erynaught

I'm glad you learned something, but it's thousands of Palestinian children who have been treated like this, not just hundreds - the article I already posted in this thread about the UN report, which calls Israel's abuse of Palestinian children "systematic," contains this info.

I had used the present tense and my research indicated that there were roughly 200-300 Palestinian youth presently incarcerated under similar circumstances. I appreciate that thousands have been treated like this, but I was speaking of the present.

Trying to characterize illegally occupied people who throw stones at foreign occupiers as getting into "trouble" is a pretty disgusting example of colonialist mentality. Amira Hass points this out quite eloquently:

This is inflammatory and uncalled for. My comment here was made in the context of a father who admonishes my own children to be aware of the consequences of their actions regardless of the circumstances.

I just read the article. Yes, it makes an eloquent case. I don't buy that stone throwing is a birthright. If I did, then I would have to accept that shooting a gun, imprisoning stone throwers, establishing settlements in someone else's land, blowing oneself up, flying planes into buildings are birthrights as well. Look, I appreciate the kid is taking part in the resistance - if he's aware of the possible consequences, whether they be justified or not, then fine. I wasn't characterizing the kid, the conflict or your assertions - just hoping he'd keep himself out of trouble in the future, whatever that trouble may be. Maybe he becomes more successful with his stone throwing ... maybe he finds a more effective and safer method of resistance ... maybe he just wants a job and a better life and finds it somewhere ... maybe ...

Are you still trying to argue that the Geneva Convention and international law do not constitute legal precedents for the ICC ??????

The Rome Statute of the ICC's "Elements of Crimes" specifically cites "international law" and "the Geneva Convention" over and over and over as the legal foundation for its legal definitions of war crimes. The whole Rome Statute is based on "international law" and "the Geneva Convention."

The ICJ acts as the UN's legal advisory that determines legal questions for the UN, which is yet another foundation of international law.

If these bodies by any stretch of the imagination did not constitute legal precedent (or even "carried much less legal weight") then they wouldn't be mentioned as the basis of the pertinent Rome Statute definitions of war crimes. It's all connected.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/336923D8-A6AD-40EC-AD7B-45BF9DE73D56/0/ElementsOfCrimesEng.pdf

Yes, I do still maintain that the Geneva Convention and International Law do not constitute legal precendents. You don't understand what a legal precendent is.

A legal precedent, by definition, is a previous legal case. The Geneva Convention and International Law are, as you rightly describe, the legal foundations for the legal definition of war crimes; they are legal treatises and code; they are not legal cases. A legal case is a dispute between two or more parties which is tried against this foundation. Opinions emerge and the decisions from these cases become legal precendents which can further define/enhance/erode the legal foundation originally established.

Likewise, as noted earlier, the Rome Statute is an advisory opinion which, by definition, may become an advisory precedent which is distinctly different from a legal precendent.

Only the International Court (under the referenced legal foundations) can make a judgement of guilt pertaining to a war crime. In the case of Israel and/or Israelies accused of war crimes, the International Court has only rendered an advisory opinion and not a legal judgement.

As I've previously noted, I believe they is overwhelming evidence to substantiate the claims of war crimes against Israel and various Israelies. However, until the appropriate body makes the appropriate legal judgement, they remain allegations/accusations. Accuracy demands it.

As soon as I bought a new car,

Oh no, this pure idealistic vision I've had of you has been shattered. A new car? Really?

Even with money to afford a new car, I still cannot bring myself to buy one ... just a newer clunker than the older clunkers I used to own.

I take it you wouldn't buy into civil disobedience. Laws can be challenged, have been challenged, and are still be challenged. I believe that people who blindly obey governments without questioning anything ever are a bit dangerous to the future of society, personally. Challenging society facilitates change and growth. When we become complacent and overtly obedient, we hurt ourselves.

I didn't suggest you cheated. I personally didn't either, but I also wouldn't make such a leap to suggest that cheating on a test equates to violence on any scale.

We are always going to disagree with this because I don't believe that someone entering a country illegally is a dramatic red mark on their moral character card. As you said, you don't know these people any better than you know me - so how can you judge their character?

Yes, I did describe (most) everyone in our government - thanks for pointing that out, I loved it.

Actually, I do buy into civil disobedience, for all the reasons you noted above. Protesting the Vietnam Conflict was popular in my day and I would have dodged the draft had I been selected. I was as idealistic as duraarraa back then ... idealism is good ... but when I found myself with an unexpected mouth to feed (in addition to all the other responsibilities that go along with a newborn child) ... I had to grow up fast and face the practicalities of life for what they are. But I never did and still don't condone violence, lying, cheating or stealing.

Cheating doesn't directly result in violence, but the idea that shortcuts are acceptable can. This was my point.

