Slashdot Mirror
UN Broadcasting Treaty May Restrict Speech
ashshy writes "A UN treaty under proposal could lead to unprecedented restrictions on free speech and fair use rights around the world. Ars Technica pulls together what you need to know from multiple sources." From the article: "The proposed broadcasting treaty would create entirely new global rights for broadcasting companies who have neither created nor own the programming. What's even more alarming is the proposal from the United States that the treaty regulate the Internet transmission of audio and video entertainment. It is dangerous and inappropriate for an unelected international treaty body to undertake the task of creating entirely new rights, which currently exist in no national law, such as webcasting rights and anti-circumvention laws related to broadcasting."
Rights are by default. "Creating rights" means lifting bans, not the other way around.
It's an unelected international body. Therefore not binding law. Right?
I thought we liked the U.N.
On Comedy Central I'd say. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have made fun of traditional media- and this attacks their primary way of getting their fake "news" (by Tivo'ing the other channels and picking out stuff to make fun of).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionI dr011=kftdaz9nm1.app13b&cmd=display&page=UserActio n&id=163
First we say the UN is irrelevant and we won't send any of our people to the UN International Court of Justice because the UN has no authority over us.
But, then we say that the UN gave us the ok to invade another country.
However, then we say that the head of UN is corrupt and the whole system needs to be replaced.
But now we're asking this corrupt body who has no authority over us to impose rules on other countries and how they transmit items over the net and elsewhere.
Someone stop the spinning! I'm gonna throw up!
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The traditional mass media is becoming more and more irrelevant with each passing day thanks to the advent of blogs, podcasts, independent music, and films. You can bet your bottom dollar that the conglomerates have been looking for ways to thwart this "revolution" in mass media and get pieces of the pie - albeit unsuccessfully. This is the **AA's "last stand" - if you will - on a global scale because they want that control back and will do anything by any means necessary.
Seriously, how are they going to crack down? File John Doe lawsuits in Albania?
Get real.
The word is you're. As in, "You're an asshole if you spell it as your."
What if I'm talking about your asshole?
Or perhaps assholes of yore?
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Also, the US ambassador to the UN, Bolton, is publicly opposed to the existence of the UN. Who better to represent us in an international assembly than a person who believes the assembly should be abolished? Brilliant.
Developers: We can use your help.
This is a real problem. We have to fend off the US Congress, the FCC (they will be back, Congressional authority or no), the EU, the UN, etc. and as soon as we defeat one attempt another is introduced. We have to win every battle, they to win once. One step is to cut the number of fronts. Just oen more reason to burn the UN building to the ground and send those idiots home.
The UN is useless anyway so it isn't like it wouldn't be a good thing all around. The indisputable fact that it is a 'Parliment of Tyrants' where the unfree votes outnumber the Free by a goodly margin is only mitigated slightly by the fact that the instituition is incapable of action on major issues. But as this attempt makes clear they do have a great potential for mischief on less visible issues, especially when you get a perfect storm of agreement between third world pestholes wanting to control their people and the 1st world wanting to let their **AA organizations control their subjects.
Democrat delenda est
UN is just the meeting place, the culprit that lobbied hardest for this is Yahoo. They're the piece of shit thats pushing it as a treatry proposal to bypass the national law making process.
What would happen if local laws contradict the UNs proposals, even if they did pass?
France has nothing to do with this, but that does not stop your idiotic xenophobia.
It is dangerous and inappropriate for an unelected international treaty body to undertake the task of creating entirely new rights, which currently exist in no national law, such as webcasting rights and anti-circumvention laws related to broadcasting.
It is also dangerous and inappropriate for even elected national officials to undertake the task of destroying rights they are specifically not allowed to destroy (see Constititution, definition of "no law" means "no law").
The rights of the people are best protected when regulations are created and enforced close to home. The International government has no rights to give preferential treatment to one person or party over another. The bigger that government is the, less it should do to try to level any playing field. In the long run, more power at the upper levels of government are almost always abused to create paternalism and cartelization, not to actually protect rights.
Our own Congress in the U.S. has overstepped their bounds with the FCC and the myriad of unconstitutional laws affecting speech. These laws, if wanted by the people per the 9th and 10th amendments, are better suited for the state or the village to create and enforce.
The interstate commerce clause was not meant to give Congress the right to regulate trade or commerce on a control level -- it was written to give Congress the power to penalize states that infringe on a person's right to trade freely with other states within the union of states. Don't read more into simple words than is necessary.
The UN is just as irrelevant in my life as the US is. I'm an Illinoisan first and foremost. Even that group is too big to treat me with respect and to protect my rights from those looking to trample on them. What other people want to do in other countries, states or even cities is none of my business: I have no desire to prevent them from harming themselves or encouraging them to be lazy by paying for their failures. The UN is the epitome of wealth transfer and power transfer, and if you look at the corruption that has occurred that we know about, it only makes me wonder what corruptions have occurred that we don't know about.
True, but "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Doesn't this mean that the Senate shall enact no such treaty?
A forum for international debate. According to Article 6 of the Constution, "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." Means if we enter in to a treaty, it is a law up there on the same level as the Constitution itself and has to be obeyed as such. Most countries operate similarly, even if they don't have a constitution that explicitly spells it out.
So the UN has power in that respect. Countries get together, they hash out an agreement, they sign it, and everyone agrees to obey that. Of course if you aren't a country that signs it, the UN is fairly powerless to do anything about it.
The concern isn't really anything to do with the UN, but that the US might enter in to this treaty, making it law regardless of how the citizens feel. Of course another thing about treaties is they are much harder to do away with than normal laws. If you make a federal law that says something, the next congress can just eliminate it if they want. However a treaty is harder to get out of.
"It is dangerous and inappropriate for an unelected international treaty body to undertake the task of creating entirely new rights, which currently exist in no national law, such as webcasting rights and anti-circumvention laws related to broadcasting."
So, someone has finally noticed that the UN is unelected. Quite interesting how nobody seems to mention that when they agree with what the UN is doing.
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
Blame Bush!...
Instead of using your supposedly more intelligent non-american brain and realizing this is about international media companies simply trying to remain releveant in an internet enabled world.
Newsflash to all the euro-trolls and other US-haters, the US does what it does because of a fundemental flaw in our governmental system...lobbying and other forms of influence on our elected officials.
the world is now run by huge international financial interests...not dubya.
