Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 1990 1991 [1992] 1993 1994 ... 2573

Author Topic: AmeriPol thread  (Read 1584451 times)

Dunamisdeos

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dead Postocalypse lies dreaming.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29865 on: April 23, 2019, 02:01:45 pm »

I'm not sure I understand any aspect of this. Requesting further details from ye better informed.

Why is it hard to put forward a resolution that says "If you get caught raping, you get [war crimes]" in the first place? Do we actually NOT have that already???

From personal experience you can go to a hospital and be like yo, I was just raped, and then they examine and say wow, yes, this definitely happened. The main difficulty to my understanding are things like societal pressure to not report it, fear of retribution from the perpetrator, etc. Is the wording meant to provide alternate avenues of identification in say, areas of the globe that do not have hospitals capable of identifying a rape victim? Articles reporting on the situation are nebulous, using terms like "watered-down" without proving any hard info on the specific goals here.

I guess the TLDR is "What does this resolution provide, specifically, that previous/in place ones do not". I want to know about this.
Logged
FACT I: Post note art is best art.
FACT II: Dunamisdeos is a forum-certified wordsmith.
FACT III: "All life begins with Post-it notes and ends with Post-it notes. This is the truth! This is my belief!...At least for now."
FACT IV: SPEECHO THE TRUSTWORM IS YOUR FRIEND or BEHOLD: THE FRUIT ENGINE 3.0

Iduno

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29866 on: April 23, 2019, 02:34:23 pm »

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna997326

What even... What?

So not having parking available isn't any sort of harm to the community? Cool. Suggest in a town meeting that as lack of parking is not a problem, the city should replace the city parking spaces with trees or something. And name the bill (whatever a local-level suggested ordinance is called) after the idiot who sued for the chalk.


To remedy the situation, let us instead converse about a much more sensible matter.

Well, the US military has a history of committing that particular crime, so it makes sense they'd prefer to see it continue to go unpunished.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 02:36:49 pm by Iduno »
Logged
No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29867 on: April 23, 2019, 02:39:39 pm »

Sooooo lets see if I got that correctly.

The US delegation wants to topple or at least castrate a resolution that aims to help with identifying and prosecuting rapists in militaries, because the same resolution also implies that the victims might not actually want to have rape babies?

Clearly, that makes perfect sense.

(Are these people secretly saturday morning cartoon villains in disguise?)

Yep, it's all about abortion because they think the words 'reproductive/sexual health' means that 'teh libruls' want to legalize abortion.

I'm not sure I understand any aspect of this. Requesting further details from ye better informed.

Why is it hard to put forward a resolution that says "If you get caught raping, you get [war crimes]" in the first place? Do we actually NOT have that already???

From personal experience you can go to a hospital and be like yo, I was just raped, and then they examine and say wow, yes, this definitely happened. The main difficulty to my understanding are things like societal pressure to not report it, fear of retribution from the perpetrator, etc. Is the wording meant to provide alternate avenues of identification in say, areas of the globe that do not have hospitals capable of identifying a rape victim? Articles reporting on the situation are nebulous, using terms like "watered-down" without proving any hard info on the specific goals here.

I guess the TLDR is "What does this resolution provide, specifically, that previous/in place ones do not". I want to know about this.

It might be in the Geneva Convention, dunno. As for why it's so hard, the Trump admin is tunnel visioning onto the words sexual and reproductive and screaming ABORTION!!!!!XFFGVJ! while ignoring everything else it encompasses.

Anyways, they successfully went and removed the words.

Since the right wingers in South America went and formed PROSUL, their answer to UNASUR, I can't help but wonder why right wingers haven't tried to form their own right wing version of the UN already, given how they feel about the UN.

To remedy the situation, let us instead converse about a much more sensible matter.

Well, the US military has a history of committing that particular crime, so it makes sense they'd prefer to see it continue to go unpunished.

It's not exclusive to the US military.
Logged

Kagus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive oil. Don't you?
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29868 on: April 23, 2019, 02:40:31 pm »

To remedy the situation, let us instead converse about a much more sensible matter.

Well, the US military has a history of committing that particular crime, so it makes sense they'd prefer to see it continue to go unpunished.
But, really, the US shouldn't really even care about that. After all, we've already got protections against being tried for other war crimes, so adding rape to the list of "stuff we ignore" isn't going to make a difference.

Dunamisdeos

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dead Postocalypse lies dreaming.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29869 on: April 23, 2019, 02:45:23 pm »

Does this resolution make it easier for those trying to avoid prosecution for rape as a war crime to be caught and tried? I am extremely interested in the specifics. Does it help cover situations where a rape is hard to detect or report? I'm not in a position to do a lot of research right now, was hoping one of you guys already had :).

