By Promising not to investigate or prosecute...
-
So you want Obama to act unilaterally?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
I shudder to imagine what scenario you've concocted to represent "act unilaterally". I want Obama to enforce the law.
-
I don't expect the UN to do anything. What a curious thing to ask.:confused:
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't expect the UN to do anything.
The treaty - which you keep calling a law - is a UN treaty.
oilFactotum wrote:
What a curious thing to ask
Nope, what's curious is why - when you are ready to have the U.S. give up its sovereignty, you don't know to whom or why.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't expect the UN to do anything.
The treaty - which you keep calling a law - is a UN treaty.
oilFactotum wrote:
What a curious thing to ask
Nope, what's curious is why - when you are ready to have the U.S. give up its sovereignty, you don't know to whom or why.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
The treaty - which you keep calling a law - is a UN treaty.
It is both. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/17/treaties/index.html[^]
John Carson
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't expect the UN to do anything.
The treaty - which you keep calling a law - is a UN treaty.
oilFactotum wrote:
What a curious thing to ask
Nope, what's curious is why - when you are ready to have the U.S. give up its sovereignty, you don't know to whom or why.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
The treaty - which you keep calling a law - is a UN treaty.
As John has already pointed out, it is law.
Oakman wrote:
when you are ready to have the U.S. give up its sovereignty
:confused: I just don't know where you get these ideas from.
Oakman wrote:
you don't know to whom or why.
You're right. I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't suggested we turn Bush over to the Hague, I've suggested that we investigate these war crimes ourselves and punish those responsible.
-
I shudder to imagine what scenario you've concocted to represent "act unilaterally". I want Obama to enforce the law.
oilFactotum wrote:
I shudder to imagine what scenario you've concocted to represent "act unilaterally".
Well, if Obama doesn't act according to international consensus, that would be acting unilaterally wouldn't it? So, if you don't "expect the UN to do anything", by definition, that means acting unilaterally. Or am I missing something? Is the UN a player or not?
oilFactotum wrote:
I want Obama to enforce the law.
Which one? For my part, I expect him to defend the nation. If 'enforcing the law' was the president's only job, we wouldn't need one.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
The treaty - which you keep calling a law - is a UN treaty.
As John has already pointed out, it is law.
Oakman wrote:
when you are ready to have the U.S. give up its sovereignty
:confused: I just don't know where you get these ideas from.
Oakman wrote:
you don't know to whom or why.
You're right. I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't suggested we turn Bush over to the Hague, I've suggested that we investigate these war crimes ourselves and punish those responsible.
oilFactotum wrote:
As John has already pointed out, it is law.
only because it is a treaty. Were we to withdraw from the UN, it would immediately no longer be something that the U.S. was part of. Hint: When you take your advice about the U.S. from an Aussie, you look a little underinformed.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
oilFactotum wrote:
As John has already pointed out, it is law.
only because it is a treaty. Were we to withdraw from the UN, it would immediately no longer be something that the U.S. was part of. Hint: When you take your advice about the U.S. from an Aussie, you look a little underinformed.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
only because it is a treaty.
Yes, you've finally got it. It's both treaty and law. I was about to give up hope that you were going to figure that one out.
Oakman wrote:
Were we to withdraw from the UN, it would immediately no longer be something that the U.S. was part of.
Since we have not withdrawn it is still the law of the land and Obama is obligated to pursue the investigation and prosecution of war crimes. Your comment is irrelevant.
Oakman wrote:
When you take your advice about the U.S. from an Aussie, you look a little underinform
John's a smart guy. But I haven't ask for his advice and he hasn't given it. And it was he who pointed out to you what I took for granted that you already knew (but apparently didn't) that the treaty is law.
-
Oakman wrote:
The treaty - which you keep calling a law - is a UN treaty.
As John has already pointed out, it is law.
Oakman wrote:
when you are ready to have the U.S. give up its sovereignty
:confused: I just don't know where you get these ideas from.
Oakman wrote:
you don't know to whom or why.
You're right. I don't know what you are talking about. I haven't suggested we turn Bush over to the Hague, I've suggested that we investigate these war crimes ourselves and punish those responsible.
There is a CIA/FBI agent somewhere in the US who just received his assignment. He licks his finger, sees which way the political winds are blowing, what the NYTimes and the Boston Harold are saying and deciding what is the minimum he can do to appear to be "doing his job" and also the maximum he should do but not so much as to not appear politically incorrect. Since today Pierre spritzer up the nose is now international crime. Perhaps this agent is assigned to your city? --On a different note-- I see now that "the Pirate" is smiling and will be arraigned today. His mother says he's a good kid, he is having fun, and his friends on the Somalia cost are watching CNN and wondering if this could happen to them, he is a hero.
