Slashdot Mirror
US Refuses To Sign ITU Treaty Over Internet Provisions
An anonymous reader writes "The United States said today that it will not sign an international telecommunications treaty thanks to the inclusion of Internet-related provisions. According to the BBC, the U.K. and Canada have also pledged not to sign the treaty in its current form, while delegates from Denmark, the Czech Republic, Sweden, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Costa Rica, and Kenya also have reservations."
Norway is also refusing to sign
Too bad the U.S. is acting by inaction, instead of proposing a proper treaty that spells out our position, we just refuse to sign one that we don't like.
An opinion based on the unfounded assumption that there needs to be a treaty.
Why did the ITU propose a treaty that nobody noteworthy is willing to sign? To quote one article on this, the ITU Director General said that he was "surprised" by the dissent. The lesson we can take from this is that the ITU is obliviously out of touch.
"His name was James Damore."
...we're safe.
The current status quo is preferable to an entirely new system which, if this treaty would have been ratified, was to be in control of an 'independant' organization and nations themselves. Yes, it has to change, but not in the way proposed at this conference.
I'd rather have the US spying on me than China, Russia and Arabia forcing the world to split up the internet into national networks with no external access.
Thanks for condensing every anti-American platitude into a single post for easy two-minutes of hate consumption. You get bonus points for using Star Wars references while citing exactly zero facts to support your arguments and pointing out exactly zero treaties that the U.S. has "violated".
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Not signing a treaty in the first place because you don't like whats in it is a sound and rational thing to do.
The US is doing absolutely nothing wrong in this case.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
Treaties no longer apply to the United States.
Well, not if they don't sign. That's kind of the point. If you don't sign it doesn't apply. And they won't sign. That sounds entirely reasonable.
There are many bad things sure, but this isn't one of them. For various reasons most of the western world don't seem to want to give the ITU control over the internet, and would rather control resides with the USA for the time being.
As a non American westener, I'd agree that this is by far the best choice.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
who are the idiots voting parent insightful? did you even read the article?
FTFA: "Some countries at the table, however, have submitted proposals that would also give the UN some power when it comes to Internet regulation, which the U.S. and other countries oppose. Ambassador Kramer has been speaking out against the Internet component of the treaty since before the conference started on Dec. 3, but more than a week later, they are still included in a draft that's on the table."
Maybe you missed that part. Seems the countries opposing this (no, not just the "evil" US) are doing so precisely because no one actually "owns" the internet as it stands now. The second we allow a governing body, *ANY* governing body, to do so is the second we start seeing people get censored by tin-pot dictators wishing to cover up the evidence while committing all sorts of atrocities against their own people - and, yes, that goes for the US as well. If you look at quite a few of the countries who back this treaty (China and Russia are two of them), it's easy to come up with a list of folks who'd love nothing more than to narrow down the avenues through which information gets out, and for some pretty nefarious reasons.
I think the only reason you were modded "+5 Insightful" was because of your anti-American rant, not due to actual logic.
This space for rent!
The types who have been following news on things like Guantanamo.
The treaty was a result of proposals from many different countries including the US that were voted on in the meetings over the last several days. The language that is most being objected to was inserted in a late night session just before the end.
Attempting to force a whole US written treaty on the proceedings outside of the normal UN channels would be a far greater act of disregarding the ITU process than just refusing to sign the final version.
There's an amazing amount of misunderstanding in your post for it being so short.
Wow, what an amalgam of off-topic wrong. We aren't signing the treaty. So it doesn't matter about anything else you said - as wrong as what you said was. We (and several other countries) don't want to give Iran, North Korea, China, etc. the ability to use the UN to censor the internet. This is a GOOD THING that the US, UK, Australia, Norway, etc. are doing by not validating this treaty.
Yup, this seems to be girlintraining's typical mode. She makes some wildy idiotic statement and if she gets modded down, she gets all indignant. She seems to get off on how many +5 posts she can get, which is quite a few when you understand the mentality of the Slashdot groupthink.
I'm an alcoholic and I find your post offensive. You do realize sir, that this means war.
Like not signing treatys that allow you to be punished for war crimes. Then well signing into law a law that says they will invade the Netherlands and forcably remove
anyone held for war crimes. Yes, nice responsable country. The sort of views you want for a nuclear power.
FTA: "In particular many attendees believed it was an anachronism that the US government got to decide which body should regulate the net's address system as a legacy of its funding for Arpanet - a precursor to the internet which helped form its technical core."
Yeah, that makes perfect sense, I can't imagine why the US didn't sign. "Hey, that thing you paid for, developed, and turned into a thriving platform for social and commercial activity? We don't like that you own it and we don't, so would you mind handing it over?".
I find the US' anti-UN attitude as irritating as you do, but it's not just the US. As the summary mentions there are many other nations in opposition, and the European parliament attacked the ITU as vocally and before the US did. This move was supported and partly spearheaded by MP Amelia Andersdotter of the European Pirate Party. When she's against something concerning the internet, something just might be wrong with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union#Proposed_Changes_to_the_Treaty_And_Concerns
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/24/european_parliament_votes_against_itu/
Why would the US give up control of the Internet? We built it, it's ours.
Don't forget kids, we are all here having fun on a network who's foundations were laid by the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT!
It's all likely been a sneaky way to spy on everyone in the world by getting them to voluntarily give out information on themselves.
The merits of the ITU being involved in Internet protocol discussions aside, the notion that the Internet is some kind of anarchic, ungoverned, network that's not "owned" by any group, groups, or governments, is a ludicrous meme that has no basis in reality.
