I can certainly understand your point there…I doubt ANYONE wants to be associated as even the same species as Alderbaran.
From Sailor
Ok, I’ll buy that. However, who makes the determination that the US is in violation of the above? For that matter, where did that list come from? IS the US in violation of the above? I’d say that, on a case by case basis, ANYONE would be in violation of some of those, during any kind of military action. Do they (whoever they are) look at the situations on a case by case basis (i.e. each checkpoint incident, each patrol that meets with opposition and civilians are killed, etc), or on the general policies of the nation that is being looked at for illegal action? Who says they (a general ‘they’, i.e. the suspect nation) are in violation, and what proofs are needed? If the US is in violation, what steps have been taken or are planned on being taken? I assume it would be a matter of the world court or some such, if the actions are ‘illegal’. What can be done? There would have to be a neutral party (country) to decide such I’d think. Who is it?
Looking at the link you provide, I see a series of statements of what the US should be doing. I’m unclear on what authority Human Rights Watch has in this matter…from a legal perspective. Do you have access to the specific treaties that the US is a signator on that we are in violation of? I agree, you are quite correct in pointing out in a later post that treaties that the US is a signator too ARE binding…ridiculous to say otherwise. What I’d like to know though is, exactly which actions are/were illegal, who is making the real claims of illegal actions by the US (i.e. which governments/nation states), who is arbitrating, and what, if anything is or can be done.
I know I have a lot of questions here (this is an area I’m definitely ignorant of), and I’ll try and look some of this up myself, but I think that we’d be getting this debate on track to identify exactly WHAT the US is in violation of, who is making the assertions that the US’s actions are illegal, and whats being done about it.
BTW, thanks for taking a shot at this Alderbaran…you are holding true to form.
“International treaties are the law of the land. There is no question about that. The Constitution clearly says so and the Supreme Court has confirmed that International law is part of US law. To say the USA is not bound by the treaties it has ratified would be nonsense. What good is a treaty if you have no obligation to abide by it?” -Sailor
True as far as it goes, but it’s important to recognize that you’re talking about how a state law or ruling must be viewed in relation to a treaty. That is to say, a treaty has the same power as a federal law, and trumps individual state law. Fine as far as it goes.
But a treaty cannot supercede the rights and responsibilites of the President of the United States to uphold his oath to defend the Constitution, nor may any treaty supercede the Constitution or the protections granted under it to either the states or the citizens. Because the Constitution trumps State AND Federal law, and also trumps any treaty made. Further, the US Gov’t may not be party to any treaty that supercedes the Constitution, because the federal government simply has no authority to enter into such a treaty. The Constitution is THE highest law of the land, and may not be trumped by any other law or treaty. The only reason a treaty is defined the way it is was to reaffirm Confederation treaties which ended the war with England.
To allow otherwise would be to permit the Constitution or parts of it to be nullified by treaty. This would be in contravention of the articles which spell out precisely HOW the Constitution may be modified. And their isn’t a word in there about a treaty doing so.
“The treaty is . . . a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.” Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 How.) 635, 656 (1853).
“It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument.” The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. ( 78 U.S.), 616, 620 (1871).
“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result”…“to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.” Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1957)
No. Not even the most Aldebaranesque reading of what I posted would even begin to pretend that’s what I asserted.
Combatants vs. noncombatants is a big distinction last I heard. Also, as I clearly posted, someone’s mere presence on a particular patch of land is not automatic carte blanche for any Iraqi to murder someone.
You also might want to look up the definitions of hostile and war when you get a chance.
xtisme, i am not sure if you re serious or not but I will treat your questions seriously just in case.
US and international courts with jurisdiction as far as legal rulings are concerned. And each one of us in his own mind as far as our opinions are concerned.
I do not understand the question. The sources are mentioned right there. The U.N. Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials would be the United Nations of which the USA is a founding member.
If you are asking whether the USA has been found guilty in a court of law with jurisdiction then the answer (AFAIK) is no. If you ask whether there are any UN conventions, treaties and/or resolutions which the USA has breached the answer in my estimation is yes. The fact that the USA has not yet been found guilty or liable does not change the facts or mean the breach did not exist any more than a murderer who cannot be brought to justice is considered to not have committed a crime.
That’s a vague statement without relevance or merit. I am not sure I accept that premise but, in any case, it is like saying to a judge “yes your honor I burglarized the house but that’s what me and my friends do most of the time”.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Who is “they, whoever they are”? If you do not know who you are talking about, how am I supposed to know? You might want to be more clear. Again, I have a strong suspicion that you may be playing games but I am trying to be constructive and assume you are really as lost as you sound.
