03-28-2003, 05:38 PM
Hi,
The U.S. refuses to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child
There are provisions in that convention that would make circumcision of male infants illegal. Considering both the health and religious aspects involved, perhaps *not* signing it is the right thing to do. In addition, the definition of a "child" in that convention is anyone under the age of 18. IIRC, the convention does not distinguish between "infant", "child", "adolescent", and "teenager". Thus, many of its provisions, which are valid for the younger groups, are not valid for the older ones.
The U.S. strongly opposes the International Criminal Court
The ICC has no body of law behind it. It has no agency which can control it. It has no means for an unjustly accused person to get some compensation from his accusers. Thus, anyone in any country (including lunatic extremists) could accuse any other person in any other country (including the chief elected officials) of crimes. It becomes a nuisance factor with no redeeming value. For more, see http://www.state.gov/p/9949.htm On a closely related topic, see http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/28/internat...pe/28BRIE4.html (second item).
So, is it your contention that every time a nation turns down a stupid or self serving international resolution, that nation is "against the world".
Do you think we're stupid? Or are you?
--Pete
The U.S. refuses to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child
There are provisions in that convention that would make circumcision of male infants illegal. Considering both the health and religious aspects involved, perhaps *not* signing it is the right thing to do. In addition, the definition of a "child" in that convention is anyone under the age of 18. IIRC, the convention does not distinguish between "infant", "child", "adolescent", and "teenager". Thus, many of its provisions, which are valid for the younger groups, are not valid for the older ones.
The U.S. strongly opposes the International Criminal Court
The ICC has no body of law behind it. It has no agency which can control it. It has no means for an unjustly accused person to get some compensation from his accusers. Thus, anyone in any country (including lunatic extremists) could accuse any other person in any other country (including the chief elected officials) of crimes. It becomes a nuisance factor with no redeeming value. For more, see http://www.state.gov/p/9949.htm On a closely related topic, see http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/28/internat...pe/28BRIE4.html (second item).
So, is it your contention that every time a nation turns down a stupid or self serving international resolution, that nation is "against the world".
Do you think we're stupid? Or are you?
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?