QueenZone discussion #1121106

Zebonka12 wrote: Wait, there's a Mexican Government? By the by, I'm opposed to the death penalty for two main reasons. 1). If the criminal is later found to be innocent... well that kind of sucks then doesn't it? 2). What if there's no afterlife and you're not sending them to Hell? Better to keep the stupid cunts alive and living in terrible conditions; that way they're guaranteed to be paying for their crimes in some fashion. God or no God, it's the best way. This sort of story does not surprise me though.

ThomasQuinn wrote: Despite legal irregularities, in violation of a binding international legal decision as well as worldwide protest, Texas has illegally executed a Mexican citizen. link Should this kind of violation of international law be condoned? Should the global community allow one of the United States to join the long line of rogue states, which ignore international law? Has the Texas legislature's arrogance surpassed acceptable standards? It is time that American politicians realize that they, too, are bound by the laws they attempt to have others obey.

The Fairy King = RickRolling all of you wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: Despite legal irregularities, in violation of a binding international legal decision as well as worldwide protest, Texas has illegally executed a Mexican citizen. link Should this kind of violation of international law be condoned? Should the global community allow one of the United States to join the long line of rogue states, which ignore international law? Has the Texas legislature's arrogance surpassed acceptable standards? It is time that American politicians realize that they, too, are bound by the laws they attempt to have others obey.

Dude, you are actually surprised this happened? Can't think of a country more hypocritical than America. Still i understand you're amazed they still get away with it while the world is watching.

Mr.Jingles wrote: Sure, it's a violation of International Law... But you know what... FUCK HIM!! HOPE HE'S BURNING IN HELL RIGHT NOW He was a murderer and a rapist. He well deserves what he's got. If there's anything to criticize about the U.S. government are things like this: link So please let's stop whining about murderers and rapists being executed, and let's focus on stopping innocent civilian deaths instead.

The Fairy King = RickRolling all of you wrote: Still i understand you're amazed they still get away with it while the world is watching.

Music Man wrote: To be honest, international law is bullshit. It's merely a set of promises between nations. There is no authority to enforce it, as the highest level of authority is at the national level. I'm not saying it shouldn't be followed, but when it comes down to it, it is NOT law, and it is NOT enforceable. Also, I am 100% against the death penalty, but there is no comparison between legally killing a murderer and murdering someone. The former is not infringing upon the rights of anyone. Rights are forfeited once a crime is committed and it is proven in a court of law. Property can be seized (fines), liberty can be restricted (jail), and life can be taken(death penalty). The latter is inherently infringing upon the rights of the victim. To put them on the same level is simply idiotic.

Music Man wrote: To be honest, international law is bullshit. It's merely a set of promises between nations. There is no authority to enforce it, as the highest level of authority is at the national level. I'm not saying it shouldn't be followed, but when it comes down to it, it is NOT law, and it is NOT enforceable.

ThomasQuinn wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: Sure, it's a violation of International Law... But you know what... FUCK HIM!! HOPE HE'S BURNING IN HELL RIGHT NOW He was a murderer and a rapist. He well deserves what he's got. If there's anything to criticize about the U.S. government are things like this: link So please let's stop whining about murderers and rapists being executed, and let's focus on stopping innocent civilian deaths instead.

Yes rapists and murderers should be jailed. No they should never walk free again; but EXECUTING them? That makes one as barbarious as they are. And you, Jingles, for applauding it, are a barbarian and definitely not a Christian. Or were you asleep when they taught you to forgive and show mercy to the wicked? I am not a religious person, but even I value those virtues.

ThomasQuinn wrote: Having a quick look at history, not to mention current developments in Iraq and Georgia, the number of wars would decrease. First of all, the monopoly on violence would shift one echelon higher, making the probability of a victory for a single-nation aggressor slimmer by far. Second, the UN would reach decisions in the same way they do now; however, they would have the force to put their resolutions into practice. Third, the army would be so large and powerful, that that itself would prevent many, many wars.