Every user of the Internet is governed by, at the very least, their local laws, and frequently affected, if not bound by, the laws of governments they would otherwise not normally be associated with. Content on the Internet is frequently censored, and people have suffered penalties from enormous fines to actual imprisonment, due exclusively to things they did online. ISPs are, actually, required to abide by local laws, and frequently are compelled to take a role in law enforcement, be that simply giving up names, or in some countries, filtering content and identifying people who attempt to get hold of content legislated as illegal.
Given that, the uproar about the notion that the ITU - which is hardly a political body and thus far has never made any decision you could reasonably suggest is content based - might be involved in provisioning the Internet because somehow it means the UN now governs the Internet - is faintly ridiculous. Nobody is going to deported to a dictatorship from their home country thanks to any rules imposed by the UN or ITU. And Kony (or whoever the Godwin-violation of the week is) isn't going to be able to take down criticisms of him hosted on US websites thanks to decisions by the UN.
There may be legitimate reasons to oppose the ITU's involvement in the Internet. The "If the ITU is involved, the Internet will be governed by POL POT!!!" one really isn't.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Well, not if they don't sign. That's kind of the point. If you don't sign it doesn't apply. And they won't sign. That sounds entirely reasonable.
I was referring to them backing out of, rejecting, or not acknowledging, a few dozen treaties lately, not honoring extradition requests while stealing other citizens out of their own beds in other countries without that government's consent, and withdrawing from the Geneva diplomatic conventions, etc. When you've violated so many of your own treaties (Hello, Native Americans! How 'ya doin'?) your word no longer means anything. Treaties are contracts between countries... if you don't honor them, they become meaningless.
Whether they sign or don't sign isn't the problem: It's that the signature wouldn't mean anything anyway. But I can't blame you guys for having such terminally short memories... just ask Julian Assange about international treaty law. Or did you forget about him already? :/
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I think the only reason you were modded "+5 Insightful" was because of your anti-American rant, not due to actual logic.
Yes, and now I'm -1, Troll, apparently due to your pro-american rant, not due to actual logic. You missed my point -- I wasn't discussing the pros or cons of the treaty, but rather that it doesn't matter whether we sign it or not. I was mocking the idea that the United States has any diplomatic currency left to spend after we've pulled out of so many treaties and failed to sign others even when they're clearly aligned with our ideological values and would cost us nothing! We talk about how we're "world leaders" and a "beacon of hope" and the "police of the world", but it's a joke. It's total propaganda. And everybody else except the citizens here who've grown up on CNN and Fox News know that.
When I was talking about how the internet moved out of the basement 30 years ago, what I meant was that the government hasn't been directly involved in it for some time. It's already out of the control of the government -- it's being controlled by private american companies with no oversight, no laws to govern them, etc. So why would it matter if we signed the treaty or not? The government has no actual control! It'd be like me signing a contract to put you on the moon -- I have no way to deliver.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The problem with disabled rights is that they are not a natural right, but requires massive governmental spending. That doesn't mean that countries are banned from implementing it, only that they aren't forced to do so. Some countries are simply not in the economic position to be able to afford that, and forcing them to spend all their money on medicare instead of trying to get out of poverty is unfair.
And the current treaty isn't really an international agreement, because many countries oppose it, not only America. And if you think that leaving American control will somehow free the internet, you are very naive. The ITU will still be controlled by politicians, the difference is that most of them will be unelected.
Jon Stewart, the Comedy Central spoof news show host, really? Well, that is quite serious.
Perhaps, Vint Cerf or Tim Berners-Lee are better experts in how the Internet works, though? See Berners-Lee comments http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20594779
Citations needed
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
I support the US actions just so I can watch people like you implode in a fit a mindless rage while using half-truths and outright lies to support your ravings. The best sign the US is not all lost is it's growing reluctance to concede any decision making power to the UN which as an orgranization is worthless and should have been shown the door a long time ago,
while citing exactly zero facts to support your arguments and pointing out exactly zero treaties that the U.S. has "violated".
A correctable problem, if you'd just ask nicely instead of being a total jerk and assuming that just because I didn't list them means they don't exist and I'm therefore wrong.
List of Notable Treaties the US has withdrawn from (broken)
There's also a number of treaties we haven't signed that are notable. For example, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, Convention on Discrimination of Women (Iran and Sudan are amongst the very few countries that also haven't signed on), Convention on the Rights of the Child (142 have signed so far), Mine Ban Treaty, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
There's also a number of treaties that, while we haven't formally withdrawn from or issued a statement on, we're in clear violation of and have stated our intent to continue doing so. Guantanamo Bay, for example, is a violation of numerous Geneva Conventions.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
And what's this about Star Wars needing references? Are you too young to remember Ronnie's SDI? What about the recent release of info about the USA wanting to put nukes on the Moon in the early days of the space race?
Really, all you have is "If you're going to say nasty things then I'll dismiss them as angry rants". Tell us, oh pratt-face, how do you say nasty and deserved things about someone without someone being able to call it "hate"?
Perhaps, Vint Cerf or Tim Berners-Lee are better experts in how the Internet works, though?
They probably are, but they're not as funny, and they aren't commenting on the UN treaty about disabled people in that article.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Thank you for clarifying that you have no clue as to how the Internet works, what involvement American companies have with it, and that you were off topic.
All in one thread. Kudos.
If there's any entity in all this acting like Darth Vader, its other governments wanting to censor and control.
