JeffreyLebowski
Lifer
Let's not forget, the President can not declare(start) war. Only Congress can.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Yet again the UN sticks its nose into a US state's business
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Let's not forget, the President can not declare(start) war. Only Congress can.
So, what do you want to call it? 😕
No matter what you call it, as of 7/16/08, 4121 American troops are dead and tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life as a result of the [fill in the blank] your Traitor In Chief and his gang of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals and war profiteers started in Iraq.
They should be tried, here, for murder for each of those deaths. They should be tried for assault and battery for each of those wounded. They should be tried for treason for shredding the rights guaranteed to every American citizen under the U.S. Constitution.
Getting back to the OP's topic, the Bushwhackos, they should be sent to the Hague have committed torture and other international war crimes. Their illegal [fill in the blank] has also caused hundreds of thousands of dead, wounded and displaces innocent Iraqi civilians.
When we're through trying and convicting for their crimes, here, they should be sent to the Hague to stand trial for their heinous crimes against the rest of the world.
bamacre
Lifer
I can only think of one previous candidate that wanted us out of the UN.
😛
But we won't ever leave the UN because we can use it when we want to and not when we don't. We can go to war under UN resolutions, and tell them to STFU when they say something we don't like. For those in power, it's a win-win situation.
Looks like you didn't read what I wrote. I said I thought it was an odd interpretation of the treaty and supremacy clauses in the Constitution, one I can't figure out. Then I said that in its decision the USSC stated that if the federal government wished to remedy this situation it should pass a law forcing the states to comply with treaty obligations. I'm assuming since this was the Supreme Court's proposed remedy they thought it was:
A.) Not breaking the law to do so and
B.) Consistent within our laws and system of government.
I shouldn't have to retype this, as it's almost exactly what I said in my original post.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
When the UN doesn't act like it's the US's bitch you complain, in Kosovo you didn't complain, in Kongo you didn't complain.
How about you realise that the UN isn't the US's bitch and respect the world community forum for what it is. You know, if you actually participated in it you could make it better, but that doesn't work because your arrogant arseholes who needs to have the fucking last word every fucking time.
It's about the same in the NATO conferences, when were're not being submissive you throw a tantrum.
In fact this post and the US actions in these cases are pathetic, learn some fucking diplomacy instead of throwing a tantrum when others don't believe outright lies and fucking bullshit that you spew and you'll do much better and have a lot more support.
If the US had any kind of honor, they would do what they have demanded others to do when it comes to the same thing and arrest him and hand him over.
Every state in every country is responsible and will answer to the UN, there is no going around it, i know international law, i doubt you have even read once sentence of it.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
Texas is looking more and more like any lost area of Pakistan. They don't respect law and order of anything but their Taliban leaders, wildly religious as they are, anymore than Texas.
Personally, i think anyone who does not cooperate with international law deserves a punishment severe enough to make them.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
The US demanded in the world court that they should hand over someone that Serbia does not consider a criminal, they handed him over, but i guess this only goes for every other country, not the US, and Mladic is still someone the US demands the UN to try in court and still has problems with Serbia for letting him have a safe haven in a country where he commited no crime.
Seriously, if you are going to have any kind of standing on this international arena, you cannot play by different rules when it comes to yourselves.
Hand him over or admit that you are just fucking good for nothing windbags when it comes to the respect every other nation has shown.
Seriously, if you are going to have any kind of standing on this international arena, you cannot play by different rules when it comes to yourselves.
Hand him over or admit that you are just fucking good for nothing windbags when it comes to the respect every other nation has shown.
waggy
No Lifer
at first i was thinking well Mexico should have some say in what happens to its citizens. then i read (and remembered the case) "Medellin, 33, was condemned for the 1993 killings of Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, who stumbled into a drunken midnight gang initiation rite at T.C. Jester Park in north Houston." and suddenly im behind Texas again.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
It takes a Canadian to make sense of the US law.
Cheers Sandorski.
BTW, the only troop increase i have seen around here has been that of two groups of specialised forces, both of them speak both French and English. 😉
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
IOW, you support out of country law for crimes in any country?
Well there you have it then.
Lemon law
Lifer
Lets go back to the issue here. Its a tenet of international law that a foreign national who commits or is alledged to have commited a crime in any other country should have a
right to ask for the help of his own embassy in that foreign country. If the smuck is guilty, no defense by the embassy can clear them of the crime, but at least the legal principle is upheld. And thereafter, regardless of outcome, both countries are happy that the process occurred as it should.
Texas fucked up, and that is the mistake of Texas. So retry the case and get the same outcome.
And if this occurred in some foreign country to one of our citizens, many of the same defenders of Texas would be hopping mad at the injustice.
right to ask for the help of his own embassy in that foreign country. If the smuck is guilty, no defense by the embassy can clear them of the crime, but at least the legal principle is upheld. And thereafter, regardless of outcome, both countries are happy that the process occurred as it should.
Texas fucked up, and that is the mistake of Texas. So retry the case and get the same outcome.
And if this occurred in some foreign country to one of our citizens, many of the same defenders of Texas would be hopping mad at the injustice.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
Ah, so when it's a Serbian national, he should be tried in an international court but when it is a US national, well, states should just protect them?
You're getting more pathetic with every reply.
No wonder the US stopped demanding Mladics extradition, you're doing the exact thing yourselves, lets just scrap it because if the most vocal on the issue of Mladics extradition was GW Bush and now the US opposes the extradition of a US citizen, well if you're not playing by the rules... I'd say lets exclude everyone from the Trade organisations and sanction them until they can learn to agree.