Raf wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: Having a quick look at history, not to mention current developments in Iraq and Georgia, the number of wars would decrease. First of all, the monopoly on violence would shift one echelon higher, making the probability of a victory for a single-nation aggressor slimmer by far. Second, the UN would reach decisions in the same way they do now; however, they would have the force to put their resolutions into practice. Third, the army would be so large and powerful, that that itself would prevent many, many wars.

On the other hand, if the wrong people manage to grab all this power...

ThomasQuinn wrote:

Raf wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: Having a quick look at history, not to mention current developments in Iraq and Georgia, the number of wars would decrease. First of all, the monopoly on violence would shift one echelon higher, making the probability of a victory for a single-nation aggressor slimmer by far. Second, the UN would reach decisions in the same way they do now; however, they would have the force to put their resolutions into practice. Third, the army would be so large and powerful, that that itself would prevent many, many wars.

On the other hand, if the wrong people manage to grab all this power...

That was what the people who founded the United States thought. They devised all kinds of ways to keep power evenly spread (called checks and balances), and look what it got them: the imperial presidency. My point is: individuals who want to do evil will do so, regardless. Any organization can be abused, but that is no reason not to use it to improve what can be improved. If all that could be abused were abolished, we'd be left with precious little in life.

Music Man wrote: To be honest, international law is bullshit.

Music Man wrote: Now, I never said the Constitution was completely novel or revolutionary. However, it is effective in its purpose - that is, to prevent the consolidation of power. We clearly disagree on whether or not this is a good thing.

I believe that, while power can be consolidated without being abused, there are still several complications.

Firstly, consolidated power is a clear and open target for abuse - there will always be people aiming to abuse it.

This is also economically wasteful, as people and organizations will spend their resources on influencing that power (i.e. rent seeking).

Secondly, once a person or group attains this consolidated power, the limits to abuse are nonexistent.

Thirdly, it is impossible for the consolidated power to remain unabused indefinitely.

Now, what are you more afraid of? Feudalism or the Third Reich? Actually, don't choose. Both examples are equally exaggerated and silly.

ThomasQuinn wrote: Third, the army would be so large and powerful, that...

Yara wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: Third, the army would be so large and powerful, that...

*I'd get very afraid!*

ThomasQuinn wrote: The US scores points for implementing democracy (to some degree) much earlier than most of the rest of the world, and not having replaced its constitution ever, but content-wise, it closely resembles the laws of the Dutch United Provinces in the 17th/18th century, British constitutionalism

Micrówave wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: The US scores points for implementing democracy (to some degree) much earlier than most of the rest of the world, and not having replaced its constitution ever, but content-wise, it closely resembles the laws of the Dutch United Provinces in the 17th/18th century, British constitutionalism

I think I see the problem here. You're still pissed off about the American Revolution. Well, get over it. We're not needing England, France, or piddly ass Denmark anymore and haven't for quite a while. See, the constitution has been "changed" several times. They're called amendments. And you don't "replace" a constitution... unless it was a half ass plan in the first place. You sound like Terrell Owens. "I don't like my contract and would like a new one the year after I signed a 4 year contract."

Donna13 wrote: rickashays.

Thomas Quinn wrote: Yes one huge army is scary. A thousand smaller ones are at least as scary, though.

Donna13 wrote: Sorry, Yara. My spelling is terrible and I should always look stuff up. I meant "ricochet".

Donna13 wrote: Anyway, my point was about the Federalism issue in this situation. The states have certain powers. According to the news articles about this situation, until federal legislation is passed, Texas can continue to have the power to do what they want in these situations. They don't necessarily have to follow something that Bush decided to sign. Anyway, that is how I understand it.

Micrówave wrote: Yes, the states themselves have the power to govern themselves. It actually works pretty good and has for several years. So yes, the original argument, could, for all intents and purposes, be used everytime a state has carried out a specific sentence. It seems that our ol' friend TQ is just stirring up something here, for what? I'm not sure. I mean I'm sure some Mexican has been punished in, say Florida. Didn't we break international laws then as well, TQ? But the original story IS about the two girls who were raped and murdered, isn't it?

Yara wrote: So why are people saying that Texas is above the law? Just because it has its own legislation as a federal state? That wouldn't be a fair critique. I have always had a doubt, by the way: does international law forbids death penalty? Or it doesn't say anything in this regard?

