MSNBC's Cenk Uygur Claims George W. Bush Confessed to 'War Crimes' in New Memoir
In an attempt to re-litigate the past, MSNBC contributor Cenk Uygur indicted former President George W. Bush for war crimes.
Bellowing today from his regular perch on late afternoon Dylan Ratigan Show, Uygur mischaracterized the 43rd President's position on the waterboarding of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as "go ahead and torture him basically" before demanding that Bush be prosecuted for allegedly violating Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
"Now it seems to me we have a confession here of a war crime and a clear violation of international and United States law," proclaimed Uygur. "President George W. Bush should go to jail for at least 10 years."
The alleged "confession" Uygur referred to is an excerpt from Bush's new memoir, Decision Points, in which the former commander-in-chief reaffirms his decision to condone the use of waterboarding as an enhanced-interrogation technique for suspected terrorists.
[Video embedded after page break.]
Despite Uygur's impression that the classification of waterboarding as torture is settled law, some observers argue that the form of waterboarding used by CIA interrogators on KSM was not severe enough to be considered torture:
In waterboarding as it is practiced by the U.S., cellophane or cloth is placed over the subject’s mouth to keep water out of nose and mouth. Asano (Japanese soldier convicted of war crimes in WWII) was pouring water directly into the mouths and noses of subjects which is considerably more harsh and dangerous.
There was even disagreement within the Obama administration over the legal status of waterboarding. Dennis Blair, a retired Navy admiral and former Obama spy chief, refused to call waterboarding torture in his Senate confirmation hearings. Additionally, the present administration has repeatedly dismissed calls to prosecute Bush officials for war crimes.
But there was no deterring the raging "Young Turk," who lambasted an Obama administration "that only wants to look forward and never backward to crimes that were actually committed."
A transcript of the segment can be found below:
MSNBC
The Dylan Ratigan Show
November 4, 2010
4:55 P.M. EDT
DYLAN RATIGAN: Alright, forget those two wars, the complete collapse of our financial system, or even 9/11. In George W. Bush's soon to be released memoir, it describes the following as the worst moment of his presidency.
MIKE MYERS, actor: The destruction of the spirit of the people of Southern Louisiana and Mississippi may not be the most tragic loss of all.
KANYE WEST, rapper: George Bush doesn't care about black people.
RATIGAN: The Young Turk, Cenk Uygur, back with some of the headlines you might not have seen about the Bush 43 memoirs.
CENK UYGUR, MSNBC contributor: That's always a wonderfully awkward moment. But apparently it really got to Bush. He said in his book, and I quote here, "I faced a lot of criticism as president. I didn't like hearing people claim that I lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or cut taxes to benefit the rich. But the suggestion that I was racist because of the response to Katrina represented an all-time low."
So let me get this right. We went to Iraq based on false premises. Whether he lied about it or not, there were no weapons of mass destruction. That war was just wrong. And what happened in that war? 4,427 United States troops killed, but that wasn't an all-time low. There were 66,000 civilians killed at least – Iraqi civilians – but that wasn't an all-time low. There was 1,836 people killed in Hurricane Katrina, but that wasn't an all-time low. By the way, there was 8 million jobs lost because of the recession he created, the Great Recession, but that wasn't an all-time low. By the way also, there was a little thing called 9/11 on Bush's watch, and that wasn't an all-time low.
But Kanye dissed you and that was your all-time low? Oh no, Kanye doesn't like you! Did your feelings get hurt, George? You know what George Bush said when the CIA gave him a memo while he was on vacation, as usual, in Crawford? It said "we're going to get attacked by al-Qaeda in New York. He said "All right. You've covered your ass now." And he went back on vacation. And then we lost all those people on 9/11. But that wasn't an all-time low. Kanye dissed him, that was a low.
Now that isn't even the most startling part of the book. He also admits to a war crime. He said, when they asked him, "hey, should we waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?" He admits it. In the book, he says I told them "Damn right." Go ahead and torture him basically. Now is waterboarding really a war crime? Well, it's against the Geneva Conventions, which is international law, which we signed. And when we sign it it becomes supreme law of the land here in the United States of America. But that's not just theoretical, we've prosecuted people for waterboarding before. We'll get to that in a second. But let's see what the generals think. General – one of our top generals is going to talk to Carl Levin here while Bush was still president, mind you? Here's his testimony.
Sen. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): General, do you believe that waterboarding is consistent with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?
UNITED STATES GENERAL: No sir, I don't.
LEVIN: Do you think it's humane?
GENERAL: No sir, I think it would go beyond that bound.
UYGUR: He's not alone in thinking that, here are the prosecutions we've done for waterboarding in this country. After the Spanish-American War, US soldiers were court-martialed. After World War II, Japanese soldiers were convicted for waterboarding, a violation of our laws. In 1983, a Texas sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison for waterboarding. Now it seems to me we have a confession here of a war crime and a clear violation of international and United States law. President George W. Bush should go to jail for at least 10 years. Will that happen? Not with an administration that only wants to look forward and never backward to crimes that were actually committed.
- Alex Fitzsimmons's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Cenk seems to get convinced
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 6:58pm.
of a lot of things that just aren't so.
So waterbourding is a War
Submitted by MidAmerica on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:00pm.
So waterboarding is a War Crime but there is no problem with obama's stepped up use of drones to blow away people into a bloody vapor? Well if I had to choose which to be subjected to I think I would go for having water poured on my face.
Kitchen Cenk...
Submitted by Forbus on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:05pm.
I almost stepped in some Uygur today......
I always make sure I 'Cenk'
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:07pm.
I always make sure I 'Cenk' before driving long trips.
Another KooK...
Submitted by gxa99 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:13pm.
...discussing another Kook idea on another Kook cable news outlet.
I'm sure MSNBKOOK has already offered Pelosie a spot as contributing Kook....
He should be on the View...
Submitted by retrocon on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:14pm.
U-go, Ugyrl...
Again, proof that "uncontrolled consonants" is no vaccine for the disease of liberalism.
The Cenk that poors out of
Submitted by DWoSD on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:15pm.
The Cenk that poors out of that guys mouth is amazing for its vapid shallowness.
Cenk Uygur...prounounced...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:20pm.
..."Stink Finger"...
And how did Gore feel about torture - via rendition
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:24pm.
This from White House intelligence advisor Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies, pgs 143-4.
RICHARD CLARKE - Snatches, or more properly "extraordinary renditions," were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgement of the host government. . . The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, "That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass."
And grab their asses they did.
And shortly thereafter, Bill Clinton ordered the CIA to establish the US program of extraordinary rendition (PDD#39); the idea being that we could ship them off to you know who in Egypt - so that they could be tortured to get information out of them. And, according to Gen. Hayden, in a Charlie Rose interview in Oct, 2007, we did about as many extraordinary renditions before 9/11 as we have done after.
As we all know, the national MSM is fascinated with Richard Clarke. They could seldom get enough of his views - when it was negative leaning towards the Bush administration. If one looked elsewhere, they would find that he had just as much to say about the Clinton era, as well.
It's probably no surprise that this MSM of ours would seldom ask Clinton or Gore any important questions in the hundreds of hours of fawing interviews which they conducted following 9/11 - every angle was focused on shifting all atttention away from Clinton/Gore and onto Bush/Cheney.
(;~/ gary
Whenever I hear about the Iraq War from some LIB
Submitted by RichieBABY on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:26pm.
When they finish pontificating, I always say out loud, "THIS IS A RECORDING"!
When it comes to WMD in Iraq, must suffer from DAD, Democratic Alzheimers Disease. This is when one forgets that both Al Gore and Bill "Lap Dance" Clinton warned of WMD in Iraq. In advance stages of DAD, they also forget the intelligence agencies in Britain and Israel warned of WMD in Iraq.
I end by asking a simple question, since as Bill O'Reilly always says, I am a simple man. There must be a Hell of alot of WMD in India with 34 war ships on the way, or am I wrong about that?
What is a Cenk Uygur? Sounds
Submitted by ricklail on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:43pm.
What is a Cenk Uygur? Sounds like a disease or a foreign car.
Arguing from sweeping assumptions
Submitted by KC Mulville on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:46pm.
If we pass a law tomorrow that abortion is illegal ... does that mean that everyone who had an abortion over the past forty years is a confessed murderer? No.
You can argue that it was murder and immoral and I'd agree with you, but if it was legal when they did it, you can't call what they did a crime.
When it comes to waterboarding, the issue isn't the practice itself, but whether the people who were waterboarded were covered by the conventions in the first place. The captured terrorists were neither soldiers, nor innocent civilians, nor spies. The terrorists weren't covered by any conventions. The phrase "illegal combatants" was still new and undeclared. You might argue that, long after the fact, there are some international law authorities who claim that the conventions cover the terrorists by extension, but that's still debatable, and in any case, it hadn't been declared at the time of the practice.
So, just like the abortion example, you can't accuse anyone of a crime when the action wasn't clearly illegal at the time.
As far as waterboarding KSM,
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 7:47pm.
As far as waterboarding KSM, all I can say is, waterboarding was all they did? When he dies and goes to hell he's going to wish he was being waterboarded.
I suppose that the Dylan
Submitted by Chris Norman on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 8:15pm.
I suppose that the Dylan Ratigan show is one step up from the walkie talkie broadcast that Cenk whatever-his name is would otherwise be on. It's not much of a step - maybe a third of a step...
They should waterboard this
Submitted by Vdip72 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 8:18pm.
They should waterboard this A-hole!!!!!!
This guys a Turk? Right?
Submitted by Redrowan2000 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 8:30pm.
Hey ,
Ugly I agree with you. Surprised, You Bet.
