and diplomatic embarrasment to the member states that won't do it.

Thirdly, it would be seen as the UN taking a strong position on the "Right to life" issue. It would be a strong signal effect.

But there will not be any dramatic sanctions, no. Just like it normally is when international diplomacy is concerned.
I just don't see the point. You're not breaking any new ground, at best you're spending time in an attempt to pat yourselves on the back for being progressive? Shame states that use the death penalty into stopping? Make a statement? Its masturbation.
No, it's making a statement - taking a stand. Kinda like when the original declaration of Human Rights came out. It wasn't ground breaking, it didn't force the states to do anything - But they made a statement, and took a stand.

The UN would better spend it's time rooting out internal corruption or streamlining it's methods for delivering aid to people who need it. I just don't see why the UN would waste time and money on something that means nothing when they could spend those resources on the things its good at.
You are aware that the UN is a huge organisation, right? It has the capability of doing more than two things at once.

And this is what they are good at: Working to affirm human rights across the globe. And this is a question that is worth debating.

That would be diplomatic measures?

First of all, India, Japan, China, or the US wouldn't sign anything if they planned to continue executing anyone.

Secondly, it would be the same as when member states won't follow a non-binding resolution: It is a potential political and diplomatic embarrasment to the member states that won't do it.

Thirdly, it would be seen as the UN taking a strong position on the "Right to life" issue. It would be a strong signal effect.

But there will not be any dramatic sanctions, no. Just like it normally is when international diplomacy is concerned.

No, it's making a statement - taking a stand. Kinda like when the original declaration of Human Rights came out. It wasn't ground breaking, it didn't force the states to do anything - But they made a statement, and took a stand.

You are aware that the UN is a huge organisation, right? It has the capability of doing more than two things at once.

And this is what they are good at: Working to affirm human rights across the globe. And this is a question that is worth debating.

I think it would have saved time just to say the UN was determined to waste more of their "valuable time :rolleyes: " That's basicly how I interpreted your post but then that's just my mere opinion and doesn't matter.

I have nothing against the death penalty. If the government wants to kill people who have been deemed guilty enough of atrocities to be killed I don't see the problem.

I think it would have saved time just to say the UN was determined to waste more of their "valuable time :rolleyes: " That's basicly how I interpreted your post but then that's just my mere opinion and doesn't matter.

If you insist.

If you hadn't, I could have talked about international cooperation, diplomacy and politics which are driven by stuff like - dialogue.

No worries.:)

You are aware that the UN is a huge organisation, right? It has the capability of doing more than two things at once.

It is a waste of time. Taking a head count isn't the same as taking a stand, and it isn't an affirmation of human rights. Its self-congratulatory fluff. A debate like this isn't the kind of thing where suddenly one side will say "oh wow, I never realized so many people were against this! Thanks for opening my eyes." In the absence of some kind of enforcement all a resolution does is make the people who voted in favor feel superior. The time and money you spend opening debates and supplying the massive requirements security and resource requirements such a debate demands could be better spent elsewhere. You are literally using dollars that could be spent on aid to stick your tongue out at people who disagree with you.

And this is what they are good at: Working to affirm human rights across the globe. And this is a question that is worth debating.

Don't tell me how good the UN is at working to affirm human rights. The fact of the matter is that women are still routinely mutilated by animals in northern Africa in order to enforce their servility. Human beings are still bought and sold all over the world. Efforts against human trafficing are hampered by fears of straining diplomatic relation in Asia. Women suffer under conditions similar to the South African Apartheid all over the middle east. Genocide is tollerated in Africa. Rape is inflicted upon third parties as a punishment by tribal councils. Forgive me if I fail to see how a few hundred murderers a year being culled is worthy of international attention.

Some states already have a moratorium. Thats one of the great things about the federal system: different states can try different things and then everyone gets to see the consequences and benefits of given policy. At the same time you have a central government that play referee and steps in when a state decides to try something that violates the basic rights set out in the constitution.

Also, some US states banned the death penalty long before most European countries. For example, Michigan banned it in 1847 and is considered the first democracy to have done so.

Also, some US states banned the death penalty long before most European countries. For example, Michigan banned it in 1847 and is considered the first democracy to have done so.

Indeed, that was 134 years before France. Good for Michigan.