But, if it makes you feel better and superior to ignore the real problem, as well as corruption and in BS in your own countries, feel free to blame Bush until you get blue in the face.
Without the ability to defend yourself, you have no Constitutionally protected right of self-defense.
Only when they silence the First Amendment, will you need the Second Amendment.
The Internet has been the most democratic invention in human history. Anyone who can get on it has a potential world-wide voice, which is why some countries censor it to heavily. But they can't censor it in secret. So who are these clowns at the UN, and how do we get them thrown out?
[/soapbox]
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
In other words, you have rights only when we like how you're using them. I wish I was making it up, but it's in the official text.
The sooner we abolish the UN, the better. If its "peacekeeping operations" and the standard procedures of its international court are any indication, it'd be an organization matched in its evil toward decent people around the world only by its bitter and vicious incompetence. And please, spare me the bullshit about them being hampered by member states. If they can barely ever get anything right with only occassionally being asked to keep the peace, just imagine what their bureaucrats would be like when tasked with doing it as the official, one world body.
This is it folks, if you needed proof the **AAs are losing the battle on a global scale, it's on display at the UN. They are trying to push their repressive agenda in a move to effectively trap the entire world in one fell swoop.
Can we finally start a revolution now?
looks like you need a bit of anonet. can't really intrude on a private network can they, and even then, who was it? :)
http://www.digmedia.org/content.cfm?id=7223
Since 1997, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been considering a treaty that would modernize broadcaster protection provisions of the Rome Convention to account for digital broadcasting and the challenges of online networks. The focus has been to protect broadcasters against signal piracy, particularly related to the unauthorized commercial retransmission of signals captured over-the-air or intercepted from satellite transmissions. One example of this was in 1999, when a company called iCraveTV captured U.S. television stations' signals and retransmitted them over the Internet without permission or license. Though a Canadian company, iCraveTV had registered its domain name in the U.S. so a U.S. court was able to exercise jurisdiction and end this piracy.
The iCraveTV episode demonstrated the vulnerability of broadcasting to unauthorized retransmission over the Internet that reduces revenue to broadcasters and the copyright owners whose works are being transmitted. Given the risks of signal theft and the potential harm to the broadcast industry, the United States has supported enhancing legal protections for broadcasters by updating the rights addressed in the Rome Convention.
The genocide in Sudan is still going on, and the Holocaust denying leader of Iran is still making nuclear headway, but yeah, I guess if you had to mention the most important thing going on at the UN, I guess this proposed treaty that nobody has to abide by anyways (like most of the other UN treaties) is it.
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.
But amendment 1 restricts "the Authority of the United States" using the following language: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
This is a _proposal_ by the United States, so if you want to go and cry blue murder (which I think _is_ appropriate), don't take it to the UN, take it where it belongs - to the Bush administration.
Er, no. Welcome to Civics 101. All laws and treaties in the USA are legal only in that they do not conflict with the Constitution, as amended. Plus the US Govt has never been particularly good at sticking to treaties, except when it suits the fancy of the current administration, so words like "binding" and "obey" have a pretty dubious application here.
That said, there is nothing in this proposed law that would be unconstitutional, it's just the usual corporate greed legislated on a worldwide rather than national scale. But hey, multinationalism is good, right? That's how Europe is teaching the unwashed heathens in America how to be patricians to the rest of the world, right?
What is with you Americans and this view of the UN? It is the only framework we have for having nations try and work together peacefully, and establish the way they'll play together. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than saying "fuck it, just invade anyone you wish".
Well, it was the US who helped to create the UN, after they said the League of Nations was no longer relevant. You can't throw away the only even remotely-functionaly international treaty organization every time you feel like throwing a temper tantrum because you didn't get your own way.
The US uses the UN to give them legitimacy when it suits them, and flagrantly disregards the fact that's a signatory to some of those treaties when they wish.
Walk away from it, and you could find yourselves a pariah state, and your relationships with your allies could become rather tenuous. Although, they've been becoming tenuous over the last few years due to the protectionism/xenophobia your leaders are putting forth to the rest of the world.
Le't hope America doesn't decide it want to go it alone so it can become the asshole/bully of the world -- though we see shades of that now.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Sometimes it's extremely benefitical to bring in someone who hates your product/organization to figure out any problems. Bolton does that now for UN instead of just sending a bunch of fanboys. Many Open Source projects could learn this.
Neitherless, UN is corrupt, mostly worthless organization who would should kick out of New York and put all the diplomats back on boats and send them back to where ever they came from.
Uh, I think that this is Bush's attempt to control the media so that he can convince little girls to go to the White House where he will then canabilize them.
Hey look, I posted a completely inane right wing conspiracy too, can I get a +1 intersting mod too?
Let's give UN control of the root servers! After, we can trust the UN, can't we?
If it is just the USA that wants this then Europe should have no trouble getting it removed...
Right?
The UN is just as irrelevant in my life as the US is. I'm an Illinoisan first and foremost. Even that group is too big to treat me with respect and to protect my rights from those looking to trample on them...
Your statement is excellent. If there is one thing I wish we would all learn about politics it's the point you made. Your local government is what matters. Local government has the ability to make decisions to protect your rights. That's why the constitution was written the way it was. 200 years ago, with a population a fraction as large as the one we have now, no one trusted the federal government. Now, when most states have more people than the whole country did then, we give more power than ever to the feds. Everyone gets so worked up about federal elections, but doesn't even bother to vote for their own mayor or attend their local city council meetings.
Find coupons in Greeley
I just got off the phone with the ghost of Abraham Lincoln. He would like me to remind you that he 'kicked their secessionist asses' and to 'not let them forget it'.
Seriously, local government ceased to matter the day Lee signed his surrender at Appomatox.
will France please, please, PLEASE for once grow some balls and stand up us?
Good point. If they don't, we might set up them the bomb. They would then be on the way to destruction, at which point they would have no chance to survive make their time.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
The article is written to make you think this treaty will steal copyrights away from content creators if they choose to broadcast content through some broadcaster of some sort. It does not do that. So the article is being alarmist to attract attention. (That or they probably didn't read the treaty either.)