GW should get 10 years,(Sarcasm)but do me a favor 1st could you explain what the role of your grandfather and father was in the slaughter of 6 million Armenians or is that something that never happened.? By the way waterboarding would be the least of KSM's problems if he was captured by you guys present day or past , I bet he would be walking a little funny. Now go out with a nice little boy and behave. Sorry I just lose my head with these anti- American pieces of ______
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Red
president bush didn't confess or commit war crimes.
Submitted by puredmashie on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:10pm.
instead, he did his very best every day to protect the freedoms we all enjoy, especially freedom of speech. unfortunately, protecting all speech must include this drivel as well.
This reminds me of a joke (I think from NB)
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:46pm.
It's just like a lib.
No trouble aborting a late term baby.
But God forbid you pour water on a terrorist's head.
War criminal
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 4:46am.
Well Bill Clinton was at least convicted of war crimes. Sentenced to 20 years. Perhaps Uygur just got his Presidents mixed up.
Cenk Uygur, just another
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 7:55am.
Cenk Uygur, just another barking moonbat, hasn't a clue, hasn't a case, and is completely desperate.
No worries. I don't think he'll have much of a platform in 2011 to spew forth his nonsense.
Ah, the Young Turks
Submitted by JLin on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 9:05am.
This thug wannabe is clearly not ready for prime time. He needs to go pour himself a tall glass of arak and chill out. Maybe spend a few hours sharpening his dagger.... Shave his face.....
You actually think cloth keeps water out of the nose?
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 9:24pm.
I haven't posted to NewsBusters in years. Your post got picked up by a google news alert I've been running for years on Bush and war crimes.
Dude, (stupid word I admit, but its meant to convey I don't have a super inflated opinion of myself or any real ill will to you, who seems to be from your photo a young guy), I'm writing to you from Australia.
I'm outside the psychological bubble that seems to pervade in the US that classes political people into Republicans and Democrats (foreigners being irrelevant). I'm pro republican (representative) democracy. I used to be pro-American until Bush was re-elected after breaking the word of the United States on treaties that I consider fundamental to any chance of there being peace in the world - the UN Charter which prohibits aggressive invasion (but not self defence).
Dude, how the heck can anyone have confidence in the rule of law applying, in social contracts being upheld, in representative democracies not becoming farce if Presidents aren't held to the law? The rule of law as opposed to the rule of arbitrary men is the point. A common standard is the point .
Seems to me that Bush did break the law in the invasion of Iraq (I discussed this at length here on NewsBusters years ago - comment seem to have gone from archives) and most Americans and most Republicans are fine with that. Fits into their "well shit happens, we're gotta be real, the world's a messy place, 9-11 demanded a response" sort of way of thinking.
But the rule of law (applying ALSO to Presidents of any flavour) is something that everyone has a vested interest in. Because without it there is no chance for merit to rise on merit. Contracts can't be enforced without it. When people see the United States President give illegal orders that result in mass killings (ie murder when the killings are illegal) they necessarily integrate that reality into their world view. They learn that there is a double standard and that cheating pays because the body of society or community won't uphold the right. Won't uphold a common standard for all.
Where do you think the motivation for terrorism comes from if not from a determination not to acquiesce to being treated like crap in a system of obviously stacked and corrupt "justice"?
...
Sigh (I know I'm off topic). But cloth won't keep water out of the nose. Cellophane might. Your distinction about waterboarding the US way not being real waterboarding seems to indicate your not applying a practical common standard.
Cellophane keeps out air as well
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 9:30pm.
Thats why they use cloth.
So your anti USA, well get in line,, dude
Point is - being anti-USA can be a valid generalisation
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 10:29pm.
If its a position based on comparing the US as a body politic, as a group of people (a nation) in the world (of nations), against the values and promises that the US as a body politic has agreed to and committed to (the UN Charter was ratified into US "supreme law" as per Article VI of the US Constitution).
Sure other nations break their promises too. Sure Bush wasn't the only person in the world to promise one thing and then do another, but from the standpoint of confidence in the rule of law, its the bad faith of those with the most power and the widest range of choices that hurts that confidence most. These are the role models who most people see for both good and bad.
When US Presidents (of any flavour - and the quote from Al Gore above I'd read in Clarke's book too) break the law (the agreements they, and their countries were party too) then that is more serious for confidence then when lesser people and less influential nations do.
Corruption in humans may be common, but a corrupt judge or a corrupt cop gives far more incitement to others to also tear up the social contract, to also set aside the standards of decency than does crime or corruption or bad faith or broken promises from the average joe.
When the US adopts practices that look like terrorism to oppose terrorism they set the scene, they establish the game scenario for all the players far more than when a few terrorists operating without state support do.
I think torture and terrorism work. I think this because I have seen them work in reducing the good guys to bad guys. I have seem them cause the good guys to put aside the common standards, to break their oaths and promises to society, out of a determination to punish.
All that I can imagine that conservatives as a group could want to conserve, because it is worth conserving, is threatened when there is no rule of law, no common standards and no confidence that people will back each other up in upholding the right.
I'm anti-American because I have to be on principle. Because its a valid generalisation when a majority of five percent of humanity (Bush won the popular vote in 2004 after no WMD's were found) that happens to be an empowered five percent (5% is about the population of the US in the world), is okay with a double standard of justice.
When the very institutions of justice are themselves corrupted because those most in power don't uphold the right and aren't held to by their body politics what choice do people have but terrorism?
The United States was founded with force using principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence. People of the world shouldn't have to accept arbitray capricous and unrepresentative of humanity American rule any more than the north American colonials accepted heretidary rule of foreign monarchs.
i'm sorry brett could you please repeat the part...
Submitted by porpoiseboy on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 10:31pm.
after "if it's"? sorry my eyes rolled into the back of my head and i fell asleep. whenever i see the stuff coming out of the south bound end of a northbound horse it makes me sleepy.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
The best social program is a JOB...ronald reagan
Brett
Submitted by 26CX on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 10:33pm.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Very interesting. Have you ever had any contact with reality or do you always live in a pristine little world?
If you are real 26CX then I guess you'd have to agree
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 10:44pm.
that I have had contact with reality now through talking to you. No?
Oh, good! A breakthrough!
Submitted by 26CX on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 10:49pm.
You have much to learn, Grasshopper.
I see that, along with clear thinking, spelling is not one of your strong points.
What the hell are you talking about Brett?
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 10:38pm.
Bush was re-elected because he was running against a nut job elitist. So congrats for reading the cya book of Dick Clarke, but Bush nor the US broke any treaty by invading Iraq. WMD's had little to do with weather we could or not invade, it only provided some urgency.
So, how much is fuel going for, down under?
I disagree that
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:20pm.
Neither "Bush nor the US broke any treaty by invading Iraq". And I think I could show any reasonably impartial person that Bush and the US did just that. Its not intellectually hard but it takes a while and like most things in politics people are rarely impartial. And how long people will listen even to what is true always depends to on whether they think it is important.
Kofi Annan, China, Russia and France thought it (the Iraq invasion) illegal and said so.
But to leave it at that is to use just an argument from authority.
I could show you using the documents and reasoning but.... (it takes a while - these were the subjects of my previous discussion on NewsBusters which sadly don't seem to be available).
I accept that it is pretty much impossible to show that any single reason why Bush was re-elected as opposed to Kerry, given that about 50 million people were given only a choice between those two alternatives.
But that doesn't mean valid mathematical conclusions (valid generalisation about the priorities and values of the US body politic) cannot be drawn in broad terms.
Fuel, (petrol/what you call gas), here is about $1.28c per litre.
You realize teh USA was party
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:31am.
You realize teh USA was party to the 1991 push to get Iraq out of kuaitt and there was no treaty or armistace at that time. There was a cease fire and a list of demands taht Iraq had to accomplish if they did not want teh hostilities to continue. They did not and in fact made overt hostile actions trying to shoot down our legal patrols along the constraints legally placed there to protect some of teh Iraqi citizens.
In short the reinitiation of hostilities was long overdue. And who but pansies care about what teh UN thinks or for that matter any other country.
The USA is a soverign country able to do what it wants and damn all other opinion. And if you have an opinion on what teh USA does then base it on the Constitution of the USA.
As a sovereign country the USA made an agreement
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:52pm.
with other sovereign nations - which was the UN Charter in 1945. The intent of that agreement was to collectively maintain international peace and security so that future generations would be spared the scourge of war which twice in the lives of the generations that set up the UN had occured.
The US, like any sovereign country , did not HAVE to make any agreement, it chose to. It wanted to. It got credit and gratitude and appreciation for doing so from other nations.
But when ever promises are exchanged for benefits between free to choose agents be they people or countries then honour and commitments and values and trust get involved.
When the strongest countries show bad faith, when they break their word on the agreements then they are observed to have done so more keenly because what they do matters to the confidence of all.
In order for there to be peace in groups of people and between countries there has to be people and countries that are willing to work for that peace. To make the law, the social contracts, the commitments exchanged between free agents, mean something and be enforcable and trustable.
So you are condemning the USA
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 8:13pm.
So you are condemning the USA and the others in our coalition including the most powerful nations in the UN? So what about Kosovo or Dafur or Somalia or any number of "invasions" not sanctioned by the UN. Just because we are a part and founder of the Un does not mean we are beholden to what they say. Just like any family individual members do what they want and dont worry about teh resy of the family unless they wish to.
So the USA is beholden only to the people of the USA and what is in the Constitution.
Now I ask you again have you read any of the documents you say teh UN is founded on and specifically have you read teh terms of the cease fire? The cease fire did not say there had to be an order of the Security Council. The only reason we asked for it was for a dog and pony show. Some of our participants wanted us to try.
This statement is realkly crazy "To make the law, the social contracts, the commitments exchanged between free agents, mean something and be enforcable and trustable" because you expect teh un to enforce such. The UN is like a castrated bull ... all show and no action.The cease fire resolution was 687 from memory
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:52pm.
