Slashdot Mirror

Why does the US need influence in Ukraine or that area in general? Bill Clinton had to send forces to that region because the feckless Europeans were useless and standing around watching genocide taking place right before their eyes. In other words Europe was following their time tested SOP.

Ukraine isn't in "that area." The Balkans are in the Mediterranean region, northwest of Greece, and East of Italy. To get to Ukraine from the former Yugoslavian states, you'd have to cross either Hungary or Romania (and possibly Moldova), which is a long distance, by European standards. The campaign against Serbia was not a US campaign, but a NATO campaign. The Spanish air force were the first to bomb Belgrade. Yes, the Europeans are feckless, and need the US to push them into action, but it's wrong to say that the US acted unilaterally.

Why does the US need influence in Ukraine or that area in general?

In 1994, Ukraine gave up the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, in exchange from security guarantees from the US, UK, and Russia (this was called The Budapest Memorandum). Because Russia invaded Ukraine, and the US and UK essentially refused to help in any meaningful capacity, nobody will ever give up their nukes again, and many states (especially Iran) have a stronger resolve to acquire them. Aside from that, the "why should we care?" and "why do we want influence there?" questions have complex answers rooted in the post-WWII security and legal arrangements of Europe. Anyone who seeks to understand those questions should start with the Helsinki Final Act: http://www.osce.org/helsinki-f... Furthermore, keep in mind that when the US leaves a void of influence, more nefarious actors (i.e. Russia) step in, thereby strengthening themselves. As Russia gains more territory (i.e. by stealing it from Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, etc.), they make themselves a more formidable adversary in future confrontations - and make no mistake, the Kremlin hates "Western values," at the core of which, are liberal economic and political principles (not to be confused with the liberalism which is identified with the Democratic party in the US).

If the US really gave a shit about what is happening in the region

The US gives a shit, and both sides of congress wanted to provide stronger support to Ukraine, in the form of lethal weapons. Obama had other ideas.

civil war

It's not a civil war - it's a war between Ukraine and Russia. You know that, of course, but it's helpful to clarify the issue through the use of the correct nomenclature, and to avoid the jargon of Kremlin propaganda.

Putin wagered invading Ukraine would not push the US into action unless the Eastern European counties forced the issue.

Yep - the unenforced "red line" in Syria told him a lot about the feckless character of certain Western leaders. As you've correctly discerned, we're losing because a.) we don't have the will to fight, b.) many of us don't even understand that Russia considers itself to be at war against the West right now.

Sure, they saved some money when they stiffed Russia for their gas bill, but not enough to be able to spend on frivolous things.

Considering how much money the Russian puppet Yanukovych stole from Ukraine before he fled into the arms of Russia, and how much Russia owes Ukraine for the damage it is causing by its invasion and support of the terrorists in East Ukraine, Russia is the one who is spending money on frivolous things it can't afford.

Since we now know how much money Russia is spending to support the terrorists in Ukraine, as well as its plans to try and destabilize Ukraine, it's no wonder you think Ukraine is poor for wanting to be out from under the thumb of Russian corruption.

Then again, with the continuing stream of dead Russian soldiers leaving Ukraine, Putin is having to dig deep to pay out death benefits to the families. Speaking of digging deep, how about all those unmarked graves of dead Russian soldiers sprinkled about Ukraine? How much to you think that's costing Putin?

How much would you bet that any work done to develop this is paid for by U.S. tax dollars so that it can all be funneled back to some big defense contractor?

Considering the theft Putin is perpetrating in Crimea by stealing people's property and businesses, perhaps you should be asking how many of your rubles are going into Putin's pockets and the pockets of his oligarch friends?

Actually yes there have been international observers monitoring American elections. http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/usa

In addition both major political parties tend to have their own monitors at the election stations as well.

..as they ask for a "waiver of secrecy": they actually *realize* that the e-mail voting will need the removal of one of they key things in a democratic election: the secrecy of voting. Now an actual record of the vote is transmitted in the clear (when using e-mail) and if anyone coerced said voter they will have undisputable proof what that person voted. I gues the OSCE will write this down in their report...