.mac account. It seems to be giving the webcaster the right to impose such restrictions if they wanted to. In this example .mac would have to add the broadcast flag to the video. Comcast simply being the conduit, could not. So this has the same restrictions as over-the-air broadcasters, I could still chose not to use that service and set up my own server if I didn't agree to the terms.
The Bad: Looks like it would put an end to PVRs as we know them. I'm sure ABC would allow Comcast to rent you a PVR which enforces ABC's rebroadcast requirements. YUCK! So the article got that much right.
The not bad: The so called restrictions on the original content creators don't exist. Basically the treaty states FOX can state terms to Groening that if they are going to broadcast the Simpsons on their network it is going to have the broadcast flag and be restricted according to their policy. Groening could of course not agree to those terms and tell them to fly a kite. Fox may then come back to groening and say OK we won't do the broadcast flag. That my friends will never happen, because Groening wants FOX to get the add revenue (which is of course how they pay him). Even with the broadcast flag on every episode of the Simpsons there would be nothing preventing Groening from hosting a webcast of the show himself without the broadcast flag. That is unless his contract with FOX prevents him from doing so, which I think it already does anyway.
The unclear: The webcast amendment doesn't appear to read like Comcast can tack on a broadcast flag to a home movie my parents stream from my
So, for content creators the sky is not falling, but for PVR users it probably is. This isn't really anything new, just more of the same. I am not sure what to think about this actually. I don't think it's evil as some would like to suggest. If everyone skipped all commercials, networks would go out of business as we know them. That wouldn't cause an end to media, it would just transform the way we get it. Content would end up being sold pay-per-view for everything. We already seem to be starting that transition. So if you don't want to pay for everything, and are willing to live with ads to pay for some content, allowing things like the 'broadcast flag' may be the necessary evil. Just a thought.
** Names of companies and TV shows were pulled out of thin air for the purposes of illustration. Don't read anything this post as implying these particular companies are or aren't behind this treaty.
Its where you keep Americans! .. Ba-da-boom
.. its a joke .. its meant to be funny (well at least to the majority of the world (6 billion or so minus 300 million). Besides, I'm living here now, so I am poking fun against myself - nyah nyah nyah. Thats sad really .. can I go home now??
Yes
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
They moded it as "interesting" so far. I just thought that the juxtaposition of Stephen Colbert's recent pro-Bush-anti-Media diatribe (or was it anti-Bush-anti-Media) and this obviously corporate-written treaty coming to light in the same week was pretty wierd.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The US proposed this as an UN treaty. It's not yet signed.
Actually everyone (well, every nation that's a member and has the right to, but let's ignore the details for now) can make a proposal. China could propose to have everyone shot that dares to speak up against the ruling bodies of the nations.
What's scary is, it might even get a majority... but let's ignore that detail too.
In fact, if you want to get irate, at least pick the right target. It's not the "UN" who proposed it, it's the US. Or, rather, its leaders.
And I find it quite amusing, in a grim way, that the US government turns to the UN to push through their copywrong internationally. Whenever it goes against their ways, the UN is brushed aside, but suddenly it becomes interesting again.
Face it. The UN is a tool to some countries. No wonder pretty much everyone ignores it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Yes, America just as every other country are full of hypocritical people led by hypocritical leaders. This isn't news. They'll Slam the UN one day when they don't want to participate (Iraq war), and praise them the next when it serves their purposes (Strong media conglomerates).
Why the US -won't- fight this is simple. When it comes to entertainment (Audio/Visual) economies, the US is way ahead of the rest. Why would they stand up to a resolution that allows other governments to police their income? It doesn't make sense. Why would the US say NO, we don't want you to punish up all those stealing Mission Impossible 3, or Britney Spears newest album?
2. The law is from WIPO, which is known for making invasive treaties. I'm not surprised that they'd cook up something like this.
Bye!
limit broadcasting over the internet ? right.
dudes, that's what SSL tunnels exists for. if this thing passes, we'll soon see underground encrypted networks bcasting all kind of contents. with open source software, of course.
then they'll come with regulations on open source, because it "promotes criminal activities". that's when i'll start shouting "stop the world, i wanna get out".
What ? Me, worry ?
It's an attempt by a group of national governments to synchronize their understanding and treatment of [fill-in-the-blank]. It is _not_ "creating" ANYTHING. It is simply a document that says "we're all going to agree to do things the same way so we don't have confusion."
: //www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sccr/en/sccr_14/sccr_14 _2.doc
If people would actually READ the !#%$ing document, they'd see that it is not all that spectacularly upsetting:
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/html.jsp?url=http
As NATIONAL laws change, all this treaty is basically saying is that each contracting member of the treaty will apply those laws uniformly, not playing favorites to anyone.
Big flipping whoop-dee-do. I wish people understood better how these things work instead of trotting out the "OMG!!1!11!! THE UN IS A SUPERSTATE!!!!" bull that is so far from the truth it isn't even laughable--it's just sad.
(emphasis mine)
If you think this is unlikely, remember that if you make up a song and sing it without writing it down or recording it, you have no US rights to that song.
And should you make a major label record, the label owns the copyright to the song you wrote and performed!
AFIAC, both major US political parties are my enemies. I intend to protest by splitting my vote amongst any third parties on the ballot this November. Clearly, my government, as well, it seems, as every other government are in the multinational corporations' back pockets.
Is it going to take an armed revolution to get our countries, our world, back? My country's declaration of independance starts with "We, the People." We, the people aren't being represented at all any more.
Fucking slashdot, I was already in a bad mood today >=(
I wish I had mod points right now. That's some awesome truth you're posting right there.
Just a question, Mr. Dada, outside of the discussion but relevant to your topic. Why do you, a freedom-loving anarcho-capitalist wish to continue residing in the People's Republik of Illinois? I, for one, would not wish to consider myself a citizen of King Daley's liberty-hating state. (Yes I know he's the mayor of Chicago and not the governor, but Chicago practically runs things up there from what I've head about Illinois.)
What the treaty does appear to be trying to do is to extend geographic rights limitations currently enforced through the limitations of broadcast media (TV signals only go so far) to the Internet.
An international treaty has no effect unless the member states agree to ratify it. The UN is certainly not working outside its scope by proposing the treaty, the entire reason for WIPO and the UN to exist is to draft treaties.
