Question for real conservatives (mainly) about part of the torture bill..

[lew]

If you want an answer from a real limited government conservative, then here's your answer:

The Geneva Conventions hold no power over US dealings. It is not an American document, it is unconstitutional, and we are not bound by it. Constitutional law overrides any bullshit "international law."

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by motivez

Diesel, that's not what I'm saying.

It's not about "how they'll go about enforcing it", it's about making decisions that go completely against what the law says based on questionable "interpretations" that have no grounding in the law at all.

Law: Don't torture
Action: Hay guys lets torture and ignore what the law says

If you don't want to have a discussion about that aspect of it, fine, but what you guys are posting is not what I'm talking about, and you know it..

Text of McCain Amendment
McCain's bill said the Military was banned from using torture but didnt mention the civilian agencies (cia, nsa).

When did Bush allow the DOD to torture ?

Originally Posted by lew

If you want an answer from a real limited government conservative, then here's your answer:

The Geneva Conventions hold no power over US dealings. It is not an American document, it is unconstitutional, and we are not bound by it. Constitutional law overrides any bullshit "international law."

We ratified the document and the Constitution says all treaties become Federal Law providing they are constitutional.

[Diamond Cross]

Harumph.

G I Joe never used torture and they always won in the end.

And I don't watch Hannity and Colmes.

And thirdly I don't understand why people can't live by this maxim: if you find a behavior deplorable, don't behave that way yourself. Or to put it another way; how credible do you find it when people say "do as I say not as I do?" Personally I don't find that credible at all because what they're really saying is that itt's okay for them but not for you and is nothing more than a double standard.

It's a simple thing to do.

If you don't like torture don't use it. If we're the good guys, good guys don't use torture because good guys are supposed to be better than the bad guys. If the good guys use torture it makes them no better than the bad guys and blurs the line.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

We ratified the document and the Constitution says all treaties become Federal Law providing they are constitutional.

You're right. I didn't properly convey my point across in the first post. It is constitutional legally because of Article VI.

However, I would argue that it shouldn't be legal in the first place. Washington warned against getting involved with alliances and treaties. Being that I'm against international efforts such as the WTO, the World Bank, NAFTA, the UN, etc, of course I'm naturally against the Geneva Conventions.


Of course, this by no means implies that I'm for torture. I'm quite against it. I just think we should follow our own laws, rather than an international treaty.

[Diamond Cross]

In addition, part of the United Nations charter is to recognise the soverignity (sp?) of a country above its rules.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

Of course, this by no means implies that I'm for torture. I'm quite against it. I just think we should follow our own laws, rather than an international treaty.

But then you have people saying that foreigners have no protections under our constitution.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by lew

Of course, this by no means implies that I'm for torture. I'm quite against it. I just think we should follow our own laws, rather than an international treaty.

By ratification of the Senate, a treaty becomes the law of the land (by the supremacy clause)

I believe treaties ratified by the Senate are second only to the Constitution - they are held in higher regard than laws properly passed by Congress & signed by the Pres.

EDIT - my mistake, ratified treaties are on equal ground with federal law. This means they may be repealed by an act of Congress.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by lew

Of course, this by no means implies that I'm for torture. I'm quite against it. I just think we should follow our own laws, rather than an international treaty.

And how do our laws operate on foreign soil ? Or go after people that harm our soldiers ? Do we just execute them without a trial or do we somehow try them under our laws even though they were never citizen/in country ?

[lew]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

And how do our laws operate on foreign soil ? Or go after people that harm our soldiers ? Do we just execute them without a trial or do we somehow try them under our laws even though they were never citizen/in country ?

Well, in my "perfect world" we wouldn't be going to war. We'd mind our own business and stay in our country.


Now, if a hostile nation attacked us, then I'd be all for going in and killing all the sons of bitches.

[motivez]

The legislation before the Senate today would ban torture, but let Bush define it; would allow the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant; would suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus; would immunize retroactively those who may have engaged in torture. And that's just for starters. . . .

Today's vote will show more clearly than ever before that, when push comes to shove, the Republicans who control Congress are in lock step behind the president, and the Democrats -- who could block him, if they chose to do so -- are too afraid to put up a real fight.

[motivez]

Bruce Ackerman each point out, many of the extraordinary powers vested in the President by this bill also apply to U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil.

As Ackerman put it: "The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights." Similarly, Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."

This last point means that even if there were a habeas corpus right inserted back into the legislation (which is unlikely at this point anyway), it wouldn't matter much, if at all, because the law would authorize your detention simply based on the DoD's decree that you are an enemy combatant, regardless of whether it was accurate. This is basically the legalization of the Jose Padilla treatment -- empowering the President to throw people into black holes with little or no recourse, based solely on his say-so.

There really is no other way to put it. Issues of torture to the side (a grotesque qualification, I know), we are legalizing tyranny in the United States. Period. Primary responsibility for this fact lies with the authoritarian Bush administration and its sickeningly submissive loyalists in Congress. That is true enough. But there is no point in trying to obscure that fact that it's happening with the cowardly collusion of the Senate Democratic leadership, which quite likely could have stopped this travesty via filibuster if it chose to (it certainly could have tried).

How can anyone support this crap?