In the larger picture, there's also the meme growth mechanism lodged in most of your brains to knee-jerk run to government as solution, and only solution, such as this treaty's call for government control mechanisms for spam, which I am sure will never, ever be misused for other types of data filtering.
Spam bad. Government mass murderous. Are citations needed?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
There !! Fixed and ribbed it for your pleasure !!
I never heard of this "International Treaty on Torture Fucking Contard", and from what I can tell we only interrogated "Fucking Contards". I see where you could be upset and will do my best to get the US to start torturing these Fucking Contards ASAP.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
"Your" internet is on OUR land.
Pay rent, sucker, and backdated.
It's our land.
PS give us back the languages, the TV, the Telephone, Electric lighting, the internal combustion engine, writing, arithmetic, medicine and so on. It wasn't invented in the USA.
Hell, the FRIGGING WHEEL wasn't invented there. Take off ALL your wheels (and cogs and springs) and give them back. WE INVENTED IT.
PPS I'm ASSUMIUNG you meant "invented". Because if you mean "built", then hand everything back to Taiwan/China, where it was fucking built you leech.
To be fair, the US government does have a pretty long and distinguished history of signing agreements (or for that matter, domestic laws or, well, our own constitution) and then ignoring them if whatever administration is in power feels that the other parties can't stop them.
Not to say this is a US specific thing, it is probably a product of having enough power to ignore rules and not be stopped.. so the US gets highlight since we have quite a bit of power (both economic and military) so we end up on the 'winning' side of such violations more often then not.
So you are using an appeal to authority argument using a comedian as your authority. You really have an interesting logic pattern.
That's what this is all about.
The US is not inactive in this regard, our government simply isn't going the 'open treaty' route. They have, however, been sending diplomats to various nations pressuring them to implement US friendly internet laws, and they have been using the US's place both among financial institutions and internet infrastructural to basically set the rules for the internet in other countries. Where countries are more oppressive, we have even been funding darknets to help subvert their own government....
The US is against this treaty (well, ok, there are many reasons since it isn't a good treaty) in part because it codifies the rules and gives other countries a say. Right now the US pretty much unilaterally acts as the internet ruler, spreading US law across it, free to do and change whatever they want whenever they want without any judicial review. Pretty sweet deal.
Hello Africa this is your bestest buddy Europe stopping by to carve your continent up and to rape, pillage and plunder all your resources. We wont go into depth about the slave trade of your people conducted by the Arabs from the north and the Europeans. Shall we go into depth about the persecutions done by those Europeans that you seem to never want to say anything bad about?? Silly, silly person placing blame on only the new comer to the worlds countries and politely forgetting about all those "others".
It is only a war crime if it happens during an armed conflict - which requires a state of war - the terrorists don't qualify.
Really, do you have NO SKILLS or MEMORY ***whatsoever***????
Germany have a warrant for a US soldier for crimes committed in Germany. The soldier got back to base before arrested and was sent back home and is refused to be extradited to Germany FOR QUESTIONING even.
The UK wanted several US pilots to come over to testify in a case, not face charges, and the USA refuses.
McKinnon, Abu Hamsa and three Muslims have all been deported.
Do you know what native americans are?
NAFTA. Signed by the USA. Abrogated in an illegal levvy on Canadian softwood lumber imports.
WTO. Signed by the USA. Abrogated in internet gambling.
These have ALL been reports in the news in the past year and on slashdot.
But I guess you never read a discouraging word. Which means that any citation given would not be read either.
So when China pulls the plug on its people or Egypt or Iran or.... This is fine with you? I bet these very same countries voted FOR the treaty for this very reason. The UN has been such a strong force for good. They stopped Syria in its tracks, Stopped Iran from moving ahead on its nuclear project, stopped the genocide in Bosnia, stop the genocide in Sudan and Ethiopia. Yeppers this is the best group to handle everything because they have such an excellent track record. / sarcasm Well ok I will give you Korea, they did get goat roped into that by the evil American. Oh also the Cuban missile crisis too but that one really rests on the Russians walking out.
The US did invent it after all. Other countries are free to build their own networks.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I think she is going on about the "rights of the disabled" treaty in the post you're replying to, not the ITU treaty.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Whether they sign or don't sign isn't the problem: It's that the signature wouldn't mean anything anyway. But I can't blame you guys for having such terminally short memories... just ask Julian Assange about international treaty law. Or did you forget about him already? :/
Wasn't aware that Julian Assange was charged with breaking international treaty law. At least not yet anyway.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
So you are using an appeal to authority argument using a comedian as your authority. You really have an interesting logic pattern
Even better, (s)he's using a strawman as well, as Tridus's "a treaty" is likely referring to the current ITU one, but "the treaty" in girlintraining's direct reply to that post is (by his/her own admission later down) referring to "the UN treaty about disabled people."
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Seriously? "US Refuses To Sign ITU Treaty Over Internet Provisions" is the title of this piece?
From what I could tell, even TFSummary mentions multiple countries refuse to sign. But, "OMG! Teh Un1t3d 5t4t3s refusors to p3n h4x moar documents! Roooaarrr!!1"
A more sensationalist title I've not seen on /. for a while.
How about a more neutral tone for story summaries? Maybe, I don't know:
Multiple countries fail to agree on ITU Treaty
Multiple countries disagree on ITU Treaty content
Differences still exist between countries involved in ITU Treaty
ITU Treaty content to undergo more revisions
sheesh.