What is a concern is the use of international treaty making to perform an end run around the legislative system. Its a way of avoiding accountability. In the UK a frequent bleat from governments of both colours is that they are forced to do something because of the EU. What they fail to mention is that they were the primary movers in getting the directive they are now complaining about passed.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
What is with you Americans and this view of the UN?
We aren't socalists and we are stuck funding this anti-american establishment via our tax dollars.
It is the only framework we have for having nations try and work together peacefully, and establish the way they'll play together. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than saying "fuck it, just invade anyone you wish".
Do you think if the UN went away everyone would just say "FUCK IT"? Did the UN does not stop aggression at all.
Well, it was the US who helped to create the UN, after they said the League of Nations was no longer relevant.
Which it wasn't.
You can't throw away the only even remotely-functionaly international treaty organization every time you feel like throwing a temper tantrum because you didn't get your own way.
If we pay for it, we should be able to throw it away.
The US uses the UN to give them legitimacy when it suits them, and flagrantly disregards the fact that's a signatory to some of those treaties when they wish.
So why would you object to the US pulling out?
Walk away from it, and you could find yourselves a pariah state,
Get over your anti-american wet dream of things going badly for the US.
and your relationships with your allies could become rather tenuous.
Doubtful, they will still need us, and we will still need them which is why they are allies.
Although, they've been becoming tenuous over the last few years due to the protectionism/xenophobia your leaders are putting forth to the rest of the world.
Yeah, that protectionism is really hardcore in America, that is why they have such a large trade deficit with China. The xenophobia is really big too, I mean we have politicians right now trying to decide how to baby illegal immigrants correctly.
Le't hope America doesn't decide it want to go it alone so it can become the asshole/bully of the world -- though we see shades of that now.
Lets hope America pulls out of the Anti-American UN. It does not serve our national interests to be part of such an organization. Let Europe rot and become Eurabia, fuckem.
In any democratic nation a signed treaty is not law until Parliamnent or its equivalent passes enabling legislation. Just because representives sign a treaty doesn't make it law or even certain that Parliament will pass the treaty legislation. Even though Canada has signed on to the WIPO protocols (the alleged impetus in the U.S. for the hated DMCA act) we still haven't passed the required enabling legislation, although the preceding Liberal government did introduce legislation as required by the treaty before it died. Most treaties contain language stating the minimum requirements to meet treaty obligations and dates for compliance. The United States signed the Kyoto Protocol yet President Bush later reversed that decision, so it's not like Kyoto became law in the U.S. the second Clinton signed the treaty.
I know in the U.S. the Senate holds exclusive authority over treaty legislation and once passed treaty obligations are considered equivalent to domestic law, if memory serves. I don't see how the Senate could pass treaty legislation that violates the constitution, but I am not a contitutional expert.
You know...I've really started wondering how the Fed's have so much power over the states...even with the Interstate Commerce act.
I was watching something from the History channel the other night about illegal drugs...and how Nixon got the laws passed assigning drugs to 'schedules'...and creating the DEA. How does that law on drugs superscede the states' laws? If trafficing drugs across state lines...ok, possibly, but, what about within each states borders? I wonder how Fed law works over states on so many other topics too...
I know they use the collected tax dollars to blackmail states into things such as the National (ID) Drivers license thing...and raising the drinking age to 21...etc. They threaten to withhold hwy. funding...but, really other than that, how has the Fed. gotten away with so many 'national laws'?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
i am ignorant of how this treaty would affect any real laws like here in the u.s. or india or wherever. could someone explain that?
as far as i can tell, the un doesn't have crap for authority (as it shouldn't...countries should be able to decide for themselves how to do things), so how would this thing even be enforced?
Most of why this debate is so difficult is that we are forced to use the term "Intellectual Property Rights" to describe something which are not rights but rather government-granted priviliges, concerning something which is not property but rather leases on government-granted monopolies.
It is unfortunate that the terms of the debate are consistently set by, and only by, the people who want an expansion of the priviliges they enjoy under their government-granted monopoly leases on intellectual concepts.
Yes, but how many have actually been approved and passed by Congress as law? Seems to me that the President goes out, signs something to make nice, but Congress never actually passes it, so by all technicalities, the USA doesn't have to abide by the treaty.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Le't hope America doesn't decide it want to go it alone so it can become the asshole/bully of the world -- though we see shades of that now.t s']
I think it's too late for that --- Bush already took us down that road.
[waves to the nice HS officer reading the post][meta style='mocking' content='offensive' text='hopehediesofapapercutrippingupthebillofrigh
Why do you, a freedom-loving anarcho-capitalist wish to continue residing in the People's Republik of Illinois?
Good question. I've found various loopholes in the State and Federal tax laws based on income if you're paid in US Minted gold and silver. It seems that the State of Illinois is happy to accept the loophole (probably because it is used by many elite politicians, I am sure), but many other states won't give me a clear-cut answer.
I've worked very hard to extricate myself from the state entirely (including not using state roads, and criticizing state officials and state police officers every time I see one anywhere), and I believe Illinois has some hope in offering anarcho-capitalists the chance to extricate ourselves even more. I am currently pursuing some legal requests to see if what I think the law says is true, and if that is the case, things might change fairly quickly.
Why Illinois? For me, convenience. We have private FBO airports everywhere (and cheap ones) which means I may never need my car or public roads ever again (sounds crazy, but who knows). When people ask me what we would do if government didn't provide roadways, I'd point them to the fact that I don't think cars would exist like they do today if it wasn't for government subsidies -- maybe we would all be flying around, who knows? I recently flew about 85 miles because it was faster than my car (and cheaper!)
Most of Illinois is outside of Mayor Daley's domain, and much of Illinois is still gun-toting, get-off-my-law paleoconservatives. I may not agree with their political views, but most of them hate public education, detest unionization of publicans and want to have nothing to do with the high tax rate of the megalopolis. I can live with it, for now.
In the near future, if things go well in my life (as planned, hah!), it won't matter where I live. I've started to embrace the idea of owning my own little plane and just traveling by air as much as possible. The freedom to cover 500-600 miles in 4-5 hours of flying is amazing to me, can you imagine how much more my market would open up with almost no increase in cost?
Even though Congress has no direct power over these treaties, let your reps know that you're concerned. That, plus the Senate will have to ratify it for it take effect here. If you're not in the US I recommend you do whatever your equivalent is...this is important.
