Democrats split on genocide resolution

The Hill ^ | October 16, 2007 | Jim Snyder

[syriacus]

Then why did you insinuate that this resolution carried any penalties or reparations?

I didn't say it carried penalties or reparations.

But some paragraphs near the end of the resolution imply that imposing some sort of punishment would be a necessary step toward forestalling future genocides.

In Section 2, Paragraph 30, of House Resolution 106 the authors say that,,,
past "recognition and affirmation of the Armenian genocide" has not stopped genocides, because those who carried out the Armenian genocide were not punished.

In other words, someone must be punished for the Armenian genocide if we want to stop genocide

[tabsternager]

So you don’t believe that any countries in the future that commit genocide should ever be punished in any way.

That’s interesting.

[syriacus]

Genocide is a crime. Criminals should, as a rule, be punished. Criminals sometimes go unpunished, especially if they are already deceased.

[tabsternager]

Again, the resolution is simply calling on the UNITED STATES to recognize the Armenian genocide, just as past resolutions called on the U.S. to recognize other genocides (the Holocaust, Darfur).

For Turkey to have threatened the U.S. every year in order to prevent that recognition, what kind of “friend” or “ally” is that?

Turkey looks out for Turkey, and every year they’ve threatened, we’ve blinked.