Wasn't aware that Julian Assange was charged with breaking international treaty law. At least not yet anyway.
He wasn't charged with it; He was the victim.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
He is a comedian. But that doesn't make what he says WRONG.
You will see a lot of "George Carlin had it right". Bill Hicks made a LOT of social commentary too. What about Colbert?
Indeed the fool is often the only person who can tell the truth when a despot is in power. And you americans ARE under a (willingly allowed) despot. This one AND the last one were despots.
But you seem to want to complain MERELY because he;s a comedian, he must be wrong.
Ad hom.
Prove your assertion.
And yet, none of that pertains to this treaty at all. There's not even a need to defend the US and its actions here, because this entire argument is a derailment of the primary one: whether or not the US should sign this treaty. Instead we're ranting about completely unrelated treaties on topics that hold no bearing to this discussion. The only tidbit of the entire rant we can apply is that the US does not always consider itself beholden to treaties it signs.
If we apply the only relevant part back to the actual topic what are we left with? Well, I would say that your standpoint is a great argument against signing this treaty. This is because any effort to hand control of the core systems that support the world wide web must be binding and complete. If the US is not going to honor those then what will happen when we have competing regulatory agencies and systems? I don't think it will be pretty.
It's interesting that the only useful nugget of that rant seems to work in favor the US actions, considering the rest of the rant is against it.
I was referring to them backing out of, rejecting, or not acknowledging, a few dozen treaties lately
Well, ok. Given that the original post was about the US not signing a specific treaty, you can perhaps forgive my confusion :)
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It seems like the Final Acts of ITU at WCIT2012 will be remembered as crimes against humanity, no less. Read the act: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/final-acts-wcit-12.pdf If you'll realize the the consequences you'll get the real tragedy: Governmental supervision on content in the name of "security & anti-spam"; the 'Free-Riders' (Google , Facebook, AWS & likes) will keep 'riding' on our infrastructure paid by our taxes; no mention of net neutrality & freedom of content even. As I see it, despite all the american 'Woo-Ha', the USA sold our freedom to China & Russia against the green dollars of the 'Corps'. It's about time Google will listen to Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2011/09/02/google-needs-to-drop-its-do-no-evil-thing/ Sad day for our planet.
No it's a war crime, crime against humanity etc,. It's a matter of can you recognize that. For example, the declaration of Independence would have no validity by British law .. yet it is valid by innate human rights granted by God. In the same way, all human beings have a right to fair trials and not to be tortured. It's a matter of are you willing to recognize that right. And the argument that terrorists dont have the right to a fair trial is just silly. How do you know if someone is a terrorist without a trial? What if they were they were setup by a neighbor or forced onto the battlefield because of threats to their family etc. ? Everyone deserves a reasonable chance to explain their story and be released if it can be verified. Also, if you are going to hold prisoners without certainty of their guilt/innocence you should at least not torture them.
Don't forget the Barbary Corsairs, who took Europeans as slaves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_01.shtml
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
To be fair, the US government does have a pretty long and distinguished history of signing agreements (or for that matter, domestic laws or, well, our own constitution) and then ignoring them if whatever administration is in power feels that the other parties can't stop them.
Yes, but pointing that out lands you in "-1, troll" land usually, as my OP demonstrates to great effect. In most developed countries, there's been major historical event that they lost on. Germany lost WWII. Britain was bombed back into the stone age. The French... well... 'nuff said. Poland, Switzerland, every European country has at one point been steamrollered and had to eat crow. So their sense of patriotism is tempered by the understanding that they can lose, that they have lost, and that while they're proud of who they are, they're not insensitive to the fact that they've also screwed up before.
The United States hasn't had that pivotal moment yet where it simply, unquestionably, lost. Failed. Beaten. Destroyed. It will happen, eventually, but until it does, people here are going to be highly resistant to the idea that we can screw up. They have untempered pride in their country, blind patriotism. And that's why so many people are irritated with Americans -- it's the lack of humility, it's the idea we can do whatever we want because we'll always win. But we're paying an enormous cost for this attitude; The south now resembles the living conditions commonly found in the suburbs and smaller towns of Egypt. Detroit is a wasteland full of crime, murder, and destroyed infrastructure. Several of our major cities have been reclaimed by nature due to economic neglect. Many americans are starving or close to it, and our food reserves dangerously low. People talk about the recession like it's over, but it's never been worse. Our pride is killing us. Literally. Every predator drone launched is a denied college education. It's food that could have been put on the table of a hungry family.
We need to jettison that pride, but as you can see, even here on Slashdot, that's amazingly hard for people to do. They'd rather just scream at the top of the lungs "You're wrong! You're wrong!" They're dragged kicking and screaming to the truth, and they hate me for it.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Good. Fuck the UN.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
Also want to point out that the Bill of rights/constitution does NOT grant us our most important rights .. it merely respects and acknowledges them. Our rights (and those of all humans) come from the Creator/nature. If you read certain amendments you can tell from the wording that the right is something pre-existing and the document is only forbidding its infringement. For example, -- where is the right to bear arms granted? It's not. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" It doesn't grant us that right .. because we already have it -- from God. It's not something you are provided with. Or amendment 4 "right of the people to be secure [..] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" .. again .. we see that the right is not granted .. merely respected. Amendment 7: "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved". Amendment 8 "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" .. we can see that the government is forbidden and neutered from inflicting those things .. it's not granting the right .. it's preventing government from doing something it shouldn't and it's respecting rights we all have.