It is a waste of time. Taking a head count isn't the same as taking a stand, and it isn't an affirmation of human rights. Its self-congratulatory fluff. A debate like this isn't the kind of thing where suddenly one side will say "oh wow, I never realized so many people were against this! Thanks for opening my eyes." In the absence of some kind of enforcement all a resolution does is make the people who voted in favor feel superior. The time and money you spend opening debates and supplying the massive requirements security and resource requirements such a debate demands could be better spent elsewhere. You are literally using dollars that could be spent on aid to stick your tongue out at people who disagree with you.
So we disagree. *Shrugs*

Don't tell me how good the UN is at working to affirm human rights. The fact of the matter is that women are still routinely mutilated by animals in northern Africa in order to enforce their servility. Human beings are still bought and sold all over the world. Efforts against human trafficing are hampered by fears of straining diplomatic relation in Asia. Women suffer under conditions similar to the South African Apartheid all over the middle east. Genocide is tollerated in Africa. Rape is inflicted upon third parties as a punishment by tribal councils. Forgive me if I fail to see how a few hundred murderers a year being culled is worthy of international attention.
And how would it be without the efforts of UN?


Oh,and I forgive you. ;)

Most Asian and African countries have abolished it. American and European values are fundamentally the same... you should listen to us.

Most African countries do still have the death penalty.

I meant we don't have the kind of out-of-control murder rates that America has!

Irish people are too cool to kill anyone else. ;)

Some states already have a moratorium. Thats one of the great things about the federal system: different states can try different things and then everyone gets to see the consequences and benefits of given policy. At the same time you have a central government that play referee and steps in when a state decides to try something that violates the basic rights set out in the constitution.

We've seen the consequences and benefits of the death penalty. It seems to me that there is only one appropriate response. Ban it.

Go ahead, make us. Send us letters full of scornful words! Ha!


If I recall correctly Texas is going to be executing another scumbag here Pretty quick....

let me check.

Italy's centre-left government wants to "campaign at the United Nations for a global ban on the death penalty", and has the support of the Italian right-wing Opposition (source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6226687.stm)).

Now UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Mun has said that the death penalty is a matter for individual countries to decide on, and that it is not a matter for the UN (source (http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/news/world/20060103-ban-ki-moon-death-penalty.html)).

A large majority of UN member countries have already abolished the death penalty, but Ban's native South Korea has not. Nor has Ban's main supporter, the United States (the US is the only Western country not to have abolished the death penalty).

Abolitionist nations include the 27 member countries of the EU, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Nepal, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and dozens of others in South and Central America, Europe (all European countries except Belarus and Russia; Russia is abolitionist in practice if not in theory), Africa, Asia, and the Pacific. Even Myanmar is abolitionist in practice.

Retentionist countries include Saudi Arabia, Belarus, China, North Korea, the United States, Equatorial Guinea, Iran, Pakistan, Syria and Zimbabwe.

:rolleyes:

The only thing this "debate" will prove is that the UN is full of pretentious, moralistic master debaters (much like this board). But we knew that already.

If the leftie government of Italy, or the leftie governments of the EU, or anyone else thinks this will coerce the US into abolishing capital punishment, they're on crack. The UN has less credibility in the US than used-car salesmen, and less moral authority than inner-city gang bangers (think Sudan being a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights).

01/10/2007 Offender Information Granados Carlos 999307 09/18/1970

Hispanic 05/06/1999 Williamson

On 09/13/98, in Georgetown, Granados went to his girlfriend's residence and an argument ensued. Grenados used a long kitchen knife and stabbed his girlfriend, requiring hospitalization. Grenados killed the girlfriend's 3-year old child with a large kitchen knife. On 09/14/98, the police officers were alerted due to a welfare concern for the 3-year old child and his mother, because their family had not seen them for a full day. When police officers arrived they were unable to get a response to their knocking and calling at the door. Officers called the residence, but the telephone was never answered. Upon entering the apartment after the door was broken down, they found the mother on the floor with several knife wounds. They then observed the child Anthony laying on the floor. Grenados entered the room through an open hallway and began shouting at the officers "Shoot me, just shoot me." The officers observed that Grenados had a gaping wound to his throat, both wrists and inside both elbows. Grenados continued to beg the officers to shoot him.


http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/scheduledexecutions.htm

We're executing a murderer a week.

