Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!

2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.

8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

The Ban on Genocide

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Ban on Genocide

    The Ban on Genocide

    By Stan Goldman
    From the Daily Journal

    This is America. Eventually, we litigate everything. A 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in California has found itself oddly embroiled in the controversial question of whether the state of California or any other state may refer to the 1915-1921 massacres of Armenians at the hands of the Turkish soldiers as “genocide.” By a 2-1 margin (presently on petition for rehearing), a federal appellate panel has favored the position that the political policy of the Bush and Clinton administrations against use of the term “genocide” to describe these events trumps the power of any state to use the word in its legislation.

    This conclusion is, however, not only erroneous when applied to the Armenian Genocide, but it also creates a dangerous and far-reaching extension of presidential power. For example, if a president expressed dissatisfaction with Canada and suggested that America stop trading with our neighbor to the north, would that mean that all states must, as a matter of constitutional principal, follow suit in forced lockstep agreement? The problem with such reasoning is the simple fact that presidential preferences are not law. What makes the Court of Appeal decision so dangerous can be demonstrated by the very case they have chosen in which they establish their rule.

    Federal opposition to the phrase “Armenian Genocide” may have been a past preference, but it was one never reduced to law or even executive order. For years, Congress has been bitterly divided over this question. Fear of alienating a valuable ally in a delicate region has blocked Congressional proposals to acknowledge the murders of Armenians as qualifying under the definition for that most tragic of all crimes. Therefore, there has simply been an absence of a Congressional declaration expressly supporting (or opposing) the use of this emotionally loaded label. Genocide

    What makes the decision in the federal court’s present decision even more peculiar, as well as facially incorrect, however, is this nation’s membership in the United Nations Genocide Convention. The convention is a treaty whose very origins lay in an acknowledgment that these tragic events were “genocide.” This becomes obvious once we understand that with the adoption of any law, legislative history plays a major role in interpreting its true meaning and application.

    The legislative history of the convention began in 1944 when Raphael Lemkin, a Polish xxxish Holocaust survivor and professor of law, sought to connect what he likely believed to be the greatest crimes of the 20th century: the destruction of European xxxery and the 1915-1921 Turkish massacre of Armenia.

    The word he created was “genocide.” It combined the Greek word “genos” for family or tribe and the Latin word “cide” for killing. His writings soon became a resource for the prosecutions at the Nuremberg Trials.

    In 1948, Lemkin took the word he had fashioned and through force of personal will forged it into law. In that year, the U.N. Genocide Convention voted to add genocide to the list of international crimes.

    Today, attorneys involved in the prosecution and defense of those charged with genocidal crimes comb Lemkin’s papers in search of legislative intent. So complete was his authorship of this rule that to this day commentators as diverse as scholar Samantha Power, senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council in the Obama administration, and CNN’s chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour both refer to this genocide treaty simply as “Lemkin’s Law.”

    For decades, the convention laid all but dormant thanks to the refusal of the United States to agree to its terms. However, once President Ronald Reagan engaged in the political faux pas of placing a wreath of flowers on the graves of dead Nazi SS officers, his administration suddenly threw its support behind
    passage. In 1988, the United States became a signatory to this International Treaty.

    As we adopted the obligations of the convention, we were also adopting a legislative history that includes the definition and origin of the very title “genocide.” Thus, an actual treaty rather than an expedient preference to which the United States is a party was created with the specific policy purpose of avoiding future genocides such as that which had been imposed upon the “xxxs” and the “Armenians.”

    As a matter of general principle, it would be a great mistake to create a rule that a mere executive preference (especially that of past administrations) constitutionally prevents states from making their own laws. In this particular case, for good or ill, the United States has made the law of the land a treaty that was created acknowledging the genocides of the past (including that of the Armenians) in hopes of preventing the genocides of the future. Perhaps it is now time to acknowledge this simple truth.

    Editor’s Note: Stan Goldman is a professor of law at Loyola Law School and director of its Center for the Study of Law & Genocide. He filed an amicus brief in Movsesian v. Versicherung seeking to clarify how the term ‘genocide’ impacts U.S. foreign policy.

  • #2
    Re: The Ban on Genocide

    Congress in the US and Parliament in Canada can start by giving native Indians their rights and their identity back. Or maybe giving Hawaii back to Hawaiians. Laws and treaties seem to be just there for presentation like icing on a cake. Under the icing is just a whole lot of fluff. Even if the truth is acknowledged, it will just be a mere whisper.
    "Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it." ~Malcolm X