Just to clarify a few points: it takes a 2/3 majority of the Senate alone to ratify a treaty (the House has nothing to say about it), and any treaties so ratified acquire the force of law. I'm not sure what would happen if a ratified treaty directly contradicted a provision in the Bill of Rights. My guess is that the treaty would prevail--effectively repealing the Article in question, but I invite any lawyers out there to contribute opinions more authoritative than mine.
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:
Article VI of the United States Constitution:
Consequently, treaties or resolutions passed by the United Nations have no effect on US law unless they are ratified by (some of) our elected representatives. There may be some measure of comfort in this for those who hold the Bill of Rights dear, but the danger is that whoever happens to be President, and those who happen to be present during the Senate hearing on the proposed treaty, effectively have the power to circumvent the procedures required for amending the U.S. Constitution. Considering the quality of those who currently rule in Washington, I am apprehensive whenever I hear of another UN resolution concocted by that strange assortment of Kleptocrats who seem to dominate that body. One of these days, the President may find a UN resolution that he likes.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
Send in the Libertarians!!!
Well if by "American" you mean "the AmericaS," well, maybe, but last I checked, Nantes was not in the Americas.
: //www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sccr/en/sccr_14/sccr_14 _1_rev.doc
n g_id=5762
n g_id=5022
n g_id=4823
From the agenda for this week's meetings:
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/html.jsp?url=http
Protection of broadcasting organizations
- Including introductory presentations of Professor Delia Lipszyc, Buenos Aires University and Chair, InterAmerican Copyright Institute (IIDA), Buenos Aires, Argentina and Professor André Lucas, Nantes University, Nantes, France.
And let's see
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeti
"Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations and Cablecasting Organizations (submitted by Singapore)"
Nope, not America.
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeti
"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations. Comparison of Proposals of WIPO Member States and the European Community and its Member States Received by September 15, 2003"
America? Where are you?
http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeti
"Proposal on the Legal Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Submitted by Kenya)"
"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Submitted by Egypt)"
"Protection of the Rights of Broadcasting Organizations (Proposal Submitted by Canada)"
Oh hey! FINALLY!!! Canada! That's American!!!
Honestly, folks, dig a little deeper, okay?
"Despite the benefits, and despite the fact that the data is available to everyone, the use of illegally obtained records in a law enforcement investigation is highly dubious and fundamentally antithetical to the principles of due process. Privacy and civil liberties advocates point out that purchasing private phone records allows law enforcement agencies to circumvent judicial oversight and other applicable constraints."
Well, if it's good enough for the Bush administration and the NSA, it's good enough for your local gendarme. Nice job, break the law to enforce the law. In the post 9/11 era, we've finally adopted that old Marxist maxim that the end justifies the means and two wrongs actually do make a right.
I get tired of saying that we can't pretend to uphold the constitution with one hand while trampling on it with the other.
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_cr owded_theatre
Explains everything, just as you said.
I assume the GP is referring to the fact that France is a permanent member of the security council and hence has veto rights. Of course, I don't think this is a security council issue, but rather one for the general assembly, so it doesn't really matter.
#include <signature.h>
I meant to respond to something else (slinks off into corner of cubicle).
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
Don't blame us, blame the people actually responsible. To wit:
Universal Pictures (France)
Sony (Japan)
BP (Britian)
Shell (South Africa)
Fox (Murdoch is Australian)
Bertlesman (France again)
I wish the French WOULD surrender!
America no longer has any industry, they have all been "globalized." Don't blame us, we all work for Wal Mart and McDonald's, because our foreign overlords took all the good jobs and moved them to China and India, and hired the Mexicans to do the shitty jobs.
The world has become one big facist country. Italy won WWII after all, it seems.
The fact that the UN refuses to recognize a legitimately free nation like Taiwan is evidence enough that the organization is full of shit.
Parent seems to think Jon Stewart sits on his couch with his TV remote in one hand and a bong in the other looking for material. The Daily show actually gets most of their clips from the original source and in almost all cases has the permission of the original network to rebroadcast the material (the exception would be, say, a presidential speech or any other sort of press conference that's fair game... Or foreign news, which is plucked from satellite feed.) Yes, Fox News agrees to let the Daily Show tease them-- and why not, it's free advertising on a competing network.
And no, the proposed law has nothing to do with this, and it's sheer ignorance to even suggest it.
Basically, because the Supreme Court said so. I will go ahead and give their reasoning behind this. If a person from another state can somehow receive the good or service (in their own state or the atate of origin) it is interstate commerce. And, if a state attempted to ban the sale of something to someone from another state, that would be unconstitutional since it is regulating interstate commerce. It really stinks, but that is how they get away with it.
In any democratic nation a signed treaty is not law until Parliamnent or its equivalent passes enabling legislation.
Wow, I wonder who said that?
Murdoch *was* Australian. Well maybe dual citizenship .. he is a naturalised US citizen.
He jumped ship in orer to get around US media ownership laws
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
intra-state == inter-state?
Hmm..I'm gonna start reading up on this...always wondered how the Feds pulled that one off...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The irony is that these "declarations" will likely be pursued with zeal by the nations in favor of them. While 10+ resolutions against Iraq set undisturbed and ignored.
You're welcome to your own opinions (which are silly enough to refute themselves that I am not going to bother). However, you are NOT entitled to your own facts.
If we pay for it, we should be able to throw it away.
Whether or not I agree with your statement, we're not paying for it. You are aware of how long it's been since the US paid its UN dues?
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last loose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
-- U.N. Commissioner Pravin Lal, "Librarian's Preface"
Yes. It is the basis they use for all civil rights legislation. Since any state or local discriminatory laws could possibly affect a traveler from another state. The other way they control states is with purse strings. The congress writes legislation that says is a state does this (say lower speed limits) they will get federal funding for something. The corollary is is a state doesn't do this, it will not get the federal money. When you are talking about things like highway dollars and federal money for entitlements, that's a mighty big stick and carrot.
JavaLord, eh? Mighty impressive nick. No one's arguing because everything you wrote is so convincing, dimwit.
The reason it's specifically illegal to rebroadcast an OTA signal is because in the early days of cable, some of them resent the local OTA stations onto cable without paying the broadcasters. (I believe using the same argument of "adding value to the network signal").
