Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JoshuaFH]

I mean if that's where you want to draw the line as far as police harassment goes...

Moreover, I'm a Michigander, Saginaw is maybe a 30 minutes drive away. That's the 'bad part of town' and I didn't even know they were chalking people's cars. I'd have thought the enforcement over there had more shit on their plate than to worry about petty offenses like that.

[sluissa]

Gotta keep the department funded somehow... and parking tickets are good for that.

[Kagus]

This discussion has already become silly. Gentlemen! Behave yourselves!

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


Babies are the future, by any means necessary!

[Cyroth]

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?)

[Dunamisdeos]

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.

[Iduno]

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.

[smjjames]

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.

[Kagus]

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]

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.

[Grim Portent]

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.

[Kagus]

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]

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.

[smjjames]

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.

[Dunamisdeos]

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.

[Grim Portent]

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.