ThomasQuinn wrote: Texas is above the law because it ignored a decision by the International Court of Justice forbidding it, see my previous post.

ThomasQuinn wrote: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights forbids it, as do a number of other treaties. The US consequently refuses to sign these treaties, making it the only country considered civilized to do so. Article Three: link this is a legal document, so the language is to be taken very literally. This poses a problem with 'liberty' (though not with 'life' and 'security of person...'), as there is no separate clause stating that the above is void when removed through due process of law. Therefore, the definition of 'liberty' matters, but should probably be seen as civil rights, though many generations of lawyers can argue about this as it was written in an unclear manner. However, 'life' is there explicitly, so it cannot be taken away without being a violation of the act.

YourValentine wrote: The US Supreme Court, however, ruled that the US administration cannot force Texas to go by the conventions because the US Congress never passed a written federal law to make the US signature valid.

YourValentine wrote: It's about the fact that a US state purposefully ignored international law and denied a foreign citizen legal assistance from his own country. As a result American citizens might well be denied consular help in Mexico and elsewere. It's just not good when an international treaty that was signed over 40 years ago is not respected by the biggest power in the world. To make the world safer for all of us it is important that international law is respected by all nations that signed it. There should not be a back door like not passing the necessary national law. If you are arrested anywhere in the world you want to be sure you get legal help from your country no matter which crime you are accused of.

ThomasQuinn wrote: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a formal agreement that does not have power of law. I.e. it cannot technically be enforced, but it is the criterion by which the international community tends to accept or reject nations for closer ties and coöperation. Violation of the declaration can cause major diplomatic riots, as has happened in the past, but as I said, it cannot be enforced.

ThomasQuinn wrote:

Now, what are you more afraid of? Feudalism or the Third Reich? Actually, don't choose. Both examples are equally exaggerated and silly.

Ridiculous argument that is completely beside the point and is no more than a conscious rhetorical device. Please don't take me to be this stupid. In short, you have demonstrated the fallibility of power, but have provided *nothing* whatsoever that makes centralized power more dangerous than non-centralized power.

YourValentine wrote: Without being able to support my view with loads of facts I do believe that a centralization of power is dangerous. Just because the abuse of power - which is inevitable imo - has worse consequences. For example in the EU we lost a lot of self-determination by handing over power to autocrats in Brussels nobody actually voted for. I don't think it's beneficial for the majority of people because the powerful EU officials are just as easily corrupted as a local mayor and therefore the life of the average citizen is getting worse while the big lobbying corporate interests are the winners of the whole EU idea. I think that all power is corrupting people, therefore it should be limited whenever possible.

ThomasQuinn wrote: The alternative to the EU is war. Simple as that. European countries can either coöperate intensely, like the EU is meant to guarantee, turning Europe into a Federation, or we can have another series of Great Power wars (the Balkan-wars in the 1910s, the first and second World Wars; before that, the Franco-Prussian and Napoleonic wars, etc. etc.). Anyone denying that is fooling him or herself. As for the Brussels 'autocrats': they are *elected*. Most Europeans don't bother voting for the European offices, but that is their problem. If you can't be bothered to vote for a European Parliament member, that's your problem. Don't go whining how they aren't democratic after you've had your chance.

YourValentine wrote: Edit: Holly already said it all - I am a slow poster.

ThomasQuinn wrote: those people who matter

Holly2003 wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: those people who matter

An interesting turn of phrase. Are only the elites allowed to express an opinion now?

ThomasQuinn wrote:

Holly2003 wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: those people who matter

An interesting turn of phrase. Are only the elites allowed to express an opinion now?

No; only those who are willing to consider the situation at hand without resorting to easy, politically correct non-thinking. And I'll tell you this: I'd still rather be elitist than a populist.

Holly2003 wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote:

Holly2003 wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: those people who matter

An interesting turn of phrase. Are only the elites allowed to express an opinion now?

No; only those who are willing to consider the situation at hand without resorting to easy, politically correct non-thinking. And I'll tell you this: I'd still rather be elitist than a populist.