All I can find online is "Trump loves rape, hates medical science". Which, sure, but that doesn't answer my questions, etc.
Logged
FACT I: Post note art is best art.
FACT II: Dunamisdeos is a forum-certified wordsmith.
FACT III: "All life begins with Post-it notes and ends with Post-it notes. This is the truth! This is my belief!...At least for now."
FACT IV: SPEECHO THE TRUSTWORM IS YOUR FRIEND or BEHOLD: THE FRUIT ENGINE 3.0

Grim Portent

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29870 on: April 23, 2019, 02:50:40 pm »

Does this resolution make it easier for those trying to avoid prosecution for rape as a war crime to be caught and tried? I am extremely interested in the specifics. Does it help cover situations where a rape is hard to detect or report? I'm not in a position to do a lot of research right now, was hoping one of you guys already had :).

All I can find online is "Trump loves rape, hates medical science". Which, sure, but that doesn't answer my questions, etc.

Rape is not considered a war crime currently, so a soldier who rapes an enemy civilian has not committed an international crime and their home country has no obligation to surrender them to the country where the rape was committed for prosecution, nor to prosecute them themselves since the crime was outside their jurisdiction. This would make it an international criminal court issue and apply to all countries in the UN, obliging them to surrender rapist soldiers to criminal proceedings.
Logged
There once was a dwarf in a cave,
who many would consider brave.
With a head like a block
he went out for a sock,
his ass I won't bother to save.

Kagus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive oil. Don't you?
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29871 on: April 23, 2019, 02:54:57 pm »

I thought there was a precedent for trying rapist combatants as war criminals, but only in international conflicts (thereby muddying proceedings by having to prove that the conflict was international at the time of the assault)?

Also, the new (and improved, courtesy of US veto threats) resolution now changes the previously accepted resolution so that it no longer has language that urges nations to provide medical support for rape victims. Because that could mean abortions, and abortions are wrong.

Dunamisdeos

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dead Postocalypse lies dreaming.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29872 on: April 23, 2019, 02:57:47 pm »

Does this resolution make it easier for those trying to avoid prosecution for rape as a war crime to be caught and tried? I am extremely interested in the specifics. Does it help cover situations where a rape is hard to detect or report? I'm not in a position to do a lot of research right now, was hoping one of you guys already had :).

All I can find online is "Trump loves rape, hates medical science". Which, sure, but that doesn't answer my questions, etc.

Rape is not considered a war crime currently, so a soldier who rapes an enemy civilian has not committed an international crime and their home country has no obligation to surrender them to the country where the rape was committed for prosecution, nor to prosecute them themselves since the crime was outside their jurisdiction. This would make it an international criminal court issue and apply to all countries in the UN, obliging them to surrender rapist soldiers to criminal proceedings.

Wow, yep, there it is. That's exactly what i was looking for, thanks.
 
How it is 2019 and this was not a thing before now. Wow. At least it's going to pass now, I suppose, now that everyone is in agreement over the [political bullshit wording] involved? Frankly in our case I'm glad it wasn't blocked outright out of spite.

@Kagus
Sounds like they just acknowledged abortion as a valid medical procedure, hence necessitating its removal.
Logged
FACT I: Post note art is best art.
FACT II: Dunamisdeos is a forum-certified wordsmith.
FACT III: "All life begins with Post-it notes and ends with Post-it notes. This is the truth! This is my belief!...At least for now."
FACT IV: SPEECHO THE TRUSTWORM IS YOUR FRIEND or BEHOLD: THE FRUIT ENGINE 3.0

smjjames

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29873 on: April 23, 2019, 03:00:41 pm »

To remedy the situation, let us instead converse about a much more sensible matter.

Well, the US military has a history of committing that particular crime, so it makes sense they'd prefer to see it continue to go unpunished.
But, really, the US shouldn't really even care about that. After all, we've already got protections against being tried for other war crimes, so adding rape to the list of "stuff we ignore" isn't going to make a difference.

That's just protection from the International Criminal Court or anybody that is not the US, not blanket protection from warcrimes.

Besides, it's been said multiple times in many places that the Trump admin is targeting abortion providers or any language that gives even the slightest hint of providing abortion. And they've taken that hatchet to other UN stuff, so, it's not like this case is being singled out just because it's about war crimes.

Does this resolution make it easier for those trying to avoid prosecution for rape as a war crime to be caught and tried? I am extremely interested in the specifics. Does it help cover situations where a rape is hard to detect or report? I'm not in a position to do a lot of research right now, was hoping one of you guys already had :).