Technically, the state law is in disagreement with international agreements:
"Access of election observers is regulated by state law. This frequently does not provide for international observers as required by paragraph 8 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. Domestic observation is expected to be widespread." (http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/96574 - page 2)

The document: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304
See page 1 for the US being part of it and page 3 and further for what was agreed upon.

"(8) The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings." (page 7)

IANAConstitutionalL, but I'll play one on slashdot.

With having said that I'll say, then the agreement is illegal

The Constitution states that the states, that make up the country, have control on how elections are handled, except for a few details such as dictating when the elections can happen, but for the most part every state has control over how they handle elections. For the federal govt. to enter in an agreement that defines any procured or policy not dictated by the Constitution is effectively void and cannot be enforced.

Now one might argue that the U.S. Attorney General is going after states that pass voter ID law, and if the states can pass whatever election law they want it and trump the federal govt., how can he do that? He is able to have that right because of the 24th Amendment which states; that no one, not even the state, can deny a person's right to vote because of failure to pay a tax. If the Justice dept. is able to argue that obtaining a photo ID is looked at as having to pay a tax, then it violates the Constitution. Which explains the reason, so many states are pushing for a free photo ID program.

In short, it doesn't matter that the state law is in disagreement with the agreement, the state law trumps the agreement.

You missed the discussion here.

The important part of the OSCE Charter is

I. (8) The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings.

So, to the extent permitted by Texas law, the OSCE can recruit local voters to be watchers, but can not bring in their own watchers from outside of Texas or the US. Those non-local watchers can only observe outside of a 100 foot radius.

Repost because of idiotic troll mod:
Technically, the state law is in disagreement with international agreements:
"Access of election observers is regulated by state law. This frequently does not provide for international observers as required by paragraph 8 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. Domestic observation is expected to be widespread." ( http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/96574 - page 2)

The document: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304 [osce.org]
See page 1 for the US being part of it and page 3 and further for what was agreed upon.

"(8) The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings." (page 7)

Repost because of idiotic troll mod:
Technically, the state law is in disagreement with international agreements:
"Access of election observers is regulated by state law. This frequently does not provide for international observers as required by paragraph 8 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. Domestic observation is expected to be widespread." ( http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/96574 - page 2)

The document: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304 [osce.org]
See page 1 for the US being part of it and page 3 and further for what was agreed upon.

"(8) The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings." (page 7)

Technically, the state law is in disagreement with international agreements:
"Access of election observers is regulated by state law. This frequently does not provide for international observers as required by paragraph 8 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document. Domestic observation is expected to be widespread." (http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/96574 - page 2)

The document: http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304
See page 1 for the US being part of it and page 3 and further for what was agreed upon.

"(8) The participating States consider that the presence of observers, both foreign and domestic, can enhance the electoral process for States in which elections are taking place. They therefore invite observers from any other CSCE participating States and any appropriate private institutions and organizations who may wish to do so to observe the course of their national election proceedings, to the extent permitted by law. They will also endeavour to facilitate similar access for election proceedings held below the national level. Such observers will undertake not to interfere in the electoral proceedings." (page 7)

With so many people posting their own version of facts, it helps knowing the past history of such people, so that you can disregard their claims. What made me google for this Anthony Watts was the claims he made that the UN had predicted 50 million refugees coming from Bahamas (population 330000), St. Lucia (population 173765), and Seychelles (population 84000).

With numbers like these, something looks wrong. So I googled for the original study to find out what it said. it was no surprise that neither Bahamas, Seychelles, or St. Lucia were mentioned there.

What it says is that there are million of refugees coming from regions affected by desertification and that number is increasing.

And you know what's the funny thing about all this? If you take the trouble to actually read the paper Dr. Norman Myers wrote, you will notice that he does not mention global warming at all. What he calls "environmental refugees" are, in his own words, "people who can no longer gain a secure livelihood in their homelands because of drought, soil erosion, desertification, deforestation and other environmental problems, together with associated problems of population pressures and profound poverty. In their desperation, these people feel they have no alternative but to seek sanctuary elsewhere, however hazardous the attempt."

In their haste to deny global warming, people like Anthony Watts do not even try to find out who they should write against...

