[karajorma]

Ultimately, US interests come before any treaty.

And how is a disgrace on the national character of America like Gitmo in the US's interest?

[Eightball]

International treaties are regarded as a part of a nation's law and may override them. There is some SCOTUS decision of this or something. Point being, Geneva convention actually is US law.

Hmm.  Can you show me? 

Flipside - my comment wasn't about the content of the law; I think international law should never supercede American law.

What if the UN passes something that conflicts with the Constitution?  The UN, not the SC.  Can we veto it?  I don't know how that works.

Suffice it to say, no matter what the ruling is, American law should never be subject to those made in some other country.

I'm not making an issue about the "torture" - I don't know what I think of it.  I'm critiquing the comment about the legality of international law vs. US law.

[Janos]

International treaties are regarded as a part of a nation's law and may override them. There is some SCOTUS decision of this or something. Point being, Geneva convention actually is US law.

Hmm.  Can you show me? 

Flipside - my comment wasn't about the content of the law; I think international law should never supercede American law.

What if the UN passes something that conflicts with the Constitution?  The UN, not the SC.  Can we veto it?  I don't know how that works.

Suffice it to say, no matter what the ruling is, American law should never be subject to those made in some other country.

I'm not making an issue about the "torture" - I don't know what I think of it.  I'm critiquing the comment about the legality of international law vs. US law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty#United_States_law

important:

The United States takes a different view concerning the relationship between international and domestic law than many other nations, particularly in Europe. Unlike nations which view international agreements as always superseding national law, the American view is that international agreements become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independently of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S. Additionally, an international agreement that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has never done so. The constitutional constraints are stronger in the case of CEA and executive agreements, which cannot override the laws of state governments.

- Treaties become part of US national law
- As such, they can also be revised or abolished like any other national law

[NGTM-1R]

Bush to be impeached?

Never happen said the Cap'n.

[Mr. Vega]

Look, even if Bush is impeached, what the hell's that gonna do? You trust the Democrats to run the country? I think not. If this is gonna get done, we (Americans) are gonna have to the overthrowing ourselves.

So, how's a discussion on what it would take to depose Bush and Congress sound? We've got like 10 minutes before Homeland Security starts looking up my address.

[Flipside]

I'm not too sure where international law stands when compared to internal laws. It's not really a question of the UN telling the USA to change it's own laws, the USA actually agreed to uphold those laws itself, as did all other signatories. The whole idea of laws is to stop people doing things which are 'easy' but harm other people, for example, if someone has more money than you, the easiest way to solve the problem is kill the person and steal the money, torturing people is an 'easy' way of dealing with a problem, it gives gratification, and the appearance of being effective, however, it harms the innocent alongside of the guilty, since you don't know which they are until the torture has broken them. That was why the countries agreed to outlaw it in the first place, well that and the fact that it's simply inhumane.

I think, whilst the law is an 'International Law' as in, the signing countries agreed to add it to their own list of internal laws, it's the same as Murder, it's universally agreed to be wrong, but there are some countries which ignore the fact when it suits them, for example, the Mugabe administration. When Mugabe breaks his own countries laws and calls it 'For the sake of the Nation', that's considered the actions of a vile and despicable man.

[Rictor]

Stepping on everyone's toes trying to unite the entire world is the wrong thing to do, but if you're going to stand up for your own country, in a nationalistic sense, you HAVE to step on toes, and you HAVE to be strong about it.  Here we are, led by a group of empty-headed politicians, running this country straight into the ground. (BOTH political parties) because they're held back by political correctness, and attempting to please everyone.  If the republican party as a whole actually stuck to it's core values, and actually had a backbone, we'd actually be IN CONTROL of our own country.

I partially agree, but for different reasons.

I can agree on one thing: both America and the world would be better off if the American political establishment paid more attention to domestic issues and less to getting its way abroad. The way I see it, domestic well-being (the economy, education, immigration and so on) is being neglected because the US is trying to act like a global cop. If it said "to hell with the rest of the world", the US could focus on issues at home, and the rest of the world could run their own **** in peace.

