Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Huh? Thailand can put an American in jail for posting internet content??

<< < (2/5) > >>

Carol Haynes:
A more normal approach would be to either deny entry or deportation - but just because you are a citizen of one country doesn't mean that you can't be prosecuted in another for offences that would not be illegal in your own country.

Hell the US seeks extradition on grounds of suspicion only all around the world (including in the UK) for offences that would either not be offences in the resident country or would incur much lighter sentences. It is one of the current major arguments between the UK and US government, and EU law on human rights, because all the decisions seem to be a pretty much one way street - ie. the Americans expect the UK to send UK citizens to the US for investigation and trial but the reciprocal arrangement is exceedingly rare.

Also don't forget the US government were pretty hot on extraordinary rendition not so long ago - which is illegal even in the US -but has anyone actually been prosecuted for those offences?

By the way the US is the only developed nation (to my knowledge) that still has to ratify the international convention on human rights.

IainB:
+1 from me for what Carol Haynes wrote.     :Thmbsup:

By the way the US is the only developed nation (to my knowledge) that still has to ratify the international convention on human rights.
-Carol Haynes (December 08, 2011, 03:53 PM)
--- End quote ---

I was unsure as to what "the international convention on human rights" was,  so I googled it and found that Wikipedia, says (in summary) that the term "the international bill of rights" is sometimes used to refer to three UN treaties:

* The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
* The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
* The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The US apparently signed but did not ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Presumably, the US government would have had cogent reasons for this, and are not forced/obliged to ratify it if they don't want to.
So let's not put the UN on a pedestal. A lot of what the UN do is arguably or in fact biased, ineffectual, trivial or just plain wrong, and therefore I do not infer the lack of the above ratification to be pejorative for the US. Quite the contrary, it's   :Thmbsup: :Thmbsup: :Thmbsup:

Similarly, the US sensibly refused to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol - which latter in hindsight would seem to have been revealed (per Climategate whistle-blowing emails) to be a potential scam of global proportions, being driven officially through the UN IPCC and unofficially by US and UK "scientists", religio-political cranks, government depts. and pseudo-NGOs and lobbyists.

There's no doubt but that some people could make a blanket statement about all that may be bad about official US government-sponsored actions/policies, but not ratifying the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is something that probably could not legitimately be covered by that blanket.

40hz:
Also don't forget the US government were pretty hot on extraordinary rendition not so long ago - which is illegal even in the US -but has anyone actually been prosecuted for those offences?
-Carol Haynes (December 08, 2011, 03:53 PM)
--- End quote ---

@Carol - Minor point: On this, I think you're equating the ideology and actions of one (arguably rogue) administration with the attitudes and beliefs of the rest of the government and the people of the United States.

Extraordinary rendition (i.e. kidnapping), experimental interrogation techniques (i.e. physical and psychological torture), and extralegal detention (i.e. Camp X-Ray @ Guantanamo Bay) do not sit well with the vast majority of Americans, or members of its government, virtually all of whom clearly recognise such things for the dangers they pose to the rule of law and human rights.

The vast majority of the people of the United States are not behind, or supportive in any way, of the excesses of the Bush-Cheney administration. Which is why that same administration went to such great lengths to hide these things from the American public - and to engage in a deliberate campaign of legal chicanery, misdirection, and obfuscation once they did became public knowledge.

 :)

Point two: Has anybody been prosecuted? No. And they probably never will be.

Governments generally don't turn on their own - no matter how egregious the offences committed. That's why most war and government criminals escape punishment unless an outside tribunal (Nuremberg, the ICC, et al) somehow manages to prosecute. And usually over the objections of one or more countries.

That's because many countries, including the so-called civilised law-abiding western democracies, have all been guilty of similar offences at one time or another. And realise the wisdom to be found in the biblical admonition: Judge not lest you be judged.

I think the best we can ever hope for is that an abuse or injustice, done with the authority and consent of a government, simply be stopped. Beyond that, I'm not too hopeful - either that it doesn't happen again - or that those responsible be brought to book. There's not sufficient commitment or will within the law to go after everyone who's guilty. And the general public tends to quickly tire of the spectacle after 'first blood' is obtained.

Sad really. But that's the way it always seems to go. :(

Carol Haynes:
Sorry I didn't mean to suggest that the majority of Americans believe that these things are OK - I know they don't.

The point I was making is that it is difficult for Americans to take the high moral ground against other countries when the US Government often seems to display little respect for law (international or otherwise) or human rights.

I could level the same argument against the UK government too - its not so long ago that our government were arguing for the right to imprison citizens of this country without charge, access to a lawyer or any other niceties of the judicial system by just uttering the very useful words 'national security'. We aren't so far from the Patriot Act oursleves - and I suspect Tony Blair was rather sorry to have not thought of it before George W.

40hz:
The point I was making is that it is difficult for Americans to take the high moral ground against other countries when the US Government often seems to display little respect for law (international or otherwise) or human rights.
-Carol Haynes (December 08, 2011, 05:54 PM)
--- End quote ---

On this point I think you'll find across the board agreement over here.

Right now there's a crushing sense of having fallen from on high with what's happened during the last decade. There's a definite moral crisis virtually all of us feel.

Hopefully we'll see our way through it, learn from our mistakes, deal with the embarrassment and self-reproach, and eventually get back to what we're supposed to be about.

And maybe somewhere down the road, through our new actions, we'll find cause to forgive ourselves - and be forgiven.
 :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page