All I can find online is "Trump loves rape, hates medical science". Which, sure, but that doesn't answer my questions, etc.

No clue. Sounds like they are just axing the health support services part, and axed or changed something about training journalists on sexual violence. The part about not providing services BESIDES ABORTION could plausibly make it harder for some to come forward just because of the lack of said services.

Does this resolution make it easier for those trying to avoid prosecution for rape as a war crime to be caught and tried? I am extremely interested in the specifics. Does it help cover situations where a rape is hard to detect or report? I'm not in a position to do a lot of research right now, was hoping one of you guys already had :).

All I can find online is "Trump loves rape, hates medical science". Which, sure, but that doesn't answer my questions, etc.

Rape is not considered a war crime currently, so a soldier who rapes an enemy civilian has not committed an international crime and their home country has no obligation to surrender them to the country where the rape was committed for prosecution, nor to prosecute them themselves since the crime was outside their jurisdiction. This would make it an international criminal court issue and apply to all countries in the UN, obliging them to surrender rapist soldiers to criminal proceedings.
I thought there was a precedent for trying rapist combatants as war criminals, but only in international conflicts (thereby muddying proceedings by having to prove that the conflict was international at the time of the assault)?

Also, the new (and improved, courtesy of US veto threats) resolution now changes the previously accepted resolution so that it no longer has language that urges nations to provide medical support for rape victims. Because that could mean abortions, and abortions are wrong.

I could have sworn there was something in the Geneva Convention or something or other.

@Grim Portent on ICC: The problem is that the US has straight out said, 'NO! Your ICC does not apply to us! Only AMERICANS can charge AMERICANS with warcrimes!'.

Does this resolution make it easier for those trying to avoid prosecution for rape as a war crime to be caught and tried? I am extremely interested in the specifics. Does it help cover situations where a rape is hard to detect or report? I'm not in a position to do a lot of research right now, was hoping one of you guys already had :).

All I can find online is "Trump loves rape, hates medical science". Which, sure, but that doesn't answer my questions, etc.

Rape is not considered a war crime currently, so a soldier who rapes an enemy civilian has not committed an international crime and their home country has no obligation to surrender them to the country where the rape was committed for prosecution, nor to prosecute them themselves since the crime was outside their jurisdiction. This would make it an international criminal court issue and apply to all countries in the UN, obliging them to surrender rapist soldiers to criminal proceedings.

Wow, yep, there it is. That's exactly what i was looking for, thanks.
 
How it is 2019 and this was not a thing before now. Wow. At least it's going to pass now, I suppose, now that everyone is in agreement over the [political bullshit wording] involved? Frankly in our case I'm glad it wasn't blocked outright out of spite.

@Kagus
Sounds like they just acknowledged abortion as a valid medical procedure, hence necessitating its removal.

The issue isn't whether it's a valid procedure, it's the whole moral issue, which is completely BS since sexual health services don't only do abortion.

Got pinged several times writing this with 'new post has been made while you were typing and before you clicked submit', heh.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 03:05:30 pm by smjjames »
Logged

Dunamisdeos

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dead Postocalypse lies dreaming.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29874 on: April 23, 2019, 03:09:17 pm »

Yeah, I know. Just taking shots at the no-abortions-for-any-reason crowd, sorry about that XD

Anyway, I'm glad that we supported it in the end. Not surprised that Trump's folks flipped out at the possibility of supporting abortion. Very glad that we now have rules in place for prosecuting rape as a war crime.
Logged
FACT I: Post note art is best art.
FACT II: Dunamisdeos is a forum-certified wordsmith.
FACT III: "All life begins with Post-it notes and ends with Post-it notes. This is the truth! This is my belief!...At least for now."
FACT IV: SPEECHO THE TRUSTWORM IS YOUR FRIEND or BEHOLD: THE FRUIT ENGINE 3.0

Grim Portent

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29875 on: April 23, 2019, 03:12:58 pm »

Rape is technically covered by the ICC under it's founding charter, but only when it's part of an institutional issue, done on a large scale or as a part of official practice as I understand it.

I don't believe it covers individual soldiers and individual instances of rape.
Logged
There once was a dwarf in a cave,
who many would consider brave.
With a head like a block
he went out for a sock,
his ass I won't bother to save.

Baffler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Caveat Lector.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29876 on: April 23, 2019, 03:28:05 pm »

It makes perfect sense. At the end of that article it mentions that:
Quote
The latest version of the draft resolution recognises the work of the informal expert group on women, peace and security, but Patten had argued that the current system does not provide a consistent channel to bring violations on sexual violence to the attention of the security council.

A formal mechanism, with a panel regularly assessing compliance and recommending sanctions, would have given her more leverage on states and non-state groups.

