AMAZING speech made by Al Gore...

[rogue yam]

...why is your internal propaganda machine is working overtime to promote US unity?

This would include the NYT, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Conyers, the DailyKos, MoveOn.com, George Soros, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, ..., etc.?

 

[rogue yam]

Actually, regarding the when and how, that's exactly what you did.

No.

 

[nino_savatte]

...Mellon Scaife (CNS News, WorldNetDaily etc.), Human Events, Fox 'News' Network, FrontPage Magazine, Townhall.com, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, MSNBC, Renew America, The Heritage Foundation...and on and on it goes...

 

[spring-peeper]

This would include the NYT, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, John Kerry, John Conyers, the DailyKos, MoveOn.com, George Soros, Howard Dean, Harry Reid, ..., etc.?

No, I'll go for bush right after his election - delivered in Canada - telling us off for not blindly following you.

 

[rogue yam]

This not the same situation that the British were placed in in WWII. We had no alternative bearing in mind the intellegence and technology available at the time to area bomb German industrial areas. This excuse is not one that is available to your government...

You pretend that there are presently perfect options. There are not, nor will there ever be any. That is life. Grow up.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

You pretend that there are presently perfect options. There are not, nor will there ever be any. That is life. Grow up.

I didn't say there are perfect options -- but doing something that will be counterproductive in a big way is not one that should be considered. This will come back and bite the americans on the arse in ways that you cannot comprehend atthe moment. Don't forget for all the US militaries much vaunted technolgy and vast numbers of troops all it took to fuck over NYC was a few guys with stanley knives and a basic knowledge of aircraft no amount of tech can prevent a determined fighter.

The story of the bombing of the tribal regions of Pakistan and the fact that more civvies died than AQ leaders is at this moment being talked about in mosques and markets throughout the middle east. Not everyone who hears about this will end up attacking Americans but enough will be receptive to want to attack you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There is no precise calculus that applies to human life. You and I both know this. If there were twenty top AQ guys and one "innocent" driver, the button would be pushed. If there were twenty women and children and possibly one low-level AQ drone, we would hold off. Where, exactly, between these two extremes the line should be drawn no one can say for sure. So what? This is obvious. Why is it my responsibility, and mine alone, to bring intelligence and rationality to these threads?

You appear to mistake your exhibited traits of posting partisan bilge and compassion-free aggressive rhetoric with "intelligence and rationality".

I'd love to be there to hear you bleating when your state is rounding you and the rest of the SA (whoops, I mean "Freepers") up as "political undesirables" and sending you to a camp on the prairie for "re-education".

 

[TAE]

There is no precise calculus that applies to human life. You and I both know this. If there were twenty top AQ guys and one "innocent" driver, the button would be pushed. If there were twenty women and children and possibly one low-level AQ drone, we would hold off. Where, exactly, between these two extremes the line should be drawn no one can say for sure. So what? This is obvious. Why is it my responsibility, and mine alone, to bring intelligence and rationality to these threads?

So if a foreign government managed to launch an air strike against a bus in the US, claiming that the bus contained enemies of that foreign government, you would not have a problem with that?

 

[rogue yam]

So if a foreign government managed to launch an air strike against a bus in the US, claiming that the bus contained enemies of that foreign government, you would not have a problem with that?

The really sad part is that you don't bore yourself with this crap.

 

[TAE]

Is that a yes, no, maybe, or don't know?

 

[spring-peeper]

The really sad part is that you don't bore yourself with this crap.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Is that a yes, no, maybe, or don't know?

It's a clumsy attempt to provoke you because he doesn't have any workable answers.

 

[TAE]

I know.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Kind of a one trick pony isn't he? Rather like mears with his "produce a plan for world peace immediately or stop criticising America all the time" thing.

It's be nice to get some intelligent right-wing arseholes for a change.

 

[TAE]

At least R.Y. has some "interesting" points of view.

 

[nino_savatte]

Does he?

 

[angry bob]

No, not nice one. Sorry.

Article VI establishes (in part) that the U.S. Constitution, the federal laws promulgated thereunder, and treaties take precedent over the Constitutions and laws of the individual states. This is what is meant by the phrase "supreme law of the land". It places treaties over the California Constitution (say), it does not place treaties over the U.S. Constitution, which is the subject of this thread. Try again, lads.

Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls 'the supreme Law of the Land.

Let me get this straight. The constitution states that treaties (made 'by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate' ) are the 'supreme law of the land' and equivalent to federal legislation. You say that this statement does not trump the constitution even though it is in the constitution?

What's up with that?

Presumably you are saying that this part of the constitution is not as important as some other part?

Which is kinda interpretative dont you think?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls 'the supreme Law of the Land.

Let me get this straight. The constitution states that treaties (made 'by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate' ) are the 'supreme law of the land' and equivalent to federal legislation. You say that this statement does not trump the constitution even though it is in the constitution?

What's up with that?

Presumably you are saying that this part of the constitution is not as important as some other part?

Which is kinda interpretative dont you think?

Maybe there are bits of the constitution that he don't like -- Amendment 13 for instance

 

[rogue yam]

Domestically, treaties to which the United States is a party are equivalent in status to Federal legislation, forming part of what the Constitution calls 'the supreme Law of the Land.

Let me get this straight. The constitution states that treaties (made 'by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate' ) are the 'supreme law of the land' and equivalent to federal legislation. You say that this statement does not trump the constitution even though it is in the constitution?

Quite so. Here's the deal: In an ideal world there would never be federal legislation or treaties that conflict in any way with the Constitution. Congress and the President (in the case of federal legislation), or the President and the Senate (in the case of treaties) would draft legislation and treaties in such a way as to avoid any conflict. But in the real world, shit happens. Interpretations differ, various agendas come into play, issues are forced. Conflicts over the meaning of laws or treaties and how they compare to the requirements under the Constitution arise. Here is where the U.S. Supreme Court plays its role. Someone sues in federal court to have a federal law or a treaty declared unconstitutional, i.e. voided on the grounds that it conflicts with the Constitution. The Supreme Court rules. If they say there is no conflict, the law or treaty stands. If they declare that law or treaty unconstitutional, then it is made void. Congress and the President then have the option of redrafting the law or treaty to avoid the conflict, or else they can amend the Constitution. It is a somewhat convoluted system, what with three co-equal branches of government and a Constutution that cannot be violated, but it is quite robust and perfectly rational. The work of geniuses, in fact.

 

[nino_savatte]

So every country - except for the the US - must adhere to UN resolutions and international laws...that's the deal - right?

 

[TAE]

Any country can say:
"Actually, we don't want to honour agreement X because of Y" and suffer consequence Z.

Whether such a country is then taken seriously by the international diplomatic community is another matter. If one does not adhere to one's agreements then one may be seen as untrustworthy.

 

[nino_savatte]

Any country can say:
"Actually, we don't want to honour agreement X because of Y" and suffer consequence Z.

Whether such a country is then taken seriously by the international diplomatic community is another matter. If one does not adhere to one's agreements then one may be seen as untrustworthy.

Unfortunately for us all, the US always takes this line. It expects other countries to obey international treaties and laws but flouts them itself. The US insisted that Iraq comply with UN weapons inspections but then deiced that they couldn't be arsed to await the outcome and took largely unilateral action in order to sieze control of Iraq's energy supplies.