Did you read the HRW report? Did you read the Supreme Court case I cited? In the SCOTUS case I cited the SCOTUS ruled that the government of the USA had committed an illegal act of war when it seized two vessels and it ruled in favor of the vessels’ owners.
Again, American courts have jurisdiction and possibly some international courts.
Who said that HRW has any legal authority? I am really having a very hard time believing you are serious. HRW is an NGO who . . . did you read their statement of their purpose in their website? I get the impression you have not bothered documenting yourself in the least. They document Human Rights violations. In their report about Iraq they document a number of instances and they quote relevant laws and treaties. Read it.
Dang it, this is getting to be annoying and tiresome! They are mentioned in my citation above and in the HRW report. Did you read it? If you want the text of the treaties themselves you can probably find them online if you just look for them.
Look you obviously have not read the HRW report. Just read it, ok? Everything you are asking for is there.
Folks, the simple truth is that Aldebaran has shown himself over and over to be a religious fanatic and a narrow-minded totalitarian. Discussion with him is less productive than discussion with my dog’s food bowl.
He will only accept one outcome: Destroy your reason, destroy your mind, become a zombie in blind obedience to his dogmas.
Dogface, you may be right but I do not see how your post contributes anything to the discussion. Personal attacks only serve to create bad feelings and obscure the discussion. If you want to attack Aldebaran’s ideas and posts then that is the thing to do. If you think it is a waste of time (and I feel that way about some posters) then it is best to not post anything.
Yesterday I saw footage on a Spanish news channel showing three US troops punching a guy in the stomach several times. Before they started punching him he was being submissive and with his hands in ther air. Strangely, the voice over the footage was commenting on other things.
Apparently, it is standard procedure for americans to put their boot on the head of a detainee to immobilize him on the ground. Isn’t that considered a specially great disrespect in Iraqi culture? Don’t these guys whack things with their sandals when they want to show how much they despise things?
Finally, if anyone wants to get an idea of what may be motivating some of the guerrilla, you can check out a horror gallery of civilian victims of anglo-american aggression at: http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
Check out the charred body with bones sticking out of the arm, it’s not a cadaver.
Just want to reinforce what Sailor is trying to put thru… International Laws are part of US law once the Senate or Congress ratify it. They are below the Constitution but if they do not contradict the Constitution they are valid… very valid.
To jump out of treaties when its not convenient anymore is a very bad precedent and undermines decades or treaties and issues from Nuclear development to Trade.
(Laws in the US must have a hierarchy of importance… what importance is given to Intl’ Treaties ? Here in Brazil they are just below constitutional laws and above federal laws. )
BTW Aldebaran… creating a lot of controversy doesn’t help “inform” americans. Keep it “Straight Dope”. Even if they don’t use rational arguments for you.
Sailor, don’t get annoyed…I already said I’m ignorant as far as this stuff goes. I appologize, I had only skimmed your HRW cite, and hadn’t gotten all the way to section VI where more comes clear.
Yes, I was being serious. Sorry if I’m not following all this, as this hasn’t been a subject I have attempted to gain insite into in the past.
Clearly the US is in violation of some of those codes on an individual case by case basis, at least as far as HRW is concerned. Some of the documented killings may have been illegal, as the OP asserts.
From Sailor
Ok, I’ll conceed that the absence of charges do not mean that nothing illegal has happened. Are any countries in the preliminary stages of bringing forth such charges though, or is it still too early? Or are you saying that, even though the US IS in violation of its treaties (and its actions illegal) that no one will bring forth said charges? If so, could you say why no one will bring forth charges against the US? Is it because the US is too powerful, or because the US will ignore the charges? Again, its a serious question, as I really have no idea.
From Sailor
In any large undertaking of this kind there are bound to be people that simply fuck up and make mistakes, people that are simply unstable and do things that they shouldn’t (there are bullies everywhere), etc. Its not exactly the same as saying I steal because everyone else does.
What I was trying to get at was how is the determination made that a COUNTRY is in violation of that code. There are a lot of things on that list, and I can see that it would be quite easy to, during a large opperation, have SOME of them violated from time to time by individuals. How is that “yes your honor I burglarized the house but that’s what me and my friends do most of the time”? I’d think its more like “shit happens”. I’m not excusing the acts btw…certainly, if they were in violation of the military code of conduct or our treaties, the individual soldiers should be procecuted if the act warrents such.