The broadcasters didn't see it that way. If it was "adding value" then they wanted monetary compensation for the "value" that was being added. In other words, the cable companies were making money off the back of the content provided by the original broadcaster.
But that is precisely the reason why the Americans hate it!
In the last century the Americans faced an opponent who was too strong to be invaded. Therefore they had to play a different game - one of diplomacy, and of trying to win over as much of the rest of the world as possible. Hence the UN as a broadly impartial referee: if either the US or USSR overstepped the mark in some imperialist adventure, UN condemnation would have a serious detrimental effect on their prestige among non-aligned countries. International law worked in the Americans' favour as often as it worked against them, so it was worth acting lawfully.
Now, however, there is no such opponent. Why, then, should the Americans care about UN condemnation of their imperialism? Why not simply invade any country of whose policies they disapprove, and damn international law?
Hence the American disapproval of the UN, and by extension France. They really hate being told they're wrong.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Regarding the rant, a couple of things come to mind.
First, treaty making powers of the government trump the Constitution. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._Holland
In the first link, I want you to pay special attention to a key sentence, one I am assuming you were unfamiliar with.
"Since the constitution states that a treaty has supremacy over "any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding," it has been argued that the potential for abuse is present"
Read that over, and you'll realize that in this case, the Constitutional argument may not fly. That sentence is about Article VI
"Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. "
And it's been upheld.
The only legal argument that has ever gotten anywhere is one that says the Constitution and treaties are of equal validity. The best you can hope for is a tie in their importance, but there's simply no way to avoid the fact that treaties have tremendous power.
This has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and everything to do with treaty making power, that is enumerated as being above the Constitution.
It's not illegal. It's not unconstitutional.
But it does suck.
You say that like it's a ~bad~ thing.
Didn't they not have playgrounds where you grew up? Did you not learn the rules of bullying? Or how to deal with bullies?If you ~act~ like you're top dog, at least some of the sheep will accept that unquestioningly. If you throw a few punches now and then, others will cringe when you feint in their direction. Always pick your targets well, and always pick weak targets. If you keep others afraid of you, you'll rarely have to risk a real fight where the outcome is in doubt.
Okay, so the sheep in the US have elected a bully. Relax, it's only for three more years. According to the polls, the sheep are starting to recognize him and his gang for what they are.You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
I just meant that the idea of "creating rights" is doublespeak, as you are free to do whatever you want until somebody stops you. You don't make a law that says "X is now legal", you make laws that ban X. /OMG AC FP+5I?
The United States gives $13.3 billion tax dollars in direct Foreign Aid annually. The United States is above and beyond the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations, donating $2.4 billion dollars of OUR money, to primarily third-world dictators.
This amount is 25% of the United Nations budget. In addition, the United States also gives another $1.4 billion tax dollars to United Nations' programs and agencies. The American taxpayers fund more for the United Nations than ALL of the other 177 member nations COMBINED.
The Supreme Court of the United States is unelected, as well. Yet we seem to put great faith in them.
Unelected is not necessarily bad.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I think this part of Article six applies:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So yes, once we sign a treaty- it becomes law at the level of the constitution, overriding state laws- not sure about federal laws.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
...on all kinds of trade- and commerce-related matters governed by treaties like this, negotiated through the UN framework, because most major players realize that having consistent rules (which the powerful interested players have all had a hand in writing) is to their advantage. On security matters, yeah, it gets ignored a lot.
...the European Council, which possesses actual more power than the elected european parliament.
Seriously, local government ceased to matter the day Lee signed his surrender at Appomatox.
Hey, the South will Rise again!
Seriously though, I don't think that's true at all. Damage was done there, but it was really FDR and his New Deal that drove the final nail in the coffin. Income Tax, Social Security, the Federal Reserve. These things all gave the federal government the power and funding it needed to exert greater control over the states.
Find coupons in Greeley
You quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an example of the UN restricting people's rights? The treaty that states:
So since 1948 this treaty has restricted people's right to be tortured?... how horrible.
"anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. "
But the Constitution itself disagrees.
So, while I appreciate that you're an attorney, I'll go with the information I have and disregard your opinion.
I spoke a bit hastily on this...
It looks like
Constitution > treaties == federal law > state & Local laws.
Apparently we are a bit unique in that treaties are like federal laws and our congress can change them like federal laws and other countries don't do that.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The US can veto any resolution by the UN.
If the US pulls out, there would be no one to veto resolutions on climate change, the international court and human rights. Letting everyone else pass treaties without the US is unacceptable, not only because the US will become less relevant, but because US Republicans hate progress.
This is also why the grandparent's comment about the US "not sticking to treaties" is utter hogwash. Treaties that have been ratified become law in the United States, and unless the law is modified (thereby formally withdrawing from the treaty) the US government is legally required to stick to their provisions.
Will you please just accept the fact that international law is a phrase that does have a well understood meaning, both in common usage and legally and quit trying to change the world's understanding of the term?
The meaning of that statements depends on the binding of the clause "any State." There are two possible parenthesizations:
"every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in (the Constitution or Laws) of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
vs.
"every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in (the Constitution) or (Laws of any State) to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The first meaning implies that a treaty can overrule a State's constitution. The second meaning implies that a treaty can overrule the UNITED STATES Constitution. So which interpretation is correct?
Therefore, as participating countries must first ratify treaties, they're also allowed to withdraw from them (by changing national law through the legislature). For example, if Britain wished to withdraw from Kyoto, it would notify the other participating nations of its intent, and then its Parliament would revoke the ratification (entering into law) of the treaty.
It's important to note, however, that without amending the Constitution to make it agree, no legislature is allowed to ratify a treaty that contravenes the Constitution. So if, for example, Congress ratified Treaty A which revoked some or other right contained within the Bill of Rights, then the US Supreme Court has the power to declare that treaty illegal and thus null and void.
What is with you Americans and this view of the UN? It is the only framework we have for having nations try and work together peacefully, and establish the way they'll play together.
Because it's the same organization that let China, Sudan, and Zimbabwe hold seats on the "Commission on Human Rights".
Part of existing in society is that rights are surrendered for saftey, security and the benefit of being a member of society. Screaming about rights and the need to have every one recognized by society is reckless and illresponsable. Some "natural rights" that society may restrict may be for the overall security and benefit of the people based on the values of that society. If a society values security then it may surrender the right to privacy.
