I was just putting in my two cents on literal meanings when it comes to war. I usually do not tell people my views on those two items as it makes me seem callous. I have a lot of pet peeves about word usage. Ex. "Personally, I believe" or For me, personally" the use of "personally" is unnecessary.
Now I'm way off topic.
With the death penalty, regardless of the law I think it is murder. It is a heinous act just as committing genocide is.
No, logic does not prove otherwise. They were both instances of murder. It's just the method that differed.
By law, the death penalty can only be applied after conviction in a court. That implies guilt. Neither US nor international law supports your claim that the innocent can be legally put to death.
I notice, once again, you conveniently left out Saudi Arabia.
What if you do not ratify the treaty and therefore are not bound by its rules?
Regardless, they were found guilty of murder. :shrug:
One does not have to intend to be negligent.
The war crimes that were committed did not need to be classified as genocide in order to be crimes. Gassing to death un-armed non-combatant civilians without trial is a war crime regardless of race. I'm afraid it's not bull****.
Not in accordance with their laws. I believe that can and should be argued in an international court though.
We are bound by what we agreed to be bound by. Regardless of our reservations, we have agreed to follow international law. Which does not make the death penalty illegal, by the way.
A treaty is a law once signed.
treaty legal definition of treaty. treaty synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.
No, I didn't.
Then you are not bound by it's rules. :shrug:
A very unique instance of conviction. The Stalinists were not found guilty, so a conviction in court is obviously not the key.
WANTING and premeditating the murders means it is NOT negligent.
What does race have anything to do with anything? I realize they were crimes even if there were no laws to state such crimes. Your logic would dictate the reverse- that a law has to explicitely outlaw something before it can be considered murder.
Right. But do YOU see it as murder? Given that they're not bound by the treaty, how would they have violated international law?
That does not adhere to the literal definition of LAW. It is ridiculous to consider a treaty a law in which many do not ratify, many do not sign, and those that do make reservations. We don't pick and choose here, so why is it a legitimate argument to use international treaties in this matter?
I gave you the definition of law. Clearly it does not apply.
A conviction is a conviction.
No. Negligence can be intentional.
Because you are implying that they were only found guilty of a crime that was not illegal until after it was committed. This is false.
Genocide came into being after WWII, correct. However, even had it never been conceived, the Nazi's would have still been guilty of war crimes and murder.
I see it as an unjust application of the death penalty, which I also find unjust. (the death penalty itself, that is)
It is not ridiculous to consider it law binding on the parties that DID ratify it.
I'm afraid you are wrong.
You're not doing a very good job of arguing your point. A conviction is a conviction? What exactly does that mean? Does that imply a non-convicted power like the Soviet Union is presumed innocent of the holodomor?
A premeditated massacre that is carefully planned and attentively implemented cannot be considered negligence.
BTW, by which international law is negligent homicide discussed?
AGAIN, I am playing devil's advocate in order to prove your theory wrong. I do believe it was a series of carefully planned massacres which were an abomination to humanity. I believe this kind of abomination can be conducted under a legal framework. The prosecuting judges at the trial would agree with me. DESPITE it being legal at the time (given the absence of any restrictive or criminalizing law) under their own national jurisdiction, it was an abomination to the rest of mankind (and is and will always be MURDER in spite or in absence of any law).
Of course! The same logical conclusion can be applied to the death penalty. Regardless of any treaty signed and ratified and implemented by absolutely every country on the planet, the US government (and its various state governments) are guilty of murder.
You're carefully avoiding the term murder. Why can't you acknowledge that the Saudi Arabian government is, indeed, guilty of murdering thousands of its own citizens?
But we're not talking about those countries. We're talking about THIS country. This country did not ratify the covenant and neither did Saudi Arabia (and several others). So, you could argue that our government(s) is/are not guilty of murdering its citizens, but then you would have to concede that SA's killings are not murder in accordance with international and national laws. It's hard to say that with a straight face.
The basic definition of law entails a (1) a judicial process and (2) implementation by a state or national government. Neither one of those are true when looking at the covenants.
You're not very good at following a conversation....it means that the Nazi's were found guilty. Do we need to go over the ramifications of guilt in relation to international law and the death penalty...again?
