the problem in this argument is that when a treaty is signed and ratified by congress, the constitution itself says that the treaty becomes the supreme law of the land.

america already made the decision of what international law means to us. bush just doesn't understand that he is not the king, and does not actually speak for all of america.

"...for which its legal advisers Chief Executive will never be forgiven."

Buck stops where?

...ignoring, of course, that as a practical matter, EVERY country acts like this once their own interests are threatened or impacted.

The war on terror isn't even a war. It's a bullshiat bumper sticker slogan meant to rally people together and slap "terrorist" on anything we don't like. Including dictators that we can't fit in our back pockets.

Amazingly, there are enough jingoistic idiots out there that still believe in it.

cirby: ...ignoring, of course, that as a practical matter, EVERY country acts like this once their own interests are threatened or impacted.

Yeah, about that...

What distinguishes the Iraq war is that it was ostensibly waged in the name of pre-emptive self-defense.

The Bush administration has insisted on the right of a sovereign nation to determine for itself what international law means.


Then it isn't international law, it's just international talk and words. Without a single authority for interpreting and enforcing law (may not be the same authority for both), there is no law. Just justified and rationalized desires... i.e. morality. That's the difference between morality and law.

What stupidity.

Clever Neologism: Then it isn't international law, it's just international talk and words. Without a single authority for interpreting and enforcing law (may not be the same authority for both), there is no law. Just justified and rationalized desires... i.e. morality. That's the difference between morality and law.

What stupidity.

So you think that international law is an impossible term without the existence of a single world government? Interesting.

FTFA: To the extent that international law can be made, it is made through actual state practice - whether in the form of custom, or in the manner states implement treaty obligations. In the areas relevant to the war on terror, there is precious little state practice against the U.S. position, but a very great deal of academic orthodoxy

In other words: Int'l law is ill-defined and mostly a theoretical discourse by legal scholars.

I agree with the authors. Can't penalize the attorneys for this.

/....slightly biased...

wolvernova: The war on terror isn't even a war. It's a bullshiat bumper sticker slogan meant to rally people together and slap "terrorist" on anything we don't like. Including dictators that we can't fit in our back pockets.

It makes me wonder how different it would all be had we declared war specifically on Al Qaeda.

Most controversial, of course, was the Bush administration's insistence that the Geneva Conventions have limited, if any, application to al Qaeda and its allies (who themselves reject the "Western" concepts behind those treaties); and the administration's authorization of aggressive interrogation methods, including, in at least three cases, waterboarding or simulated drowning.

The Geneva convention covers how to handle combatants that do NOT ACCEPT the Geneva convention.

Obviously the authors of this article have no clue what is actually in the Geneva convention but that doesn't seem to stop them from telling others that actually have read it that they are wrong about it.

I wonder why the authors of that article act like the Supreme Court has "upheld" most of the decisions and arguments of the Bush Administration, when nearly every case reaching the SCOTUS has gone against them?

This article is so full of fail, it would take me an hour or so to pick apart all of its pathetic arguments.

John Yoo wrote a memo saying that the President could ignore the 4th Amendment and could authorize US Military operations in the US. The Justice Department itself withdrew the opinion and said it wasn't consistent with the law. What more does it take than having several of their own admit it was wrong, everyone else saying it was wrong, the Supreme Court telling you - you are wrong to get these bozos to admit they were and continue to be wrong?

lawboy87

But would you agree with the authors that the legal counsel cannot now be held accountable for violation of int'l law by giving their advice?

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are alleged war criminals.

They should be tried at the Hague.

"This is at bottom the sin for which its legal advisers will never be forgiven."

Because its the only thing the Bush administration has ever done that might actually hurt big business.

STFU, WSJ.

Koalaesq:
In other words: Int'l law is ill-defined and mostly a theoretical discourse by legal scholars.

I agree with the authors. Can't penalize the attorneys for this.

/....slightly biased...

Geneva Conventions (new window)

As per article 49, 50, 129 and 146 of the Geneva Conventions I, II, III and IV, respectively, all signatory states are required to enact sufficient national laws that make grave violations of the Geneva Conventions a punishable criminal offense.

So you are saying the president isn't bound to US law?

The US had to still past it.

You guys make it sound that it's not official US law. It is!

Are you not aware of this?

The targets of this witch hunt include some of the country's finest legal minds...

"Finest legal minds", BWAHAHA! Rich, that.

lawboy87: I wonder why the authors of that article act like the Supreme Court has "upheld" most of the decisions and arguments of the Bush Administration, when nearly every case reaching the SCOTUS has gone against them?

This article is so full of fail, it would take me an hour or so to pick apart all of its pathetic arguments.


It's the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal. You expected anything different?

vernonFL: Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are alleged war criminals.

They should be tried at the Hague.

Yes they should.

Ah yes, this is actually based on a very old legal precedent

"Might makes Right! Might for Right!
Might for Might! Right for Might!
Fight! Fight! Fight!"

Don't know Cerebus?



Well, don't have a Conniptin fit over it.