I have conisdered the situation at hand and I have not resorted to easy, politically correct non-thinking. In fact, it is more politically correct and non-thinking to just be "pro-Europe" as you are. Where's the evidence that war will result if we keep the current level of co-operation instead of encouraging further integration. Provide some proof.

Holly2003 wrote: Leaving aside the bizarre argument that increasing cctv usage in the UK means we are destined for a war with Europe, or that the ongoing rivalry between the Flemish and the Wallons that has been happening for centuries, will suddenly lead to all out war unless we have a stronger European parliament, all of the things you mentioned happened and continue to happen at the same time as closer ties develop between European countries. How do you explain that?

ThomasQuinn wrote:

Holly2003 wrote: Leaving aside the bizarre argument that increasing cctv usage in the UK means we are destined for a war with Europe, or that the ongoing rivalry between the Flemish and the Wallons that has been happening for centuries, will suddenly lead to all out war unless we have a stronger European parliament, all of the things you mentioned happened and continue to happen at the same time as closer ties develop between European countries. How do you explain that?

CCTV is part of governments trying to keep a closer hold on their people; that is happening everywhere, and is a process started in the Cold War. Flemish and Wallon rivalry hasn't been around for 'centuries' unless you mean the informal kind that exists between, for instance, New Yorkers and Californians. The actual hate of one another is a development from, again, the Cold War era, which was also the time Wallonian industry collapsed. I explain what is occurring as a direct effect of an inability to make policy in the central organs of the EU, which is caused by the member-states refusing to give sufficient mandates. As a side-effect, this seeming failure on behalf of the EU has led to increased support for the Ultra-Nationalist parties I already mentioned in my previous post. Need I remind you that many of them advocate annexation of territories, declaring territories independent or ethnically cleansing territories (in various measures of intensity)? These parties are the bearers of the threat of war, and their support is growing almost by the hour, because old fashioned liberalism can't be bothered to care, or can't attain the mental competence to offer the electorate something other than the same old dusty non-action it has shown for decades.

ThomasQuinn wrote: Texas is above the law because it ignored a decision by the International Court of Justice forbidding it, see my previous post.

ThomasQuinn wrote: ... I explain what is occurring as a direct effect of an inability to make policy in the central organs of the EU, which is caused by the member-states refusing to give sufficient mandates. As a side-effect, this seeming failure on behalf of the EU has led to increased support for the Ultra-Nationalist parties I already mentioned in my previous post. Need I remind you that many of them advocate annexation of territories, declaring territories independent or ethnically cleansing territories (in various measures of intensity)? These parties are the bearers of the threat of war, and their support is growing almost by the hour, because old fashioned liberalism can't be bothered to care, or can't attain the mental competence to offer the electorate something other than the same old dusty non-action it has shown for decades.

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: Don't you remember the ruckus and hell that was raised here in the US when that kid went over to Singapore and got sentenced to caning for spray painting? All of the sputtering and "How DARE they do that to an American?" that went on...just over a caning! What were we angry over? That the kid wasn't given the rights and access to the help the government should have given him and he was sentenced to something that we considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. It's the exact same thing here, only in reverse. This guy got sentenced to cruel and unusual punishment (in international definition) and wasn't given all avenues of access to his government to assist.

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: Not to mention, having the death penalty is an inherant hypocrisy. Society decided that to take another person's life for any purpose is murder, and murder is illegal (and yes, that includes self defense because self defense is legally classified as 'justifiable homicide'; so you aren't punished, but you still are guilty of homicide AKA murder). We create a police force to enforce the law that taking another human life is illegal; we create courts to try accusations of it. And then, when you are found guilty, the court takes your life. Ummm...is anyone else sensing a problem with this picture? The court took a human life...same damn thing we call murder in any other circumstance. But somehow, because it's a court saying it's OK, then it's not murder. You take a life=murder...that's the definition. Circumstances don't matter (thus the degrees of murder and classifications of it in legal code). So please, explain to me how the death penalty isn't a giant hypocrisy?

