@ISIDEWITHQuestionsForeign policyStarted 12mos agoActive 1wk ago

Should there be restrictions on government arms sales to countries accused of committing human rights violations?

The United Nations defines human rights violations as deprivation of life; torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; slavery and forced labor; arbitrary arrest or detention; arbitrary interference with privacy; war propaganda; discrimination; and advocacy of racial or religious hatred. In 1997 the U.S. Congress passed the “Leahy Laws” which cutoff security aid to specific units of foreign militaries if the Pentagon and the State Department determine a country has committed a gross violation of human rights, such as shooting civilians or summarily executing prison…  

Read more
+
Expand
+ Settings x  Maricopa (Arizona)

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 172 Maricopa voters.

82%
Yes
18%
No
78%
Yes
10%
No
2%
Yes, but I would prefer a ban on all military aid to any foreign countries
8%
No, this could prevent our allies from defending themselves against our mutual enemies
2%
Yes, and ban all sales to countries with human rights violations

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 172 Maricopa voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 172 Maricopa voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Maricopa voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9MLFTSW from Tennessee  answered…8mos8MO

Country should be vetted to make sure the weapons are not used against American interests or being funneled to adversaries.

 @9K4BDY5 from Illinois  answered…11mos11MO

I believe we shouldn’t use all are tax dollars on funding wars, genocides but beside that I don’t think it should be ban

 @9CNWMJT  from Texas  answered…11mos11MO

I would support such restrictions if such accusations proved to be accurate. If not, it is our word against theirs.

 @9J9GJYS from Washington  answered…12mos12MO

No, there could be political issues with allied nations however The countries that are accused of human rights violations should have some kind of investigation and if they are violating human rights then stop selling weapons to them.

 @9J9G6DXfrom Montana  answered…12mos12MO

No, accusations should be investigated though, and if proven to be true, potentially prevent future trade.

 @9J9DY2T from Kansas  answered…12mos12MO

Yes and there should be a restriction to prevent arms sales from countries that have a history or have been accused of human rights violatons

 @9J9DMSR from Florida  answered…12mos12MO

The US government has already put sanctions on Russia and Iran, who have numerous human rights violations in them. We should provide weapons for our allies.

 @9J96HJR from New Hampshire  answered…12mos12MO

In the text above it uses the word (accused) and that means that it wasn’t proved to be true. Therefore I don’t exactly know if it would be fair or not. If it is true though I would agree that there could be restrictions in place.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Ukraine's Hail Mary: Zelensky Bets on Trump for Peace Amidst War

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky congratulated Donald Trump Wednesday on his "impressive victory" in US elections and said he hoped his presidency would bring a "just peace in Ukraine closer".A second Trump term raises questions over Washington's long-term support for Ukraine, battling a Russian invasion for almost three years, as the Republican candidate has been highly critical of US military aid to Kyiv."I appreciate President Trump's commitment to the 'peace through strength' approach in global affairs. This is exactly the principle that can practically bring just peace in Ukraine closer," Zelensky said in a statement on social media."We look forward to an era of a strong United States of America under President Trump's decisive leadership. We rely on continued strong bipartisan support for Ukraine in the United States," he added.Zelensky said Kyiv was "committed to ensuring long-term peace and security in Europe and the transatlantic community with the support of our allies".Prime Minister Denys Shmygal later said Ukrainians "look forward to an era of a strong United States under your leadership".Zelensky met Trump for talks while visiting the US in September, a meeting that came after public tensions between the two politicians.Standing next to Zelensky, Trump had touted his working relationship with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.Ukrainian presidential aide Andriy Yermak, congratulating Trump, described the September meeting as "productive.""It is essential that Ukraine has bipartisan support in the United States," he added.

▲  287 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Starmer Throws Netanyahu Under the ICC Bus: UK Backs Arrest Warrant for Israeli PM

Sir Keir Starmer has backed the International Criminal Court (ICC) after it issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.When asked about the issue, Sir Keir’s official spokesman said the Government respected the independence of the court.He declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.The spokesman said: “We respect the independence of the ICC, which is the primary institutional institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes in relation to international law.“This Government has been clear that Israel has a right to defend itself in accordance with international law. There is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy and Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah, which are terror groups.“We remain focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire to bring an end to the devastating violence in Gaza.”Under the Conservatives, the British government had told the court it intended to challenge the plans for the arrest warrants.However, weeks after coming to power, Sir Keir’s government reversed that position and said it would not object.Downing Street also declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be welcome to visit Britain in the future.Sir Keir’s spokesman said: “We never comment on future international visits but my position on the Prime Minister’s support for Israel in terms of its right to defend itself in accordance with international law is very clear.”The spokesman repeatedly declined to “go into hypotheticals” about whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.He added: “It’s not up to the Prime Minister to determine other world leaders’ travel schedules. He engages and will continue to engage with the prime minister of Israel in support of Israel’s right to defend itself.”Pressed on what he meant by his comments about the court, the spokesman said: “It means that we respect the independence of the ICC. We respect the fact that the ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern.”The spokesman went on to say the Government’s “focus” remained an end to the violence in the Middle East, which has been ongoing for more than a year after the Oct 7 terror attacks by Hamas.

▲  148 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Biden will issue a pardon of his son Hunter Biden

President Joe Biden has decided to issue a pardon for his son Hunter and is expected to announce it Sunday night, according to a senior White House official with direct knowledge of the decision.The decision marks a reversal for the president, who has repeatedly said he would not use his executive authority to pardon his son or commute his sentence. The pardon comes ahead of Hunter Biden’s Dec. 12 sentencing for his conviction on federal gun charges. Hunter Biden also is set to be sentenced in a separate criminal case on Dec. 16, after pleading guilty in September on federal tax evasion charges.The pardon is expected to cover both Hunter Biden’s gun charges conviction and guilty plea.The senior White House official said Biden decided over this weekend to grant his son a pardon and began to inform his senior aides on Sunday. Using his pardon power to assure Hunter Biden does not spend time in jail comes as the 82-year-old president is near the end of his term in the White House and has no future election to face. In recent months Biden has said he would not pardon his son or commute his sentence.“I will not pardon him,” the president said of his son in June after a jury found him guilty on three federal gun charges.President Biden has discussed issuing a pardon for his son with some of his closest aides since at least Hunter Biden’s conviction in June, two people with direct knowledge of the discussions about the matter said. They said a decision was made at the time for the president to publicly say he would not pardon his son even though doing so remained on the table.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters earlier this month that the president’s position has not changed.

▲  1713 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  2016 replies3 agree