Posted on 01/11/2004 5:36:57 PM PST by kellynla
LOL... You know, I used that exact example- repugnant as it is- because I knew someone who feels instead of thinks would be powerless to resist: the knee-jerk liberal touchy-feely notions would kick in, instinctively. (((smirk)))
You try to say (in a wierd, round-about way) of saying that rape is a "crime against humanity."
The first of your many errors.
The term crimes against humanity has come to mean anything atrocious committed on a large scale. This is not, however, the original meaning nor the technical one. The term originated in the 1907 Hague Convention preamble, which codified the customary law of armed conflict. This codification was based on existing State practices that derived from those values and principles deemed to constitute the "laws of humanity," as reflected throughout history in different cultures.
After World War I, the Allies, in connection with the Treaty of Versailles, established in 1919 a commission to investigate war crimes that relied on the 1907 Hague Convention as the applicable law. In addition to war crimes committed by the Germans, the commission also found that Turkish officials committed "crimes against the laws of humanity" for killing Armenian nationals and residents during the period of the war. The United States and Japan strongly opposed the criminalization of such conduct on the grounds that crimes against the laws of humanity were violations of moral and not positive law.
In 1945, the United States and other Allies developed the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis and Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), sitting at Nuremberg, which contained the following definition of crimes against humanity in Article 6(c):
Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.
The Nuremberg Charter represents the first time that crimes against humanity were established in positive international law. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, at Tokyo, followed the Nuremberg Charter, as did Control Council Law No. 10 of Germany, under which the Allies prosecuted Germans in their respective zones of occupation. Curiously, however, there has been no specialized international convention since then on crimes against humanity. Still, that category of crimes has been included in the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), as well as in the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In fact, there are eleven international texts defining crimes against humanity, but they all differ slightly as to their definition of that crime and its legal elements. However, what all of these definitions have in common is: (1) they refer to specific acts of violence against persons irrespective of whether the person is a national or nonnational and irrespective of whether these acts are committed in time of war or time of peace, and (2) these acts must be the product of persecution against an identifiable group of persons irrespective of the make-up of that group or the purpose of the persecution. Such a policy can also be manifested by the "widespread or systematic" conduct of the perpetrators, which results in the commission of the specific crimes contained in the definition.
The list of the specific crimes contained within the meaning of crimes against humanity has been expanded since Article 6(c) of the IMT to include, in the ICTY and the ICTR, rape and torture. The statute of the ICC also expands the list of specific acts. In particular, the ICC statute adds the crimes of enforced disappearance of persons and apartheid. Further, the ICC statute contains clarifying language with respect to the specific crimes of extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of population, torture, and forced pregnancy.
To some extent, crimes against humanity overlap with genocide and war crimes. But crimes against humanity are distinguishable from genocide in that they do not require an intent to "destroy in whole or in part," as cited in the 1948 Genocide Convention, but only target a given group and carry out a policy of "widespread or systematic" violations. Crimes against humanity are also distinguishable from war crimes in that they not only apply in the context of war-they apply in times of war and peace.
Crimes against humanity have existed in customary international law for over half a century and are also evidenced in prosecutions before some national courts. The most notable of these trials include those of Paul Touvier, Klaus Barbie, and Maurice Papon in France, and Imre Finta in Canada. But crimes against humanity are also deemed to be part of jus cogens-the highest standing in international legal norms. Thus, they constitute a non-derogable rule of international law. The implication of this standing is that they are subject to universal jurisdiction, meaning that all States can exercise their jurisdiction in prosecuting a perpetrator irrespective of where the crime was committed. It also means that all States have the duty to prosecute or extradite, that no person charged with that crime can claim the "political offense exception" to extradition, and that States have the duty to assist each other in securing evidence needed to prosecute. But of greater importance is the fact that no perpetrator can claim the "defense of obedience to superior orders" and that no statute of limitation contained in the laws of any State can apply. Lastly, no one is immune from prosecution for such crimes, even a head of State.
Now that you have been corrected on this issue, I would point out that such sentiments as dismissing the illegal entrance into a different country as something less than criminal, is absurd. By such logic, you would consider a burglar coming into your house- robbing you, stealing your money or other personal possessions and stealing your sense of security to be what? Like pilfering a pack of gum from the local grocer???
Every forum has its bad apples and hair-on-fire idealogues. Its the nature of the beast - the trick is to put them in the correct list when you run across them and post/reply accordingly.
Now the is a large group that wants all the mexicans kicked out. There is another group that wants all chinese goods kicked out.
There seem to be a subset that wants to be the independent tail wagging the two-party system dog. They're fun to watch - kind of like watching squirrels trying to rob one of those motorized bird feeders.
There is nothing in your observation worth responding to. Initially, you attempt to put words in my mouth- a puerile and transparent attempt to bait me into nothingness.
Continued attempts- still childish, and still feckless, change things not at all.
Nice try, though.
So, we're apparently starting fresh. Did you have any on-topic statements or comments relevant to the topic of this thread to make today? I'm all ... ears.
How many tens of millions of Chinese, Indians, Bolivians, Nigerians etc will be willing to take jobs in the USA for $5.15 an hour? Jobs such as carpenter, machinist, IT worker, you name it? This is insanity.
In California, what drove the wave that swept Gray Davis was his last and worst act of Hispanderins, promising Cali drivers' licenses to illegals.
Our pols, both Repubs and Dems, had better keep that in mind. They are winding up a mainspring of anger to the breaking point among the middle class.
You're welcome. I had to stop, last night- apparently the mods thought I was having way too much fun slapping you around... And from the FReepmails I've received, several others also enjoyed it (but not as much as I).
But I don't like leaving loose-ends, even from someone as, how shall we politely say, "reality challenged," as yourself...?
So, we're apparently starting fresh.
Nope. Another wrong assumption. Just finishing things as they should have been done last night.
I'm now done. You're finally dismissed.
That's the Bush plan. It's national suicide.
"Lurkers support me in Freepmail." Good one, almost Steve Boursy-esque in nature (Google search the name if you're interested). Completely irrelevant to the discussion, but you can't have everything.
I personally think that Bush and his advisors are showing a lot of political courage in trying to find a solution to the illegal immigration problem. Don't you agree?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.