I would like to know why the UN said this in the first place

Is there any evidence that the UN made this prediction at all?

From TFA to the original paper there is a huge difference. For instance, TFA cites population growth in islands like Bahamas, St. Lucia, and Seychelles, which were never mentioned in the paper.

What Dr. Myers actually said is that there were 25 million refugees in 1995 fleeing disasters caused by desertification and global warming and that number could double in ten years. This seems a perfectly reasonable claim, if one wants to discuss it the best way would be to get hold of Dr. Myers method for counting refugees and defining which ones are "environmental" and see if that prediction became true.

Now, instead of doing this, TFA says the UN has "removed" a page that they, so much smarter than the UN that they are, recovered from Google cache. Then they invent a lot of false data, but they never realized that the actual paper is readily found by googling so their lies are easily debunked.

As always, the absence of facts has certainly not stopped you from forming a strong opinion.

http://www.osce.org/publications/odihr/2007/03/23835_823_en.pdf

Both the State, and the individual have obligations in this matter.
Secondly, someone exercising freedom of Assembly is not always a protester, but of course, this would involve seeing someone else's point of view

Being that your mind is NOT an objective recording medium, any statement you would make based on that "recording" would be labeled as everything from a "your version of the story", through "pure fantasy" to "slandering lies".

At best, you would be considered an "unreliable source" - at worst you would be put on trial for defamation.

And in Soviet Italy, that could result in one of the following:

6. Maximum prison term for defamation, libel and insult envisaged in the Criminal Code

Generic insult: not more than six months imprisonment.
Insult with attribution of a certain fact: not more than one year imprisonment.
Generic defamation: not more than one year imprisonment.
Defamation with attribution of a certain fact: not more than two years imprisonment.
Libel through the press, television or other public means: not more than three years imprisonment.
Libel through the press with attribution of a certain fact: not more than six years imprisonment.

7. Maximum fine for defamation, libel and insult envisaged in the Criminal Code
Generic insult: not more than 516.
Insult with attribution of a certain fact: not more than 1,032.
Generic defamation: not more than 1,032.
Defamation with attribution of a certain fact: not more than 2,065.
Libel through the press, television or other public means: minimum fine: 516 (no maximum amount is indicated).
Libel through the press with attribution of a certain fact: minimum fine: 516 (no maximum amount is indicated).

"OSCE-participating [nations] agreed in 1990 to observe elections in one another's countries. The OSCE routinely monitors elections within its 55-state membership, including Europe, Eurasia, Canada and the United States," a State Department spokesman said.

In November 2002, OSCE sent 10 observers on a weeklong mission to monitor the U.S. midterm elections. OSCE also sent observers to monitor the California gubernatorial recall election last year.

A quick trip over to the OSCE office of democratic Institutions and human rights reveals the following page on the monitoring of the last three elections in the US: http://www.osce.org/odihr-elections/14680.html

The 2 November elections in the United States mostly met the commitments agreed to by the 55 OSCE participating States in the Copenhagen Document of 1990 - see Annex I. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long democratic tradition, including institutions governed by rule of law, free and professional media and civil society involved in all aspects of the election process. The presidential elections took place in a highly competitive environment. In what was perceived to be a very close race, the leading presidential candidates enjoyed the full benefits of free and vigorous media coverage throughout the campaign. There was exceptional public interest not only in the two main presidential candidates and respective campaign issues but also in the election process itself. Civil society contributed substantially towards greater awareness of election issues and promoting voter participation. However, a number of significant issues were brought to the attention of the EOM as set out below.

It should be noted that only the UN certifies elections, and generally doesn't send observers to countries such as those in western Europe, the US and Japan as these countries have a long tradition of democracy. OSCE found the US elections to have only some minor problems, mostly to do with laws that restrict felons from voting, no national system or nation requirements (voting is at the state level), some districts having problems with provisional ballots and the presence of party election observers in the polling place being possibly to close to the voting booths. The 2006 observers drew issue with electronic voting where there was no paper trail as their single largest issue, but also discussed were provisional ballot differences, absentee voting by fax (allowed in a few states), voter identification (requirement to show ID), better training for poll workers, absence of non-partisan observers, felon voting and district boundaries (a concern with gerrymandering).