YourValentine wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: ... I explain what is occurring as a direct effect of an inability to make policy in the central organs of the EU, which is caused by the member-states refusing to give sufficient mandates. As a side-effect, this seeming failure on behalf of the EU has led to increased support for the Ultra-Nationalist parties I already mentioned in my previous post. Need I remind you that many of them advocate annexation of territories, declaring territories independent or ethnically cleansing territories (in various measures of intensity)? These parties are the bearers of the threat of war, and their support is growing almost by the hour, because old fashioned liberalism can't be bothered to care, or can't attain the mental competence to offer the electorate something other than the same old dusty non-action it has shown for decades.

Sorry but now you lost me completely. Are we even living on the same continent? "Ethnic cleansing" has happened in the former Yugoslavia which is not in the EU. Independence movements like the Basques or Catalanes fight against their national central administration, not the EU. There has not been an increase of ultra nationalists in my country, on the contrary, they lost completely in the last 10 years. The reason for increase of nationalistic ideas in the last 20 years was the neglected immigration issue and the reason for xenophobia is the terror hysteria after 9/11 and the Madrid and London attacks - none of them has anything to do with power delegated from nations to the EU. Also, speculation about what happens if certain developments do NOT happen is not a scientific method, it's just speculation.

Micrówave wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: Texas is above the law because it ignored a decision by the International Court of Justice forbidding it, see my previous post.

Yes, but TQ that International Court Of Justice is not recognized as an authority. They want to be, and smaller countries would feel warm and fuzzy inside if they were, but they're not.

So Texas didn't ignore anything. And this death penalty thing is really how YOU feel. You say that you don't think that punishment by death should be allowed. Well, I don't think that death at the hands of a criminal should be allowed, but what are we gonna do?

Young Europeans can have their opinions all they want, but perhaps they should take notice that the European youth goes pretty much unnoticed in the world and has for many, many years. A few years ago, it was the youth of Japan and China that was all the talk. And they sure did deliver on their promise. The strongest economies and the highest level of technology has indeed come from that part of the world. Now it's the youth of India that's all the rage.

So, go on with your view of barbaric America, but we've shown time and time again that we are the most civilized nation out there. If we weren't, the world would not come running for US support when trouble arises.

ThomasQuinn wrote: And Micrówave: Kindly change your screen name a little: "Micr & # 243;wave" as your name renders you un-quotable, so I have to change your name each time.

Yara wrote: *afraid of entering the discussion* Wouldn't it be the case of struggling for improving the E.U instead of weakening it? If some authorities are not accountable enough or if the people have a little say in the decision-making, people could rally around a proposal to make the system more responsive to the people through institutions like, I don't know, the European Parliament!? Just a thought.

Because, well, I don't know what would be the alternative to the E.U, but European history has been so bloody and full of hatred and wars and stuff, that it may be a good idea to improve and enhance institutions which could over time, it'd take a bit long, accostume people to, and help the new generations identify with, the tought of "being European", of belonging to a commonwealth which all are equally responsible for and could contribute to in order to achieve some common goals, peace being one of them!

The E.U is still "young", isn't it? Well, maybe it needs some time to be improved as an institution, much like any other successful institution.

I don't know, I think the idea of an E.U is cute. That's the bottom line. :op Does the cuteness of an idea have some bearing on the debate!? :o) Because it's one of those ideas I feel like huging, if only it had a body! Well...better stop before being charged with doing ilegal drugs, which I don't.

inu-liger wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: And Micrówave: Kindly change your screen name a little: "Micr & # 243;wave" as your name renders you un-quotable, so I have to change your name each time.

But, but.....it makes making your life difficult all the more fun :o

Microwave wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: Texas is above the law because it ignored a decision by the International Court of Justice forbidding it, see my previous post.

Yes, but TQ that International Court Of Justice is not recognized as an authority. They want to be, and smaller countries would feel warm and fuzzy inside if they were, but they're not. So Texas didn't ignore anything. And this death penalty thing is really how YOU feel. You say that you don't think that punishment by death should be allowed. Well, I don't think that death at the hands of a criminal should be allowed, but what are we gonna do? Young Europeans can have their opinions all they want, but perhaps they should take notice that the European youth goes pretty much unnoticed in the world and has for many, many years. A few years ago, it was the youth of Japan and China that was all the talk. And they sure did deliver on their promise. The strongest economies and the highest level of technology has indeed come from that part of the world. Now it's the youth of India that's all the rage. So, go on with your view of barbaric America, but we've shown time and time again that we are the most civilized nation out there. If we weren't, the world would not come running for US support when trouble arises.