I agree with New Mitanni.

01/10/2007 Offender Information Granados Carlos 999307 09/18/1970

Hispanic 05/06/1999 Williamson

On 09/13/98, in Georgetown, Granados went to his girlfriend's residence and an argument ensued. Grenados used a long kitchen knife and stabbed his girlfriend, requiring hospitalization. Grenados killed the girlfriend's 3-year old child with a large kitchen knife. On 09/14/98, the police officers were alerted due to a welfare concern for the 3-year old child and his mother, because their family had not seen them for a full day. When police officers arrived they were unable to get a response to their knocking and calling at the door. Officers called the residence, but the telephone was never answered. Upon entering the apartment after the door was broken down, they found the mother on the floor with several knife wounds. They then observed the child Anthony laying on the floor. Grenados entered the room through an open hallway and began shouting at the officers "Shoot me, just shoot me." The officers observed that Grenados had a gaping wound to his throat, both wrists and inside both elbows. Grenados continued to beg the officers to shoot him.


http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/scheduledexecutions.htm

We're executing a murderer a week.

I agree with New Mitanni.
As sick as the guy that you're killing.

As sick as the guy that you're killing.

So by advocating justice (and the execution of a scumbag) I have become a child murderer. Makes TONS of sense!

So by advocating justice (and the execution of a scumbag) I have become a child murderer. Makes TONS of sense!

No, you become a child murderer when you kill a child. I said you are as sick as. Different diseases, same amount of sickness.

I agree with New Mitanni.
No surprise - you guys deserve eachother. :)

Ban is right, the UN isn't a world government, though neo-conservatives (my label for liberals since they aren't really what we would call Classic Liberals) would sure love it to be, it's supposed to be preventing wars from breaking out and making sure potential threats don't become real ones causing world wars. Instead of debating this tripe why don't they debate something useful like 'What to do with Iran'? *gasp*

And I wouldn't use Europe as a sparkling example for how a world would like if it followed their lead on dealing with crime, considering their rates keep going up, up, up.

No surprise - you guys deserve eachother. :)

I won't tell you what you deserve. :p

I won't tell you what you deserve. :p

I've got enough chocolates, thank you very much :)

Mmmm... Chocolate :fluffle:

No surprise - you guys deserve eachother. :)

Commie!

New Mitanni-I'm sorry darling, it would never work :p

No, you become a child murderer when you kill a child. I said you are as sick as. Different diseases, same amount of sickness.


No, I would become worse if I chose to let evil escape due justice. THAT is a TRAVESTY.

Ban is right, the UN isn't a world government, though neo-conservatives (my label for liberals since they aren't really what we would call Classic Liberals) would sure love it to be, it's supposed to be preventing wars from breaking out and making sure potential threats don't become real ones causing world wars. Instead of debating this tripe why don't they debate something useful like 'What to do with Iran'? *gasp*

And I wouldn't use Europe as a sparkling example for how a world would like if it followed their lead on dealing with crime, considering their rates keep going up, up, up.

This guy knows what he is talking about. I just quoted him so I could say that. Especially the part about neo-conservatives being what he calls liberals since they are not so in the Classical sense. People always forget the original meanings of words. Words are important and so is knowing their history. Especially words that relate to politics. Fascist, for instance, is bandied about like crazy these days. What is an Islamofascist? A Nationalist Muslim who has a fascination with military pomp and supports industry being a branch of government? Or is it rather, a Muslim who has little interest in government, military pomp or industry, but instead, likes to blow up non-Muslims? Because the latter doesn't even come close to describing any kind of fascist. Fascist does not equal what the person using the term does not like, it is a very specific political ideology. The same applies to National Socialism. Not so much with Communism though. Probably because "liberals" like it.


Admittedly, after posting I noticed that Captain Pooby just called someone a "commie." But he was joking, I think.

New Mitanni-I'm sorry darling, it would never work :p

Only women for me. And preferably good-looking, right-wing women at that.

Although if they're hot enough, I'd overlook it if they had idiotic leftie politics, as long as they keep their opinions to themselves :D

And how would it be without the efforts of UN?