Corvus

Sweety, I am aware of it.

So the US did not pass those laws. What is the international community going to do to us?

Nothing. Maybe a harshly worded letter.

Which is my point: If laws can't be enforced, they are useless.

Koalaesq: But would you agree with the authors that the legal counsel cannot now be held accountable for violation of int'l law by giving their advice?

Lawyers: "Hey you can't hold us accountable since we were just giving opinion. The administration acted on it."

Administration: "Hey you can't hold us accountable we were only doing what we thought was legal cause our lawyers said it was."

Interrogators: "Hey you can't hold us accountable we were only following orders and were told it was legal by the administration."

So no one is apparently accountable. Great system we have here.

The targets of this witch hunt include some of the country's finest legal minds


It's really more like a war criminal hunt, and if those are what the WSJ calls "fine legal minds", I'd hate to see their idea of a BAD lawyer.

koalaesq,

If I told a client that in my legal opinion he could legally torture someone and they followed that advice, do you think I wouldn't be liable under criminal statutes? When their opinions were so obviously out of touch with what the law actually says, at what point are they immune from responsibility for what happened to people who were harmed by their failures?

If you and I couldn't get away with it, why should they be immune?

Koalaesq: Corvus

Sweety, I am aware of it.

So the US did not pass those laws. What is the international community going to do to us?

Nothing. Maybe a harshly worded letter.

Which is my point: If laws can't be enforced, they are useless.

So are you saying we are not a signatory state?

cirby
...ignoring, of course, that as a practical matter, EVERY country acts like this once their own interests are threatened or impacted.

No, only the short sighted ones who don't think that the other countries won't respond in kind.

You'll get it soon enough, when in real times of war and true devastation you discover that any overseas agreements you break will come back to bite you in the ass 20 fold. Terrorism is nothing compared to the real farked up crap that could happen.

I think Subby is misinterpreting the opinion of the columnists:

In doing so, however, they did no more than assert the right of this nation - as is the right of any sovereign nation - to interpret its own international obligations.

But that right is exactly what is denied by many international lawyers inside and outside the academy.

To the extent that international law can be made, it is made through actual state practice - whether in the form of custom, or in the manner states implement treaty obligations. In the areas relevant to the war on terror, there is precious little state practice against the U.S. position, but a very great deal of academic orthodoxy.

"Sin", was used sarcastically, I think. Authors agree that all governments effectively write their own definition of international law and is saying that "academic orthodoxy" is the only real force behind a push to punish lawyers for delivering their opinions regarding the definition of torture or war crimes.

Actually, Subby altered the quote as originally written (unless its been edited on him). Bad Subby.

Hi,

I'm just here to Godwin this thread...

Koalaesq: So the US did not pass those laws. What is the international community going to do to us?

But we did!! this is what you don't seem to understand. We did pass these laws:

The primary source of international humanitarian law (also called the laws of war) is the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which the United States ratified in 1955.

http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

We did. It is US law.

Corvus

So are you saying we are not a signatory state?

No, I am not saying that. Don't try to change my meaning. I'm saying we're a signatory who did not follow through.

Koalaesq: So the US did not pass those laws.

The U.S. didn't ratify the Geneva Conventions?

QU!RK1019: It makes me wonder how different it would all be had we declared war specifically on Al Qaeda.

That's a novel idea. I think the country would have backed that just as well. This administration's incompetence is staggering, but they know how to take advantage of people's patriotism.

lawboy87

If I told a client that in my legal opinion he could legally torture someone and they followed that advice, do you think I wouldn't be liable under criminal statutes? When their opinions were so obviously out of touch with what the law actually says, at what point are they immune from responsibility for what happened to people who were harmed by their failures?

If you and I couldn't get away with it, why should they be immune?

You can't compare the fluctuations of international law with a basic criminal act. For one reason (which is the point I am TRYING TO GET THROUGH), cops would arrest you and a court would try you in your instance. Who will arrest the US's attorneys like Yoo and try them?

Koalaesq: So the US did not pass those laws. What is the international community going to do to us?

You don't know what you are talking about.

The United States has incorporated international prohibitions against torture and mistreatment of persons in custody into its domestic law. The United States has reported to the Committee Against Torture that: "Every act of torture within the meaning of the Convention is illegal under existing federal and state law, and any individual who commits such an act is subject to penal sanctions as specified in criminal statutes. Such prosecutions do in fact occur in appropriate circumstances. Torture cannot be justified by exceptional circumstances, nor can it be excused on the basis of an order from a superior officer. "

We did make it US law. Now Please tell me how Bush and his cronies are above US law again?

QU!RK1019
Sorry, I guess I didn't explain it right- we DID ratify it, we DIDN"T do everything it said.

2wolves: "...for which its legal advisers Chief Executive will never be forgiven."

Buck stops where?

Seriously. They plainly fetch themselves some yes men so they can claim that it's not arbitrary personal whim and then the WSJ tries to play it like the Administration was duped by laying the blame on yes men's shoulders?

Fark you, neocons.