However, Bush's internationalist policy comes with the implicit belief that America has not only a right buy a duty to spread democracy, take out "bad" regimes, and generally project it's power. It has no such right. Ironically, a truly internationalist policy would be very similar to a truly isolationaist policy, and that would be to recognize that the US has exactly as many rights, privileges and duties as any other nation. The key here is not whether it projects its power for good or for evil, because both are in the eye of the beholder, but whether it projects its power. And here I disagree with aldo, karajorma and others, in that I don''t support a nation's "right" to go around spreading civilization, human rights, democracy, freedom, prosperity and so on, whether through military force, diplomacy, economic pressure or whatever. Only strong nations believe themselves to have this right, and end up acting as a sort of global decision-making body, not only which they have no right to be, but the decisions of which are usually self serving.

Just as an example, take Iran's nuclear program. The West, that is the US and EU, would rather that Iran have no nuclear program, civilian or military. But in a just world, their desires would have no bearing on the situation. Either Iran is within its rights and obligations under the NPT, or its not. What the governments of France, Germany and the US happen to think of Iran's form of government, public officials or whatever, should be irrelevant, because Iran has a right to run its own affairs within the law, and they shouldn't have to seek anyone's approval. If they are within the law, they could be eating babies for all I care. If they are breaking their treaties, then exact punishment. At the moment, they are not breaking the law, so more power to them.

[Herra Tohtori]

Umm, you actually did the parliamentary thing by voting against him. Everything else is basically non-parliamentary. You have more or less exhausted your legal democratic options by now.

No no, that's all wrong!

Even though parliamentary democracy is based on choosing a parliament for a term in an election, elections are not the only time an average citizen can affect (or try to, which is hole lotta better than nothing) politics. Anyone can approach a politician by a letter or an e-mail and say that "I think this way and would like you to represent my opinion. If you do not, I'll not vote for you on next elections. Instead I'm gonna find someone else that would perhaps think more like I do. Have a nice day."

Now what do you think a politician does if he or she receives a letter like this? Nothing you might say. What if he receives a hundred letters? He might start to notice the issue. A thousand letters? Ten thousand?

Think about it. The parliament is elected by the people, and their actions should represent the opinions of the people. People have right to have their voice heard also between the elections, not just during them. The problem is most people don't care enough to bother themselves into doing something about things if they really don't concern them directly. This is what has led to current situation where politicians in America (and everywhere else, for that matter) only really attend to the people before elections, trying to fish as many voters as possible. After the elections, most voters get back into their political hibernation to be awaken before next elections.

The problem in this is that when the politicians start the fishing competition, they only tend to discuss the most controversial issues available at the time. Or they might make an issue about something comparably irrelevant and make it look like it makes all the difference between life and a longer life. This way the voters who don't keep a really close eye on politics have to base their voting decision on the issues that are most controversial and discussed in media more often than some other things.

So, an average voter makes his decision based on one or two, maybe a few more key issues that emerge before every elections. And when he or she doesn't really keep an eye on politics, the chosen politician might agree with the voter on key issues, but what about other million and one issues? The politician who the voter decided to vote might have a totally different opinion from the voter's one about something else. Now, do you think the voter should just sit at his home and watch when the politician he voted for takes a completely opposed side to his opinion and just think "Oh well, I did vote for this guy - I guess I have no other possibility now than to content myself to the situation..."

No way. He can and should approach his spokesman about the issue and make himself heard along with other voters that voted the politician in question. This is completely lawful and I'd see it even as encouragable action. But I'm forgetting - the voter is in hibernation, so the politicians can basically do whatever they wish and those who really keep an eye (or two) on their actions can just curse and writhe in frustration...

What a voter CAN'T do and shouldn't do is to resort to illegalities like "voting with a bullet" or something like that.

Civic disobedience is yet another subject, however, but I won't go into ethic justification or lack thereof in this message.

Well... this message took its time and an edit to original message I quoted was written:

Edit: OK, you can always write letters to representatives and so on, but that's extra. The entire point of a democratic process is that you give up some of your sovereignity and representives then decide for you. If you stick by that process (which is not always wise but is the granted way of things in western democracies), then voting is more or less all you have to do.

Yes, that is true in away. You vote, and after the elections you cannot FORCE any issues down the elected's throats. You do submit to their authority for a season and during that season they will make the final decisions. What you can do during the season is to tell them your opinion and if they see fit they just might take it into account.

I bet any politician would listen if a quarter of his county sent him a letter asking him to take something into account.