It was a security council resolution at the end of the Gulf War.
Resolution 1441 of November 2002, as I have said, was unanimously agreed. It was agreed after what you are calling the cease fire resolution. It was agree by the United States. And it gave a "final opportunity" to disarm and said the UN was "seized of the matter".
Whatever dog and pony show, your words was being put on by the Bush administration, words and agreements still have meaning and time sequences still matter.
The US agreed to a final opportunity AFTER the ceasefire agreement, and that final opportunity, could, by the terms of the UN Charter which prescribes how UN SC decisions are to be made, only be ended by a SC resolution.
That Bush with Blair tried to get that resolution in February 2003 saying it was over shows they knew that some people would understand that a final opportunity is a new last opportunity beginning from the date it is set - that is from November 2002. And is granted by those giving it, which included the US.
Bush overplayed the dog and pony show (as you refer to it) to the extent that he trapped himself into UN SC jurisdiction on when the final opportunity would be ended with resolution 1441 of November 2002.
Then, I am saying, he untrapped himself, by BREAKING THE LAW (the UN Charter and US supreme law both) and unilaterally terminating Iraq's final opportunity with the invasion order.
I will discuss the real thing
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:52pm.
I will discuss the real thing with you when you can publish the portions of the ceasefire where it says the USA must get permission from the UN to resume hostilities. You also skip over the relevant fact the Constitution of the USA trumphs any treaty. And the congress of the USA approves any act of war or hostile actions against another nation.
So basically you are saying there will be no hostile actions unless authorized by the UN?
BTW the Congress of teh USA authorized the continuation of hostilities by virtue of their power vested to them by teh Constitution.
The UN is a joke and I support teh USA stopping any money going to it. We should also pull out of all bases overseas, stop all monies going to other countries from any government funds and tell teh rest of teh world to kiss our but.
Hey Dan the Man2
Submitted by gfrrman on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:59pm.
If I'm not forgetting isn't "Teleprompter Boys'" schtick is "we won't retaliate until someone hits us first"..Just askin' Btw check your Pm
G
The relevant bits are not in the ceasefire
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:24am.
You haven't provided a link to the ceasefire agreement (nor have I coz it ain't relevant to my point) so I don't know if you realise that the ceasefire agreement is in the form of a UN SC resolution. A UN Resolution that predates both Resolution 1441 and the congressional Authorisation to Use Military Force of 2002 where Congress authorised the President to ENFORCE (but not to BREAK) UN security council resolutions.
The relevant bits - the bits that constrain US Presidential action (as well as the unilateral action of any head of any UN member nation by the way) are in the UN Charter and (for Iraq's "final opportunity to disarm") in Resolution 1441 both of which, the appropriate United States authorities, at the respective times, authorised and agreed to.
I already showed you that the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 3:36am.
I already showed you that the UN has no power and that the congress authorized war and the specific language is:
The measure -- titled the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq" -- specifically authorizes the president "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." It also gives Bush authority to act with military force "to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Resolutions regarding Iraq."You seem to be brown on the inside from the top of your haid to the bottom of your feet. In addition every 60 days the President was required to inform congress of progress, which he did. So the congress approval has been there all the time in all phases.
So next time research the actual documents and get accurate quotes.
BTW here is resolution 667 and in any cease fire when the hostilities begin anew the signers may resume the hostilities with the agressor. Iraq was hostile and did not live up the agreement and therefore we resumed hostilities. And to reinterate the congress of the USA approved the resumption.
I accept the wording you offer from the Authorisation but
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 6:33am.
it doesn't change the fact that Bush was not authorised by Congress in the Authorisation of October 2002, to BREAK a later resolution he agreed to, Resolution 1441, made in November 2002.
Or, do you really and honestly interpret the words "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" (from your quoted text above) to include and to imply regardless of, and irrespective of, other existing US laws?
Seems to me that it is pretty obvious that congress could not (constitutionally) give the President a carte blanche authorisation to break US laws (even if he considered doing so to be necessary and appropriate).
It is my contention that Congress did not give the illegal invasion order, Congress appropriately gave the President a full range of lawful options he'd need in order for the threat of force to Saddam to have credibility.
It was the President not congress that gave the illegal invasion order. And it was illegal because he did it AFTER agreeing to give Iraq a "final opportunity to disarm" and after agreeing the UN was "seized of the matter", both in November 2002, in SC Resolution 1441.
Paatsch---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 6:37am.
In your second paragraph, the phrase "to include and to imply regardless of," seems awry.
Should not the word be apply?
Also, what's your beef with Bush?
He is retired, you know.
Some weird dude named Obama appears to have taken Bush's place in the White House, but I am not really sure because this Obama character is never in the White House.
Anyway, if you think George W. Bush is some type of international criminal, take it up with this Obama person.
From what I hear, he probably agrees with you.
MD
Either works, this may be clearer
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:11pm.
Or, do you really and honestly interpret the words "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" (from your quoted text above) to include and to imply the words "regardless of, and irrespective of, other existing US laws"? I'm asking Dan the Man 2 for his reading or interpretation because I don't think a good faith reading of the words in the Authorisation can take them to include an authorisation by Congress to break laws or oaths.Shut up idiot.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:26pm.
Not one single UN resolution carries the weight of law. They are exactly what they are. RESOLUTIONS.
4 : a formal expression of opinion, will, or intent voted by an official body or assembled group (MW definition)
________
Most experts[1] consider most General Assembly resolutions to be non-binding.
Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are bound to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter". Resolutions made under Chapter VII are considered binding, but resolutions under Chapter VI have no enforcement mechanisms and are generally considered to have no binding force under international law.[3 - wikipedia.
________________-
There is no internation treaty the covers the STARTING OF WARS. There are only treaties covering the CONDUCT during a war.
So there is only U.S law left. NOW POINT OUT IN THE U.S. CODE OF LAWS what law we broke OR SHUT THE FRELL UP.
Sir, I have not been rude to you anywhere
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:24pm.
but you keep calling me an idiot.
Please recall you invited me to make my case if I could.
There is a difference between General Assembly resolutions and Security Council resolutions.
I am only concerned here with Security Council resolutions and in the case of Resolution 1441 of November 2003 with a Security Council Resolution that President Bush agreed to after the Authorisation to Use Military force was made by congress in October 2002.
You mention the US Code of Laws, but if you follow my comment with Dan the Man 2 I am arguing from Article VI of the US Constitution.
I get to be rude to idiots.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:42pm.
The Pope gave me special dispensation. SO SHUT UP.
Security Council resolutions are NON-BINDING too. READ MY POST IDIOT.
The Aussie Idiot: the UN Charter was ratified into US "supreme law" as per Article VI of the US Constitution
What? YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
The Security Council, on the other hand, has the authority to adopt binding decisions, and non-compliance with these decisions constitutes a violation of the UN Charter. However, this does not give the Security Council a general lawmaking authority, as its SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION is limited to concerns of international peace and security. According to the UN Charter, article 2(3), all nations are required to settle their disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security, and justice are not endangered.
Idiot. I am calling the Pope. I need special dispensation to introduce idiots to the Stupid Stick.
Idiot.
brett...not to change the subject...but
Submitted by porpoiseboy on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:59pm.
are you married? just asking because you are actually the MOST BORING poster i can ever remember on NB. not the stupidest, mind you.....just absolutely pendantic dude. snoozer city, dude. no way you could procreate. not with anyone that was awake.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
The best social program is a JOB...ronald reagan
lol
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:32pm.
.
if I may ask
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:25pm.
what is the reason for your obsession with how the US government functions?
It may well be that Ol' Brett---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:22pm.
wants to find out if he can qualify for Obamas "spreading the wealth" program.
Anything to escape that poverty paatsch.
MD
The United States of America
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:36pm.
is a permanent security council member with veto power in the UN. And the President of the United States can completely stuff up all rational confidence in the rule of law globally - that's trade law as well as the laws relating to war.
The core purpose of the UN is to maintain international peace and security. It cannot possibly do that even in principle if the United States with its influence and veto power wants to stop it from doing that.
The US Declaration of Independence talks of the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of all men. I like that idea.
If you like that idea, Paatsch---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:50pm.
you would do well to remember that it is an idea, not a precept.
MD
Hey, Paatsch
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:09pm.
I think I saw a story about you on the National Geographic Channel. Were you raised by wombats?
brett favre
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:20pm.
The core purpose of the UN is to maintain international peace and security.
The core purpose of the UN is for a cool bit of architecture in midtown Manhattan to be built for it's headquarters, and be used (unknowingly by it's officials, as they did not permit filming) as a backdrop in the great Hitchcock spy caper, North By Northwest.
Other than that, it's virtually useless and crawling with "diplomats" getting free parking anywhere they want just to sit and appease bad-player nations.
- Shy Winger
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Yo. Yappy Flappy Gum Troll. Why did you go silent?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:56pm.
I am waiting for you to tell me how non-binding resolutions carry the FULL WEIGHT OF LAW.
Come on. How is a group of people stating their opinions the same as a Law Making Body?
Square that circle Yappy Flappy Gum Troll. We are patient. Take another 4 years.
COME ON. How is a resolution the equivalent of an ENFORCIBLE LAW?
Hey Stupid Aussie Troll. I am not Job.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:09pm.
Nor do I have the patience of a Saint. How did a United States President violate a law by ignoring a United Nations RESOLUTION?
I'm trying to show you respectfully
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:53pm.
but you ain't making it easy.
Do you accept that "treaties made" as per Article VI of the US Constitution (I'm discussing this point with Dan the Man 2 as well) are US law?
Do you accept that the UN Charter is such a treaty?
What part of SHUT UP confuses you?
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:03pm.
We signed off on the CHARTER. Not every single little piece of paper that is issued. I will REPEAT myself because you are stupid.