Withdrawing from a treaty is not the same as violating it. In international law, the rule of thumb is that a country is only obligated to comply with the laws (treaties) it has ratified, and is not bound by those that it has not ratified. (Note: One debatable exception to this is the Nuremberg Principles)
Furthermore, countries are free to withdraw from ("repudiate") any treaty at any time, unless that treaty has provisions that provide specific steps for (or prohibit) repudiation.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Guantanamo Bay, for example, is a violation of numerous Geneva Conventions.
Have you actually read the Geneva Convention (which one)? You should at least read the first page or two of one of them before you comment. In order to be afforded the protections of the Geneva convention, several things need to happen.
The combatant needs to be a member of the armed forces of a sovereign state that signed the treaty. They need to be in uniform or clearly marked as being in the military. They need to be carrying their arms openly. They need to be under clear military command and control. A state of war needs to exist between the two sovereign states. The terrorists in Gitmo meet none of these conditions.
If you want to be afforded the protections of a Treaty, you have to follow the rules and meet the conditions of the treaty. Here is a news flash for you: Terrorists don't follow the rules.
Your "fair share" is NOT in my wallet.
No, I'll assume you are wrong because now that you have listed them, you are, in fact, wrong:
Here's a few items you have gotten incorrect:
1) BWC is currently listed as an active treaty on the US department of state's website here. What makes you think the US withdrew?
2) I can't find any evidence that the US is exempt from the CWC. The US CWC website indicates no such exemption, and neither does wikipedia, nor the UN website on the treaty. Care to provide some evidence?
3) Withdrawing from a treaty is not the same thing as breaking it. The US gave 6 months notice of the intent to withdraw from the ABM treaty as permitted by the terms of the treaty. Saying that's the same as breaking a treaty is the equivalent to saying not paying your car lease is the same as completing the lease and returning the car.
Treaties that the US has not signed have nothing to do with the discussion, but nice attempt at moving the goalposts.
Queer fuck.
Maybe when she gets tit's she'll behave a bit more rationally.
Wait...what am I thinking!?!?
The United States hasn't had that pivotal moment yet where it simply, unquestionably, lost. Failed. Beaten. Destroyed.
It is quite strange that you try to preach to others about history, when you don't even know it your self. Perhaps google can enlighten you if your school has failed you.
Or perhaps you were only talking about history within the last generation?
Withdrawal from a treaty is not the same as violating it. The ABM treaty, for instance, had a clause requiring 6 months notice for withdrawal, which the US complied with. There were good reasons for withdrawal, even if you disagree with the final decision to do so.
BWC: from a quick search, we didn't withdraw from the treaty, but did refuse to sign on to an additional protocol for it. Maybe you have a better link.
CWC: we appear to be in the process of destroying the declared stockpile, although we missed the deadline. Where was the the treaty modified for us?
Each of the other treaties has a reason for not signing, and it's quite arguable that guantanamo Bay doesn't actually violate the Geneva Conventions. Despite what it's opponents suggest, the treaties as written only explicitly protect uniform soldiers, and the definition of a "competent tribunal" is not made within the treaty.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Troll? Satire is dead...
There may be legitimate reasons to oppose the ITU's involvement in the Internet. The "If the ITU is involved, the Internet will be governed by POL POT!!!" one really isn't.
What a nice strawman. Don't you mean "If the ITU is involved, the Internet will be governed by HITLER HIMSELF!!!11eleventeen"?
Just because the ITU is (supposedly) apolitical, doesn't mean they aren't going to fuck it all up, if they ever lay their hands on the Internet.
Case in point: the fucking telephone system (you know, that thing which we let the ITU have control over?). Guess what? It fucking sucks. As someone already pointed out... if the ITU had been in charge of the Internet from day 1, you'd probably pay different prices if you were sending an email to Washington or to Seoul.
You know when was the last time that giving something for bureaucrats to control ended up being a good idea? I'll tell you when: NEVER.
As you said: the Internet is anything but "anarchy"... people are still governed by their respective local laws and whatnot. So, again, why the fuck should the ITU have any saying over ANYTHING at all?
Between the known issues with "US governance" of the Internet and the unknown issues with "UN governance" of the Internet, it's very easy to choose.
There are actual reasons to reject the treaty other than the fact that it comes from the UN. Just as an example, it does not have the exemptions for small business that are present in the ADA.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
And of course there's the Nat West Three.
Nobody is going to deported to a dictatorship from their home country thanks to any rules imposed by the UN or ITU.
That's a straw man argument.
Most people worry about their own home country, that's why they'll take great care to ssh into a foreign country that won't tattle-tell on them.
And we're not talking solely about so-called "dictatorships" either. If you're a whistle-blower, or if you are of the wrong religion, or if you like to sample music from P2P, or if you're married and are having an affair, there can be negative consequences for not selecting a foreign jurisdiction to ssh-in that's more likely to protect your anonymity.
Which might be true or false, but doesn't really have a thing to do with TFA. Further, the US not signing this one is a good thing. And if the US signed it, and didn't honor it, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that either.
Do you have anything to back up your claim that we're not signing this because some deep character fault of the US rather than the fact that it is a very bad treaty which erodes freedom and rights, and puts control of the internet directly in control of states with a deep tyranny streak? Lacking any evidence, this becomes a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, which leads me to wonder if your just trying to find faults for the sake of maintaining a pre-existing bias.
Would you rather that the US ratified this treaty, just to make it clear that they lay no claim to the internet?