[Eightball]

The impeachment charges called international law "supreme" law.  It is supreme in that it is national law, but still below the Constitution in importance.

And ultimately, if the choice is between the US existing as a nation and international law, there is no choice.  USA all the way.

And I'm still not discussing torture/Gitmo.  I don't know where I stand.   

And thanks for the link, Janos.

Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law.

----

But in a just world, their desires would have no bearing on the situation. Either Iran is within its rights and obligations under the NPT, or its not.

In a just world, Iran wouldn't hint at destroying Israel.  In a just world, etc. 

[aldo_14]

International law should always supercede domestic law.  Otherwise it is worthless; things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights become worthless and open to arbitrary overridal and suspension.  Treaties such as the NPT become literally worthless rather than just effectively worthless (i.e. UK Trident Replacement, US nuclear bunker buster programme).

You guys are so freaked out.

Chill, people.  You'll die of a heart attack before the Bush Administration leaves!

2. Violating the Torture Convention of the Geneva Conventions, “a treaty regarded as supreme law by the United States Constitution;”

I'm highly disturbed by this charge, however.  The Geneva Convention isn't part of the Constitution.  IT ISN'T SUPREME LAW.  Not even "regarded by the Constitution".  Ultimately, US interests come before any treaty.

And if US interests begin to involve arbitrary detention and torture of US-born white people rather than abducted foreign nationals?

[NGTM-1R]

And if US interests begin to involve arbitrary detention and torture of US-born white people rather than abducted foreign nationals?

Then that's actually a violation of supreme law, since that's covered in the Bill of Rights. And you can use that phraseology in impeaching the sitting president. However, you cannot use it here.

[Eightball]

International law should always supercede domestic law.  Otherwise it is worthless; things like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights become worthless and open to arbitrary overridal and suspension.  Treaties such as the NPT become literally worthless rather than just effectively worthless (i.e. UK Trident Replacement, US nuclear bunker buster programme).

That's just so utterly ridiculous.  How can we claim to be democratic at all if people from other friggan countries make laws for us without the consent of the friggan governed!?  That's absurd!

Ultimately, international law is subject to US law which is the voice of the people.  That's sounds idealistic, and maybe it is, but so is international law.

And if US interests begin to involve arbitrary detention and torture of US-born white people rather than abducted foreign nationals?

Not discussing torture.  However, that sounds like a highly unlikely scenario.  "What is US interests involved gravity stopping?"

[IceFire]

Sure, everyone can be sarcastic about "Bush = a future like Eurocorp + Nation split between the UN/EU + people marching on the whitehouse like in the '60s" but it's not realistic.  If Bush is a globalist, a lot of these things will happen on thier own, without a civil war taking place.  But in two years, having the nation transform so dramatically like that is just nonsense. 

During the French Revolution...the Monarchy power structure that was in place for hundreds of years was dismantled virtually overnight.  It doesn't take long for a political system to topple over and come crashing down.  I'm a bit worried over the undertones of American politics right now.  I'm also worried about what another few Katrina's may do to the southern states over the next few years...the economics of the situation with the war(s) and the disasters already here and those yet to come and all of that...shakey ground.  Moreso than for a very long time.

[aldo_14]

And if US interests begin to involve arbitrary detention and torture of US-born white people rather than abducted foreign nationals?

Then that's actually a violation of supreme law, since that's covered in the Bill of Rights. And you can use that phraseology in impeaching the sitting president. However, you cannot use it here.

But you can surely change the law, amend it, etc.  After all, it's ok to do it to non-nationals (actually, I have a feeling there are a few US citizens held in said black sites, not 100% sure), so there's precedent.  Whereas international law would in theory prohibit that sort of local change. 

Besides which, I don't see the Bill of Rights prohibiting torture except as punishment.  Not as an interrogation tactic (besides which, electrocuting or gassing people isn't considered cruel or unusual in the US, is it?)

[Flipside]

The laws weren't made without the consent of the government though, they were agreed to by the American government when the forms were signed. I think that's the whole purpose of international law.

We have a similar situation developing in the UK with European Law and it's effect on our own law, it's now illegal in the UK, unless under specific circumstances, to force someone to wear a suit to work, for example, since that would be a violation of their human rights.