-
Oakman wrote:
only because it is a treaty.
Yes, you've finally got it. It's both treaty and law. I was about to give up hope that you were going to figure that one out.
Oakman wrote:
Were we to withdraw from the UN, it would immediately no longer be something that the U.S. was part of.
Since we have not withdrawn it is still the law of the land and Obama is obligated to pursue the investigation and prosecution of war crimes. Your comment is irrelevant.
Oakman wrote:
When you take your advice about the U.S. from an Aussie, you look a little underinform
John's a smart guy. But I haven't ask for his advice and he hasn't given it. And it was he who pointed out to you what I took for granted that you already knew (but apparently didn't) that the treaty is law.
oilFactotum wrote:
It's both treaty and law.
I guess you just don't get it. Be careful when you get out into the real world, distinctions do make a difference.
oilFactotum wrote:
Since we have not withdrawn it is still the law of the land
OK. Now the next part is real important, so listen up: The only law of the land is the Constitution, any action, activity, law, treaty, or regulation that contravenes the Constitution is ipso facto illegal.
oilFactotum wrote:
Obama is obligated to pursue the investigation and prosecution of war crimes
He investigated and found no reason to prosecute. Now you and the Austrian nimrod whose interview got you all sticky wet may think he needs to look further or harder - it's obvious that you really want to skip the trial and want to get on with the execution - but the Constitution makes him the chief executive of the U.S. Not you. and not some UN twit. It's a shame but that's the way it is. If there's anything you don't understand in the above, please look it up on line. I really can't be bothered teaching you any more of what you should have learned in a 7th grade civics class.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
There is a CIA/FBI agent somewhere in the US who just received his assignment. He licks his finger, sees which way the political winds are blowing, what the NYTimes and the Boston Harold are saying and deciding what is the minimum he can do to appear to be "doing his job" and also the maximum he should do but not so much as to not appear politically incorrect. Since today Pierre spritzer up the nose is now international crime. Perhaps this agent is assigned to your city? --On a different note-- I see now that "the Pirate" is smiling and will be arraigned today. His mother says he's a good kid, he is having fun, and his friends on the Somalia cost are watching CNN and wondering if this could happen to them, he is a hero.
kmg365 wrote:
Boston Harold
Done blame the Herald-Traveler-Record-American. You're thinking of the Boston Globe which used to be a pretty decent paper, until the NY Times bought it. Now it's a descending paper.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
oilFactotum wrote:
It's both treaty and law.
I guess you just don't get it. Be careful when you get out into the real world, distinctions do make a difference.
oilFactotum wrote:
Since we have not withdrawn it is still the law of the land
OK. Now the next part is real important, so listen up: The only law of the land is the Constitution, any action, activity, law, treaty, or regulation that contravenes the Constitution is ipso facto illegal.
oilFactotum wrote:
Obama is obligated to pursue the investigation and prosecution of war crimes
He investigated and found no reason to prosecute. Now you and the Austrian nimrod whose interview got you all sticky wet may think he needs to look further or harder - it's obvious that you really want to skip the trial and want to get on with the execution - but the Constitution makes him the chief executive of the U.S. Not you. and not some UN twit. It's a shame but that's the way it is. If there's anything you don't understand in the above, please look it up on line. I really can't be bothered teaching you any more of what you should have learned in a 7th grade civics class.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I guess you just don't get it.
Then you guess wrong. The treaty is the law of the land. We are required to fullfill our obligation under the treaty.
Oakman wrote:
The only law of the land is the Constitution
Which states that treaties are the supreme law of the land.
Oakman wrote:
He investigated and found no reason to prosecute.
Untrue. The DOJ has completed no investigations. A promise not to prosecute is not the same as "found no reason to prosecute".
Oakman wrote:
but the Constitution makes him the chief executive of the U.S
That's why I expect him to fullfill our obligation to investigate and prosecute war crimes.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
It's both treaty and law.
I guess you just don't get it. Be careful when you get out into the real world, distinctions do make a difference.
oilFactotum wrote:
Since we have not withdrawn it is still the law of the land
OK. Now the next part is real important, so listen up: The only law of the land is the Constitution, any action, activity, law, treaty, or regulation that contravenes the Constitution is ipso facto illegal.
oilFactotum wrote:
Obama is obligated to pursue the investigation and prosecution of war crimes
He investigated and found no reason to prosecute. Now you and the Austrian nimrod whose interview got you all sticky wet may think he needs to look further or harder - it's obvious that you really want to skip the trial and want to get on with the execution - but the Constitution makes him the chief executive of the U.S. Not you. and not some UN twit. It's a shame but that's the way it is. If there's anything you don't understand in the above, please look it up on line. I really can't be bothered teaching you any more of what you should have learned in a 7th grade civics class.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
The only law of the land is the Constitution, any action, activity, law, treaty, or regulation that contravenes the Constitution is ipso facto illegal.