Senescent Dawn:
So you think that international law is an impossible term without the existence of a single world government? Interesting.

Not an impossible term, just a meaningless and inaccurate one. I don't see how it could be otherwise. Without it you have neither enforcement or any semblance of a coherent legal framework. Just competing opinions and ultimately force to resolve them.

This administration has justified it's actions based upon the supposition that there is no higher authority to be sought to settle issues. And I can't say that they are pragmatically wrong. The UN has no teeth (and we, the US, keep it that way).

wolvernova: QU!RK1019: It makes me wonder how different it would all be had we declared war specifically on Al Qaeda.

That's a novel idea. I think the country would have backed that just as well. This administration's incompetence is staggering, but they know how to take advantage of people's patriotism.

I just like to imagine how different the objectives would have been. Osama Bin Laden and all the other leaders would have been brought to justice years ago.

Koalaesq: You can't compare the fluctuations of international law with a basic criminal act. For one reason (which is the point I am TRYING TO GET THROUGH), cops would arrest you and a court would try you in your instance. Who will arrest the US's attorneys like Yoo and try them?

It is US law!
Why don't you read about how "international law" works first.

It has to be ratified by the nations themselves.

Rupert Murdoch strikes again!! BWAHAHAHA!

/anyone else notice the slew of crap that came out within days of the WSJ managing editor's resignation

Koalaesq: QU!RK1019
Sorry, I guess I didn't explain it right- we DID ratify it, we DIDN"T do everything it said.

Oh ok. But... isn't that the problem? Just because nobody can enforce a rule doesn't mean you shouldn't follow it.

Corvus

I wonder how much law you have studied. HAVE you done any besides quotes from websites? We did pass those laws, but not all of them, and besieds, the definition of torture has been played with by our Pres to where we can claim it is not covered by the GC.

Not saying it's right. Just sayin it happened.

Koalaesq
You can't compare the fluctuations of international law with a basic criminal act. For one reason (which is the point I am TRYING TO GET THROUGH), cops would arrest you and a court would try you in your instance. Who will arrest the US's attorneys like Yoo and try them?

The police should, but they always whinge that they "don't have jurisdiction". The people who probably do are the FBI, CIA, or US military, which are all hierarchically run by... the accused.

So, we should really be revolting some time around... NOW!

...okay NOW!

...

Come on everybody, on three this time- one... twooo...

Did Georgie figure out what a sovereign nation is now?

Link (new window)

Koalaesq: So the US did not pass those laws.

Except they did, when Congress ratified the treaties which established those international laws.

Your middle school Social Studies teachers failed you.

I hope the next president fully realizes how much global political capital they can get by prosecuting and convicting the current administration for their multitude of crimes. Thowing the whole lot in jail will send a clear message to other nations, and future politicians.

QU!RK1019

I agree with you!! I'm just pointing out that it's easier said than done. As an earlier poster said, when push comes to shove, a country will do what it damn well feels like if there is no punishment to do otherwise!

Corvus

Honey, are you really going to keep calling into question my knowledge of law? Read my profile. And you are ignoring (missing totally?) my point: we can pass an international law, we can CLAIM we abide by it- but if we don't- WHO ENFORCES IT??

Koalaesq: No, I am not saying that. Don't try to change my meaning. I'm saying we're a signatory who did not follow through.

Oh really??

The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. War crimes under the act include grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It also includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; ...outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.


Here is the act that you say we never passed:

§ 2441. War crimes (new window)

Here is a snippet:

(c) Definition.- As used in this section the term "war crime" means any conduct-
(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party;

Now again how is the Bush admin above US law?

Well, let's skip over the sheer assininity of the statement "the right of a sovereign nation to determine for itself what international law means." If ever nation can decide what it means then its not a law. Convert the sentence to "the right of each citizen to determine what the criminal law means" and you see how utterly unworkable such an assertion is.

But, they are half right. No nation can really be forced to comply with "international law" (it's more like guidelines, really Ms. Turner) except by the application of superior force. And as the US got the biggest stick in the world, no one can FORCE us to comply. That said, it's national suicide to do s Bush is doing and simply ingore international law when it suits him. The Only currency a nation really has in the world is a perception by other nations that it keeps its commitments and is a rational and good citizen (what do you think "full faith and credit of the US government MEANS anyway ?)

Ignoring the rules when you find them inconvenient squanders that goodwill for no good purpose, and is one more example of how Bush's reckless policies will screw us for decades.

Koalaesq: Honey, are you really going to keep calling into question my knowledge of law? Read my profile. And you are ignoring (missing totally?) my point: we can pass an international law, we can CLAIM we abide by it- but if we don't- WHO ENFORCES IT??

It is US law follow the link.

You must be one crappy lawyer. I am sorry for you clients.

corvus

How are they above any law? Because there is no one to punish them.

I am NOT saying it's right. I wish these people WERE punished. I'm saying you can quote laws at me and I can say "show me who will enforce them. No one? Then we don't have to abide."

you obviously just wish to fight and are intentionally misreading what I am saying.

/out