However, this does not give the Security Council a general lawmaking authority, as its SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION is limited to concerns of international peace and security.
I-DEE-OT. Phonetic for you hard of thinking.
Sigh ;-)
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:19pm.
It wasn't just signed, dude, it was ratified by more than 2/3rds of the Senate.
And you didn't answer my question - does that make it a "treaty made" as per Article VI of the Constitution? Yes or no? Help us move forward here!
As for "concerns of international peace and security" I am quoting YOU here, not the Charter - Iraq ain't in Kansas you realise?
And as for subject matter JURISDICTION, George W Bush President of the United States agreed in Resolution 1441 of November 2002 that the Security Council was "seized of the matter".
Doesn't that sound a bit like an acknowledgement of SC jurisdiction to you?
You are about as dense as they come.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:43pm.
Done with you troll. I am not wading into Security Council Resolutions under Chapter VI or Chapter VII.
You wanna reargue an issue from 8 years ago. Do it with someone else.
You think you have such a solid case, come on over and arrest our former President. Of course, you will be awful lonely because the United Nations has no enforcement capabilities. It is all on one RETARD AUSSIE.
And you did not quote me idiot. It was from a link.
Here is your actual Resolution 1441
1. Decides...
2. Decides...
3. Decides...
4. Decides...
5. Decides...
6. Endorses..
7. Decides...
8. Decides...
9. Requests...
10. Requests...
11. Directs...to report...
12. Decides...
13. Recalls....
14. Decides...
WHOA. Hold me down. That is some heavy stuff there with all the deciding and endorsing and reporting. How did we ever manage to keep Bush out of jail? And why oh why did Bush ignore all the decidin' and indorsin' ?
IDIOT.
Article VI is a reference to the US Constitution
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 3:23am.
not a Security Council Resolution.
Its the clause of the US Constitution dealing with "treaties made". It says they when "made in Pursuance [to the Constitution]" they shall be the supreme Law of the Land;".
Shut up idiot.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 6:49am.
I was referring to the UN Charter. You write a book's worth of posts here and you can't even get a simple thing like the UN Charter right.
Take a hike troll. You are too stupid to bother. You a still arguing something settled 8 years ago. And you have not made the tiniest bit of inroad to actually learning something.
Did I say U.S Constitution? Let's look what I said -
I am not wading into Security Council Resolutions under Chapter VI or Chapter VII.
Now who said the U.S Constitution? Me. Don't look like it there idiot. Who has Security Council Resolutions? Huh? Our Congress? Idiot.
You sit there and act like you know something. Someone does 4 minutes of research on it and YOU STICK YOUR HEAD RIGHT UP YOUR BUTT.
Looky at that. I did 4 minutes of research. Already you are lost.
IDIOT.
You obviously missed the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 6:22pm.
You obviously missed the requirement in the authorization that congress needs to approve of the Presidents actions. He did not break any laws and 1441 was a last ditch effort by the toothless UN to get Saddam to comply to the demands he did not comply with 10 years earlier. The cease fire is still the controlling document unless you have some relevant text from 1441 that say the cease fire agreement is not in effect.
I also seem to remember that congress made another authorization in 2003 just before the invasion began.
I will probably not answer any vague generalizations any more. Specific references and passages and an analysis of how they apply to USA law.
You must remmeber congress controls teh purse strings and at anytime they could have cut teh funding for our troops over there. They chose not to.
I don't know why you guys are even talking to this idiot.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 7:54pm.
The United Nations is NOT a law making body. THe United Nations is NOT a treaty making body. The United Nations has no way to enforce any thing it says. Those little blue helmet guys are completely incapable of any enforcement activities.
The United Nations IS a body for diplomats to get together and put on non-binding resolutions. No nation on earht is COMPELLED to follow any U.N resolution. Look at all the idiotic resolutions the U.N has put out about Israel.
So the idea that we broke any law by not following any U.N. resolution is completely idiotic and show what utterly vapid stupidity is out there on the left.
Vet---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 8:03pm.
You are absolutely right.
It's just that I can't get over corresponding with a kangaroo that can actually type.
MD
Bush and the USA broke a
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:54am.
Bush and the USA broke a Treaty? which one?
A treaty was NEVER signed between the UN and Iraq when hostilities ended in Gulf War I! In fact, Saddam Hussein was given a list of things he needed to do which brought an armitice between the UN, lead by the USA and Sadda Hussein. The conditions to end all military actions in Iraq in Gulf War I, 1991, rested on the FACT that Hussein complied with the UN resolutions and UN list of demands. He never complied!
Thus it can be easily argued that the Iraq War was a continuation of Gulf War I thanks to Hussein's lack of meeting UN demands from 1991.
You know, just like N. Korea and S. Korea. If they would go to war neither side would be breaking a treaty since no treaty was ever signed, only an armitice, a truth, was signed.
Russia, Germany, France, etc were in on the take with Saddam Hussein. They were receiving millions if not billions of dollars worth of petrol, of oil, along with money from Saddam Hussein!!!!! France and Germany were heavily invested in Hussein's regime! It was to their advantage that Hussein remained i power! It can be proven with facts, not silly radical Left wing "logic".
and China, really? are you claiming that China has any type of standing? are you seriously taking China's opinion on any matter seriously? LOL
I dare you to use logic, reason and unbiased documents, cites that
1) Prove that Buhs and the USA broke any treaty.
2) That Germany, Russia and France were not heavily invested in the Saddam Hussein regime. that France's, Russia's and France's economy would not gain anything with Hussein staying in power. that these governments were not receiving oil from Hussein!
3) Prove that the Oil for food program was not being used by Hussein to bribe UN officials. Prove that the food for oil program foods that were suppose to reach the people of Iraq was reaching them.
4) Prove that Saddam Hussein and his regime were doing less harm to his people than the suffering of Darfur which all Liberals call for an intervention there. Prove that LIberals aren't racist who could careless about the mass graves in Iraq, but raise havoc for the mass graves in Darfur. Why do Liberals care more about the mass graves in DArfur than in Iraq?
If you are going to spew so much nonsense, you better have a lot more than, "i put all this up on NB before, but it is all gone now" I have been here since the beggining and never seen you around. So, prove it or run along with your radical Left wing views/lies
Kofi Annan?
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 11:22pm.
China, France and Russia? Seriously, dude? See one of many articles about good, old uncle Kofi, in the WaPo. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR200509...
And, Russia? The biggest supplier of Iraq's military, followed by China and France? Are you serious? Where does the Exocet missile come from? The T-55, T-62 and T-72 tank? The T-59? The Mig-21, Mig-29, The Mi-24 helicopter? The Mirage fighter?
Holy sh*t---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 10:46pm.
a typing kangaroo !!
MD
Paging Matthewdean
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 10:59pm.
Please join us in the chat room since you have not checked your PM's ;-)
sorry brett...back to the part where i passed out.....
Submitted by porpoiseboy on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 10:52pm.
then i woke up and read this.
>>People of the world shouldn't have to accept "arbitray" capricous and unrepresentative of humanity American rule any more than the north American colonials accepted "heretidary" rule of foreign monarchs<< and then after i woke up AGAIN...i wondered....is an "arbitray" some kind of deli platter? 'cause man i am hungry right now. SNACK TIME!!. and is a "heretidary" some kind of camelid? kinda like a dromedary? do you have any pics of one? please reply asap as the suspense is KILLING me.Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
The best social program is a JOB...ronald reagan
Sorry about they typo(s)
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:41pm.
I meant to write "arbitrary". And hereditary(?). (still not sure of the spelling of the second one without looking it up).
But you know I meant those words, right ;-)
Its speed (to converse in meaningful human time) vs spelling accuracy sometimes.
Brett...
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:01am.
Shouldn't you be molesting a kangaroo or something?
Jog On Mate
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 10:36pm.
"Where do you think the motivation for terrorism comes from if not the determination not to acquiesce to being treated like crap in a system of abviously stacked and corrupt "justice"?"
It would have been nice if you had started your post with this question so the rest of us would have known to skip the rest of your drivel. So these Radical Muslim Islamists just want justice? They cut off peoples heads, stone women, bomb market places to rise up against a system that is stacked and corrupted against them? Yeah, that's it. Keep your stupidity in the land of Oz.
Also, using the word Dude in one sentence to show us your not trying to look down your nose at anyone and then spouting about some imaginary "psychological buble" in the next one, shows us your true colors.
Re: Radical Muslim Islamists just want justice?
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:32pm.
No. The point is that ALL groups of people (as a generalisation about groups) don't want INJUSTICE directed at them.
Against SYSTEMIC injustice, without any confidence in the rule of law to give them any alternative rational hope of change or improvement, force and terrorism inevitably goes onto the table as an option for just about ANY group of people.
Not just about ANY group of people
Submitted by sentry_99 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:18am.
would "inevitably" put terrorism on the table. What you don't seem to get is that Islamists don't want justice, they want to force injustice on others. OBL was a rich Saudi prince. How much injustice did he face?
Brett Paatsch, So, Muslims
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:01am.
Brett Paatsch,
So, Muslims stone their adulterous women to death because they do not want injustice directed at them, eh?
Muslims carry out honor killings because they do not want insjustices directed at them, eh?
So, Islamic terrorism is the fault of America, not of radical Islam, right? Systemic injustices? Like what? Muslims rapping Christian women and then forcing them to marry into Islam or have them stoned to death?
Maybe systemic injustices in which if a woman is raped in a Muslim country the woman is the one that is guilty and if she can't prove that she was raped she will be stoned to death?
So, in other words you are saying that it is ok for Muslim women to rise up against Muslim men and carry out terrorist attacks against Muslim men, right? LOL
You radical Left wingers have such a twisted view of the world.