I see nothing in the reports that tells me fraud is widespread. Actually in my experience voting judges and poll workers (all volunteers) are quite ethical and upstanding. Some aren't trained as well, the best poll workers are the ones who have done it for many elections but in general the system is incredibly fair. With both parties observing not only the voting but the counting and all tasks being handled mostly by volunteers the system actually seems to be very difficult to tamper with. Although voter fraud has occurred in every election in this country (name a single election where dead people didn't vote) I've never seen a situation where ther

The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), a part of The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), made a pretty clear report about the 2004 (US) presidential election:
Report
The voting machines are a problem.

The OSCE monitors US elections.
http://osce.org/documents/odihr/2005/03/13658_en.p df

Maybe not the UN, but There WERE monitors.

Starting on Page 26

The OSCE/ODIHR is pleased to offer a number of recommendations for consideration by the U.S. authorities. In view of the decentralized nature of U.S. election administration, it would appear appropriate to formulate such recommendations within the framework of the minimum federal standards approach as demonstrated by HAVA.

A. POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO EXISTING MINIMUM STANDARDS

4. DRE voting equipment. ...the following measures could prove essential with a view to enhance voters' confidence in such new voting technologies:

(i) Inclusion of provisions that will permit competent individuals, academic institutions or civil society groups to comprehensively and independently test DRE voting equipment subject to reasonable limitations related only to patent or copyright law. However, such testing should not be perceived as a substitute for the establishment of inclusive and transparent certification procedures.

(ii) Approval of provisions that will ensure against possible conflicts of interests of the vendors.

(iii) As the requirements of HAVA include that DRE systems produce a permanent paper record with a manual audit capacity, serious consideration should also be given to ensuring a voter verified auditable paper trail (VVAPT).

(iv) Establishment of a clear division of responsibilities between vendors, certification agencies and election administrators, to fully ensure accountability and an effective response in the case of failure of DRE equipment.

In other words, the USA is well underway ;)

In other words, the USA is well underway ;)

In other words, the USA is well underway ;)

What OSCE thinks about it: http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2004/11/3779_e n.pdf.

The independent observer is yet to report (press conference at 9:30am on 4th).

The independent observer is yet to report (press conference at 9:30am on 4th).

Only if France, Greece, Spain, Austria, and Canada are also third world dictatorships.

http://www.osce.org/news/show_news.php?id=4427

Leaders of OSCE Election Observation Mission to the U.S. to meet press in Washington

WASHINGTON, 7 October 2004 - The leaders of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe observation of the 2 November presidential election in the United States are visiting Washington in preparation for the observation.

Approximately 100 observers and parliamentarians will follow the election for the OSCE.

[etc. - read the story for full details]

Actually, the OSCE is going to monitor the US elections. Not the UN, but they are foreign observers.

Actually, the OSCE is going to monitor the US elections. Not the UN, but they are foreign observers.

Alcee Hastings was impeached in 1988 and was later elected to Congress, and is now President of the OSCE.

Yahoo story, just in: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/ 20040928/ap_on_el_pr/election_observers_1 Presidential Elections - AP Observers Foresee Snags in U.S. Election By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - Problems loom for the presidential election including voting equipment changes that could delay the outcome past Nov. 2, a group of international observers said Tuesday in a report. A five-member team from the Organization for Security and Cooperation (news - web sites) in Europe, a 55-state security group invited by the Bush administration, also pointed to problems with voter registration lists and provisional and absentee ballots, allegations of voter intimidation and slow implementation of the Help America Vote Act. "In general, the nationwide replacement of voting equipment, inspired by the disputes witnessed during the 2000 elections, primarily in Florida, may potentially become a source of even greater controversy during the forthcoming elections," said the 11-page report. Many of the new touch-screen machines that will be used by up to 50 million voters on Nov. 2 do not produce the paper ballots needed for a manual recount of votes, the report said. This "may cause postelection disputes and litigation, potentially delaying the announcement of final results," it said. The OSCE (news - web sites) observers were in the United States from Sept. 7-10. A larger group will return for the election and focus on the potential problems noted in Tuesday's report. Among them: _Slow implementation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which authorized $3.86 billion to replace outdated machines and reform election procedures. _Poorly maintained voter registration lists and a hodgepodge of procedures for handling absentee and provisional ballots could result in voter disenfranchisement and postelection litigation. Provisional ballots are a new feature, meant to allow anyone who shows up at the polls to vote even if their name isn't on precinct lists. _The report criticized steps by states to allow military and overseas voters to fax rather than mail their completed ballots, calling them inconsistent "with the principle of the secrecy of the vote." _The observers said the scale of complaints about intimidation of minority voters was difficult to assess but that "such allegations were repeated by Democratic Party representatives, while the Republican Party officials did not seem to share these concerns." OSCE: http://www.osce.org/odihr/?pageelections