Starvation due to embargo is not a massacre.
I don't know of one...probably why they got away with it.
You can play the violin if you like, it doesn't change facts. The facts are that the Nazi's were tried and convicted. Rightfully so.
No, it can't be. The death penalty is not awarded indiscriminately and without trial anywhere in the US, therefore it is not a violation of any law. Domestic or international.
I'm not avoiding the term murder, I have been addressing it quite directly. The Saudi government has laws and punishes those that break them. We may not like that, but until we are willing to infringe on their sovereignty, there is nothing we can do about that. If their law is that being convicted of homosexuality is a death penalty offense, then executing that sentence is still not murder, as unjust (and horrific) as you and I think it is.
It is what it is, and there is no law or treaty that makes the US' death penalty illegal and murder. :shrug:
Not in those that have not been signed and ratified, sure, but not so in those that have. Regardless, there is still no law or treaty binding on the USG that makes the death penalty illegal. Murder is an illegal killing, the death penalty is a legal killing, therefor the death penalty is not murder.
Yes, we do. Answer YES or NO. Does a conviction by an international court enough, in and of itself, to declare a state-sanctioned killing as "murder?"
It was theft in Ukraine.
Does that mean it is "legal" and therefore not "murder?"
No argument there. However, what happens to the states committing genocide who are not convicted?
Read the treaty again. At the least- at the VERY least, U.S. state governments murder juveniles and the mentally retarded. There should be no argument there.
See again genocide convention, the year at which it was implemented, and the years in which genocide had been carried out. You call the Nazis murderers for the simple fact that they were convicted in a court (only after pushing the rest of the world into war). If you look at the thousands of genocides that took place in world history, most of which took place before any international consensus or law or treaty and before any international court trial, could these be considered murder?
Read the treaty again. You'll notice several places where our acts to execute are either explicitly or implicitly viewed as illegal and unjust.
You have to sign and ratify the ICC in order to subjugate your nation's justice system under the international community. That is separate from the other covenants. And again, it doesn't make any sense to make convenient reservations when signing these treaties. The fact that these reservations exist means that the "laws" are nothing more than symbolic promises. In any rational sense, laws are not symbolic promises.
No, but you are conflating the issue. You are trying to paint me into a corner with a tactic rather than an honest question. "State sanctioned killing" as you are using it regarding the Nazi's is a far different thing than the death penalty in the US. In the case of the Nazi's, they (or many of them) were convicted of war crimes following a war....this has precious little to do with the Death penalty as it is applied in the US.
Still not a massacre...
Unless there is a law or binding treaty that makes it not so, then yes, it's not murder. I don't know of one. Do you?
Nothing, usually.
Perhaps you can quote the relevant part that makes your argument. Please don't edit it to fit your argument. I've read nothing in any treaty the US is a party to that makes our death penalty illegal. Unfortunately.
Non-sequitur. Has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia executing homosexuals.
All the relevant international law on the subject states that there must be a conviction in an authoritative court in order for the execution of the death penalty to be legal. You are obfuscating the point.
again, please quote where you think it does so. And again, in whole and in context.
Are you now going to go on record saying that no law is on the books that is not enforced? No domestic law exists that is anything more than symbolic? Please, please challenge me on this....
I realize you are talking about international law here but I thought this would be an interesting to the discussion of the death penalty in the US."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."
I could have sworn I also read the same provision for the mentally retarded, but I suppose that was a separate covenant.
We report three basic findings. First, Atkins has not opened floodgates of
non-meritorious litigation. Second, the success rates for Atkins claims vary
dramatically between states. Third, as compared to their representation on
death row, African-American defendants both file and win a
disproportionately high number of Atkins claims.
So again, we conclude that the Nazis are murderers and virtually everyone else (only a small handful of villainous psychopathic tyrants have been brought to trial) is not.
A denier...I'm not surprised. It was a GENOCIDE!
I find it absurd to consider Herman Goehring a murderer but not Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin.
I'm not talking about the courts. I'm talking about within the context of our moral judgement.
"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."
I could have sworn I also read the same provision for the mentally retarded, but I suppose that was a separate covenant.