Paraphrasing Benjamin Franklin:
FalconAnyone willing to give up a little freedom for security will get nor deserve either freedom or security.
Should there be a Law?
It cannot overrule the US constitution-- treaties must be made "pursuant to" i.e. "limited by" the constitution.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The "in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations" clause is used twice in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely:
In short, you do not have right to political asylum in Argentina just because you happen to be a Nazi criminal of war, nor can you be drafted to gas Jews. Ssorry for the double invocation of Goodwin's law, but just after the war that's probably the sort of people they were thinking about.
As for the "purposes and principles of the United Nations", these are not just the swaying opinion of the secretary general of the day, but they are clearly written in the first chapter of the Charter of the United Nations, that sum up to pacifism, freedom, antiracism, and lots of lofty ideals.
Just to get back in topic, see principle number 7:
So, the broadcasting treaty may actually be violating the UN's principles and be thusly busted, as broadcasting laws seem an unnecessary intrusion that has nothing to do with peacekeeping. Chapter VII, in case you wondered, is about "Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression", nothing to do with broadcasting rights.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
The interstate commerce clause was not meant to give Congress the right to regulate trade or commerce on a control level
Someone needs to pass a constitutional ammendment clarifying the above.
Can we repeat that 1000 times? I really think the structure of government needs to be flipped upside down. Local government should be more important in the daily lives of people than federal government it just makes sense. Imagine being able to actually have a say or influence in the laws that effect your life and being able to move somewhere (easily) where the laws suit your beliefs.
Article VI, second paragraph, "...and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
I seem to remember some language in the Federalist Papers explaining why they considered that clause essential.
It's been practically important in Native American land disputes: normal real estate law would make the tribes automatic losers under adverse posession, but they've gotten some useful settlements because they could appeal to all the treaties the US government signed with them. There's room for debate about just how "international" that is, but it illustrates the Consitutional principle that treaties have legal force and indeed can override other laws.
>Well, it was the US who helped to create the UN
After the mind-burning horror of World War 2. The goal was to prevent the next world war. As someone said at the time, not to bring humanity into heaven, but to save it from hell.
The UN made it possible to stop some wars of agression without having them go global. They're preventing smaller wars in Cyprus, Sinai, and many places you never hear of because they're not going up in flames. Sometimes all that's needed is to reassure each combatant that any sneak attack would have to go through the blue helmets first.
Then came the featuritis. The World Health Organization, for example, isn't part of that mission. It did eradicate smallpox and save hundreds of millions of lives, but that's not part of preventing wars. The UN's problems seem to come in areas it shouldn't have tackled. Rights for broadcasters are a great example.
Oh, and explain me again the theory that whatever governments do is evil while corporations can do no wrong because they are a part of a "free market" and should only make money for their stock holders.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
"Depends mostly on if our elected officials grant this unelected body the right to govern us. Happens all the time through various treaties."
Umm, yes. Look at ICANN.
Created on the face of it to make new top-level-domains it spent 3 years dealing with trademark issues and arguably that's still what it's all about. Jon Postel's dream of "300 new TLDS this year" to dilute Network Solutions power gave way to an organization by, for and of lawyers.
Now you can lose your domain name because some guy in Geneva says so and your local or national court system is simply not in the loop. Read the fine print.
I can only begin to imagine the lobbying going on at the UN and am utterly certain this will pass there and that my country and yours will ratify it thus making it national law.
It was said to me 10 years ago and I didn't believe it and I'll say it now to you and you won't believe it: you have no idea of the reach and determination of the IP lobby.
In a practical sense you will have no idea what they're up to till it's all over. In many cases you'll never find out.
I probably would not hurt to read or re-read Heinlein's "Friday".
Need Mercedes parts ?
It makes me nervous that these rules would be set by the UN. The UN is dominated by blocs of developing nations that have no tradition of free speech.
It would be like asking convicted criminals to enforce the laws and set legal policy.
Just my two cents.
Yes. It is the basis they use for all civil rights legislation. Since any state or local discriminatory laws could possibly affect a traveler from another state.
That's not even remotely accurate. Federal civil rights legislation is based on the 14th amendment:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The due process/equal protection clause is what pretty much all federal civil rights, voting, and criminal legislation is based on.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Remember a few months ago when there were reports about the foreign countries wanting to weaken the ICANN? Then there was talking about making independent ICANN-like systems for each country? This is just a knee-jerk reaction to the U.N.'s constant bitching. If the U.N. seriously wants to take control of the internet, lets see what happens when someone (in this case the U.S.) submits a proposal to censor the internet. (Which we all know would happen, read: China, Iran, North Korea, etc.)
What happened to your original account? Did you trash your karma that quick? Maybe you should try listening to people who know more than you and refrain from ad hominem attacks. Actually, looking at the account history on both, you are doing better on the last point now. Just try not to come off so cocky and ocassionally admit when you are wrong and you'll do fine.
;-)
It's okay, nobody can be right all the time and no one is an expert in every subject. I'm guessing you are a pretty smart guy, and not too used to dealing with other people as smart or smarter than you. Sure, there are a lot of dumb-asses here, but there are a lot of really smart, well informed people here, too.
An occasional rant is fine (see my rant about you, in response to cpt kangarooski) but every now and then you gotta try to be nice (like I'm doing here. After reading some of your more recent comments I've decided you aren't a hopeless case after all.)
All I can say is, when I stopped thinking I was right all the time, and everyone who disagreed with me was an idiot, I started learning more. When I learned to back down and admit I was wrong, I started making more friends. When I learned how to have a dialogue with people who disagree with me, I found that they didn't disagree with me about everything, and I found that I either strengthened my own arguments or (*GASP*) modified my own opinions.
Oh, and Tuesday is Troll day, so the advice above doesn't apply. You can go hog-wild and post any crazy diatribe you want. You'll still be modded down, most likely, but us old-timers won't hold it against you.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Who the hell do you think holds the keys to the vault and is handing it to them on a silver platter? Open your fricking eyes...
It's a shame we can't count the United States in there.
The fact is, the UN is useful for its intended purposes. In a nutshell: debate of issues affecting the whole of humanity and establishing consensus toward maintaining peace and economic and social development. Oooh, scaarrry.
