This Convention was written in 1948. It is the "Allies" legal formulation of the crimes of the Nazis. So it is not some radicals' exaggeratedly strict standard, if that is what somebody thinks.
Also, see Attorney William L. Patterson's petition pursuant to the Convention, charging the U.S. with Genocide against the Negro People (1951; in book form published by International)
The U.S. did finally adopt the Convention in 1988 after about every other country in the world had. Why would "humanitarian" USA delay so long ? Could it be that it knew it was culpable for its genocidal history ? I think so.
Charles Brown
Attorney-at-law Michigan Bar Card # P37066
>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 04/12/99 03:53PM >>>
Seth Ackerman wrote:
>"Transfering children of one group to another group through
>adoptions" is not genocide. Neither is persuading people to be
>"sterilized" -- whether through "deception" or not. You can treat people
>very horribly without it being genocide.
Nathan Newman said here recently:
>By International law, genocide consists of:
>
>"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
>committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
>racial or religious group, as such:
>(a) Killing members of the group;
>(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
>(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
>bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
>(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
>(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
You judge if the definition fits. Evidently Jesse Helms & Co. think so, or they might not oppose U.S. ratification of the treaty.
Doug