[NGTM-1R]

But you can surely change the law, amend it, etc.  After all, it's ok to do it to non-nationals (actually, I have a feeling there are a few US citizens held in said black sites, not 100% sure), so there's precedent.  Whereas international law would in theory prohibit that sort of local change. 

Besides which, I don't see the Bill of Rights prohibiting torture except as punishment.  Not as an interrogation tactic (besides which, electrocuting or gassing people isn't considered cruel or unusual in the US, is it?)

Mostly true. However I have a sneaky suspicion of how the Supreme Court would rule on the use of torture for information against a US citizen. More to the point, amending the Constitution at this point is a nightmare. The last attempt to amend it was in what, the '70s? It died a long, slow, agonizing death, unable to find support despite actually just restating what was already federal law. If they couldn't ramrod the equality amendment, well...there's not much hope for anything. Which is both fortunate and unfortunate.

And actually, electrocution, gassing, and even lethal injection have been ruled cruel and usual. (Though the lethal injection one is in appeals around the circuit court level I believe; it hasn't made it as far as the Supreme Court yet.) About all we've got left are the old standbys of hanging and the firing squad.

[Eightball]

We have a similar situation developing in the UK with European Law and it's effect on our own law, it's now illegal in the UK, unless under specific circumstances, to force someone to wear a suit to work, for example, since that would be a violation of their human rights.

One of the most powerful arguments against this kind of nonsense I can think of. 

The laws weren't made without the consent of the government though, they were agreed to by the American government when the forms were signed. I think that's the whole purpose of international law.

However, UN resolutions can be passed without consent from the US, right?

[aldo_14]

The laws weren't made without the consent of the government though, they were agreed to by the American government when the forms were signed. I think that's the whole purpose of international law.

We have a similar situation developing in the UK with European Law and it's effect on our own law, it's now illegal in the UK, unless under specific circumstances, to force someone to wear a suit to work, for example, since that would be a violation of their human rights.

Albeit the same thing makes it illegal to force someone to wear a gimp suit to work.... I'm not sure that's too useful a statement without said circumstances being detailed, though, have you got a source for it?

Mostly true. However I have a sneaky suspicion of how the Supreme Court would rule on the use of torture for information against a US citizen. More to the point, amending the Constitution at this point is a nightmare. The last attempt to amend it was in what, the '70s? It died a long, slow, agonizing death, unable to find support despite actually just restating what was already federal law. If they couldn't ramrod the equality amendment, well...there's not much hope for anything. Which is both fortunate and unfortunate.

Yeah, but you'd have to get caught doing it first........

Plus, we've seen how politically appointed judiciary can be abused or coerced through fear in various countries.  So it's not impossible.  Perhaps not plausible, even with the current US government, but you have to keep an eye on the potentials if you're assessing the relevant protections of things like international law over domestic.

And actually, electrocution, gassing, and even lethal injection have been ruled cruel and usual. (Though the lethal injection one is in appeals around the circuit court level I believe; it hasn't made it as far as the Supreme Court yet.) About all we've got left are the old standbys of hanging and the firing squad.

So you can snap or strangle but not buzz?  Although only 'cruel and unusual' in certain states, not on a national level.  Nebraska IIRC still uses the electric chair, for example.

[Flipside]

Resolutions can, but Resolutions are different, they are reactions to the behaviour of member nations, Laws are slightly different, they've already been agreed to as being law with no 'crime' being commited.

And yeah, International law can be bloody inconvenient at times, but like all things, they aren't perfect, but, in the case of the European laws, we still have to ride the wave until the sillier problems are solved.

Edit : http://www.bryancave.com/files/tbl_s7Publications/Details33/108/UK-LaborAlert-10-2000.pdf#search='clothing%20at%20work%20human%20rights%20uk'

Article 10 is the one that covers clothing, just for clarification

[aldo_14]

One of the most powerful arguments against this kind of nonsense I can think of. 

Except you don't have any context for it, the actual mechanics of the decision and how it's applied or not.

However, UN resolutions can be passed without consent from the US, right?

That depends.  General Assembly resolutions are the most democratic ones, but are generally regarded as non-binding in terms of affecting nations (although they can be binding as things like budgetary decisions and instructions to lesson UN bodies).  Security Council - binding - resolutions can be veto-ed by any nation on the council.  The US has actually used its veto far more than any other nation, usually against any resolutions criticising Israel (see http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto/vetosubj.htm).