I guess what I was saying is, is a country in violation of treaties (and therefor their actions illegal) if there are such incidents (i.e. the accidental or even deliberate shooting of civilians by individuals or even small groups of a countries military), or is it the policies of a given country that put said country in violation of its treaties. Or is it the fact that the US hasn’t fully persecuted members of its military that have done questionable acts? Again, its a serious question…sorry for my ignorance.
From Sailor
You are right. Unfortunately I don’t know enough about international law to make any sense I guess. The statement was made that the US is in violation of its treaties with respect to Iraq, and that it was perpetrating illegal acts. What I was trying to ask is, who is or would make such a call. So, the UN as a body? The world court? Individual countries? Individual groups like HRW? You are quite suspicious. I know that everyone on this board is brilliant (well, many of you are), but sometimes questions are motivated by pure stupidity…not game playing.
From Sailor
Yes, I read it and it was very helpful. The case went to the Supreme Court, because the US DID do an illegal act and violate a treaty. What I’m trying to get at here is, is something similar in the works for the US actions in Iraq? Or is it too early for such things?
I won’t get into the rest, but will only appologize for not having more throughly read through your cite before I flailed into this thread. I was not, however playing games with you…I was simply ignorant.
If my posting creates “controversy” then that is not my fault. It is merely because of the mindset of those who read them.
In addition this makes at the very least people think about why they find them, as you say, “controversial”.
xtisme, international law is very complex and I am not a lawyer or even remotely capable of explaining this in detail but I will post a few general ideas. Keep in mind that they are very general and do not cover every possible situation.
In general terms the parties to international treaties are countries and nations and only the parties have any legal standing to bring suits and claims. Individuals and corporations have no standing. For instance, a few years ago some state (of the USA) sentenced to death and executed a German national who had been denied consular access to which he was entitled under treaty in force. Germany, as the injured party sued (and won). Germany’s rights under the treaty had been injured, not those of any individual.
So, In this case probably only the Iraqi government would have legal standing to present a claim. . . but the chances of that are zero because the Iraqi government is a puppet of the CPA. No chance they would present a claim against the USA.
Even if they did, look what happened a few years back. The USA mined a harbor in Nicaragua. Nicaragua sued in the International Court of Justice and won all the way but the USA gave Nicaragua and the ICJ the finger and never paid the compensation. You can see the summary of the facts and the summary of the ruling of the ICJ.
No, the point of this thread is American soldiers illegally killing Iraqi civilians. The Op even put the correct verbage in punctuation and everything for you.
Adlebrane said that every person killed in Iraq was done illegally because the war was illegal to begin with. We are staying on topic.
Actually, what U was refering to was yojimbo’s attempt to enlighten xtisme about the leaglities of the war. In that cite it said that COngress had went beyond it’s powers because of the UN charter to allow the President to wage war upon his discretion. Since the US Constitution provides those powers (to the president and congress), and no other treaty of law, foriegn or domstic, can supercede those invested powers, that it was a fundamentally flawwed arguement.
I admitted that there may be violations of international law, but as far as every US citizen and the US government is cocerened, no law was broken in regards to int’l treatys or laws.
It is sad to see that the terrorists of 09/11 have had a success well beyond their best expectations.
While the loss of thousands of human lives is a motive of mourning, the worst consequence of the attacks is the loss of the sentiments that have made the US a nation to be admired all over the world.
It seems that a great number of Americans have forsaken their feelings of justice and freedon and have became arrogant idiots.
Of course there is not a nation or even a coalition of nations in this world capable of affronting the US military power. Condemnation by an international Court of Law is not possible, since George WC Bush has already said that the US does not accept jurisdiction of such a court over American citizens.
The result of all this is that the people that were admired by every freedom admiring person are now being despised and even a bloody murderer as Saddan Hussein is seen as a hero by a great number of people.
This post shows that the terrorists of 09/11 have attained a success they never dreamed of in their wildest dreams.
Prior to the attacks I doubt that even the most idiot right wing in the US would dare to wright anything like that.
Everybody knows that no nation or coalition of nations in the world can expect to face the military power of the US, but given the tradition of freedon and justice that make the American people so great, this was once seen as a garant of peace and not as a threat.
Yes, you can do what you want, but this does not make it right.
These things have been written since the creation of our Constitution. I have given cites and everything. And idiot can see that.I’m sorry the real world does not fit your fantasies about how the world should work.
This country has always been a threat to those who oppose. Maybe its your growing opposition to this country that makes you realise that.
I do nothing. I have already recognized that Saddan Hussein is a criminal. But this does not give you the right to invade his country and kill his people.
Oh, sorry! You are the strong ones and you say what is right.
