|
Why do US need exception from international law? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| igottaknow |
Bush administration refusal to sign gives weight to the idea that they foresaw they would be engaging in human rights violations. Btw, I don't believe there is a serious constitutional conflict. The ICC only intervenes if a country refuses or is unable to try war criminals.
The bottom line the Bush administration has fought for unlimited and unchecked power to do what ever they want. Just look at the Gestapo like prison at gitmo. I've never seen such a willful desire to evade responsibility. For Christ sake they are trying to undermine the Geneva Convention as an obsolete document and rely on legal loopholes to cover their asses.
Btw, there are plenty of international agreements that supercede constitutional rights such as NAFTA, but you never hear them complaining about constitution issue unless it gets in their way. We are supposed to be the leaders of the free world, setting an example, what complete and utter joke! |
|
|
| mps242 |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Bush administration refusal to sign gives weight to the idea that they foresaw they would be engaging in human rights violations. Btw, I don't believe there is a serious constitutional conflict. The ICC only intervenes if a country refuses or is unable to try war criminals. |
That's great that you don't believe it, but even the ABA said it was unconstitutional...
| quote: | | Btw, there are plenty of international agreements that supercede constitutional rights such as NAFTA, but you never hear them complaining about constitution issue unless it gets in their way. We are supposed to be the leaders of the free world, setting an example, what complete and utter joke! |
Read the law review article I linked to, it's not about 'rights' it's about (separation of) power transfers...
Besides, the US *is* prosecuting those involved for the prisoner abuse, how exactly is that a complete and utter joke? |
|
|
| smokeape |
| quote: | Originally posted by mps242
The ICC, as currently written, is pretty blatantly unconstitutional in the US. So even if we wanted to ratify it, the courts would end up overturning our ratification. |
And there you have it. World court doesn't equal US law. US as sovereign nation cannot choose to abide by what they don't believe in. BTW, how does the law apply to al-Queada and the murderous rogues who beheaded Nick Berg? Don't see the UN or world court hunting them with an arrest warrant....
:wtf:
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by mps242
Frankly, I can't speak to what would happen if it were Iran, nor can you. Nor do I have any interest in playing hypothetical what-ifs with a person obviously irrationally biased against the US.
If you do have a serious interest in why it is viewed as unconstitutional (even by those who would advocate the US signing on to some sort of international criminal court [just not in its current form]) , you can read about it at the following link:
http://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/c...aronoff_tf.html
(it might also help to have a copy of the constitution handy for reference) |
More or less makes the case that I was trying to make in the 20 or so posts in the other thread that I referenced :).
I still wish that somebody would make a post addressing my arguments ... I'm a constitutional fanatic and I would like nothing more than to talk inherent/natural rights all day. |
|
|
| smokeape |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
More or less makes the case that I was trying to make in the 20 or so posts in the other thread that I referenced :).
I still wish that somebody would make a post addressing my arguments ... I'm a constitutional fanatic and I would like nothing more than to talk inherent/natural rights all day. |
Occrider is the man...
I ain't as smart as he is, but by god I'm as stupid!
Don't mess with Texas!
:D
[[[smoke]]]
 |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by mps242
That's great that you don't believe it, but even the ABA said it was unconstitutional...
Read the law review article I linked to, it's not about 'rights' it's about (separation of) power transfers...
|
It’s hypocritical to try to have it both ways, on the one hand the administration pursues policies that seek to undermine the power of the constitution (separation of church and state, and US citizens right to a trial captured in Afghanistan), and on the other hand refuses to sign a treaty to strengthen the world’s ability to prosecute war criminals due to constitutional concerns. That’s why this constitutional argument doesn’t wash.Using semanitics and hair spliting legal arguments to evade our responsibilites to the world is a joke. Are you proposing we withdraw from all international agreements we have signed because it diminishes our sovereignty or just the ones we find hinders our need to be omnipotent? |
|
|
| mps242 |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
It’s hypocritical to try to have it both ways, on the one hand the administration pursues policies that seek to undermine the power of the constitution (separation of church and state, and US citizens right to a trial captured in Afghanistan), and on the other hand refuses to sign a treaty to strengthen the world’s ability to prosecute war criminals due to constitutional concerns. That’s why this constitutional argument doesn’t wash. |
Wait so because Bush doesn't want to protect one part of the constitution we should toss the whole thing out? So if Clinton, for example, wanted to introduce gun control then we can ignore the commerce clause willy nilly?
| quote: | | Using semanitics and hair spliting legal arguments |
The Constitution isn't "semantics" or "hair splitting"...
| quote: | | to evade our responsibilites to the world is a joke. |
What responsibilities? We don't have any responsibility to sign on to any international agreement under any circumstances.
