Article 45.1

[Reilly]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Again what part dont you understand. Treaties are made and broken according to the will of the nation involved. Hence making International law as a criminal law virtually irrelevant. There is no body to enforce it. Any nation bound by it, is bound volentarily and essentially can ignore it whenever if feels like it. Again hence the problem with international law.

Ive simply got to be amazed at someone trying to argue with someone who has been studying international law and international community for the last few years and is working on a law degree with an emphasis in international law and simply ignores them. Amazing.

Keep studying. You are partly right. A treaty does have the same status as any other federal law in the United States, save the Constitution, which clearly has primacy. However, even though a treaty may not be a criminal law that can be enforced by an outside tribunal, it still is a law for the purposes of the United States, and is to be followed inside the United States (its violations generally dealt with by U.S. courts unless the treaty itself confers jurisdiction eslewhere (i.e., WTO)). This does not however make it a criminal law. Yes, the president has the power to terminate a treaty without the approval of Congress, but no one has the authority to break a treaty. If one does so, one is technically violating the law of the U.S. (although there does have to be the political will to prosecute (not necessarily criminally) the case).

As for whether the President is violating U.S. law by violating the treaty, I think this is probably a very complicated question to which I don't have the foggiest of an answer. We clearly haven't terminated the treaty (and are probably violating it). However, there are surely the war powers doctrine, implicit rejection of section 45.1, sep. of powers arguments, etc. that would have to be considered.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Spidey - I hope you can stand by that statement because I think you have insulted alot of people here tonight! but hey what do I know,right?

You know how to preform adminastration duties.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by spillmind
SpidermanTuba:

you had some great points, and you should stick to your guns. don't let some of the posters drag you down into the denial name calling quagmire. and to to refrain from drawing analogies that hit that close to home. i also think it should be fair, but some of these dudes are highly sensitive sometimes. you make good points without partaking in the flaming. consider it 'higher ground'

I agree, sometimes its very difficult though.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Spilly, I know that you are not for this war, but you really cant tell me that you are agreeing with his thought that our military is purposely killing innocent people! I know you know what it all means, or at least I hope you do!

I always gave you respect for the most part with your posts even when I dont agree as I did with this clown originally, but I never seen you post something quite as outrageous as this either!

No Sir Evil, all those bombs we dropped on Baghdad were accidents. There, you happy now?

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Spidey - I hope you can stand by that statement because I think you have insulted alot of people here tonight! but hey what do I know,right?

The discretion is yours, but I think you are being a little hard on Spidey. I read the entire thread and I have seen much, much worse from other members on the board. He is condescending, but so are many others, and perhaps it is his style.

However, if this is a board-wide attempt to clean up the language and insults here, I am in favor.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
This is as good as it get's, what is not to understand here?

I'm trying to understand how the Pentagons war plan to into account civilians losses when that's not something it even keeps track of.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
Because you refuse to acknowledge it. Not our problem.

I can't refuse to acknowledge something you've failed to point out.

 

[insein]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
No Sir Evil, all those bombs we dropped on Baghdad were accidents. There, you happy now?

Here's an anolgy you can understand maybe.

Spiderman purposely tries to stop Doc Oc from carrying out a plot to launch weapons on the city. He is hold up in a building in a populated part of town. Spiderman obviously doesnt want to hurt any civilians. In fact he usualy goes out of his way to not hurt them. Spiderman has explosive web charges set up to attack Doc Oc's base. He shoots web cannons at the base. IT blows a whole clean into the base, but the debree scatters and injuries civilians that were near the base. Spiderman continues onward destroying Doc Oc's base until Octupus is stopped. When it is over he finds that his actions have caused major damage to the surrounding area and have injured numerous people. But Doc oc is stopped and can no longer kill or threaten to kill numerous other people. Should spiderman be arrested?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
It's been said over and over here! I am really getting tired of dicking around with this stupid catch 22 of your question here!
If you can not accept that there will be casualties of war then just friggin say that! To say that the military is acting with intent to carry out civilian deaths is just plain stupid!

First of, I was asking for evidence that I hate America, not evidence that dropping bombs on purpose isn't dropping bombs on purpose.


You're just not listening to a damn thing I'm saying, are you? It goes in one eye, and out the other. Here, let me try again. I'll try to make it as plain and simple as possible for you.

1) It is well known civilan casualities are a result of war

2) Therefore, when you decide to start a war, you are committing an act ON PURPOSE which you know will result in civilian casualities.

3) When you intentionally commit an act that you know will result in killing civilians, you are intentionally killing civilians.


Don't read anything into this that isn't there. It does not say, for instance, that war cannot be justified, nor does it say we can expect to fight a war without civilian casualties (in fact it says the OPPOSITE)

 

[insein]

BTW, i notice how you backed away from your response on calling america a facist country. YUou never did answer me. Would you be here if this were true facism?

