|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
|
The USA and international law
#28177345 - 02/08/23 09:15 AM (11 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Without derailing a differnt thread, I read a response from E that stated:
Quote:
Estatic said: "Of course, the US government does the same thing. Chastise the whole globe about their failure to adhere to international law and then tell everyone else we don’t recognize it when it applies to us."
Let's start with some examples of such.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
Skellies


Registered: 06/02/15
Posts: 822
Loc: The Dream
Last seen: 23 minutes, 9 seconds
|
Re: The USA and international law [Re: SirTripAlot] 1
#28177509 - 02/08/23 11:14 AM (11 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
The treatment of war on terror detainees is probably illegal.
Quote:
Detentions at Guantánamo began out of the decision to frame the U.S.’s response to the 9/11 attacks as a “global war on terror,” bypassing human rights protections in the pursuit of intelligence gathering. Crimes under international law such as torture and enforced disappearance were committed against detainees deliberately held out of reach of judicial scrutiny at secret facilities operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in other countries or in Guantánamo.
https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/new-report-details-ongoing-human-rights-violations-at-guantanamo-bay-detention-facility/
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: The USA and international law [Re: Skellies]
#28177560 - 02/08/23 12:04 PM (11 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Not going to condone torture in any form; I have been waterboarded under training circumstances, and I can tell you from my brief exposure, it is torture, as you feel like your going to drown to death. Also what happened in Abu ghraib comes to mind.
I believe the reason why these blacksites existed was to make it "legal" or out and away from any jurisdiction. Doesn't make it right as what's right and wrong may or may not be legal or illegal.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
chopstick
nobody