Lemon law
Lifer
JOS misses the point and sets up a straw man argument when he says---Ah, so when it's a Serbian national, he should be tried in an international court but when it is a US national, well, states should just protect them?
You're getting more pathetic with every reply.
No wonder the US stopped demanding Mladics extradition, you're doing the exact thing yourselves, lets just scrap it because if the most vocal on the issue of Mladics extradition was GW Bush and now the US opposes the extradition of a US citizen, well if you're not playing by the rules... I'd say lets exclude everyone from the Trade organisations and sanction them until they can learn to agree.
No, JOS you miss the point. When a Serbian citizen come to the USA and commits or is alleged to have committed a crime on US soil, the issue is and remains, said person is subject to US law. In the event said Serbian has some sort of diplomatic immunity its one thing, but if said person is just some ordinary smoe, they still have an international recognized right to ask for help from their embassy, and if their embassy chooses to do so, they can provide them with an attorney. Beyond that, said attorney cannot make it an international incident, assure an acquittal, or anything else, the criminal trial still proceeds by US law. And if the Serbian national is found guilty, Serbia has nothing to bitch about. But they do have something to bitch about if the US denies the Serbian's a chance to defend their citizen in a court of law.
Bringing in an international war crimes issue has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.
You're getting more pathetic with every reply.
No wonder the US stopped demanding Mladics extradition, you're doing the exact thing yourselves, lets just scrap it because if the most vocal on the issue of Mladics extradition was GW Bush and now the US opposes the extradition of a US citizen, well if you're not playing by the rules... I'd say lets exclude everyone from the Trade organisations and sanction them until they can learn to agree.
No, JOS you miss the point. When a Serbian citizen come to the USA and commits or is alleged to have committed a crime on US soil, the issue is and remains, said person is subject to US law. In the event said Serbian has some sort of diplomatic immunity its one thing, but if said person is just some ordinary smoe, they still have an international recognized right to ask for help from their embassy, and if their embassy chooses to do so, they can provide them with an attorney. Beyond that, said attorney cannot make it an international incident, assure an acquittal, or anything else, the criminal trial still proceeds by US law. And if the Serbian national is found guilty, Serbia has nothing to bitch about. But they do have something to bitch about if the US denies the Serbian's a chance to defend their citizen in a court of law.
Bringing in an international war crimes issue has nothing to do with the issue being discussed.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Not according to our Constitution. NO states in the US "answer to the UN"
You may know "international law" but you don't seem to have the foggiest clue about the US Constitution.
BoomerD
No Lifer
IIRC, there were more criminals executed under Bush's watch than any other governor in recent history.
Next, if Mexico doesn't want the US to execute it's citizens who commit heinous crimes, they should keep the fuckers home.
We have enough of our own criminals, we dammed sure don't need any of theirs.
If the citizen of any foreign country comes here and commits a capital crime, he or she should be prepared to face the consequences.
The argument is being twisted as another anti-UN circle jerk by the usual suspects in here.
From the OP:
"This can only come back to hurt U.S. citizens when they are detained abroad," she wrote in an e-mail. " ... When a global leader like the U.S. refuses to comply with its clear international legal obligations (and everyone agrees that this is a clear legal obligation), it undermines the willingness of other states to comply with their own obligations and it inspires them not to trust us to obey ours."
They're not asking to release them, or not to kill them. They just want a review to make sure that these people were given the appropriate access to the Mexican Consulate as is dictated by international law.
That's it.
Like I said earlier, if the situation were reversed and some american in Mexico was about to executed without been given access to the American Consulate, there would be Bubba's running hogwild in the streets demanding we invade.
From the OP:
"This can only come back to hurt U.S. citizens when they are detained abroad," she wrote in an e-mail. " ... When a global leader like the U.S. refuses to comply with its clear international legal obligations (and everyone agrees that this is a clear legal obligation), it undermines the willingness of other states to comply with their own obligations and it inspires them not to trust us to obey ours."
They're not asking to release them, or not to kill them. They just want a review to make sure that these people were given the appropriate access to the Mexican Consulate as is dictated by international law.
That's it.
Like I said earlier, if the situation were reversed and some american in Mexico was about to executed without been given access to the American Consulate, there would be Bubba's running hogwild in the streets demanding we invade.
jonks
Lifer
Of course not directly. But the supremacy clause states federal law and treaties take precedence over contradictory state laws. Where a state law conflicts with an international treaty to which the US is signatory, the state law must give way. It's part of our system of federalism.
I believe the recent Scotus decision stated that the president cannot order a state to follow a treaty if the treaty is not self-executing and hasn't been legislated into national law by congress. In such a case, you can argue then that the states are required to follow federal law, and not the treaty, but since the federal law was passed to satisfy the treaty, that's more about semantics than reality.
Here's a relatively short but good article that talks about how the press oversimplified the issues, which are a tad more complex than "UN tells state what to do".
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25846
jonks
Lifer
Medellin did not raise his failure to be advised of his right to confer with his consulate until after his conviction. Under American law, it is well-established that (with few specific exceptions) matters not raised in trial courts are procedurally defaulted and cannot be raised later. While Medellin was pursuing his appeal, the ICJ ruled that American courts had violated the Vienna Conventions by not allowing Medellin (and other similarly-situated defendants) to raise this defense.
So when it comes down to an ICJ determination vs. well settled state law practice and procedures, the state wins, as it should.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