Of course, since also Canada and the USA are members of the OSCE, that would have to be a really big map. :)

This is the most misleading Slashdot article I have ever read.

If you actually look at their site they are also monitoring elections in France, Canada, Greece, Spain, and Australia. Hardly "third world countries", and I don't remember any recent civil wars in them either.

Mellow out a bit. Nobody is comparing the US to a dictatorship, you started that on your own.

Your own government is concered about what happened in Florida, particularly about the deregistration of large classes of people. I believe the "Help America Vote" is intended to address that. And when your own government is concerned why is it a suprise that the OSCE is too? After all, the US is a participating state.

Perhaps that might be true if this article was even close to accurate. However, this story had nothing at all to do with the EU or the EU government.

According to the story, the people who are proposing this are delegates at a conference organized by France and an organization called the Organization for The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

According to their website, this organization is "the largest regional security organization in the world, with 55 participating states from Europe, Asia, Central and North America."

Seems to me therefore, that it would be just as accurate for this story to have been written 'US Federal Government pushes to limit internet speech'.

> This isn't just "Freedom of Shopping." The judge has said that even allowing people in France to view these items is forbidden. <

Right, this is an important distinction. Barring people from actually making purchases of certain items might (or might not) be one thing, but barring them from simply viewing certain classes of items is dangerous. Moreover, I think this particular stand by France, may put France -- a member country of the OSCE -- at odds with the Helsinki Final Act (see also, for good measure, the French-language text), the document that lays out some of that organization's fundamental principles.

The participating states -- including France -- made it

" their aim to facilitate the freer and wider dissemination of information of all kinds, to encourage co-operation in the field of information and the exchange of information with other countries" ...

Of course the particular intentions don't specifically mention the internet, but then this dates back to 1975; certainly seems to go against the spirit of the document, and probably against a number of later commitments under international law.

> This isn't just "Freedom of Shopping." The judge has said that even allowing people in France to view these items is forbidden. <

Right, this is an important distinction. Barring people from actually making purchases of certain items might (or might not) be one thing, but barring them from simply viewing certain classes of items is dangerous. Moreover, I think this particular stand by France, may put France -- a member country of the OSCE -- at odds with the Helsinki Final Act (see also, for good measure, the French-language text), the document that lays out some of that organization's fundamental principles.

The participating states -- including France -- made it

" their aim to facilitate the freer and wider dissemination of information of all kinds, to encourage co-operation in the field of information and the exchange of information with other countries" ...

Of course the particular intentions don't specifically mention the internet, but then this dates back to 1975; certainly seems to go against the spirit of the document, and probably against a number of later commitments under international law.

> This isn't just "Freedom of Shopping." The judge has said that even allowing people in France to view these items is forbidden. <

Right, this is an important distinction. Barring people from actually making purchases of certain items might (or might not) be one thing, but barring them from simply viewing certain classes of items is dangerous. Moreover, I think this particular stand by France, may put France -- a member country of the OSCE -- at odds with the Helsinki Final Act (see also, for good measure, the French-language text), the document that lays out some of that organization's fundamental principles.

The participating states -- including France -- made it

" their aim to facilitate the freer and wider dissemination of information of all kinds, to encourage co-operation in the field of information and the exchange of information with other countries" ...

Of course the particular intentions don't specifically mention the internet, but then this dates back to 1975; certainly seems to go against the spirit of the document, and probably against a number of later commitments under international law.