I take it you wouldn't buy into civil disobedience. Laws can be challenged, have been challenged, and are still be challenged. I believe that people who blindly obey governments without questioning anything ever are a bit dangerous to the future of society, personally. Challenging society facilitates change and growth. When we become complacent and overtly obedient, we hurt ourselves.

I didn't suggest you cheated. I personally didn't either, but I also wouldn't make such a leap to suggest that cheating on a test equates to violence on any scale.

We are always going to disagree with this because I don't believe that someone entering a country illegally is a dramatic red mark on their moral character card. As you said, you don't know these people any better than you know me - so how can you judge their character?

Yeah, we probably will. That's okay. However, I don't think illegal entry/presence is as dramatic a red mark as you make it out to be, but a red mark

nonetheless. Judgements of character are based upon the information presented - if this is all I know, then my information is limited, but I can still make a judgement. People do it all the time. Immigration does it all the time.

I actually fully support lowering the drinking age to 18. So I guess this qualifies as condoning and you can send me directly to hell. I will not pass GO. I will not collect $200.

I don't really care what the legal drinking age is (well, except the impact it may have on my auto insurance rates). I don't drink (alcohol) and I'm well above whatever age has been proposed anyway. I don't believe in hell either, so won't be sending you there. However, supporting a lower drinking age is not the same as condoning underage drinking, unless your tactic is to juice up as many 18-20 year olds as part of your campaign to encourage lowering of the drinking age (a hypothetical scenario - not accusing you of anything).

From a capitalism standpoint, isn't the increased competition a good thing?

Yeah, guess so ... but I think supply (workers) would so far exceed demand (jobs) that the system would collapse in chaos.

Without resources to pay the 600 million, what motivates them to move to the U.S. in the first place?

Considering the workforce in the US is currently about 145 million people, I think you'd find many unemployed (and unhappy) people if another 455 million showed up.

I teach Adult ESL classes and there's a guy who has been here for 25 years. He's spent more of my life in the US than he has in Mexico. He's never been back to Mexico. His parents died without him being there. He works full-time and has a family but attends every English class he can. How could I say someone like that doesn't deserve citizenship?

That's easy - he hasn't met all the requirements. Full time employment, family sacrifice and enrollment in ESL classes are not requirements for citizenship. Is he legally present? If so, then he's demonstrated quite a bit of determination and should be encouraged to take the exam, the oath and get his citizenship.

They can process the applications like tourist visas, at the foreign embassies, if they have to. Or people can be issued visas on arrival after a quick database check... the airlines could even determine eligibility when people buy their flight tickets, if it's as easy as checking a database. I don't see the need for a lengthy USCIS-esque process.

You would be surprised how much infrastructure a working force of 600 million could come up with in a year. In time, there would be more cities, more business to do, and more workers to do it. America has a lot of empty land.

"Quick" and "International Travel" don't mix well. There isn't a global database either ... there are a multitude of databases and the checking isn't as seamless and efficient as you allude.

Your work force of 600 million is only going to come up with infrastructure if you have the resources to pay them first. And filling land with buildings and people does make sense either, you still need resources like potable water and arable land for food and power.

When I was 15 I broke the law by staying outside after 10:00pm, our town's curfew for anyone under age 16. I also drank underage in college. How badly have I damaged my moral character? Next thing you know I'll be dealing drugs to the local children.

Other than an avatar/username/words on a screen - I don't know you, so how would I be able to assess your moral character?

However, as an adult if you condone/enable underage drinking then I would say your moral character is lacking.

Sure, most of use have have broken the rules and had transgressions of the law at one time or another; some more severe perhaps than others. Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it acceptable. And violation of a federal law is certainly of a greater magnitude than violating a local civil ordinance.

The fact of the matter is that people who are willing to lie for personal gain, to flaunt the law are very likely to lie again for person gain and to disregard the law in the future because they've demonstrated a lack of respect which is a characteristic.

I'm not saying that minor infractions should be held against someone for the rest of their lives. A candidate for immigration needs to be assessed in totality in terms of what they bring and the circumstances by which they find themselves immigrating. But willful violation of the law shouldn't be blindly tolerated - all other considerations being equal, preference should be given to those who have demonstrated respect for the laws of the country they wish to live in.

And did you go to school? Cheating was as rampant as the hormones in most I've seen or heard of.

Yes I went to school. Eight years after high school. Never cheated. Didn't need to. I had a good friend who was kicked out of an incredible graduate program in his third year because he was caught cheating - he was (still is) my friend, but without a doubt he deserved what he got.

Again, just because it happens doesn't mean that it is acceptable or right. That's where kids get the understanding that its not only okay, but acceptable, to break the rules to get ahead ... and for some this escalates into more violent means to an end.

Instead we criminalize it as if these people are all dangerous killers.