And your point is? Are you claiming that the treaty violates the Constitution? Based on what?
Oakman wrote:
He investigated and found no reason to prosecute. Now you and the Austrian nimrod whose interview got you all sticky wet may think he needs to look further or harder - it's obvious that you really want to skip the trial and want to get on with the execution - but the Constitution makes him the chief executive of the U.S. Not you. and not some UN twit. It's a shame but that's the way it is.
It is always the case that those charged with a certain responsibility may choose to exercise it in bad faith (which may or may not lead to sanctions). That you apparently embrace in such cavalier fashion the exercise of bad faith with respect to the enforcement of United States law is disturbing. A detailed discussion of the issues (more detailed than in my previous link) may be found here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/18/prosecutions/index.html[^]
John Carson
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I shudder to imagine what scenario you've concocted to represent "act unilaterally".
Well, if Obama doesn't act according to international consensus, that would be acting unilaterally wouldn't it? So, if you don't "expect the UN to do anything", by definition, that means acting unilaterally. Or am I missing something? Is the UN a player or not?
oilFactotum wrote:
I want Obama to enforce the law.
Which one? For my part, I expect him to defend the nation. If 'enforcing the law' was the president's only job, we wouldn't need one.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, if Obama doesn't act according to international consensus, that would be acting unilaterally wouldn't it? So, if you don't "expect the UN to do anything", by definition, that means acting unilaterally. Or am I missing something? Is the UN a player or not?
Obama doesn't need to wait for some sort of international consensus. He doesn't need one to enforce US law. On the other hand he already has a consensus - it's called The UN Convention Against Torture.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Which one? For my part, I expect him to defend the nation.
I don't see it as an either/or choice. Prosecuting war crimes and defending the nation go hand in hand(putting aside, for the moment, the fact that his charge is to defend the Constitution, not the nation).
-
Oakman wrote:
The only law of the land is the Constitution, any action, activity, law, treaty, or regulation that contravenes the Constitution is ipso facto illegal.
And your point is? Are you claiming that the treaty violates the Constitution? Based on what?
Oakman wrote:
He investigated and found no reason to prosecute. Now you and the Austrian nimrod whose interview got you all sticky wet may think he needs to look further or harder - it's obvious that you really want to skip the trial and want to get on with the execution - but the Constitution makes him the chief executive of the U.S. Not you. and not some UN twit. It's a shame but that's the way it is.
It is always the case that those charged with a certain responsibility may choose to exercise it in bad faith (which may or may not lead to sanctions). That you apparently embrace in such cavalier fashion the exercise of bad faith with respect to the enforcement of United States law is disturbing. A detailed discussion of the issues (more detailed than in my previous link) may be found here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/18/prosecutions/index.html[^]
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
And your point is?
Pretty much that Oily doesn't know what he's talking about.
John Carson wrote:
Are you claiming that the treaty violates the Constitution
Not at all, I was leading up to pointing out that the Constitution gives the Pres the power of chief executive - not some dink from Austria. For Obama to turn his power over to a mid-level UN official would be a breach of the Constitution in my ever so humble opinion.
John Carson wrote:
the exercise of bad faith with respect to the enforcement of United States law U.N. treaty that the U.S. is signatory to
FTFY. I would also point out that you are expressing an opinion based on what you know of what Obama did. To assume that he should release all the details surrounding his decision so you and Oily could decide whether or not you approved of his choices is presumptious, to say the least. I imagine he knew that the knee-jerk liberals wouldn't approve of anything but a firing squad and that the kneejerk conservatives wouldn't approve of anything short of giving them a Presidential commendation and discounted both sets of fanatics as not being worth paying attention to.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
And your point is?
Pretty much that Oily doesn't know what he's talking about.
John Carson wrote:
Are you claiming that the treaty violates the Constitution
Not at all, I was leading up to pointing out that the Constitution gives the Pres the power of chief executive - not some dink from Austria. For Obama to turn his power over to a mid-level UN official would be a breach of the Constitution in my ever so humble opinion.