Next thing you are going to do is tell us all how George Washington, et al were terrorists, right? WOW!!!
just another group????
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:55pm.
Islam is not a group to be generalized along with any other group. It's jaw-dropping to us all that you're making this attempt to blend them in with everyone, with all the horrible stuff going on in the world pointing directly to this cult.
Go here and learn a thing or two or a thousand about this sick, dark, cancerous, lawless billion-plus strong "group" that is committing horrible injustices on peace-loving people around the world.
- Shy Shakes His Head
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
so you basically give a blanket "pass" to all
Submitted by porpoiseboy on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:10pm.
terrorists?!?! really? those poor terrorists across the world are all forced into it by "systemic injustice"?!? okay, so i recently said you were not the stupidest poster ever here in NB. BUT....i did not say you were not ALMOST the stupidest. i reckon you are now in contention.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left
The best social program is a JOB...ronald reagan
Another idiot that knows not a single thing he talks about.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 12:56am.
The idiot: Seems to me that Bush did break the law in the invasion of Iraq...
Then back it up. Only Congress can declare war. They did with the Authorizaton for the use of Force in Iraq in October of 2002.
As has been said here, we were still in a state of war with Iraq. There was only a verbal armistice at the end of the Persian Gulf war. And that verbal armistice had Iraq agreeing to comply with all future U.N terms. That the U.N terms were promply ignored when they were issued. It was why we continued to have a large presence in the Gulf for a decade.
Either back up what you say or take your lies about our President violating laws elsewhere.
The idiot: But cloth won't keep water out of the nose.
It seems you are just as uninformed about waterboarding too. Yeah, that is waterboarding. Water in the nose. Apt definition for waterboarding. Water in the nose.
Idiot.
The Vet FKA, Well
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 1:06am.
The Vet FKA,
Well said!!!
But don't expect this radical Left wingers from Europe to know much about anything. These are the same people who are more than happy to give up more than 50% of their hard earned money so some government bureaucrat can tell them how to eat, when to sleep, when to work, how long to take a vaction, when they can and cannot go to a medical doctor, etc, etc.
They love subsidizing laziness, 3 months vacations. These Europeans much rather loose their economic, political freedom than work hard and figure out on their own what to do with their money. Their ability to think critically has been greatly diminished since WWII.
How incredibly stupid to say that Bush broke any treaty.
In the United States of America, the President of the USA doesn't declare war! Congress does! if anyone broke any Treaty is our Congress which includes Kerry and the rest of the radical Left wingers in Congress who Europeans morons love!
The treaty Bush broke was the UN Charter
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 10:48am.
The UN Charter is a treaty and an international agreement (to which the United States is a party) both. It is part of US "supreme law" (the quotes around "supreme law" related to Article VI of the US Constitution) because it was duly ratified in the way the US Constitution says treaties should be ratified - by the President and not less than two thirds of the US Senate. It has been a part of US supreme law since 1945 from memory. Certainly before George W Bush was born.
The Authorisation to Use Military Force you mention was an authorisation to the President by Congress to ENFORCE UN security council resolutions.
There is, a difference between ENFORCING and BREAKING resolutions I think you'd agree. And nowhere does the Authorisation to Use Military Force of 2002 authorise the President to break future UN Resolutions which he might himself make. Yet that is exactly what he did.
In November 2002 UN Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously (that is,with the consent of the United States as well) and it included in its terms a "final opportunity" for Iraq to disarm and it states that the UN Security Council was "seized of the matter".
Inspections for weapons of mass distruction were actually halted when the United States invaded in March 2003. It was the invasion order (given by President Bush as commander in chief of the US armed forces) that terminated Iraq's final opportunity given in 1441. And that order was illegal because it was a unilateral usurpation of the Security Councils procedures for making decisions which is part of the UN Charter.
Had Bush got Security Council's agreement to terminate Iraq's final opportunity the invasion would not have been illegal. With Blair of the UK and the Spanish leader he tried to get a resolution that would declare Iraq's final opportunity to disarm over in February of 2003 (that is almost all the proposed new resolution said - Iraq's final opportunity is over) made but he and Blair failed to get the support of the SC. He could not get enough members of the Security Council to agree to it because they wanted to give weapons inspections more time. So he unilaterally gave an invasion order and the invasion order broke the terms of 1441 which had given Iraq a final opportunity and the UN Charter which prescribes how Security Council decisions are to be made - and its not unilaterally, not when the UN SC is "seized of a matter".
These facts are public record.
Paatsch---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:54pm.
Your lengthy screed is tying Bush to some type of a reverse "putsch" against the UN?
A Paatsch putsch, as it were?
That your time in Aussie land has allowed your Bush Derangement Syndrome to flower exponentially is also now public record.
MD
Yes
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 12:24am.
A putsch against the UN (by Bush with the support of members of his administration which don't like the freedom of action of the US President being constrained by any international agreements, even what US congresses of the past considered to be good agreements) sounds like a fair characterisation of what I am describing.
I don't think I'm evidencing any derangement syndromes though. My arguments are laid out for you to criticize or fault if you can and, the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men matters if there is going to be any possibility of peace and order and justice between and within nations.
Paatsch---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 3:02am.
I do believe I see where you are coming from.
I wouldn't dream of trying to find fault with any well laid out argument, such as yours, that stipulates that the rule of law (formulated by men), as opposed to the rule of men (that would be governance, by men, trying, or not, to enforce those aforementioned laws), is the ONLY possible way to ensure a chance for peace and order and justice and unicorns and rainbows and sweet smelling fairy farts being shared equally between and within nations.
Good thing we as civilized human beings had rules , regulations, codes, ordinances, treaties, laws, by-laws, and in-laws, to prevent any armed, for lack of a better word, misunderstandings.
You know, like World Misunderstanding I, World Misunderstanding II, the Korean Misunderstanding, the Vietnam Misunderstanding, the Misunderstanding in Iraq, and the current Fail to Get the Picture in Afghanistan.
I don't know about Australia, but here in the United States, we found that by passing laws so that we could live under the rule of law rather than under the rule of men, we seldom, if ever, have to witness the sordid crimes of murder, rape, robbery, and arson.
The rule of law has made such events nothing more than rare, weird, anomalies.
Thank Zeus (or whoever the God of Sarcasm is) for the rule of law.
At least the laws keep the law-abiding types in line.
MD
Your sarcasm doesn't contain any argument I can see
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 5:29am.
I said nothing about rainbows, unicorns or sweet smelling farts.
Isn't it a conservative position that a promise made should be kept? That an oath taken should be upheld? That people ought (as a moral matter) negotiate in good faith and behave with honour?
My sarcasm, Paatsch---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 6:17am.
Was the point.
I made no argument whatsoever.
As a conservative, I speak for myself, not other conservatives.
Should a promise made be kept?
I think it should.
Is it kept?
Sometimes.
Sometimes not.
Should an oath taken be upheld?
I believe it should.
Is it upheld?
Sometimes.
Sometimes not.
Should people, as a moral matter, negotiate in good faith and behave with honor?
They should.
Do they?
Sometimes.
Sometimes not.
What is your point?
Are you expecting me to go with you, shoulder to shoulder, in order to right the wrongs men have cast at one another, lo these many centuries; or were you just planning on handling the current crop of woes?
Regardless, whether I accompany you, or go it alone, I shall need one of those unicorns I spoke of, to ride upon, and a pocket full of miracles, that I may soothe the savage breast, cool the fevered brow, assuage the many sorrows, etc., etc.
What's that?
You have no unicorns? No pocket full of miracles?
Well Paatsch, I tell you what; go ahead and pack rations and gear for one, as I am going to pass on this particular crusade to see that promises are kept, oaths are upheld, and people negotiate in good faith, all the while behaving with honor.
Good luck, mate.
You are going to need it.
MD
You make a common mistake for
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 7:33pm.
You make a common mistake for one who does not understand the Constitution. The Constitution says no treaty shall trumph the Constitution of the USA. So your argument "It is part of US supreme law" is flawed. The USA is sopveriegn and follows no law except the Constitution, it is not beholden to any other country or entity such as the UN. The USA as party to the cease fire had every right to resume hostilities. In addition Iraq was hostile to the USA's lawful patrols in Iraq to the extent they intended to shoot our planes down, they were not cooperating with the demands of the cease fire.
Have you even read any of the agreements? And specifically state your arguements taht it was illegal using those arguement and teh Constitution of teh USA.
I'm not saying treaties trump the US Constitution
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 9:05pm.
I am saying that the US Constitution itself, at article VI, includes "treaties made" as part of the "supreme law" of the United States.
I've mentioned Article VI of the Constitution a couple of times at least now.
Here's where I'm getting the text I quote from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6, but if you want to use another online source to continue our discussion that is reliable I'm fine with that.
-------
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, OathsAll Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
----
That whole second paragraph in article VI is the relevent bit for my argument. Treaties made under the Authority of the United States are Treaties made in the manner that the US Constitution prescribes.
I am saying that in 1945 the UN Charter was sent to the US Senate by President Truman and the US Senate, after consideration ratified the UN Charter. And at THAT point the UN Charter, (that is the words of the document of the UN Charter obviously) became part of US supreme law. Part of. Not all of.
I am saying the US Constitution incorporates properly made treaties by reference at article VI into the body of US supreme law.
---
And imo that is how it should be. Those who put the US Constitution together got that right. The US as a nation in a world of nations had to have some way to make agreements between itself and other nations (treaties in other words). As such things are needed for trade and for defence pacts etc.
Aside: You ask "have I read the agreements" - (to say yes or no I need you to be specific about the documents, I'm pretty well read, but I can't claim I've read EVERYTHING ANYONE might think is relevant - and certainly everything isn't relevant to what I am saying, throwing up irrelevant stuff is a tactic some folks use, for instance above you will see that I am asked about radical islamic positions and I never brought that stuff up others did).