Umm, about the same? I'm not sure I understand your question, as my point was that all of those things were problems precisely because the UN didn't seem to make much of an effort when it comes to human rights. Thats kind of like responding to a charge that your snake-oil didn't work with "imagine how sick you'd be if you hadn't take my prodcut!"

Still, if the UN wants to make a real effort and attempt to "affirm human rights" I'm all for it (depending on the exact plan) but I find it suspicious that someone would look at the myriad of very serious human rights abuses going on in the world and would decide that the death penalty is the one that needs immediate attention.

We've seen the consequences and benefits of the death penalty. It seems to me that there is only one appropriate response. Ban it.

Thats fine. I don't really have a horse in this race, my major concern is that whatever decision is made is the product of a democratic system. In the US either the supreme court needs to decide that the death penalty is inherantly unconstitutional (you've got a very good 14th amendment argument there), congress needs to pass an amendment banning the practice, or (as seems to be the direction the country is currently moving) individual states need to phase the practice out on their own.

No, I would become worse if I chose to let evil escape due justice. THAT is a TRAVESTY.

Why let them escape life in prison? And at more cost to the taxpayer?

I'll say again, the UN has no place nor standing to dictate to other nations in regards to the Death Penalty. The UN has no place to condemn any nation who has the Death Penalty as Capital Punishment. The UN is once again stepping over the line of "putting their nose in where it doesn't belong". The UN needs to use their mouthpieces and debate issues that are of more concern for the benefit of this world. Next thing they'll try to do is to vote for a global ban on guns... :p

Umm, about the same? I'm not sure I understand your question, as my point was that all of those things were problems precisely because the UN didn't seem to make much of an effort when it comes to human rights. Thats kind of like responding to a charge that your snake-oil didn't work with "imagine how sick you'd be if you hadn't take my prodcut!"
My point is that I believe that the world actually is a better place than it would have been if the UN didn't exist to focus on the human rights situations all over the world. You say that trafficing is a problem, I say that it would have been a worse problem if there were no united international effort to combat it. The UN is in charge of such an organisation, UNODC, which assists member states which is plagued with such troubles. Transnational crime is best fought with a transnational organisations - organisations such as Interpol to directly combat crime, organisations like UNODC that help assist in the development of domestic legislation, etc etc.

A united global initiative is better than each member state trying to fight international crime with only a national focus.

I see the UN as an organisation that puts a lot of effort into the fight for human rights.

Still, if the UN wants to make a real effort and attempt to "affirm human rights" I'm all for it (depending on the exact plan) but I find it suspicious that someone would look at the myriad of very serious human rights abuses going on in the world and would decide that the death penalty is the one that needs immediate attention.
Again, they have a lot of initiatives going on at the same time. I don't see why they shouldn't worry about this particular question while also fighting against other human rights abuses at the same time.
I'll say again, the UN has no place nor standing to dictate to other nations in regards to the Death Penalty. The UN has no place to condemn any nation who has the Death Penalty as Capital Punishment. The UN is once again stepping over the line of "putting their nose in where it doesn't belong". The UN needs to use their mouthpieces and debate issues that are of more concern for the benefit of this world. Next thing they'll try to do is to vote for a global ban on guns... :p
You tend to repeat yourself.

And a global ban on guns might not be a bad idea - but you know the UN is working on the reduction on the illicit sales of guns, and not the legal sales... Don't you?

I'll say again, the UN has no place nor standing to dictate to other nations in regards to the Death Penalty. The UN has no place to condemn any nation who has the Death Penalty as Capital Punishment. The UN is once again stepping over the line of "putting their nose in where it doesn't belong". The UN needs to use their mouthpieces and debate issues that are of more concern for the benefit of this world. Next thing they'll try to do is to vote for a global ban on guns... :p

You say this many times but you do not give any reasons why this is beyond the UN.

-snip-
You tend to repeat yourself.

And a global ban on guns might not be a bad idea - but you know the UN is working on the reduction on the illicit sales of guns, and not the legal sales... Don't you?

What gave that away...Was it, maybe, when I said, "I say again, ..." :p

You say this many times but you do not give any reasons why this is beyond the UN.