Whatever the US government's reason to turn this down, I'm happy that they did. If it becomes clear that some belligerent in a conflict is in fact using rape as a weapon of war, meaning at scale and either sanctioned or ordered by their commanders, there's no need for a formal mechanism for UN member states to consider sanctions against them. And if it isn't being used as a reprisal, and is just a crime being committed by individual soldiers, that's something that should be dealt with by that country's military justice system. The UN doesn't need this power, and it couldn't use it responsibly if it gets it anyway. It's just another mechanism for setting up beltway elites, and their foreign equivalents, with cushy bureaucratic jobs that let them feel like they're saving the world. It also sounds like not providing """""family planning""""" services would be cause for this committee to (at least consider) recommending censure against you. Why should states where abortion isn't even legal be expected to contribute to that kind of effort? Why should they tolerate the UN pushing it on them? That "progressive normative framework" the anonymous diplomat moans about losing is no loss at all, I think.
Logged
Quote from: Helgoland
Even if you found a suitable opening, I doubt it would prove all too satisfying. And it might leave some nasty wounds, depending on the moral high ground's geology.
Location subject to periodic change.
Baffler likes silver, walnut trees, the color green, tanzanite, and dogs for their loyalty. When possible he prefers to consume beef, iced tea, and cornbread. He absolutely detests ticks.

Kagus

  • Bay Watcher
  • Olive oil. Don't you?
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29877 on: April 23, 2019, 03:29:24 pm »

Anyway, I'm glad that we supported it in the end. Not surprised that Trump's folks flipped out at the possibility of supporting abortion. Very glad that we now have rules in place for prosecuting rape as a war crime.
Except that it's a little bit more fun than that. In 2013, the UN security council already accepted a resolution that 1) States that sexual violence constitutes a war crime and 2) Calls for providing social and medical help for survivors of said sexual violence.

This latest resolution aimed to strengthen and expand that previous resolution (near as I can tell), and the US objected to the wording in the draft. Normally, when there's major contention, the UN goes back to a previously agreed-upon resolution, which in this case would be the one from 2013. Except that the US said that they wouldn't accept that language either, and thereby forced through a new resolution that removes the call for providing medical support.

So this latest resolution has actually only gone backwards, because everyone else was trying to go forwards from a resolution that Obama's administration had agreed to.

Dunamisdeos

  • Bay Watcher
  • Dead Postocalypse lies dreaming.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29878 on: April 23, 2019, 03:32:56 pm »

Backwards in what regard, though? I doubt that the new one is literally the old one but with potential references to abortion removed. The new one must include some manner of expanded protections or avenues of prosecution that provide increased chances of bringing perpetrators to justice.

If it came down to Trump trying to alter previous resolutions as a result of this attempt, they would have simply taken it off the table and reverted to the actual previous form, and let Trump try to propose an alteration himself. New one has to have some benefit for them to put him with his chicanery. You can look up UN resolutions on their website, but for the life of me i can't find this specific one.
Logged
FACT I: Post note art is best art.
FACT II: Dunamisdeos is a forum-certified wordsmith.
FACT III: "All life begins with Post-it notes and ends with Post-it notes. This is the truth! This is my belief!...At least for now."
FACT IV: SPEECHO THE TRUSTWORM IS YOUR FRIEND or BEHOLD: THE FRUIT ENGINE 3.0

Baffler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Caveat Lector.
    • View Profile
Re: AmeriPol thread
« Reply #29879 on: April 23, 2019, 03:37:54 pm »

Backwards in what regard, though? I doubt that the new one is literally the old one but with potential references to abortion removed. The new one must include some manner of expanded protections or avenues of prosecution that provide increased chances of bringing perpetrators to justice.

If it came down to Trump trying to alter previous resolutions as a result of this attempt, they would have simply taken it off the table and reverted to the actual previous form, and let Trump try to propose an alteration himself. New one has to have some benefit for them to put him with his chicanery. You can look up UN resolutions on their website, but for the life of me i can't find this specific one.

Edit: Nope. This is the only mention their website seems to have of it. It might be one of the documents at the bottom of the page.
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2019-04/women-peace-and-security.php
« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 03:42:14 pm by Baffler »
Logged
Quote from: Helgoland
Even if you found a suitable opening, I doubt it would prove all too satisfying. And it might leave some nasty wounds, depending on the moral high ground's geology.
Location subject to periodic change.
Baffler likes silver, walnut trees, the color green, tanzanite, and dogs for their loyalty. When possible he prefers to consume beef, iced tea, and cornbread. He absolutely detests ticks.
Pages: 1 ... 1990 1991 [1992] 1993 1994 ... 2573