Registered: 07/26/08
Posts: 5,076
Loc: Chin's Wok
|
Re: The USA and international law [Re: SirTripAlot]
#28177572 - 02/08/23 12:13 PM (11 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Are you fucking joking?
You need specific examples? I don't know, look at any of the events that have occurred over the past 20 years. You can find perhaps a few dozen examples at minimum.
In Syria alone the United States provided direct & indirect support to numerous organizations recognized as international terrorist groups, essentially using them as proxy terrorists to help out with US regime change ambitions, contributing to the deaths of roughly half a million people in Syria alone, and this included support for ISIS. The US has even provided close air combat support for ISIS terrorists on multiple occasions: https://news.antiwar.com/2016/09/17/us-bombs-syrian-army-base-in-deir-ezzor-killing-83-troops/
The US Pentagon of course claimed that the above incident was a "mistake" but in reality this was a bold-faced lie as the US military had been monitoring the Syrian troops for days with drones before deciding to strike. They knew perfectly who they were striking and how it would affect the battles on the ground. How evil and how sick do you have to be to decide to conduct airstrikes in support of ISIS terrorists, killing good people just trying to defend their lands?!?!
Are you seriously still in a state of denial in regards to how the US conducts its affairs?
We are an empire and international law does not matter when it comes to maintaining and expanding this empire. Our politicians and leaders have spit on international law time and time again and from their view "international law" only exists to be used against our enemies.. but it does not apply to our actions.
Anyways, I doubt you will learn anything based on your conduct so far. I don't think there is anything too evil or too sickening the US can do that will get you to wake up.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: The USA and international law [Re: chopstick]
#28177579 - 02/08/23 12:20 PM (11 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
chopstick said: Are you fucking joking?
.....Are you seriously still in a state of denial in regards to how the US conducts its affairs? ”
The purpose of the thread is to identify and discuss these things. I have never claimed the US is squeaky clean. Can you cite anywhere within this thread, where I have?
.....tweaking is not healthy.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: The USA and international law [Re: chopstick]
#28177583 - 02/08/23 12:23 PM (11 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
chopstick said:
Anyways, I doubt you will learn anything based on your conduct so far. I don't think there is anything too evil or too sickening the US can do that will get you to wake up.
You didnt read what I already stated, above, like third post in this thread. Meth can fuck with one's eyes.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: The USA and international law [Re: SirTripAlot]
#28177784 - 02/08/23 02:37 PM (11 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
One view point on a "form" of international law, Rules Based International Order:
https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/americas/the-u-s-makes-a-mockery-of-treaties-and-international-law/
RBIO’ in Contrast With ‘International Law’
First, the RBIO is not “international” in any sense of the word.
There actually is a consensual rules-based international order, a compendium of agreed-upon rules and treaties that the international community has negotiated, agreed to, and signed up for. It’s called simply “international law.” This refers to the body of decisions, precedents, agreements, and multilateral treaties held together under the umbrella of the Charter of the United Nations and the multiple institutions, policies, and protocols attached to it. Although imperfect, incomplete, evolving, it still constitutes the legal foundation of the body of international order and the orderly laws that underpin it: this is what constitutes international law. The basic foundation of the UN Charter is national sovereignty—that states have a right to exist, and are equal in relations. This is not what the United States is referring to.
When the United States uses the term RBIO, rather than the existing term “international law,” it does so because it wants to impersonate international law while diverting to a unilateral, invented, fictitious order that it alone creates and decides—often with the complicity of other imperial, Western, and transatlantic states. It also does this because, quite simply, the United States does not want to be constrained by international law and actually is an international scofflaw in many cases.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 51 minutes, 32 seconds
|
Re: The USA and international law [Re: SirTripAlot]
#28177801 - 02/08/23 02:47 PM (11 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
The reason Guantanamo is used is it was argued that Guantanamo is Cuban territory, and therefore what happens there is outside the jurisdiction of the US court system. It operated under those rules until the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that detainees had the right of habeas corpus, and 2008 were granted full constitutional rights.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_petitions_of_Guantanamo_Bay_detainees
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
Edited by koods (02/08/23 02:53 PM)
|
The Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 33,357
Loc: 'Merica
Last seen: 9 hours, 40 minutes
|
Re: The USA and international law [Re: koods]
#28177808 - 02/08/23 02:56 PM (11 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Supreme Court, historically good enforcers and defenders of constitutional rights.
--------------------
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: The USA and international law [Re: The Ecstatic]
#28177903 - 02/08/23 03:55 PM (11 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Regarding death penalty:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cfr.org/interview/supreme-courts-mixed-signals-international-law%3famp
There’s something like fifty more of these international death-row cases, so are we seeing now states maybe stepping to the fore in the absence of Congressional action on this particular issue?
What’s happening in this situation is that it’s the states that sentence these individuals to death and it’s the states that have the primary obligation to follow the international treaty, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations [VCCR]. The states violated the VCCR and yet, it’s the United States as a country that’s been held to be in violation of the treaty, because it’s the country that’s the signatory to the treaty, not the individual states.
So what you’re seeing here is what you might call one of the very great complexities associated with being a federal country ourselves.
Our federal government through the president, according to our Supreme Court, now lacks the power to compel states to comply with our international treaty obligations. And that’s an anomalous situation vis-à-vis most other countries in the world because it’s the federal government that’s committed us to this treaty. Now, the majority would respond to that by saying, "Well, if Congress wants to, Congress can pass a law compelling states to comply with the treaty." And it’s a little unclear what the Supreme Court would say even if Congress did do that, but at least in theory that’s the next step.
If Congress doesn’t want the states to be violating these international treaties and refusing to take into account what the international tribunals are saying, Congress should do something about it.
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,045
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 51 minutes, 32 seconds
|
Re: The USA and international law [Re: SirTripAlot]
#28177978 - 02/08/23 04:45 PM (11 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
The same basic conflict exists over drug laws as well.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: The USA and international law [Re: koods] 1
#28178068 - 02/08/23 05:51 PM (11 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
I don't see how the federal government would have the power to ban the death penalty in state prosecutions. Any treaty the U.S. signs to that effect would be null insofar as it creates law that the federal government lacks the power to create.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
SirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis



Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 7,459
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 3 hours, 3 minutes
|
Re: The USA and international law [Re: Enlil]
#28178076 - 02/08/23 05:57 PM (11 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Does that correlate to the treaty between the federal government and another country does not apply to the States....treaty is only enforceable on the federal level? States rights in federalism?
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
Edited by SirTripAlot (02/08/23 05:58 PM)
|
Enlil
OTD God-King




Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,470
Loc: Uncanny Valley
|
Re: The USA and international law [Re: SirTripAlot]
#28178084 - 02/08/23 06:07 PM (11 months, 12 days ago) |
|
|
Treaties are supreme law along with the Constitution, but only insofar as they represent power that the Constitution gives the federal government. So, the federal government can enter into a treaty that sets a maximum federal tax rate, for instance. That treaty supercedes all other federal tax law in the U.S. that conflicts.
HOWEVER, if Congress passes another tax law AFTER the treaty is signed, and it conflicts with the treaty, that new law voids that part of the treaty.
The Constitution gives the federal government very little control over the states for most things. The fed doesn't have general police power, so it couldn't even make a national murder law that applied throughout the entire U.S. If it could, that murder law could supercede state murder laws and not allow for the death penalty.
If the federal government could circumvent the Constitution by just making treaties, that would effectively end federalism. They could legislate anything they want on a national level.
-------------------- Censoring opposing views since 2014. Ask an Attorney Fuck the Amish
|
|