You don't need to be a dangerous killer to be a criminal. Think Bernie Madoff - not a killer, not violent, in fact he was a very likable dude - yet his crimes had a disastrous impact on hundreds/thousands of people.

Other than hyperbole, I don't see where illegal aliens are put into the same category as dangerous killers (unless of course the illegal alien is also a dangerous killer).

That's exactly right. Workers earn their health care coverage. It's not like a gift from the employer.

Never said it was. But most employers do pay a portion of the premium. And some sectors of the economy traditionally offer better health plans at better cost incentives. Some employers offer nothing, or perhaps other benefits that are more attractive to potential employees. I worked for one company early on in my career that paid 100% of health care - no premium contribution, no copay, no deductible - nothing. But this company also offered no other benefit other than a group Costco card which we had to reserve to make sure it was available to use. No pension/401(k). No tuition reimbursement. No tax-free child care money. No assistance with parking or public transporation. No legal assistance. No dental insurance. Just health care.

Swings and roundabouts my friend. You have to be seriously naive to believe that employers who provide health insurance for their workers only come out of their personal finances and workers remuneration or tax deductions don't pay large part in how insurance is paid for.

Yes, of course, employer provided health insurance is incorporated into the overall renumeration of the employee. But if you've been around for any length of time you'd recognize that employers paid a higher percentage of premiums than they do now. Same with increasing deductibles - put the onus on the employee to better manage costs.

My dad was a member of a union and health care costs were fully paid for by the union at one time. Near the end of his life his 'share' of the premiums had increased at a much larger rate than his salary, so in effect his total renumeration was lower. Happens in the public sector too. I am on the school board of my local community and I hear the stories from the old timers about the fights they had with the teachers union a decade ago about increasing the teacher-paid portion of the premium from 1% to 10%, which is still well below the national average for such contributions.

wow. how rich are you!?

In terms of life experience, quality of life, family, friends - extraordinarily rich I believe.

In terms of income, solid upper middle class. Some do better. Some do worse. Normal home, drive a 10yr old car, shop at Wal Mart and other discount stores, nothing special.

Did your ancestors get a visa when they came to the U.S.?

My Mom is 1/2 Sioux. Still don't understand the math that makes me 1/3 Sioux, but that's what my pedigree papers say.

Not really sure we'd want the systems in place we had three hundred years ago.

good. now back to affording people the right to emigrate..

I thought we were discussing the right to immigrate to the US?

I suppose people have the right to emigrate from wherever they are. Well ... North Koreans don't have that right, Cubans don't, not sure about others.

If someone in this case is a person willing to work hard and make something of him/herself, he/she should be given the chance. People were able to do this in the early times, when immigration from Europe was easy.

Agreed, a good work ethic and a skill set matched up with a need here, then they should be given the chance. Immigration in the 1800s and early 1900s is not the same as it is today. Back then there was a large need of manual labor as the US was industrializing. The dynamics of the economy have changed. I don't think you'll see the need for large numbers of manual labor in this country for awhile.

If the government needs money, I would think people who are legal are more likely to pay taxes than those who aren't. If the illegals are made legal, they are more likely to contribute.

To a point. A majority of illegal workers in this country work 'under the radar' so to speak. Substandard pay, no benefits, no employment overhead costs carried by the employer. These workers play an integral role in the economy and likely will not go away. Many of them if legal would leave for jobs that pay legal wages and provide benefits, creating openings for other illegal workers. Legalization of the work force is not likely to have a significant impact on the tax base.

If they want to live in the U.S., why not let them do it legally?

I'm all for increased immigration and making it easier to immigrate, especially for people that can contribute to the growth of our economy and way of life.

My issue with illegal immigrants is that they were either willing to break the law to get here or break the law to stay here. When someone is willing to break a law I begin to wonder what other laws they are willing to break? Willing to lie about being here legally, what about lying on your taxes or willing to sell your vote on a jury? Willing to encourage their children to cheat in school so that they have a better chance of acceptance into a great school. Their moral character comes into question. With the large numbers of people who desire to come to this country, I think we can be selective in those with the best moral character and best opportunity to make a difference here.

No, they're not. They're legal entities.

And a good number of US Corporations are no longer 'based' here ...

doesn't mean they shouldn't have a path to citizenship. anyone here knows the paths to citizenship are very, very, limited.

How do you figure that? As an adult, a short time frame for living here (3 or 5yrs, isn't it?), a very basic test US history conducted in English, good morale character and willing to defend the Constitution of the United States. Seems very open to me.

Or, did you mean the paths to legal immigration?

As long as they pay taxes, what's the downside? That's the biggest complaint people have. Illegals can't pay taxes (aside from sales tax when they buy things to survive). If they are legal, they can and have to pay taxes.

They can and, more importantly, are required to pay taxes on income earned in the US regardless of their immigration status. Working and not paying taxes only compounds their illegal activity.