If you are trying to guage my level of knowledge as a foreigner on US matters - I've read some of the Federalist papers. I read a lot about the Gulf war and the Iraq war as they were happening (I was an adult in those times - I'm 44 now) and I was interested.
Interesting, and the same
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 11:09pm.
Interesting, and the same congress who approved such treaties said it was ok to goto war. In fact this right here is one of the specific enumerations of congress. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; So the Supreme Law says it is ok to goto war.
The Constitution is the last word in USA law and the only way to trump it would be to amend it. The UN treaty does not amend it or supersede it. So that means the congress ability to declare war supersedes any treaty of UN edict.
They did and it did supersede anything before it.
If you wish to argue the law please get some idea of what it is. The USA does not recognize foreign law.
No
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 1:41am.
Not the same congress at all. The congress that ratified the UN Charter was a congress in the time of President Truman. The congress that gave the Authorisation to Use Force in 2002 was another congress. Congresses in the US are numbered (109th, 110th etc), like Presidents and all have the Powers of Congress as per the Constitution but none have the rightful authority to ignore or treat as non existant validly made (i.e. constitutional) laws made by previous Congresses.
As I said already, the UN Charter doesn't trump the Constitution, the Constitution INCORPORATES it as a "treaty made" as of Article VI.
Just as Congress makes laws, as per the US Constitution, which then become part of the supreme law, so too, as per the Constitution can Presidents plus two thirds of the Senate make treaties that are part of US supreme law.
It is possible of course for the United States Congress (provided it has the support of the President and includes two thirds of the Senate) to cancel a treaty - and that of course includes the UN Charter, out of existing US law. But that has never happened and so the UN Charter remains part of US law.
You say the US does not recognize foreign law, but I have already shown the text of the article VI of the US Constitution which says "Treaties made" are part of "supreme law".
Are you disputing that the UN Charter is a treaty in the sense of Article VI?
Are you disputing that it was duly ratified by the Congress in this case the Senate?
It does not seem like you yourself understand that it is the US Constitution itself that confers law making power on the people's representatives, President and Congress, (specifically President and the Senate with respect to treaties) to make treaties with foreign powers which are then also part of US law.
You misunderstand the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 4:08am.
You misunderstand the Constitution. A treaty ratified under the rules set out do not make it a part of the Constitution. In addition the repudation of a treaty does not require the majority that ratification does. Yes treaties become part of law but it cannot conflict with the Constitution. If it does then it is disregarded. As I said before teh congress can and does control war and they said go for it.
A treaty ratified under the rules set out DOES make the
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 5:39am.
treaty part of US "supreme law of the land" though.
Article VI of the Constitution which I am quoting says so.
1) Do you agree or disagree that the UN Charter is a treaty in the sense of Article VI ?
The repudiation of a treaty DOES require the President and Congress both though. A President alone cannot change US supreme law.
2) Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
3) Please show me where congress said "go for it" as you assert, because I do not think you can.
I don't think the Authorisation to Use Force of 2002 contains an authorisation to break future Security Council resolutions, whilst it can (validly), and did (validly), contain an authorisation to enforce Security Council resolutions (consistent of course with US law, which I say includes the UN Charter, as unrepudiated, treaty-based, US law).
You dont seem to understand
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 7:22pm.
You dont seem to understand some of the terms like surpreme law, Constitution of the USA and the duties and obligations of the branches of government. Since you have a convoluted system where you live I forgive you. Any laws congress passes can and do supercede any treaties.
Congress - H.J.RES.114 -- Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)
The relevant passages The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to and (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
Section 3b has the interesting point that congress is informed of any action 48 hours prior to taking such action. and section 4 details the reporting to congress every 60 days.
Seeing these I would say congress said go for it and as for teh actual verbage refer to the document.
You say "Any laws congress passes can and do supercede
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:14pm.
any treaties".
But paragraph 2 of Article VI of the Constitution (which I posted above) differs.
It says (I've italixed the last line).
"ThisConstitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Now please, will you answer my question, do you accept that the United Nations Charter is a "treaty made" in the sense of Article VI of the Constitution or not?
I think the true answer to this question is a matter of fact and public record but it will help us focus our discussion if we can identify where we actually disagree.
Oh but you are so wrong dear
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:41pm.
Oh but you are so wrong dear kangaroo.
Article VI, Section 2, treats treaties differently from laws. There is a textual distinction in the clause between laws "made in the pursuance [of the Constitution]" and treaties "made under the authority of the United States." See State of Missouri v. Holland (1920) The effectiveness of national treaties was a special concern of the Founding generation. This language ensured that treaties entered into by the United States prior to ratification of the Constitution-most notably, the 1783 treaty of peace with Great Britain and its guarantees against confiscation of Loyalist property - took precedence over conflicting state laws. The phrasing does not in any way imply that treaties are "supreme" even if they are not made in the pursuance of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has declared that neither a treaty approved by the Senate nor an executive agreement made under the President's authority can create obligations that violate constitutional guarantees such as found in the Bill of Rights. Reid v Covert (1957)
From "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. " (emphasis mine)
I read you, but so what?
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:24pm.
Are you saying the UN Charter is not a treaty made in pursuance of the Constitution?
Please say so explicitly if that is what you think.
I of course ACCEPT that a treaty NOT made in pursuance of the Constitution would NOT have supremacy over the Bill of Rights.
As for the Supreme Courts declaration "that neither a treaty approved by the Senate nor an executive agreement made under the President's authority can create obligations that violate constitutional guarantees such as found in the Bill of Rights."
I accept that too. But its not relevant.
The UN Charter creates no such obligations. Nor did Security Council Resolution 1441 of November 2002 which Bush agreed to before breaking.
The point here, the point I am asserting and trying to find out if Dan the Man 2 agrees with or not, is that the UN Charter is a treaty made pursuant to the Constitution and that as such it is part of US supreme law as per Article VI.
Where there is no conflict of the types you point out the Supreme Court has considered then the UN Charter is still valid US law under Article VI.
Or do you disagree?
Why won't you learn the meaning of S-H-U-T U-P
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:43pm.
Was your precious Resolution 1441 signed off on in 1945? No. The CHARTER was.
What part of not enforcible, non-binding, RESOLUTION does your tiny IDIOT brain fail to comprehend?
You are truly the stupidest troll yet. 8 years stupid. You are the only one left. No one else on the planet is arguing this anymore.
IDIOT.
You apparently think a US President cannot bind himself
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 6:06am.
legally under US law even with his own agreement on Security Council Resolutions like 1441.
But such a position (whilst possibly not uncommon) is completely, logically absurd. And dangerous to the future of peace in the world if it persists in widespread form.
My harping on the Article VI of the US Constitution as the means by which the US Charter became US law is an attempt to get you to see that it is logically absurd.
You've pulled clauses out of the UN Charter (above), and you've thrown around words like Resolution (in a way that suggests to me that you don't understand that resolutions are the form in which the SC expresses its decisions - some of which are most certainly BINDING on members of the UN including the USA or the whole system would make no sense) but so far you haven't acknowledged that the UN Charter itself has the force of US law. I suspect you have an emotional objection to the notion rather than an intellectual one. So its hard to go forward with you.
The link you provided to Security Council Resolution 1441 shows its date of 8 November 2002.
It also contains these two clauses (my italix).
"2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;
14. Decides to remain seized of the matter."
Now I think you would agree that the President of the United States ALSO agreed to those two clauses when he was part of the unanimous resolution that was 1441 wouldn't you?
It seems that you just think he can agree (perhaps to some how appease the foreigners) and it has no legal binding upon him and imposes no constrains upon him to do so. Like he could promise to give Iraq a "final opportunity" to disarm and then just go ahead and bomb the heck out the place anyway unilaterally, and that no legal foul would have occurred.
That really does seem to me to be what you think. And yet you are apparently cool with that.
Paatsch, you apparently think---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 6:36am.
that you are actually going to convince someone on this thread that what you have to say is going to change both history, and the future, because you are imparting information that is somehow earth-shattering in its ramifications.
You won't, cuz it ain't.
MD
I don't expect to change history or the future in any big way
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 8:04am.
but whenever humans interact their discouse affects each other.
You claim to be honorable (to some extent). And I reckon you are too.
Do I think you will join in any idealistic crusade with me or anyone? Probably not.
But I think if given the choice between decency and indecency you'll go with decency whilst it doesn't cost you too much. And so will most folks with conservative values.
I think the world took a turn for the worse on our watch. Civilization got rolled backwards during the Bush Presidency. I don't want the world to be in worse shape after my watch then when I came on.
And I think most conservatives that want to conserve anything beyond their own butt would agree that they don't want either the world or their country to be in worse shape after they leave it either.
Paatsch---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 2:01am.
I was right in my initial assessment that you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
"Civilization got rolled backwards during the Bush Presidency."
You, Paatsch, are full of shit.
MD
You present no argument at all
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 11:17pm.
.
Read the last sentence of my post, Paatsch---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 1:50am.
and you will find there is indeed, no argument for me to present; only fact.
You are full of it.
MD
Sir even a lazy, ignorant or foolish man
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 2:42am.
who contributes nothing positive or substantive to a discussion might have the residual honor to choose to refrain from representing himself and his group badly.
You gain nothing by throwing insults here.
Like you gained a lot from lying?
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 11/10/2010 - 5:49am.
Who did you convince you lazy stupid little man? You're worthless. Go away. You lost what little credibility you had by continuing to lie in the face of overwhelming evidence from multiple people here.
And you had little credibility in the first place as no one remembers your worthless stupid butt to begin with.
Take a hike troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 6:55am.
Done with you. You are too stupid to learn.
Guess what. We are going to bomb you. UN be damned. Go hide. Go hide now and don't come out.
IDIOT.