I wasn't limiting my argument to SA. I was referencing genocides of past existence. Were the Amalekites murdered? Were the Armenians? Were the Carthaginians? I guess not, given the lack of international "laws" or convictions.
And how conveniently that translates to the Stalinists NOT massacring, NOT murdering Ukrainians.
Explicit: UDHR Article 3 (where's the exception?)
Implied: United Nations resolution 62/149
No, but I would like to know what homicide code in any one of the 50 states and US territories allows us citizens to hold specific reservations to that law. The reservations of the international treaty has nothing to do with enforcement.
Alleged vs convicted. :shrug:
You're getting confused again....are you talking about the Nazi's or Stalinist Russia?
You can consider them murders all you want, you just can't execute them for it until you prove it.
Our moral judgement are want make us try to change laws that we don't find agreeable. Like the death penalty....they don't change they definitions of words.
Ok, so long as we don't violate that, our death penalty is legal according to international law.
Genocide is a crime, those that committed it before is was identified as a specific crime, still committed genocide. This doesn't include Saudi Arabia though.
No, it doesn't. What it also doesn't do is prove they did.
The UDHR is one of several treaties that make up international law. They have to all be considered together.
International law can not be forced on a country except through war. Even then it can only temporarily be forced to comply. Our citizens can also change laws through their legislative process. Such as is happening with gay marriage throughout the country.
What you're saying is that Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and many others were allegedly murdered people. You're very lonely in that belief.
Argumentum ad populum. How many people believe a thing has no bearing on whether or not it's factually true. Like it or not, under the laws of those countries at the time, what they did was not murder. You can wave your arms around all you like, it doesn't change reality.
So, you're in the camp: "Dictators don't murder their own citizens."
It is not a fallacy. Mac and you believe they are not murderers, but alleged suspects.
I'm stating that, by any credible legal definition, what they did was not murder. That doesn't mean I agree with it, it doesn't mean they couldn't or shouldn't be taken down, just that what they did was not murder. Words have meanings for a reason.
What you're saying is that Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and many others were allegedly murdered people. You're very lonely in that belief.
Given that you have to ask me what we're talking about, wouldn't that mean you are confused? I was referencing the Stalinist campaign against the Ukrainians.
We're not talking about executing war criminals, but having the human decency to denounce them as murderers rather than alleged suspects.
If we applied US statutes toward war criminals, we would consider them murderers. You refuse to do that.
12 states do allow for the execution of juveniles.
You're conflating two different issues. Saudi Arabia is not involved in the genocide debate. They are separate, but still not murderers according to your logic.
A genocide is still a genocide, regardless of when it occurred. Unfortunately, your logic dictates that those who committed it before it was identified as a crime cannot be considered murderers.
You're the one who argued that the Stalinists never massacred the Ukrainians. And what about the thousands of Jews and dissidents who were executed in a kangaroo court? I guess those executions were legal, according to you.
Says who? If one treaty is binding, why does it need to be related to another in order for it to be fully binding?
Right. But that still doesn't change the fact that dictators are murderers.
I have compassion for all things that suffer. Since you appear to be a god fearing man, what ever happened to forgiveness? or this a tenent of religion that is not as important as retribution and sin?
Listen. Just as you keep claiming "devil's advocate" status in your arguments, I am telling you the difference between what we feel and what is legal. You can waive any flag you like, but our death penalty is not illegal and the state executing a convicted criminal is not murder.
I disagree. These men were murderers. That doesn't require a redefining of terms, but common moral decency.
My argument never questioned the legality of the death penalty in the US.
As for "murder," I did a little more digging. Check out the definitions for the word "murdering." Though we could not use the term murder in a literal sense as I had wished, we could actually use the term murdering to describe the acts of Stalin and other dictators (and that would meet the literal definition of the term). This discrepancy just goes to show why we shouldn't be blinded by a literal interpretation of terms.
It sure did, if you want to use it to justify calling the death penalty murder.
I have, I've even tried to make your argument work...it just doesn't. As far as literal interpretations... language is language...we're not going to get anywhere if we can't even agree on what the words mean.
Concede what? I said I have compassion for all things that suffer. What am I conceding?So you concede defeat then... got it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?