The responsibility to investigate and prosecute those responsible for war crimes? We're doing that. So even if we had signed onto the ICC it wouldn't apply. Besides, we already recognize the concept of jus cogens.
| quote: | | Are you proposing we withdraw from all international agreements we have signed because it diminishes our sovereignty or just the ones we find hinders our need to be omnipotent? |
Actually I'm proposing that we enter into agreements that are compatable with the US Constitution. Period. We can amend the constituion if the US public wants to sign onto the current ICC, I don't care... |
|
|
| BadBadNeil |
| Hey if the international community jumps off a bridge by golly I'm right behind them... |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by mps242
Wait so because Bush doesn't want to protect one part of the constitution we should toss the whole thing out? |
It's disingenuous to agree only to the parts of the constitution that support your agenda. I bet you're a big fan of situational ethics.
| quote: | | The Constitution isn't "semantics" or "hair splitting"... |
Not the constitution, but interpretations of it that are designed to evade the spirit by finding loopholes based on semantics or narrow definitions.
| quote: | | The responsibility to investigate and prosecute those responsible for war crimes? We're doing that. So even if we had signed onto the ICC it wouldn't apply. Besides, we already recognize the concept of jus cogens. |
Why shouldn't we sign it if we are going to uphold what the treaty asks for? We have a responsibility to lead the world when it comes to human rights because it's the cornerstone of democracy. What sort of message does it send to the rest of the world that only our soldiers deserve special treatment. It's not only the ICC treaty, this administration has done everything in its power to undermine international law.
| quote: | | Actually I'm proposing that we enter into agreements that are compatible with the US Constitution. Period. We can amend the constitution if the US public wants to sign onto the current ICC, I don't care... |
So I guess you must also be opposed to NAFTA and many other unconstitutional treaties our country has signed. |
|
|
| mps242 |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
It's disingenuous to agree only to the parts of the constitution that support your agenda. I bet you're a big fan of situational ethics. |
I don't know where you get that I support Bush or have an agenda. I was simply stating a fact that most jurists including the ABA, think that the ICC is incompatable with our current system of government. I did not advocate for, or against, US ratification of an international treaty regarding a criminal court. I simply advocate that rather than sign on to a treaty that is fatally defective, we should either renegotiate the treaty to something that will pass Constitutional muster, or amend the constitution to reflect the treaty's adoption.
Moreover, I acknowledged that the US is in fact prosecuting its war criminals, so the ICC would not apply to the current circumstances. I've also acknowledged that the US recognizes Jus Cogens.
These are all facts. Rather than trying to put words in my mouth, you'd be better off addressing the facts. Straw men are unbecoming...
Besides, it's not disingenuous in the least bit for a president to have different interpretations of different... totally unrelated... constitutional issues. What is disingenuous is to attempt to claim that if a person doesn't like one part of a document they must ignore the rest. I don't like song #3 in the latest mix I picked up, I ing adore all the rest, and it's now my favorite CD. Is that disingenusous, too? You're basically saying "you don't like to eat apples, so it's disingenuous to like bananas."
| quote: | | Not the constitution, but interpretations of it that are designed to evade the spirit by finding loopholes based on semantics or narrow definitions. |
Look, separation of powers, the supremacy clause, article III, and much much more are not semantics, a narrow definition, or trivial details. They are at the ing heart of our system of government.
| quote: | | Why shouldn't we sign it if we are going to uphold what the treaty asks for? |
Ummm.... because it is not legal!?! Why don't you write checks that your savings can't cover?
| quote: | | We have a responsibility to lead the world when it comes to human rights because it's the cornerstone of democracy. |
Oh quit being so full of the US. We stopped leading a long time ago and Europe and Canada have caught up. Now we're just like every other schmuck on the block except we're bigger... From what I can tell, it doesn't look much like the rest of the world is very interested in following our lead anymore.
| quote: | | What sort of message does it send to the rest of the world that only our soldiers deserve special treatment. |
Dude, I personally don't give a what kind of message it sends to the world. The US prosecutes its, and other country's war criminals. Therefore, under no non-politicized scenario woul the ICC apply to any US citizen. Thus, my only concern is that if we are going to sign onto an international treaty, it needs to be Constitutional.
| quote: | | It's not only the ICC treaty, this administration has done everything in its power to undermine international law. |
Well I don't know what to tell you. Bush could put a dress on a pig and call it "Florence" and it wouldn't change the fact that the ICC is unconstitutional.
There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike/hate Bush; this however, is not one of them.
| quote: | | So I guess you must also be opposed to NAFTA and many other unconstitutional treaties our country has signed. |
If, in fact, it is unconstitutional, then I would be opposed to adopting it simply because it's bad form to agree to a deal that you know you cannot fulfill. Regardless, last time I checked NAFTA was upheld by the Supreme Court, so I don't know why you call it unconstitutional... |
|
|
| occrider |
| The ICC is an institution of unchecked power that erodes the very basic checks and balances that the constitution mandates. Simply put, the ICC is granted unprecendented jurisdictional authority yet is answerable to none. That has always been one of the primary criticsims I've had of the ICC |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by mps242
If, in fact, it is unconstitutional, then I would be opposed to adopting it simply because it's bad form to agree to a deal that you know you cannot fulfill. Regardless, last time I checked NAFTA was upheld by the Supreme Court, so I don't know why you call it unconstitutional... |
NAFTA is unconstitutional for a number of reasons. You could have an entire thread base on the issues on it alone, but here’s a few reasons. First it requires 2/3 majority vote in the senate, which NAFTA didn't get. But the white house countered that it wasn't a "treaty" it was an "agreement" so it didn't need to be ratified by 2/3. This is an example of disingenuous semantics used to evade the spirit of the law. A more recent example of this tactic was when the White House refused to classify treatment of prisoners at Abu Gahrib as torture.
The second major constitutional objection is there are many parts of NAFTA that weaken our government to hold corporations to laws we have passed. There are provisions that allow foreign companies to sue our government for laws they deem as anti-competitive like environmental regulations. NAFTA also provides for secret courts or arbitration to deal with these issues that neither the public nor our courts have the right to challenge. I can’t remember all the crucial constitutional points because it has been a while and the actual agreement is thousands of pages written in legalize. So what is the constitutional problem with signing the ICC? |
|
|
|
|