You personally won't bomb me personally
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 9:42am.
I ain't worth the trouble to you.
But if you mean that US citizens are okay with bombing the heck out of foreigners then I think that message has gone out pretty clearly quite some time ago. When Bush was re-elected post no-WMDs being found is when I got it.
Foreigners outnumber US citizens 19 to 1.
The United States can neither be united (other than under the law) nor win a war on the whole rest of the world.
You can't fight terrorism whilst modelleing it. You teach your opponents.
You in the United States MAY lead by good example. And then have the friendship of others too. But you'll have consent to lead no other way.
Tell ya what link your source
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 11:59pm.
Tell ya what link your source and make your arguemnt for why it is a treaty. And it depends on what your definition of a treaty is. I do know one thing teh President has teh authority to negate any treaties. Here is the link and the relevant passage is Presently, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.
So now we have established the fact that the President of the USA can negate a treaty approved by the USA Senate. The congress was complicit in that hey did not object, so it was made law.
And any treaty approved by the Senate is indeed law, but that is for specific pieces and we must look at each piece. So what that means is anything teh UN passes is not law unless approved by the Senate. There is no blanket approval. The UN Charter was approved and ratified by the Senate in 1945.
Here is a State Department list
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 6:19am.
http://www.state.gov/www/global/legal_affairs/tifindex.html
You'll see the United Nations with a page reference to 476 beside it. Go to page 476 using the tabs at the top and you'll see this:
Charter of the United Nations with the Statute
of the International Court of Justice annexed
thereto.[1] Signed at San Francisco June 26,
1945; entered into force October 24, 1945.
And you can see that the United States is listed as a State Party. And on the top of the page you'll see a heading Treaties in Force.
----
Now your link is to Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia but one has to be careful treating it as authoritative because, as I understand ordinary members of the public, (with their various political and other biases and agendas) can still update it.
Even, setting that reservation aside, the text you excerpt does NOT back up your assertion that "we have established the fact that the President of the USA can negate a treaty approved by USA Senate".
I know from my reading of the Federalist papers that the founders were concerned that Presidents alone not be able to make treaties without Senate oversight lest they sell out the country to foreign interests as a result of bribery etc. The same sort of sensible arguments would counsel against letting a President unilaterally break a treaty that was in the national interest for his own personal political (or economic - self enrichment say) interest.
Anyway, the words "no official ruling" mean that the Supreme Court of the United States has not made a ruling on the matter.
But the Constitution is still there. It is not written in latin it is written in English and we are entitled to read it on its face in good faith in the absence (and perhaps even in the presence) of SCOTUS opinion to the contrary.
Our ultimate authority for US law must be the US Constitution itself.
I say the UN Charter is a treaty under Article VI because I know it was made pursuant to the provisions of the constitution.
If I can ever get you to agree that that is so. I will be able to proceed to the next point which is that the UN Charter is, the precise words in the charter. And in the absence of anything contradicting those words, those words (having been ratified by the Senate) have the force of US law too. Any other interpretation is just logically absurd.
A failure of Congress to reprimand or correct an error cannot be taken as endorsement of an illegal act.
But I get too far ahead.
Are you willing to conceed that the UN Charter is a treaty made in the sense of Article VI?
Seems to me that all this concession requires of you is that you agree that a President signed off and a supermajority of over two-third of the senate ratified - that is all the Constitution requires for a treaty to be "in Pursuance" as per Article VI. No?
---
You say
"any treaty approved by the Senate is indeed law, but that is for specific pieces and we must look at each piece. So what that means is anything teh UN passes is not law unless approved by the Senate. There is no blanket approval. " But the single piece that the Senate ratified in 1945 was the whole text of the UN Charter itself that was presented to them. Contained within that text were procedures for setting up a General Assembly and a Security Council and procedures for making decisions. The Charter itself did get blanket approval (without of course approving all the optional extras the UN might do in future) or the UN would not have been formed in the first place.I said it was ratified and
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 7:38pm.
I said it was ratified and that means it was a treaty, but it was a compact between governments and any agreement between governments requires senate approval. The UN is a foriegn body and as such is not the same as a law. The congress must pass laws concerning treaties. In addition the USA can and does ignore foreign influnces.
In addition in the Head Money case 112 - 580 (1884) The case established the precedent that which are described in the United States Constitution as;the supreme law of the land nonetheless do not hold a privileged position above other acts of Congress, and other laws affecting;its enforcement, modification, or repeal; are legitimate.
And yes Wikki use is sparse but the fact I published are correct as is the conclusion. Similar to Roberts Rules in that if teh chair proposes or acts and there are no objections then the motion carries. In the case of a President making unilateral actions abolishing a treaty it is the same ... no one with standing objected so the treaty is null and void.
So I accept the premise that the UN charter is a form of treaty by virure that teh Senate passed it as required by the Constitution. So what is your point? And 1441 is not the same as USA law because it is from a foriegn body and not ratified by the Senate.
I want to be careful and try to be precise with my words
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 9:43pm.
here so we don't waste our efforts so far and so that our conversation is based as closely as possible on solid sources and principles. (Apologies that that requires a degree of pedantry).
Having accepted the premise that the UN Charter is a form of treaty because the Senate passed it as required by the Constitution (article VI etc) do you also agree that it is US law and (in the absense of congressional action to change the law and in the absence of any constitutional impediment such as infringements on the Bill of Rights etc) the words and text of the UN Charter, that the Senate ratified as a bundled set of clauses together, remain US law?
I've read your other comments above (I can't agree with the Roberts Rules argument by analogy btw) I am hoping you can say yes to this and then let me introduce the UN Charter's clauses into our discussion as prima facie US law.
I will freely admit my charge that George W Bush broke US law depends for it's success on the UN Charter having been valid (unrepudiated) US law at the time of March 2003 when he gave his Iraq invasion order which I have been asserting was illegal.
Bush might have been negotiating in manifest bad faith with the UN SC (and people may have views on morality that are separate to views on legality) but the invasion order of Bush's is not illegal unless Bush broke US law.
The Charter itself is not
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:37pm.
The Charter itself is not part of USA law as persuant to the case I stated before.
Head Money case 112 - 580 (1884) The case established the precedent that which are described in the United States Constitution as;the supreme law of the land nonetheless do not hold a privileged position above other acts of Congress, and other laws affecting;its enforcement, modification, or repeal; are legitimate.And yes in any type of government if the action is discussed and no legal action is taken then it is considered lawful. So what is your point about the UN charter, you never got to it. Treaties never supercede USA law and when a treaty imposes retriction there must be USA laws to comply with it.
The UN Charter is not the same as USA law.
Okay but no "privileged position" is necessary
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 4:20am.
You wrote
"Head Money case 112 - 580 (1884) The case established the precedent that ( treaties ) which are described in the United States Constitution as;the supreme law of the land nonetheless do not hold a privileged position above other acts of Congress, and other laws affecting;its enforcement, modification, or repeal; are legitimate." -Okay.
But it doesn't matter to my case that the UN Charter (as a treaty) holds a privileged position over other acts of Congress. It is enough that it is unrepudiated US law as at March 2003.
Leaving aside (for the moment) whether it was repudiated at any time
In your comment of Sun 11/07/2010 - 03:08.(above), you said -
“Yes treaties become part of law but it cannot conflict with the Constitution” (My bolding)By "law" I presume you meant US law there. No?
If so, having agreed that the UN Charter is a treaty, aren't you logically obliged to agree that (unless repudiated) the UN Charter (treaty) is also US law?
On the matter of repudiation. Picking up you Head Money Cases reference here. It seems to me that an "act" of Congress, would mean a legislative action by Congress, not just some failure to address.
The is a logical difference between an ACT and INaction.
If a person is observed jaywalking by a cop and the cop just ignores it figuring he has better things to attend to right now, and jaywalking is illegal, that doesn't mean the jaywalker didn't break the law.You miss the point, the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 5:58am.
You miss the point, the President of the USA has the authority to rescend treaties ratified by the Senate. Just as he has the power to fire judges and his cabinent who are also ratified by the Senate. My point is that this is not spelled out in the Constitution and until a challenge is made then that is the Presidents power. Its not like Bush did this sneaky like, he informed everyone what he was doing months ahead and rescened the treaty.
Your cop premise assumes that jaywalking is a crime and also the President breaking treaties is also a crime. Unless there are specific laws against jaywalking it is not a crime. And as I pointed out POTUS breaking treaties is not a crime.
So what is your point about the charter?
I didn't miss your point - you failed to make it
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 11:03pm.
You wrote
1) "The President of the USA has the authority to rescind treaties ratified by the Senate."
2) "I pointed out POTUS breaking treaties is not a crime".
But you have NOT substantiated those assertions. They are absolutely crucial. And you are absolutely wrong in law and logic in asserting them.
There are different categories of treaties in US law but the, senate ratified, article VI deriving, UN Charter is not the sort of treaty that a US President alone can rescind any more than he could cancel an act of legislature.
The President is subject to the Constitution and to constitutionally valid US law.
Even if the word "supreme" is dropped out, Article VI section 2 of the constitution is a positive statement that logically MUST mean something when it says "treaties made" pursuant are "law of the land".
And nowhere in the Constitution does the President get to unilaterally rescind the "law of the land".
That the SCOTUS has not ruled on certain things (ambit claims and power grabs by overreaching Presidents yet) doesn't change the fact that the Consitution positively asserts certain things and reasonable men of good faith are entitled to read the Constitution itself as authoritative and to draw reasonable conclusions about what words written in English mean.
I'm having trouble working out how to go forward with you given that you have apparently conceeded that the UN Charter is a treaty because the Senate ratified it And earlier you seemed to say that treaties were law.
But you won't go the next very small step and agree that the UN Charter is US law.
