The CIA was able to keep their prisons secret for decades....

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If it is truly the will of the people that the above be the way the U.S. does buisness, then congress should sign it into law. Treaties simply do not hold the same legal status in America, or hold the same level of respect that they do in other countries.

Article VI

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

I'm the idiot?

Not everything which is in the constitution is accepted in law as we practice it and vicer versa, hell the supreme court is not given any of the powers it has according to the constitution.

Article 6 may as well not exist because it has been ignored for the entire history of our nation. If you attempt to appeal to a treaty the U.S. has signed in any court you will(and always have been) ignored, in that court-you'll be told it has no relevance there and to take it up with congress, which always ignores it.


Israel is fun if a little boring.

I may not have time for any more posts till I get back though.

Later.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


So the Holocaust was okay!

Morally? Of course not.

Legally? It was legal in Germany.

I never said what the CIA did was morally acceptable, I said it may have been for the well being of our country

I also said(several times) that what we have done in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan was deplorable.

HOWEVER if you all wish to continue fighting a straw man, feel free..... I'll find some good farm catalogues so you can get wholesale prices on the wheat stalks.

Originally posted by Darius871


How do you know we got no useful results whatsoever? What security clearance do you have?

I don't, i'm using logic and alot of guessing.

Originally posted by BlackCat


Nah, don't be so shy - as Vesayen has stated you have the right to do it because you take this right

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=152583&pagenumber=2

postin #33 or so.

Btw. How are the stormsecurity - are we going to hear that you are blown to sea or have you steady ground under your feet ?

I never said all rights are based on the ability to secure them through strength, NOR did I ever say the U.S. has the "right" to be the strongest nation in the world. I said if the U.S. wants to be the strongest, it takes it.

However since you brought it up..... strength DOES arguably instil a sort of moral authority.... in regards to the fact that if you declare your moral authority and destroy all oposition physically, you may not be "right", but without any other positions in existance, you exist by defalt. Of course it is nearly impossible to truly destroy all advocates of opposing ideas.





I'd like to throw in my 2 cents that what Hayden said scares the **** out of me as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Article 6 may as well not exist because it has been ignored for the entire history of our nation. If you attempt to appeal to a treaty the U.S. has signed in any court you will(and always have been) ignored, in that court-you'll be told it has no relevance there and to take it up with congress, which always ignores it.

You oblivously have no idea of what happens in courts of the US. A self executing treaty which has been ratified has the force of law in the US (Non self executing treaties will have implimenting legislation usually ageed to in the ratification process). Courts have and will enforced such treaties if no later law has contradicted it. They are treated the same as a law passed by Congress, signed by the President.

But go ahead... try to lecture me on your *ahem* 'interesting' view on US law.

As for the court never accepting a position based on a treaty, I only have to cite the most famous case dealing with treaties to prove you wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_v._Holland

[Wezil]

Why a wiki link for a legal decision Imran?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Wezil
Why a wiki link for a legal decision Imran?

Its written in plain language, rather than the legal language of a decision.

Though you can easily find Missouri v. Holland in Findlaw if you want wade through it.

[Wezil]

K. I was just curious.

[BlackCat]

I guess that there are others than me that are glad he didn't link to some mumbo jumbo lawspeak site

[Wezil]

I don't accept wiki as a source. I was just wondering why the original wasn't linked.

The explanation is reasonable.

[BlackCat]

Quite agree - wouldn't trust wiki without confirmation from other sources unless it was something that I had knowledge of (and knew was true). Imran claims that he has knowledge on legal matters and wouldn't shoot himself in the foot by linking to something some noob easily could debunk.

[Wezil]

Confirmation required. Yes.

The problem with legal decisions is that you are bound to get interpretations (as I'm sure the wiki link does). This is the sort of thing I really require the primary source.

I agree, IS generally does good analysis.

[self biased]

I SEE FIVE LIGHTS!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'll cite another case (and use findlaw for this one ) to be more clear:

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/124/190.html

If the treaty contains stipulations which are self-executing, that is, require no legislation to make them operative, to that extent they have the force and effect of a legislative enactment. Congress may modify such provisions, so far as they bind the United States, or supersede them altogether. By the constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing, and made of like obligation, with an act of legislation. Both are declared by that instrument to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other. When the two relate to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can be done without violating the language of either; but, if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other: provided, always, the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self-executing

Basically a treaty is the same as an Act of Congress. Whichever comes later wins.

[BlackCat]

Are you sure it's a legal text ? I mean, even for a english secondlanguager it's understandable

[Wezil]

I always find newer decisions easier to read than older ones.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Re: The CIA was able to keep their prisons secret for decades....

Originally posted by Vesayen
......*sigh* Bush morons getting them exposed.

I have for my entire life accepted and basically assumed, without any factual evidence that both the CIA and the military keep secret prisons overseas where they probably violate every treaty we have ever signed.

They probably were really doing it for the betterment of America and our interests..... after all, we have to torture communists SOMEWHERE. While I assumed these prisons existed, I trusted the CIA and the military enough to not cross the line more then was needed.

Now its reported in the media daily that the CIA has secret prisons in foreign countries.

Le sigh.

Stupid Bush, getting us exposed ><.

How is the exposure of these prisons the fault of Bush? Seems it is more the problem of inside CIA informants and a hostile press.

But I suppose unpopularity and animus towards the President mean it his fault.

I mean come on you want to fault him for having these prisons its one thing you want to blame him for their exposure thats a bit over the top as I'm pretty sure he certainly didnt want them leaked.