Yes, the US has some deep faults, and have done some deeply disturbing things in the past (not-so-recent and recent), but they aren't all bad. Also, government is an immensely complex beast, thus it is hard to characterize isn't a single bile soaked ideology. Perhaps there are voices in the government leading to this decision for the "right" reasons? How could one ever prove this either way?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Convention on the Rights of the Child is a poor example, due to the US's separation of power between state and federal the US legally can't ratify the treaty in it's current form due largely to provisions about education. The applicable laws on the subject however are just as strict if not stronger, much like most of the protection under the international treaty on the disabled which was also recently not signed by the US.
U.N. (1948): "Never again!"
Dictators (1948-present): "LOL!!!"
The U.N. has consistently failed at its primary purpose, which is to prevent genocides. All this outrage over the U.S. not signing on to some paltry and misguided attempt by less free nations to get their censoring mitts on arguably the most free medium mankind has ever known. No outrage against the U.N. when some regime starts slaughtering civilians by the thousands. Again. And again. The U.N. is nearly as worthless as the League of Nations it replaced.
The other problem with the Disabled Treaty is it is modeled on the American's with Disabilities Act.
While the ADA has done a lot of good for disabled people in our country, I don't see any value to signing a Treaty which would essentially duplicate it. It would unnecessarily complicate the discussion about accessibility and what is required and what isn't.
They probably are, but they're not as funny, and they aren't commenting on the UN treaty about disabled people in that article.
But what does a UN treaty about disabled people have to do with the topic, a UN treaty about the internet? For that I'll listen to Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee, as they probably know a thing or two about the internet.
So you're saying we should sign this treaty then? Why?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
In debate they call what you said a claim without a warrant.
I wasn't discussing the pros or cons of the treaty, but rather that it doesn't matter whether we sign it or not.
So a valid mod would been "-1 Off-Topic", then?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Some here in the US carry an anti-UN sentiment, but there is far more reason to oppose this. Read the above comments about ITU ruining telecom in it's infancy.
unless that treaty has provisions that provide specific steps for (or prohibit) repudiation.
All of the treaties mentioned that had been ratified had such provisions. The United States ignored those enforcement clauses. But thank you for your legal explanation, even though I had clearly delineated those which had been signed and ratified from those that had not been ratified.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
A troll without the nword is like a snake without venom. Hilariously pathetic.
I think you misunderstood the word associations slightly - the OP was angry about torture-fucking the Contards, whoever they are. If we're still torture-fucking the Contards it's probably just a misunderstanding, or else it's the fault of the dickwolves. I'm blaming the dickwolves.
Yes, but pointing that out lands you in "-1, troll" land usually,
This is funny, coming from someone that regularly karma whores with anti-US rhetoric.
You do realize that of all the treaties that you are condeming the United States for not signing have in fact all been signed except the Mine Ban Treaty? What they haven't been is ratified. Without going through every one of them the likely reasons for them not getting ratified is either that they are incompatible with American values or the system of government or that they are frankly stupid.
I can't say I feel too bad about the US not ratifying whatever random stuff the UN General Assembly spits out. The US is not governed from the UN and nor should it ever be.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Maybe that's a part of American culture. Who are you to judge, right? Oh, that argument only works for discussions about other countries, my fault.
No.. I suspect you are marked troll not for the things that are true but unpopular, and more for the rather over the top extrapolation you use them for.
Why would we need or want to sign treaties regarding civil rights issues? Don't get me wrong, I'm not against women or children but aren't those more domestic issues? These things can be dealt with through a democratic process involving elected congress writing bills or in some cases a constitutional ammendment (ie right to vote). Treaties are papers that are negotiated mainly in secret and then are rule of law even above those laws which are created through democratic means. I think we have enough problems keeping our elected congress accountable, why give more power to the appointed diplomats?
She seems to get off on how many +5 posts she can get
That is a beautiful thing and perfectly acceptable practice. Everybody in /. needs to get off more, not less.
Every "anti-American" platitude? Even if it's true?
The US signed over 500 treaties with the Native Americans , and didn't keep a single one.
Platitude? Or maybe you should just go back to where your ancestors came from, and hand the country back to the Real Americans?
As a part-Native American friend used to have as a sigfile, "the Native Americans had really *bad* immigration laws".
mark
Why didn't you just mention one example where the U.S. 'unquestionably, lost. Failed. Beaten. Destroyed'. Why just the insult? I'm just trying to understand. I did a Google search and couldn't find anything more than battles lost or foreign wars lost. See the problem is subjective. And if you had at least provided one example we could debate whether the U.S. 'unquestionably, lost. Failed. Beaten. Destroyed'. But you didn't and I have to wonder why. girlintraining is frequently 'out there' but you don't look any more informed in your post.
So does that apply to Canada too? Because we didn't sign that crap either and with good reason.
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; Signed 1972, withdrawn 2001: Treaty was with the Soviet Union, which had ceased to exist, but we were going on an informal understanding (not ratified) that Russia and a few other former USSR states were the successor. Also, we withdrew according to the withdrawal terms of the treaty itself, so we didn't break the treaty, but followed it.
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: I believe we're still in that one. We just couldn't agree on an inspection protocol because we thought it could actually undermine the treaty.
Chemical Weapons Convention: An exemption, if one exists, within the treaty does not make a broken treaty, it means following the treaty with the exemption. In any case, the destruction of chemical weapons has been inspected in the US.
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: We have valid objections. Still, we have not tested a nuclear weapon in 20 years, so regardless of whether we have ratified we are still in compliance with the spirit of no nuclear weapons testing.