Maybe this link will help you
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/treaties_senate_role.pdf
From page 1 I excerpt this (my bolding)-
"Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent
in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution
calls ‘‘the supreme Law of the Land.’’
---
I wonder if now, at long last, you'd agree the UN Charter was US law at the moment the Senate ratified it (before there was any potentially contradicting or superceding acts by Congress)?
I wonder if you'd agree that at that exact moment of ratification, the whole UN Charter as written was US law?
brett paaaaaaatsch
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:30pm.
Where do you think the motivation for terrorism comes from if not from a determination not to acquiesce to being treated like crap in a system of obviously stacked and corrupt "justice"?
The motivation for ISLAMIC terrorism comes from the hideous, barbaric, tyrannical, theocratic tenets of islam, where all mooslims treat each other like crap and don't give a crap for the modern, individual freedom/rights -based world a majority of us thankfully live in.
Seriously, how do people get this stupid?
- Shy On The Cusp
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy, people get this stupid
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 9:38pm.
Shy, people get this stupid from various avenues, including, but not limited to, public schools, watching the View, watching MSNBC, watching CBS...
Rad79
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 11/07/2010 - 10:10pm.
Hey, so you HAD to mention The View, huh? :p I try hard to keep the visualizing of those ugly mugs out of my head, thank you very much. :)
Hey Brett, more impressive numbers for that group facing all those injustices...
Islam -- Week of October 31-November 6:
Get all the latest numbers @ http://thereligionofpeace.com/
- Shy Mugs :)
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
delete
Submitted by mandrake on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 8:57pm.
i said delete already
I quit reading what the idiot has to say.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:29am.
I have said already that Resolution 1441 was directed at IRAQ, was all about REPORTING AND DECLARING, was non-binding to a large extent, and unenforcable as are all UN RESOLUTIONS. Here is yet another source.
It is time we started talking about this idiot troll here rather than talking to him. Because only someone this stupid still spouts this stuff 8 years later, when not one investigation, not one indictment anywhere on the planet has been made regarding this stupid an argument. Not one. Who does this idiot think he is convincing? President Bush is gonna die of old age indictment free and there ain't a damn thing the combined idiots of the world can do. Too bad. So sad.
In Resolution 1441, the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of Resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.
The Security Council in Resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.
The Security Council also decided in Resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.
It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of Resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.
Thus, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today.
Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that Resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force."
Just to correct some JWF errors using JWF's own links and words
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 7:03pm.
Resolution 1441 ( a Security Council Resolution as opposed to a General Assembly Resolution) did some DECIDING.
It unanimously (including the USA) "
"2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;
and
14 Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Of course JWFs assertion that SC Resolutions aren't enforceable makes the Congressional Authorisation to Use Force in Iraq "to ENFORCE security council resolutions" an interesting statement by Congress to the President.
And JWF must not realise that in the time of President George H W Bush when Colin Powell was Desert Storming and Desert Sheilding and driving the Iraqi's out of Kuwuit with the support of UN member nations that included Arab countries it was to enforce Security Council resolutions which JWF says are never enforced.
The UN has no standing army as everyone knows JWF and it was deliberately set up that way so yes it uses the armed forces of member nations to enforce its resolutions as per the UN Charter agreement.
Stupid remains Stupid and embraces same.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:05pm.
Stupid missed the part where I said "done with you".
Didin't read a word of Stupid's post.
Stupid must feel sad.
JFW wrote (correctly as it happens) in an earlier comment
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 7:58pm.
"Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are bound to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter".
Just to correct some JWF errors using JWF's own links and
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 6:42pm.
Resolution 1441 did some DECIDING as well.
It unanimously (including the USA) "
"2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council;and
Paatsch---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 7:05pm.
Your "putsch" against Bush ain't working.
Your voluminous posts shed no light, only propaganda, slanted by you, for your view.
Your view is odd.
As are you.
Saying the same old stuff, over and over and over, is not enlightening, it is tiresome.
As are you.
The day the Vet is incorrect about the U.S. of A. and its international relations, OR Geo. W. Bush, and you get lucky with your shots in the dark ---
Will be the day Obama flies to the moon and back by flapping those ears of his.
MD
Partly odd because I accidently submitted and you replied
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 7:12pm.
as I was editting.
Apologies for the editing slip.
What you're probably just now
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 8:04pm.
What you're probably just now understanding is that matthew is JWF's BFF, so whatever you post to one, the other will show up to defend (or to just post nonsense - you decide).
Odd
Submitted by sentry_99 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 8:26pm.
For a guy who claims JWF stalks him, you show up on an awful lot of threads that have nothing to do with you and then bring him up.
Hopefully from this time foward, you stop whining when he shows up to do the same.
Good luck with that argument.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 8:29pm.
Good luck with that argument. The only people you'll be fooling are fools.
Okay Fool
Submitted by sentry_99 on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 9:13pm.
Who brought up JWF in their last post? Um......YOU DID. Who will whine the next time JWF shows up in another thread? My crystal ball says....YOU WILL. Also for someone who complains about derailing threads...does your post have anything to do with the thread??Apparently you're the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:22pm.
Apparently you're the 3rd.
This entire section of thread was a derailment as soon as matthewdean posted his 16:05 comments. I merely gave a tip to a person who was about to meet the big bad wolf and his litter.
I have looked and I have
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 11:43pm.
I have looked and I have looked but I cannot find any post by matthewdean on this thread with a time stamp of 16:05. Are you making up things again?
It's number 118 at the
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 1:11pm.
It's number 118 at the moment. Look harder.
Oh look the crybaby women and children harasser is whining.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 12:28am.
The crybaby is once again whining about derailing of all teh threads.
Thought you liked the word disrupt. Your nwahs account liked the word derail.
Trollie is slipping again.
To steal a line from you now
Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 1:07am.
You are so predictable.Well I stole that line from
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 1:11pm.
Well I stole that line from Beukboom, so I guess we're all even.
Thanks for the heads up
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 9:21pm.
I trust people who consider themselves conservatives, as well as people who consider themselves liberals, appreciate friendship and also appreciate that the truth of an argument doesn't depend on who is friends with who.
One might say "Brownie's doing a heck of a job," but people make their own assessments.
There's one major quality
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 10:26pm.
There's one major quality many of the members of this site have, and that's integrity. They'll fight to the death over whether or not Jon Stewart is or isn't a comedian, but when it comes to watching a fellow conservative behave abusive and belligerent, they all just seem to look away.
Maybe I have a new calling: Bully Buster.
See you around, Brett...whomever you are.
You go girl.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 1:51am.
Stand up to the word bullies nwahs. You tell 'em. Don't let those word bullies push you around by typing words on a public website.
Dead Zippers: You don't scare me, JWF. You're...
Those mean mean mean word bullies post words and those words hurt sensitive trollies. Make a law that says word bullies cannot post words that trolls don't like.
Crybaby.
Oh dear, was that mean? Did the word bully say something mean?
Terms of Service! Trollie wants you to know about the Service Terms!
Crybaby. Crying about the word bullies posting words, words that can be read by crybabies that don't like words from word bullies.
Not trollies. Iz reformed nah! Ask all the people trollie fooled into friending him. They is fooled real good and will tell you too. Trollie fooled them.
C ya, but watch out -
Submitted by Brett Paatsch on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 1:14am.
he seems to be excreting his rebuttal into his throwing hand again ;-)
Stealing another one from ADK
Submitted by sentry_99 on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 1:16am.
ClassyAhh, they can't help it---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 2:22am.
Paatsch is full of crap, and the Dead One is continually being crapped on.
A match made in heaven, I tell ya.
MD
Looks like Dead Zippers has a new BFF himself.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 9:54am.
Everyone knows Dead Zippers, the one that whines about others using OC teenie talk but then types things like BFF. Yes, that idiot.
Say you and Dead Zippers should get along real swell. You can both talk about all the things you both believe in
You err, Dead One---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 2:19am.
"--but when it comes to watching a fellow conservative behave abusive (sic) and belligerent, they all just seem to look away".
Some may look away, maybe a majority; but don't think for a moment that there aren't a ton of conservative posters here that don't fully enjoy watching you putting your own ass in a bear trap because of the stupid liberal pap you post.
And if, in your opinion, you aren't performing that particular manuever, pray tell then why you act put upon as though you were being picked on for no good reason.
Bully Buster?
You?
Like I said, you are a funny guy.
MD
Looks like Dead Zippers added another to the list.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 10:49am.
Original list of Dead Zippers classic trolling tactics here
16. Claim someone has a group of lackeys that follow them around and gang up on poor innocent trollies - Dead Zippers: ...matthew is JWF's BFF... ... ...matthewdean, who will certainly show up soon to cheer you on. ... Apparently you're the 3rd.
Looks like Mr. sentry_99 got caught up in the Full On Whine of a boorish troll. For the record, sentry_99 has never interacted with me on the boards nor have we ever communicated off the boards. He just had the unfortunate temerity of pointing out the trollish ways of a boorish tactical troll. (A tactical troll befriends members with charm and/or jokes and then sets one group of members against another - ie JWF and his gang against the general community that needs to be convinced JWF is picking mercilessly on an innocent trollie)
Welcome to the word bully club mr sentry_99. Monthly meetings are the 3rd Thursday of every month. Bring your troll weapon of choice or just cut a branch off the Stupid tree, smacking trolls with Stupid Sticks is always good rollicking fun.
Sorry if I don't believe
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 1:38pm.
Sorry if I don't believe anything coming from a confirmed liar.
President Bush is making the talk show circuits.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 11/09/2010 - 10:43am.
He reminded us of this on Hannity.
PUBLIC LAW 105–338—OCT. 31, 1998
IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998
Yeah, it was just Boosh actin' all illegal to oust an innocent man that watched over fields of golden buttered puppies, rainbows, and fairy dust.