Just reported, they got him alive.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Congrats on a job well done!!!

Well, that's good.

Let's just hope they keep the public circus to a minimum. Speedy trial to spare the victims.

Well, it depends on the definition of "pulled into." The idea to do this had to get into his head somehow, and had to be motivated by someone's views.

Yeah, true. But at some point a person has to be accountable for their actions and, in general, a 19yo should be able to understand that bombing people is wrong regardless of who they heard it from and regardless of the rationale.

You look at health care outcomes. Canada fares no worse than the US but at a much lower cost. Same results at half the cost means double the efficiency. It's not hard.

Not hard to consider quality of service either. I only know from experience that access to healthcare in Canada often involves lengthy wait times. These wait times disappear with private payor insurance, which is also available. Outcomes only measure treatment provided - if you're waiting for treatment, your not included in the algorithm. Leads to a very skewed view.

They have capitalism elsewhere in the developed world and yet they manage not to get ripped off by the medical industrial complex.

Yeah, you're right. Most of the developed world have Capitalist economies, but nationalized social systems. In the US, the concept of free market economics is also applied to much of the social infrastructure. I'm not arguing that health care in the US is a bed of roses or the best solution. However, I'm not being ripped off by my health care costs. My health care costs are quite manageable. If cost is a concern, I can find low cost. If speed and/or convenience is important, I can make that choice too.

I have found that many people in the US don't really know how to manage their health care costs - they want to go to a doctor and get their issue resolved and their only concept of the cost is their co-pay and deductible, the amount of money that actually comes out of their pocket, which does not reflect real costs. And because rates are negotiated the way they are, it is damned near impossible to know the real costs of a procedure or office visit. Only in the past decade or so with companies shifting the burden of costs to the employee (ie, increased co-pays and deductibles) do I find people asking more questions and being better informed with how the costs of their health care.

Waiting seems like a good idea. He'll either set of whatever bomb he may have, or he'll be tired and give up. He's only 19... it's such a travesty that such a young kid somehow got pulled into such a horrible act of violence.

While I know it's not the whole story, the images and eyewitness accounts thus far don't support the notion that he was pulled into anything; quite the contrary.

While I don't condone unnecessary killing, I also think that taking this guy into custody would result in a very long, painful and costly process.

They don't do that elsewhere either and still pay less than half per capita than we do. Health care systems elsewhere are focused on delivering effective health care to the population. Here, the heath care system is focused on the bottom lines of the medical industrial complex.

In Canada, wait times for healthcare are a significant issue, so I'm not sure how that would be considered an effective delivery of health care to the population.

Regardless of what other countries do, a better healthier population and a population that takes an active role in managing their health care dollars will lead to a reduction in health care costs. I have a friend who has company-sponsored health insurance and they get a rebate on their premiums for participating in preventative health programs, smoking cessation, maintaining healthy weight, etc. From what I understand, most employees and their dependents participate in this program.

If a system that people depend on to stay alive is based on profits, something is terribly, terribly wrong.

It's called Capitalism and it is the system we have, for better or for worse. It's just as valid as socialism or any other economic system.

I understand the dental frustration. I don't have dental insurance because the costs of the premiums for me outweigh the costs of routine care - until most of my teeth and my kid's teeth start falling out, the odds are in my favor. I negotiate dental services - some dentists will and some won't. A routine cavity should cost you about $250 out-of-pocket in most metro areas, less in rural areas. I needed a crown a couple of years ago - I had the root canal done here because the pain was intolerable, but had the crown installed in Thailand when I went home with my wife for a family visit. I think they call that Health Tourism - I call it free market economics on a global basis.

It may be true that taxation is higher in other industrialized nations but that is NOT on the account of health care cost. No other country spends as much per capita on health care as the US. We're way, way up there. All the health care systems in the developed world are far more efficient (both lower cost and better overall outcomes) than ours. The solely profit oriented health care system we are burdened with will soon enough tank our entire economy.

Very true, US health care costs are much higher. And higher taxes in other industrialized nations are not soley a result of the cost of national health care, but it is part of the equation. To say that it is NOT is uninformed and misleading.

Health care costs in the US are driven by the free market, like most everything else. The reality is that the majority of Americans have health care that they can affortd - maybe don't like the cost, but can still afford it. Sure, I'd like to pay less, but I can still pay my bills. I don't like $4 per gallon gasoline either, but it hasn't gotten so expensive that I need to adjust my driving habits significantly. Health care isn't going to cause our economy to tank; quite the opposite, health care continues to pump money into our economy. What will happen is that the cost of healthcare will shift - from the employer to the employee - maybe more to the government. Real reform should make things simpler and streamlined; take away the ridiculous punative damages for malpractice (of course, that would not make the lawyers very happy); find a way for people to take ownership of their own health and encourage a healthier population.