The problem is, the foaming-at-the-mouth opponents scream and holler about all the things it was neither designed to do nor does it in fact attempt to do. This treaty is a prime example of what the various branches of the U.N. actually do accomplish--they simply establish totally voluntary common standards of behavior between sovereign countries, yet the most "burn-it-to-the-ground" opponents come out in hysterics thinking that it is some kind of unelected superstate.
It makes me wonder if such rabid detractors have ever set foot in the building or read a single, solitary resolution in their lives. Ever read the language of these things? "The General Assembly Recognizing this, recalling that, noting something, deploring such-and-such, further yammering on at length, decides that this is bad, requests that you stop doing that, affirms that we shall say things in very strong terms if you keep doing that bad thing, further requests that you be thought very ill of if you ignore us, recommends that we talk about this again sometime amongst polite company over coffee and biscuits."
In short, it's diplomacy. So, we have a big building for all the diplomats to hob nob in. It is only "broken" insofar as the act of diplomacy itself has inherent limitations that, really, are quite dry and boring and certainly nothing to go all Guy Fawkes crazy about.
including not using state roads, and criticizing state officials and state police officers every time I see one anywhere
You know what they say... any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from an idiot. And dude, I'm starting to think you might be sufficiently advanced.
You /want/ the UN to invade countries?
/decades/, and continues to get away with it. It's nice to have powerful American friends, and ones who have a magic cloak against hypocrisy.
You know, Israel has defied the UN for
But when you want to do something illegal, you can just claim you are enforcing UN resolutions. Like this: ram a ridiculous law through the UN, then enforce it at home while blaming the UN.
Lies about crimes
Decoding the Precedence in the Construction of the original Constitution poses Difficulty to Speakers of modern English because the original Document was written using Capitalizingrules similar to those of German. It's "(the Constitution or Laws) of any State" because if it weren't, the Passage would read "this Constitution or (Laws of any State)".
This is also why the grandparent's comment about the US "not sticking to treaties" is utter hogwash. Treaties that have been ratified become law in the United States, and unless the law is modified (thereby formally withdrawing from the treaty) the US government is legally required to stick to their provisions.
Is the North American Free Trade Agreement a treaty by your definition? Seems the US doesn't like the dispute settlement mechanisms they signed up for, and the Canadian government has given up trying to get them to follow the treaty as far as softwood lumber is concerned. Canada had mixed results in its challenges under the WTO, but won the NAFTA challenges: however, the US chose not to follow the rulings.
The UN did NOT give you the authority to invade Iraq. The UN made a resolution which did not authorise the use of force and your corrupt government used that as an excuse to start a war of aggression.
Yes - the UN ambassadors are unelected, so are the officials inside the UN (as they relate to the general populace).
/. is except it is for countries, not us nerds. Think of it as a building in which member-states enter in to discuss events and do business. The building itself doesn't mean anything, it is just a place/organization for states to get together.
But the UN has NO power. It is just a discussion forum like
Also, ambassadors and representatives (diplomats) of each member state must vote on things how their country tells them. If there is a vote on a specific issue coming up, each rep that has a vote MUST communicate with their prime minister (or in the case of the US Sec of State), to determine how their country will be voting.
Countries can only agree or disagree to specific issues. For example, Iran signed a treaty (a document) that said they will not pursue nuclear weapons. They have since withdrawn from that treaty, therefore nullifying and voiding it. In the US (or most other sovereign nations) if a party was to do that they would be found in breach of contract and a penalty would be imposed. However the UN is NOT sovereign and to date there is nothing above the sovereignty of states. The EU might change that one day, who knows.
Libertas in infinitum
to the New World Order. The United States will not exist in future. Maybe this is one way to begin that process: by having the UN (that does not elected members but appointed members) govern the world.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
As for getting out elected officials to do this... our rights will be protected when we cough up the money to create our own PAC and buy our own politicians. (while the public line about this is "buying access"... given the correlation between campaign contribution and votes... I'm hardly going to try to sell the 'access' nonsense to slashdotters)
There are enough of us on slashdot alone that if we each gave our own PAC $20 (highest membership ID I saw was over 700K) , we could afford to do just that, a PAC with $14M in funding behind it is big enough to be taken seriously. I'd throw in $20 bucks towards something viable.
We don't have to outbid everybody in the world, just the Hollywood content cartel on votes that matter to us.
Remember, they are buying politicians with OUR money... it's time we do the same.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Unfortunately for your argument, it is what it is regardless of what the ignorant and ill-informed trumpet they think it is, no matter how strongly they think so.
"The 'villians' (sp)" of the world hold veto power in the Security Council? China is in there, but the only other veto-holding states are the US, France, England and Russia. The other ten rotating seats do not have veto power.
Beyond that, the United Nations is by definition not sovereign, by definition not only does not have a monopoly on legitimate use of force--it scarcely even has the ability to use force because it has no standing armed forces and the UN Peacekeepers it may collect and deploy are absolutely, 100% defensive and by definition is not a "World Government" as absolutely, positively NOTHING that comes out of that organization is truly binding on anyone who does not assent voluntarily---and who said anything about "selling" anyone on the idea of "World Government" anyway?
So what we have here is both partners in a deal agreeing to ignore certain provisions of the deal (for now at least). This is not the same as breaking the terms of a treaty.
"Not your ordinary treaty"? What do you mean by that?
I agree that other treaties also deal with the same issues that NAFTA deals with, but I don't think any are in conflict with it. The WTO rulings are less stringent than what NAFTA imposes. This means that the US could win at WTO and lose at NAFTA without any contradiction, and, if they chose to follow the treaties they had signed, they would have to follow the more stringent NAFTA rulings. They didn't.
"US would have had no choice but to back off"? Really? I guess it's too bad the Canadian trade officials didn't have you to explain the situation to them, or they wouldn't have made such a "weird" decision. To me it looked as though the Canadians thought (probably incorrectly) that backing down in this case would mean the US would follow NAFTA in other cases. I think it means that the dispute resolution parts of the NAFTA agreement are now worthless, because the US knows it can get away with ignoring them. Canada was foolish to think the US would agree to give up any sovereignty whatsoever, and should not have signed away its own sovereignty in agreeing to the deal: because you can bet the US won't let Canada renege on its parts of the agreement.