Oh, so other than common sense and being in control of your own nation you need a reason...hmmm...lets see...Maybe because the UN is NOT the World's Government, Legislature, Judicial, nor Executive Branches of the world. How about the reason of being a failed organization? I really don't understand why we need a corrupt, illogical organization like the UN in the first place. We have enough World opinionators which seems to be all the UN is anyways so who needs them.

Oh, so other than common sense and being in control of your own nation you need a reason...hmmm...lets see...Maybe because the UN is NOT the World's Government, Legislature, Judicial, nor Executive Branches of the world. How about the reason of being a failed organization? I really don't understand why we need a corrupt, illogical organization like the UN in the first place. We have enough World opinionators which seems to be all the UN is anyways so who needs them.

So there should be no international governing body in which all nations take part where issues such as human rights are not discussed. Great idea. Bring back the dark ages.

The UN couldn't even handle dealing with Saddam Hussein for a decade and a half of passing resolution and sanctions over and over all with threatening the use of force and when push came to shove...Saddam giving his finger to the UN everytime, hell, let's pass yet another resolution, surely Saddam will comply this time, we're threatening the use of Force, yeah right... :rolleyes:

So if the UN is unable to get corrupt governments and nations to comply then who the hell do they think they are to even think about a debate that will talk about banning the Death Penalty. Aren't their peacekeepers going above and beyond in a certain country not only peace keeping but passing the Love... :p

I think maybe the UN needs to debate the issue of closing down shop. :gundge:

The UN couldn't even handle dealing with Saddam Hussein for a decade and a half of passing resolution and sanctions over and over all with threatening the use of force and when push came to shove...Saddam giving his finger to the UN everytime, hell, let's pass yet another resolution, surely Saddam will comply this time, we're threatening the use of Force, yeah right... :rolleyes:

So if the UN is unable to get corrupt governments and nations to comply then who the hell do they think they are to even think about a debate that will talk about banning the Death Penalty. Aren't their peacekeepers going above and beyond in a certain country not only peace keeping but passing the Love... :p

I think maybe the UN needs to debate the issue of closing down shop. :gundge:

If the UN fails it is partly due to the nations which comprise it, making it fail. Even if, as you say, the UN needs to close down, how long do you think we could last without another international body to take it's place. After the first nuclear war? The second?

If the UN fails it is partly due to the nations which comprise it, making it fail. Even if, as you say, the UN needs to close down, how long do you think we could last without another international body to take it's place. After the first nuclear war? The second?

Sorry, I'm far from convinced that the world's survival is as dependent upon the United Nations as you seem to believe the world is.

Sorry, I'm far from convinced that the world's survival is as dependent upon the United Nations as you seem to believe the world is.

Without a body in which debate between nations is present, I can't imagine the world turning out with the limited amount of peace it is currently enjoying (which isn't much).

Sorry, I'm far from convinced that the world's survival is as dependent upon the United Nations as you seem to believe the world is.

You also seem to believe that the UN only consists of the Security Council...

You actually made a thread on "turning around the UN" or something didn't you? You didn't answer my questions on what - beyond the work of the UNSC - you were dissatisfied with there either.

My point is that I believe that the world actually is a better place than it would have been if the UN didn't exist to focus on the human rights situations all over the world. You say that trafficing is a problem, I say that it would have been a worse problem if there were no united international effort to combat it.

Well, this is an issue where rational minds can come to different conclusions. I know that there are good, devoted people who work for the UN and try to do good. I even know someone who has worked against human trafficing with UNODC. The problem is that the UN, especially once you get to any administrative or leadership positions, is a very corrupt organization.

Again, they have a lot of initiatives going on at the same time. I don't see why they shouldn't worry about this particular question while also fighting against other human rights abuses at the same time.

Because we live in a world of finite resources. The UN has only so many dollars at it's disposal, there are only so many hours in a day, only so many people to be assigned to projects, only so much attention the international community can muster. Hammering out a resolution, having debates, drafting the exact wording, voting, and finally distributing it is not an inexpensive process. At the very least it eats up time that could have been spent on other initiatives.

Put another way, if you had $100 dollars worth of resources to spend do you think you would see greater benefits by spending $20 on five interventions each or $50 on two interventions? Now lets say two of the five interventions are essentially tilting at windmills (as small arms control and the death penalty are, for varrying reasons). Sure, its cold and ugly and inhuman, but thats the situation the UN is faced with. You cannot run in every direction simultainiously.