Convention on Discrimination of Women: It isn't about the rights of women, it's about radical feminism. The committee in charge of this has chastised member states for declaring a Mother's Day, and not having enough kids in state-run daycare. It's not pro-woman, it's anti-family.
Convention on the Rights of the Child: Can't work due to the federal nature of this country. Also, interferes with the parent-child relationship, for example spanking is banned. There are other reaons why it's just not a good idea. Even countries under it signed, but still object to many of its terms.
Mine Ban Treaty: In practice, we already adhere to it with the exception of the Korean DMZ, and we have helped countries around the world clear mines just as if we were in the treaty. But we're not because of the DMZ, where the point of the treaty (civilians being harmed) is irrelevant since civilians aren't allowed there and all mine locations are recorded for eventual demining. As far as future use, we no longer have any dumb mines, which are what kills civilians after a conflict. Ours degrade over time and become inert (and our policy is to record location for demining anyway). About 100% of the effectiveness of this treaty is in conflicts in which the US is not a party to the landmine laying. Joining would at best be symbolic, and still harm national security.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: We pioneered this concept with the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials, so we're not against the idea, but there are serious problems with the ICC, especially with the violation of what we in the US consider to be fundamental due process rights. The risk of politically motivated prosecution is also quite high.
Guantanamo Bay, for example, is a violation of numerous Geneva Conventions: The Geneva Conventions apply to the signatories, or to a signatory country when fighting with another force that has agreed to abide by the Conventions. Those in Guantanamo are neither.
However, I don't think you want to go by the Convention. The main complaint is the fact that the detainees are there without trial, and could be there forever. If we classify them as prisoners of war under the Convention, then we can keep them until the end of the conflict, which will probably be forever. No trial, no nothing. And we can put 'em to work in the fields or the coal mines.
I dun believe that you, slir, are in fact alci...alca....a drunk. You er ohfenshist, an' your posht ish a war. I'll *hic* shee you on...the...watchamacalle...the battle-thingy. Thash right. You an' me....aaand that other guy. I propoze a drinking dool at whatever time it is in whenever I wake up!
... just ask Julian Assange about international treaty law. Or did you forget about him already? :/
Yes, I did already forget about him. I deemed it not worthy of my attention a long time ago.
You're right, they're just civilians we kidnapped from their country and put forever into a gulag. That's no violation of the Geneva Conventions -- it's just a violation of decency, and probably our constitution.
You're correct. The US has not declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan yet invaded both countries with military force.
Read what the Geneva convention says and has always said about spies. Shot on the spot. Happened in all the world wars.
Torture has been defined so far down the average police interrogation qualifies.
There was a reason the VC wore black pajamas. It was a uniform.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
War of 1812. Canada whipped us pretty fucking good.
You never can trust 'em, always eying your beer. We should put more troops on our northern border. Perhaps a moat.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Did you just try to argue that US has no right to criticize policies of other countries? After all, it's the country that does by far the most of such critique due to it's global reach and amount of relationships because of this reach.
There is much legal debate over the validity of repudiation clauses against sovereign entities, or even the validity of contracts involving sovereign entities. One detail : a government as a whole is a sovereign entity, the executive most definitely is not. Only the executive government (generally referred to in the US as "the president", in Europe generally "the king") is bound by contracts and treaties. The government as a whole (including the legislative and the judiciary) can do anything it wants, as long as certain procedures are observed. Those procedures mean that, depending on the case, 50%, 66% or unanimity of the elected representatives is required.
The consensus in America is that congress is not bound by any rule other than the constitution. If congress votes the US out of a treaty of an international treaty, they are fully in their right to do so. In Europe the situation is different and, in my humble opinion, extremely worrying. National parliaments do not have the right to violate international treaties, according to precedent. The European parliament certainly does not have that power. The problem is that the European commission, and specifically the leader of that commission, currently Jose Manuel Barroso, has the power to both impose any international treaty, and thus any law, he sees fit, and to break any treaty currently in force. While at the current time compliance with that theoretical situation is lacking at best, it is worrying that there is a singular individual that, legally speaking, has (theoretically) the power to simply declare himself dictator of Europe. While he has not done anything remotely like that, there are several cases where he has abused his position.
Plus at some point this person will be replaced, and his successor will gain the same power. Who's to say what he'll do ?
So they claim. The US, UK, and Canada have a long history of completely ignoring the will of the people when it comes to internet regulation. Not signing for that reason is complete and utter bullshit.
Nah, Canadians are the best. We'd probably do just as well to invite them over for beer anyways.
Wow, wish I could mod you up. Informative, detailed, non-political and accurate. What are you doing on /.?
Only the executive government (generally referred to in the US as "the president", in Europe generally "the king") is bound by contracts and treaties. The government as a whole (including the legislative and the judiciary) can do anything it wants, as long as certain procedures are observed.
Aside from some lilliputian states the monarch is definitely not a part of the executive, yes many European nations has monarchs as head of state(out of tradition) but they have been deprived of all political power. The only power they typically wield is through whatever influence they have over public opinion(since they are typically quite popular with the public but most of these nations have laws prohibiting the monarch from attempting to influence politics either directly or indirectly).
In nations with monarchs the executive is typically the prime minister(which is democratically elected, comparable to the speaker of the house of representatives in the US), most certainly not the monarch(which is hereditary).