John Carson wrote:
the exercise of bad faith with respect to the enforcement of United States law U.N. treaty that the U.S. is signatory to
FTFY. I would also point out that you are expressing an opinion based on what you know of what Obama did. To assume that he should release all the details surrounding his decision so you and Oily could decide whether or not you approved of his choices is presumptious, to say the least. I imagine he knew that the knee-jerk liberals wouldn't approve of anything but a firing squad and that the kneejerk conservatives wouldn't approve of anything short of giving them a Presidential commendation and discounted both sets of fanatics as not being worth paying attention to.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Pretty much that Oily doesn't know what he's talking about.
You failed miserably at that. In fact you have failed to successfully dispute anything in my OP.
Oakman wrote:
Not at all, I was leading up to pointing out that the Constitution gives the Pres the power of chief executive - not some dink from Austria. For Obama to turn his power over to a mid-level UN official would be a breach of the Constitution in my ever so humble opinion.
What's your point? I have not suggested that Obama turn any power over to a UN official. I have been very clear that I expect Obama to obey the law and do what is required by the treaty(which IS US law).
-
Oakman wrote:
Pretty much that Oily doesn't know what he's talking about.
You failed miserably at that. In fact you have failed to successfully dispute anything in my OP.
Oakman wrote:
Not at all, I was leading up to pointing out that the Constitution gives the Pres the power of chief executive - not some dink from Austria. For Obama to turn his power over to a mid-level UN official would be a breach of the Constitution in my ever so humble opinion.
What's your point? I have not suggested that Obama turn any power over to a UN official. I have been very clear that I expect Obama to obey the law and do what is required by the treaty(which IS US law).
oilFactotum wrote:
You failed miserably at that
Awhile back I was doing volunteer work for the children's services dept of Massachusetts - the foster care program. One of the kids I came in contact with, was retarded. It was frustrating to have to tell him he was wrong about something. He was always sure that he was an expert on the subject under discussion; he was positive that no-one ever bested him in an argument; and he was always asking, "What's your point?" because almost any discussion except the simplest was beyond his comprehension. He often made pronouncements that were dead wrong, he confused his wishes with natural laws, and he condemned anyone who did not agree with him as a bad person.
oilFactotum wrote:
What's your point?
;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You failed miserably at that
Awhile back I was doing volunteer work for the children's services dept of Massachusetts - the foster care program. One of the kids I came in contact with, was retarded. It was frustrating to have to tell him he was wrong about something. He was always sure that he was an expert on the subject under discussion; he was positive that no-one ever bested him in an argument; and he was always asking, "What's your point?" because almost any discussion except the simplest was beyond his comprehension. He often made pronouncements that were dead wrong, he confused his wishes with natural laws, and he condemned anyone who did not agree with him as a bad person.
oilFactotum wrote:
What's your point?
;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
You are predictable, if nothing else. When obfuscation fails, resort to ad hominim attacks. With each of your responses, I pity you more and respect you less.
-
You are predictable, if nothing else. When obfuscation fails, resort to ad hominim attacks. With each of your responses, I pity you more and respect you less.
oilFactotum wrote:
You are predictable, if nothing else.
Absolutely. From a very early age, I have been unable to suffer fools gladly. It is a great failing, and one you are right to remind me of.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
You are predictable, if nothing else. When obfuscation fails, resort to ad hominim attacks. With each of your responses, I pity you more and respect you less.
oilFactotum wrote:
When obfuscation fails, resort to ad hominim attacks. With each of your responses, I pity you more and respect you less.
Well, shit, we agree about something... :rolleyes:
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, if Obama doesn't act according to international consensus, that would be acting unilaterally wouldn't it? So, if you don't "expect the UN to do anything", by definition, that means acting unilaterally. Or am I missing something? Is the UN a player or not?
Obama doesn't need to wait for some sort of international consensus. He doesn't need one to enforce US law. On the other hand he already has a consensus - it's called The UN Convention Against Torture.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Which one? For my part, I expect him to defend the nation.
I don't see it as an either/or choice. Prosecuting war crimes and defending the nation go hand in hand(putting aside, for the moment, the fact that his charge is to defend the Constitution, not the nation).
oilFactotum wrote:
it's called The UN Convention Against Torture.
Can I refer to that as the 'coalition of the ... feeling'?
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't see it as an either/or choice. Prosecuting war crimes and defending the nation go hand in hand(putting aside, for the moment, the fact that his charge is to defend the Constitution, not the nation).
Not ever? Our legal system is so perfect that it accounts for every imaginable scenario that might conceivably threaten the lives and liberty of American citizens? Wow! Thats pretty amazing. Too bad no one told Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and FDR about that. What a bunch of dumb fucks they were. Too bad you weren't there to set them straight.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.