It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

can another country question Obama's legitimacy as US President??

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Not a "birther" myself as I won't vote for his re-election purely based on his policy. That being said I have wondered why it's been such a challenge to simply provide the required proof to put this particular conspiracy to bed.

My question in the title was stimulated by a horrible story about Obama selling out our British friends big time.
Link Here
www.telegraph.co.uk...#
If a Nation in Treaty with the US is unhappy (disgusted) with the policy of the US can they question the legitimacy of the leader entering into said Treaty?
I would hope that they could as to have integrity in our agreements.
What say you?
And flamers please remember..I'm not personally a "birther"...but I might be arming them with an idea.




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by howmuch4another
 


Thread about the above article by Stormdancer777 here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by howmuch4another
 


The only people that can talk about America are Americans.

Otherwise you need enough guns to avoid getting massacred. Is that right? No, but that is reality.

America is Earth's bully.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


I'm not quick enough to know what this has to do with my question...seems like it's just a bash.

want to weigh in on if it's really possible to void a treaty based on this question instead?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by howmuch4another
 


No bash at all. Sorry for keeping it too real.

No one can tell America anything.

We have the WMDs.

We control the economy without controlling our debt.

The reality is that everyone buys into the ideals and values that America imposes on everyone.

It is an interesting phenomenon that America can tell other countries what to do but no one can tell America anything.

Your question is a great one.

The reality is someone will have to take a stand against the self-appointed ruler of Earth attitude that America has of itself.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


I think I'm catching up...so your saying they don't challenge things like this out of intimidation?
I can buy that...but as you said it isn't right.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by howmuch4another
 


Hmmm.. interesting question.

Legally, I do not know the answer. However, ethically I would think if such a thing could be proven then the country could opt out as one of the parties was operating over false pretenses.

Given the article in question - I wouldn't blame the UK for any treaty or agreement they canceled at this point - and I say that as an American. You just don't stab friends in the back. Its shameful what was done.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


I'm in alignment with EVERYTHING you posted. here is a star



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Seriously. Of course they can "question" his legitimacy, but they can't really DO anything about it. Obama just did the same thing to Mubarak. Happens all the time. I guess if a country were angry enough with the US they could withdraw from a treaty, using any excuse they wanted to. But as far as a successful legal challenge? A US Court would have to agree and I just see that as highly unlikely.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


hey schuyler..thanks for chiming in.

not that we would recognize them but how about The Hague?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Not a direct answer but me being British let me point this out...

Prince Charles was married and got divorced... Under royal law, this unentitles him to the throne... He then got the 100's of years traditional law changed which again entitled him to the throne... Hmmmm....

Prince Harry who is to wed Kate Middleton is seeking to get the traditional law changed to allow their first born if it be a female to take the throne... Now under traditional law if a royal king/queen have a daughter first and then a son, the son takes the throne. Under the proposed law the first born whether it be male or female will take the throne.

This goes to show that those in power have the power.

If you actually go back in British history, the Queen was never REALLY entitled to the thrown for a few reasons...

AND the queen is German not British.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I don't know about another nation have legal grounds, but they might have a lot of secrets the are willing to expose.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


HOW ANTI-AMERICAN OF YOU
if i were you i wouldn't leave the house for a few days now. and don't mind the black choppers flying around the backyard.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by scottlpool2003
 


you just dropped a bunch of facts I did not know on me. Thanks



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Well they say Assange might get the peace prize so I think you're onto something.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by howmuch4another
reply to post by schuyler
 

not that we would recognize them but how about The Hague?


I'm no expert, but I don't think so. As I understand it, in order to be binding, both parties, i.e.: countries, must agree to follow the ruling. I can't conceive of a situation where the US would agree to such a stipulation. Ot's kind of like following a UN Resolution. I would think that the US would declare this an internal matter and refuse to participate. Just my opinion. I don't know for sure.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Interesting. Along that line of reasoning (an I agree we would simply say bugoff) could NATO nations compel validation in order to keep the pact together?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by howmuch4another
reply to post by schuyler
 


Interesting. Along that line of reasoning (an I agree we would simply say bugoff) could NATO nations compel validation in order to keep the pact together?


You certainly have some interesting twists to this! (BTW, I am not opposed to your sentiments.) I should probably just say "I dunno" and shut up about this, but fools rush in and that would be me.

Once again I say "No" and this is because a treaty is not just with the head of state, but with the country as an entity and, in our case, ratified by Congress. Something like NATO would be even more difficult because you have so many countries involved. I doubt you could get them to agree on any action, particularly if some countries like the path Obama is following, which is to make the US more like them and less conservative. My sense is that though they may think of Obama as naive, they still would rather see him with his socialist tendancies in office rather than a right wing conservative like [insert your favorite right wing zealot here].

I used to have a friend who actually has a PhD in treaties. I wish I could call him up and ask his opinion, but we have lost touch with each other. Alas....

The issue of legitimacy of a head of state is also tricky. The US has treaties with many countries whose heads of state simply seized power one way or another with no validation other than force. The Army propped up Mubarak, for example, and 'furnished' his legitmacy as well as that of Sadat and Nassar before him.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


I wish you could just call your friend also. Your replies are certainly thoughtful. Using you example of HOS coming to power I think that this (voiding a treaty) would probably only fall on the treaties he personally signed if it could be done at all.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by howmuch4another
reply to post by schuyler
 


Using your example of HOS coming to power I think that this (voiding a treaty) would probably only fall on the treaties he personally signed if it could be done at all.


The thing is, treaties that Obama personally signs are signed with Obama as Head of State representing the country itself. Unlike a treaty with "The King of Spain," for example, the treaty is not between Obama as an individual and another country (or individual). The "legal entity" here is the country, not the person, and that is in all ther documents. The fact that in our system such a treaty must be ratified by Congress shows that "the people" must also be involved and agree to the treaty. If a country, such as Russia, for example, which just ratified an arms treaty with us, accepts the treaty, then it's a done deal. Subsequent Heads of State cannot dismiss the treaty (not legally, anyway) and are bound by it. The entire treaty/diplomacy thing is built on this.

That's a major worry in Israel right now, the fear that the treaty negotiated by Sadat (or his minions, more likely) and upheld by Mubarak, might be abrogated if the government is held to be invalid. Netanyahu, for his port, has also adhered to the treaty signed by Begin. My guess is that is now US strategy, to ease Mubarak out WHILE MAINTAINING the "legitomacy" (OK. I laugh, too) of the current governmental infrastructure of Egypt to maintain continuity (And for that we need the Egyptian Army). If this turns into an Iranian-style revolution, all bets are off and we would be in for a very scary ride.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join