 

[insein]

Well since its 3AM now, i believe its beddy bye time. Time to go dream about my manaj with Tiffany and Katie. toodles.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Actually you are totally wrong on my philosophy which doesnt surprise me at all. I dont believing in srtarting war to prevent one. Im in favor of starting wars against people who already want us dead now, and suffering few casualties rather than waiting for them to attack us on our soil and cause many more casualities. Im in favor of making terrorists and regimes that support terrorists pay for wanting us dead rather than watch my brothers and sisters at home suffer and die and end up fighting a war anyway.

You obviously didnt learn the lesson from World War 2. If we had stopped Hitler early rather than try to appease him, we could have finished him at the cost of alot less lives than we had to give to stop him. It would have been easier to attack him and prevent him from invading Austria, poland, and France then having to taken back each nations with our blood.

Its a simply situation of making a choice that sucks, and a choice thats far worse. You would rather wait till America is attacked again before we act. Thats fine. but most people arent.

"Im in favor of starting wars against people who already want us dead now"

Well then the entire world is grateful that you weren't a Cold War President, or else you would have unleashed a nuclear holocaust beginning with the attack of the Soviet Union just because "they want us dead"

I can't believe I actually have to point out to you the galring differences between Saddam Hussein and Hitler, but here goes.


Hitler: Hell bent on world domination
Hussein: Not hell bent on world domination

Hitler: Possessed one of the most powerful and advanced armies in the world
Hussein: Possessed one of weakest and most ill equipped armies in the world.

Hitler: Actually invaded and annexed several nations
Hussein: Invaded and annexed one nation, which we kicked him out of, and in the 12 years since has shown no desire to invade and annex again.

Hitler: leader of a nation with a booming economy
Hussin: leader of a nation with an economy the size of Mali.

That's great you realize we should learn from history, but if the history you want to learn from doesn't apply to the situation your using it for, it doesn't work. Nice try.


No, I wouldn't rather wait till America is attacked before we act. I would, however, like to wait till a nation wants to and is capable of attacking us before we attack it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
Does your employer allow you to spend so much time on a message board while at work?

I work week on week off.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
a dictator doesnt have to be invading countries to be a future threat. All they need to do is develop WMDs and be willing to use them. Maybe you were willing to risk WMDs in the hands of terrorists. I wasnt.

And which dictator is this you're talking about that was developing WMD's?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by spillmind
dude, i hate to be the rain on your parade, BUT THE TERRORISTS ALREADY HAVE THEM.

i mean really: type in the words:

smuggle tajikistan afghanistan pakistan plutonium

into your fav search engine, and shrug odd the naïveté. let me guess, we NEED that missle defense system to protect us against that suitcase too, right?

how on earth are we any safer now?

We're not any safer now. If we were, I'm sure the Department of Homeland Redundant Beauracracy would downgrade the terrorist warning level from yellow to whatever silly color is underneath yellow.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Dont go getting all excited knucklehead, Spilly just hates to see another liberal get ganged up on! Call it misplaced patriotism if you will but at least we have it!

At least I don't go around calling people who disagree with me America haters (except occasionally in jest). I realize all of you warmongers truly want whats best for this nation, and that you are patriotic in that you love your nation and most of you are willing to die for her. You, on the other hand, are completely blind to the fact that people can have opinions different than yours and still love their country.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
Well aparently he works for the Dept of defense in the NASA division, which accoridng to him does nothing anyway so i guess he has alot fo free time.

NASA is not part of the DoD. I work for the Navy.


Incidently, where did I ever say the DoD or NASA did nothing? Would you and the rest of the warmongers mind not saying that I said things that I didn't? I'd really appreciate it, it might show you have at least a very basic level of respect for those who do not agree with you 100%.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
I agree and thats why we went to Iraq. To protect ourselves and our allies from a dictator with WMD's.

That makes a lot of sense. Lets go invade a country without WMD's to protect ourselves from countries with WMD's. Brilliant, what an intelligent allocation of resources.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
When you posted it from this link.

http://www.mvp-seattle.org/pages/pageFascism.htm

"...where I said we were living under a fascist regime?"

The operative word here is I. Tell me where I said this nation was fascist. The link I got the 12 signs from apparently thinks so, I merely posted the link so people could see where I got the 12 signs. I intentionally removed any implication that the US itself was fascist from the 12 signs.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by insein
More signs of desparity and ignorance.

You're right, I'm ignorant. Shrub DID request to go to Vietnam, he was spoiling for combat. He signed up for the National Guard 15 days before his student deferment ended because he was hell bent on going to Vietnam, right.