ThomasQuinn wrote: And Micrówave: Kindly change your screen name a little: "Micr & # 243;wave" as your name renders you un-quotable, so I have to change your name each time.

Micrówave wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: And Micrówave: Kindly change your screen name a little: "Micr & # 243;wave" as your name renders you un-quotable, so I have to change your name each time.

After two years of having to delete "font color crimson" from your screen name, I think I will make you suffer a little longer!!! :)

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: This story is about whether the US violated international law (and common international courtesy) by executing him. What crime he committed is irrelevant. The plain truth is that you executed someone who was not given access to his government, a violation of international law.

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: Texas, then, created the ideal situation for an international diplomatic crisis in their refusal to hold off until the issue had been resolved, which is what the Secretary of State and Attorney General of the US had requested them to do. Don't you think that's just a tiny bit irresponsible of a state?

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: the US could face action from the international community

Microwave wrote but I changed his name to quote him: I think we're too worried about the Texas/OU game and will get around to it.

Microwave wrote: I know I'm coming off as Mr. Kill 'Em All, but I really do have some sort of compassion...

Microwave wrote: I know I'm coming off as Mr. Kill 'Em All, but I really do have some sort of compassion. It's terrible that this all happened. But this Illegal Migrant Worker thing is getting really out of control. Citzenship is/was the last thing on this guy's mind. Now all of the sudden, his rights were violated?

Micrówave wrote:

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: the US could face action from the international community

Ok, had to dig this out, though. 1. What are they gonna do? Raise our oil prices? Too late! Other than that, we're good for the next several hundred years. Might want to stock up on some milk.

2. The number of "Help Me" phone calls from other countries will go down? So will our bills.

3. Great. Make this guy a martyr. Let's have a parade in his name and have a day of rememberance for a guy that was cut down in his prime by a tyrranical country.

What color ribbon should we all wear on our lapels? I suggest a Red and Green one.

ThomasQuinn wrote: You realize that the one family benefiting hugely from increased oil prices is called Bush, right?

It really hasn't crossed your arrogant little mind that no one has asked the US for help for ages (except for a few corrupt regimes that didn't get help in the first place). The US only goes over if there is gain to be had from it.

You are twisting the argument more than the average sleazy lawyer. Ever thought of a career in politics? The point is not that a criminal was killed, the point is that Texas only cares about laws that get them benefits of some kind.

(link

It is arrogance, the kind you display, that is driving the world away from the US. And people like you seem to deserve that.

Yara wrote: wouldn't be at least, microwave, ETHICALLY, I think, correct to give the guy the consular assistance? I think, based on the info I have, it should be this way if the punishment shall be fully legitimate, not only legal.

Donna13 wrote: If Texans are very upset about the situation, they can contact their representatives in the Texas legislature and ask that the Texas laws be changed. Or they can write to their representatives in Congress and ask that they go ahead and support a bill to abide by the agreement made internationally.

Donna13 wrote: President Bush, who represents the Executive branch of the federal government cannot just go around making laws. That's what Congress is for.

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: Do you have proof of hell?

Microwave wrote: ... this will still be the best place to live in the world.

Zebonka12 wrote: Death is a fucking release for these criminals. They AREN'T going to Hell. It doesn't exist. God, I would love to live in a world run by logical people instead of fundamentalist religious wackos.

inu-liger wrote:

Zebonka12 wrote: Death is a fucking release for these criminals. They AREN'T going to Hell. It doesn't exist. God, I would love to live in a world run by logical people instead of fundamentalist religious wackos.

AMEN! *cough* Um.....er, yeah, I whole heartedly agree :-)

ThomasQuinn wrote: Believe me, it'd be like the French Revolution's radical phase (which, incidentally, Jefferson supported). No person is fully rational, and those who believe they are, are the most dangerous. Don't forget, religious fundamentalists believe they are the rational ones, and everyone who doesn't believe what they do is superstitious, blind, evil or any combination of the aforementioned.