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.

 

NDAA in court over indefinite detention of Americans

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Actually I think you took Exploders response to your questions as mine.




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


after re reading our discusion i had to query this,

Another common misconception. The US Congress is not required to use the term "war" in order for something to be a war.


this looks to be a miss statement,
please define the difference in federal law and international law areans for the definition of war?

xploder



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


On the Domestic front the US Constitution reserves areas of responsibility to the 3 branches. Congress is responsible for declaring war, controlling the purse strings (funding) etc etc etc.

Constitution of the United States of America - Article I Section 8

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...............

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;........


The United States Congress is not subordinate to the UN or International law. Our Constitution prevents foreign treaties from granting / changing authority that was not already present in the Constitution. The section that allows Congress to declare war is purposely left vague to allows for unknown circumstances from the past, present as well as the future. All that is required to declare war is the Congress approving the action. They are not required to use the term declaration of war. Afghanistan and Iraq were authorized under AUMF (Authorization for the Use of Military Force) legislation.

While the UN has their own definitions, Chapter VII Article 51 places justification back into the hands of the party involved.

Another example is the UN treaties that govern law enforcement standards. If the United States were to fully comply with that section, we would be prohibited from handcuffing a suspect with his / her hands behind his back.

International Laws cannot supercede the US Constitution.

The United Nations is not a world government.
The United Nations is not a Democratic entity.
The United Nations cannot legislate domestic law.
The United Nations cannot interfere in our legal system / proceedings.

Ultimately the Government of the United States is solely responsible for protecting / defending the US and its citizens, in addition to assisting other nations through mutual regional treaties.

The United Nations does not have the authority to direct a nation to the bathroom, let alone its national defense.

The link underneath gives details from how US laws work for war, how the UN does there thing etc. It should help answer some of the questions or at least fill in some of the blanks.
International Law / United Nations - Declaration of war

I cant say this enough. The United States Government, by the consent of the people, works for, is responsible for and answers to the People, not the UN. Treaty obligations, as I stated before, become a part of the body of Federal law and are integrated into our system so long as it is consistent.

A quick comparison on the off chance it shows as a rebuttal.
I made the argument that UN treaties dont trump domestic law. The counter argument some may have would be Iran and its enrichment programs. People could argue their actions are consistent with internal Iranian laws even though they violate international treaties.

I would note that North Korea was a member of the IAEA / NPT and withdrew from it to continue their program.
The United States withdrew from the International Criminal Court as it was not compatible with our legal system.

If Iran wants nukes, all they need to do is withdraw from the treaties.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Actually I think you took Exploders response to your questions as mine.


Hi xcath
LOL I am sure you are correct. My head is still spinning from the read here.
please forgive.
the best ljb



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Sorry but not a valid suit/ case. "COULD result" doesn't cut it in court of law where you have no standing until you HAVE actually suffered harm/damages.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

i must admit it is confusing,
but im NOT trying to say you are beholdent to the UN at all,
im asking if war as defined by the UN (not ratifyed by the USA) affects your affiairs,
as your domestic law and security council membership is not a question here,

what happens under the situation where what you see under the use of military force as justifyed,
but by definition of the treaty you are not signatory to,
other countries who did sign could think it was defined as something different?

i wounder how such "language" is incompable?
i am only a citizen interested because i have no real understanding of how all this works,
i am not a lawyer or a business man and am only asking these questions for reasons of debate and general knowledge

xploder



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Maybe some one can tell me if the flag function for this thread is working ???
I went to flag and where it normally says flag, well that is blank and when pressed does nothing?????
thanks ljb
PS this also happened to another member's thread I tried to flag.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
i must admit it is confusing,
but im NOT trying to say you are beholdent to the UN at all,
im asking if war as defined by the UN (not ratifyed by the USA) affects your affiairs,
as your domestic law and security council membership is not a question here,


The US complies with treaties so long as they don't violate our own laws and don't prohibit us from defending ourselves through use of the military. There are going to be times, and this is not just isolated to the US, where a country faces a situation where they are required to act, with that action falling outside of UN parameters.

I would say it affects us to the point of a situation occuring where action must be taken. The question then becomes do we follow international law / UN treaties or do we take action knowing the UN won't.The idea of the UN was and still is a good one - allowing nationas to come and talk to resolve issues instead of going to war. When the UN moved from that arena and into the realm of them thinking its a world government that countries are beholden to, they (imo) went to far.

If International law / UN states a country cannot perform a military action against another country that is plotting to attack, and they must wait for the attack first in order to be justified in using military force, how exactly is that train of thought logical?

The Government of the US is responsible for the USA's national security, not the UN.
If the Us is attacked, its our forces that will respond, not the UN.


Originally posted by XPLodER
what happens under the situation where what you see under the use of military force as justifyed,
but by definition of the treaty you are not signatory to,
other countries who did sign could think it was defined as something different?

Those countries are free to interpret and act, and again imo, in violation of a treaty if that treaty has an adverse effect.


Originally posted by XPLodER
i wounder how such "language" is incompable?
i am only a citizen interested because i have no real understanding of how all this works,
i am not a lawyer or a business man and am only asking these questions for reasons of debate and general knowledge

xploder


Its incompatible because International Law is subordinate to US Domestic Laws. The Constitution prescribes who the head of our military is and what body is responsible for declaring war and paying for it.

So long as International Law is in line with our Domestic law, there is no issue. There are areas of International law by the way that have been incorperated into US laws, specificallt in the military area.

The incompatability part comes in when International law is in conflict with US Domestic laws. If the US Federal goernment passes a law, and a State passes a law thatis the oppositie of Federal law, Federal law will trump the state law, invalidating it (Supremacy clause of our constitution). hat same standard is applied to international treaties because once those treaties are ratified they become a part of the federal body of law.

I do want to clarify something.. My argument on this is from the Us stand point only. I am not stating the US can do this and other countries can't. The UK has some conflicting laws with EU laws, and they have ignored those conflicts in favor of their domestic laws.

Maybe this will help -
The UN Charter / treaties are not a suicide pact.
The US Constitution is not a suicide pact.

It is impossible to pass laws that can account for every single possibility. In US law enforcement, a lot of police agencies do not use the term policies and procedures. That term insinuates that these are the department policies and the procedures and if you violate them your done. It also has caused issue in court where defense attorneys will latch onto that argument and go from there. They paint the picture the officer is out of control and cannot comply with their own policies, let alone enforce state law.

A lot of law enforcement agencies have moved over to the term standard operating guidelines. The same restrictions are in place as policies and procedures, but it acknowledges the fact that just because P and P states you cannot do something, like shoot from a moving vehicle, doesn't mean there won't ever be a time where that is the only possible and proper course of action.

i would argue that some UN treaties should have the same standard as if it were a guideline. Adopt international law that outlaws war, but allow for the possibility that sometimes war is the only possible outcome.

A law by design is to prohibit / stop certain types of behavior. At no point should those laws be followed if the end result improperly affects / restricts the wrong party.

It is illegal to take a persons life in the United States. The law however recognizes the possibility that there are situations where the use of deadly force, under certain conditions, is permissible. The classification is still the same. It will be logged as a homicide with the addition of justified.

Even when law enforcement or even states / federal government when they carry out a death sentence. The cause of death is still listed as homicide with circumstances.
edit on 4-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join