Have you actually read the Geneva Convention (which one)? You should at least read the first page or two of one of them before you comment. In order to be afforded the protections of the Geneva convention, several things need to happen.
The combatant needs to be a member of the armed forces of a sovereign state that signed the treaty.
No because other parts specifically makes it a war crime to be a combatant without being a member of the armed forces of a sovereign nation.
They need to be in uniform or clearly marked as being in the military.
No because the Geneva Convention specifically makes it a war crime to attempt to not use a uniform or to cover it up.
They need to be carrying their arms openly.
Yes, anyone that is a signatory does but even non-combatants has the right to bear arms for their own protections
They need to be under clear military command and control.
No, if they are part of the military then that command and control is assumed regardless of whether it exists or not.
A state of war needs to exist between the two sovereign states.
No, there are provisions dealing with undeclared wars, the only thing that is required is that there be a military conflict which there clearly is since the US military is invading/occupying parts of another nation.
The terrorists in Gitmo meet none of these conditions.
At the very least they meets the condition of being a civilian in a conflict because the Geneva Convention assumes that there are no combatants that are not part of a military force, therefore they are technically civilians and afforded all the protections civilians are afforded under the Geneva Convention.
If you want to be afforded the protections of a Treaty, you have to follow the rules and meet the conditions of the treaty. Here is a news flash for you: Terrorists don't follow the rules.
No you don't, as long as one nation in the conflict is a signatory of the treaty the manner in which they may behave is regulated by the Geneva Convention regardless of whether the enemy is a signatory or not, some provisions are excluded when the opponent is not a signatory and/or does not follow the Convention but most provisions are still intact and apply with full force to the signatory, especially the parts protecting civilians and governing warfare in areas with a high civilian population, such as cities.
Despite what it's opponents suggest, the treaties as written only explicitly protect uniform soldiers, and the definition of a "competent tribunal" is not made within the treaty.
No that is simply not true, there are very clear and explicit protections afforded to civilians and everyone who isn't a uniformed member of a nation's armed forces is classified as a civilian, they have the right to bear arms and protect themselves if fired upon, so for example the drone strikes done by the US military are a war crime, those targeted are civilians until it is obvious they're not, aka the second they open fire on your forces.
>Guantanamo Bay, for example, is a violation of numerous Geneva Conventions: The Geneva Conventions apply to the signatories, or to a signatory country when fighting with another force that has agreed to abide by the Conventions. Those in Guantanamo are neither.
However, I don't think you want to go by the Convention. The main complaint is the fact that the detainees are there without trial, and could be there forever. If we classify them as prisoners of war under the Convention, then we can keep them until the end of the conflict, which will probably be forever. No trial, no nothing. And we can put 'em to work in the fields or the coal mines.
The provisions protecting civilians apply as long as you are a signatory regardless of whether the opponent is or has agreed to follow the conventions. Everyone not bearing the uniform of a nation's armed forces is a civilian until it apparent they are not(as in they open fire on you without provocation), civilians have the right to bear arms in times of conflict for personal protection so you cannot just remove the civilian status of someone just because they were found armed and in the wrong place.
ONLY members of a nation's armed forces(which they VERY clearly are not) can become prisoners of war, you cannot just arbitrarily declare so no you cannot just arbitrarily declare someone as a POW and keep them indefinitely, besides classifying them as Prisoners of War would require and actual declaration of war by the US Congress because there cannot be prisoners of war without there being a war.
I wish that the International Warcrimes Tribunal would put that law to the test because I very much doubt that the US would actually invade the Netherlands, as that would be a declaration of war with the European Union which would be well very problematic to say the least.
> The lesson we can take from this is that the ITU is obliviously out of touch.
So what else is new?
If they were 'the best' they would have the sense to move.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You're totally wrong about this. We agreed to buy the land from them, then we kept it.
You're right, I was overly broad. The third convention involving prisoners of war does place restrictions on who is protected, and many of the prisoners at GB would not qualify. The fourth convention requires humane treatment for civilians, but leaves fairly broad latitude for internment in article 41. Since the 4th convention does not include combatants in it's protections, plain clothes soldiers (or terrorists if you prefer) appear to be protected by neither the third nor 4th, but any individual not directly caught engaging in combat could be interred. There's a reason I specified "arguably" instead of "clearly".
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
The War of 1812 is often not seen as a loss for the US, but not a win either. It was not conquered, it suffered some important political building losses (the White House, Capitol Building). US troops also destroyed buildings in Canada, though they were not as high-profile.
Neither side won nor lost territory in the war, in fact, the war served to end border disputes. The real losers in the War of 1812 were the Native Americans. They lost -big time- as a result, and while historians can disagree on whether the US, Canada, or GB won the war of 1812, everyone can agree that the Indians were the real losers.
If they are civilian, we can put them on trial and lawfully execute them according to the Convention. IMHO, the tragedy of the situation is that all of the trials should have been done with long ago, the guilty imprisoned or executed. However, several lawsuits and political pressures delayed this for years.
Here you give up any credibility. The ONLY purpose for the "declaration of war" thing is a balance of powers, the President cannot wage war without the consent of Congress. The Constitution does not lock down consent to any formal "declaration of war" format. Consent takes whatever form Congress wishes. Since Congress has given its consent in an authorization for the use of military force, there is absolutely no issue here.
The issue of a declaration of war is completely irrelevant to the Convention too, because requires only that an armed conflict exist. Are we in a conflict? Is it armed? Ta-da, the Convention applies, they are prisoners of war, or civilians who can be tried and executed.