Sorry, I'm far from convinced that the world's survival is as dependent upon the United Nations as you seem to believe the world is.

I think that you underestimate the value of an international diplomatic body. The UN (or an organization like it) is very necessary for brokering treaties and focusing diplomatic pressure where it is needed. There is also something to be said for having an organization which can act as an umbrella for international interventions (such as the first Iraqi conflict or the situation in the Balkans). Finally the UN works very well as a place where smaller and mid-sized states can settle disagreements.

For countries with the power and influence of China or the US (or the former USSR) the UN is often seen as something of a social nicety, an unecessary tip of the hat to egalitarian politics. Still, an international body provides large nations with a venue to solidify their influence and soften their international image.

Just because the current system is broken doesn't mean the concept needs to be thrown out.

You also seem to believe that the UN only consists of the Security Council...

You actually made a thread on "turning around the UN" or something didn't you? You didn't answer my questions on what - beyond the work of the UNSC - you were dissatisfied with there either.

hmmm...damned if you do, damned if you don't....

Yes, I did make a thread for what you just said. No, I'm not online 24/7. When I log off and come back it may be a day or 2 later. The thread is way down on the list. I know some people make it known for their distastes when a thread is brought back to life after it allegedly dies so I chose not to revive nor revisit it once it is so far down on the list. The days I am on I'm not on constantly and non-stop. I apologize that you feel that I'm avoiding the issue or seem to be neglegent on my response but I promise you that that isn't the case, I simply don't live here. and I rarely venture past the first page of threads.

Well, this is an issue where rational minds can come to different conclusions. I know that there are good, devoted people who work for the UN and try to do good. I even know someone who has worked against human trafficing with UNODC. The problem is that the UN, especially once you get to any administrative or leadership positions, is a very corrupt organization.

Because we live in a world of finite resources. The UN has only so many dollars at it's disposal, there are only so many hours in a day, only so many people to be assigned to projects, only so much attention the international community can muster. Hammering out a resolution, having debates, drafting the exact wording, voting, and finally distributing it is not an inexpensive process. At the very least it eats up time that could have been spent on other initiatives.

Put another way, if you had $100 dollars worth of resources to spend do you think you would see greater benefits by spending $20 on five interventions each or $50 on two interventions? Now lets say two of the five interventions are essentially tilting at windmills (as small arms control and the death penalty are, for varrying reasons). Sure, its cold and ugly and inhuman, but thats the situation the UN is faced with. You cannot run in every direction simultainiously.
I see your points, allthough I don't agree with all of it :)

If anyone could show me an issue that was ignored because they took the time to debate this issue, I might change my mind.
hmmm...damned if you do, damned if you don't....
I don't think so.

Yes, I did make a thread for what you just said. No, I'm not online 24/7. When I log off and come back it may be a day or 2 later. The thread is way down on the list. I know some people make it known for their distastes when a thread is brought back to life after it allegedly dies so I chose not to revive nor revisit it once it is so far down on the list. The days I am on I'm not on constantly and non-stop. I apologize that you feel that I'm avoiding the issue or seem to be neglegent on my response but I promise you that that isn't the case, I simply don't live here. and I rarely venture past the first page of threads.
1) When it's way down the list, you may respond to it or post in it. That some people have a distaste for it doesn't matter: The question is if it's against the rules. A couple of days - even a week - is well within the rules. When it comes to months, you should think twice.

2) I was wrong - I've asked you in a third thread, not the one you started. I just realized. That is now rectified :)

3) You took the time to write a response here. Thank you for that. You did not attempt to answer my question, however...

If anyone could show me an issue that was ignored because they took the time to debate this issue, I might change my mind.

The problem is that issues aren't completely ignored, they're just short changed for whatever the hot new item on the agenda is. I look at the UN's record and see something that reminds me of the home of a man with bipolar. Theres dozens of half-finished projects lying around, evidence of a myriad of hobbies that were taken up and quickly forgotten, the signs of a huge amount of time and engery expended with very little gain in any one area. The very scope of the UN's interests has a tendancy to reduce their effectiveness. Couple this lack of focus with a devestatingly inefficient administrative apparatus and a speed that can only be described as glacial and I feel you start to see a pattern of impotence.