This ought to be an interesting thread...

/goes to make some popcorn

I started reading this and it seemed a little too "chicken-little". Then I noticed who wrote the thing.

I am all for sovereignty, and I would not trust US citizens in the hand of a World Court with judges from every 3rd world banana republic. However, I would expect that the State Departments top lawyer would have a duty be an advocate within the US for international justice organizations.

Now if this guy was going to be attorney general, or even a US Attorney, I would be a little more concerned.

mr_a: I started reading this and it seemed a little too "chicken-little". Then I noticed who wrote the thing.

I am all for sovereignty, and I would not trust US citizens in the hand of a World Court with judges from every 3rd world banana republic. However, I would expect that the State Departments top lawyer would have a duty be an advocate within the US for international justice organizations.

Now if this guy was going to be attorney general, or even a US Attorney, I would be a little more concerned.

I love that every time I see that name now, it brings a smile to my face.

/thanks, Dan!

something something "frothy mix" something something...

Ummmm...someone explain to me without hyperbole why America taking an interest in something beyond our borders being a bad thing?

Abstruse: Ummmm...someone explain to me without hyperbole why America taking an interest in something beyond our borders being a bad thing?

'cause we don't want no furriners tellin us what to do.

How could I believe believe that

By Rick Santorum

Heh.

Abstruse: Ummmm...someone explain to me without hyperbole why America taking an interest in something beyond our borders being a bad thing?

It isn't a bad thing at all. However if I'm hiring a lawyer to represent me then I expect him to have me as his number one priority. Similarly I expect the US' top lawyer to put his country's interests ahead of some vaguely worded "international legal regime". If those interests are similar then all is good. If they aren't then we (we the people/politicians) need to talk it out & decide if going against someone else's interests is in our best long term interest rather than defaulting to the world opinion.

Let's set aside Koh's disputed comments about the possible application of Sharia law in American jurisprudence.

Then why did you bring them up?
That's like saying, "let's set aside Rick Santorum's association with the frothy mix of fecal matter and lube that is often the byproduct of anal sex."

John Paul Jones: 'cause we don't want no furriners tellin us what to do.

I'm serious...is there an actual reason us paying attention to the international stage is a bad thing?

"look beyond" != "defer to"

Abstruse: I'm serious...is there an actual reason us paying attention to the international stage is a bad thing?

For closeminded jingoistic right-wing nutjobs, yeah. Read my last post.

Abstruse: I'm serious...is there an actual reason us paying attention to the international stage is a bad thing?

John Paul Jones: For closeminded jingoistic right-wing nutjobs, yeah. Read my last post.

In other words, he has no answer.

I wasn't paying attention to who authored the article until I read the last line. I need a shower.

Dancin_In_Anson: In other words, he has no answer.

Wait, so you think this is bullshiat fearmongering too?

John Paul Jones: Wait, so you think this is bullshiat fearmongering too?

I think that anytime some one passes off something like "closeminded jingoistic right-wing nutjobs" as a legitimate point of discussion it translates to "I have no valid point of discussion".

I defer to Recoil Therapy's excellent post to describe my thoughts of the situation.

Dancin_In_Anson: I think that anytime some one passes off something like "closeminded jingoistic right-wing nutjobs" as a legitimate point of discussion it translates to "I have no valid point of discussion".

When pointing out the mentality of someone who believes that the US lives in a vacuum and has no need to deal with other countries except for the occasional invasion, it's perfectly valid.

FWIW, I, too agree completely with Recoil Therapy.

Abstruse: John Paul Jones: 'cause we don't want no furriners tellin us what to do.

I'm serious...is there an actual reason us paying attention to the international stage is a bad thing?

None whatsoever. The reasons are only figments of Santorum's deranged imagination.

HAHAHA

Santorum

Go to hell, dumbass

I miss the good ole days when the nation's top lawyer was concerned about pornography from classic marble statues.

My friends, Elections have consequences. Suck it up!

before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans

And we owe our independence in large part to the help of the French. That he didn't immediately acknowledge this (and I'll try to read more to see if he comes full disclosure) marks this as partisan hackery.

Watching President Obama apologize last week for America's arrogance - before a French audience

farking Jesus.

Koh's "transnationalism" stands in contrast to good, old-fashioned notions of national sovereignty, in which our Constitution is the highest law of the land. In the traditional view, controversial matters, whatever they may be, are subject to democratic debate here. They should be resolved by the American people and their representatives, not "internationalized." What Holland or Belgium or Kenya or any other nation or coalition of nations thinks has no bearing on our exercise of executive, legislative, or judicial power.

I have to agree with him on this point. Transnationalism is great in theory, but with no enforcement mechanism for international law through force, international law is largely toothless. That's why you see countries like Iran, North Korea, and Israel basically saying "fark you UN, write your resolutions"

I am reminded of a classic Dave Chappelle skit:



Go ahead, UN. Go ahead and sanction me. Sanction me with your army. Oh, wait, that's right. You don't have an army! I guess that means you need to shut. the. fark. up!

I stopped reading when he started out with Obamuh hates 'Murika.

h8_u_2: My friends, Elections have consequences. Suck it up!

This too, unfortunately. To the winner goes the spoils.

oh my god he's talking about COOPERATING WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW?!! FASCISM!!!1!
/the people that held that conference say that the "sharia" comment never happened.
//seriously, this shiat is getting old already. no black helicopters, kids.

Yes because the greater good of all people is not as the greater good of Americans and those fortunate enough to be born in this country, despite their lack of productivity, intelligence, or contribution to society.

You fail submitter. You fail hard.

KaponoFor3: I have to agree with him on this point. Transnationalism is great in theory, but with no enforcement mechanism for international law through force, international law is largely toothless. That's why you see countries like Iran, North Korea, and Israel basically saying "fark you UN, write your resolutions"

It's interesting how you list a few failures of international law and just assert the whole scheme has failed. You make no mention of the places where it has greatly succeeded, which would probably undermine your point. Interesting how you do that.

KaponoFor3: I have to agree with him on this point.

Just about anything ever posted on Fark makes a valid point -- even if it's just proper grammar.

As far as the general Bachmanesque thesis that the Obama administration is actively subverting American sovereignty, that's bat shiat insane.

Looking for mutual interest of all nations may help when US needs their helps later... Just a thought.

The Santorum is strong in this one.

DamnYankees: It's interesting how you list a few failures of international law and just assert the whole scheme has failed. You make no mention of the places where it has greatly succeeded, which would probably undermine your point. Interesting how you do that.

I haven't listed any failures of international law nor have I asserted that the whole scheme has failed.

Man, you have selective reading to the extreme.

I said, and I still maintain, that international law is effectively toothless because it lacks a strong enforcement mechanism -- do you disagree?

I can't tell what is worse, paying Santorum to write an article (on anything except losing) or the people who will read it and nod their heads in agreement.

We are part of an international community. As such we should try to live within the structure of its laws and try not to pull a Reagan whenever we feel the need to show off the size of our dick. We are not the world's police, the world has never asked us to be nor do they want us to be.

And the honest truth is we can no longer afford to be what we aren't - even though we never really could afford this stupidity at any time.

It's time for this country to grow up and act more like a responsible neighbor than the neighborhood bully.

This isn't change we can believe in, it's change we need to accept.
There will be a lot more of it coming home to us soon. Get used to it.

Our turn. Sit down, shut up Conservatives. You had your chance, screwed up. Let the grownups handle things.

jrsharfan: How could I believe believe that

Oh how I wish I could believe or understand that!

So basically interpret the Constitution to mean things it doesn't say because the international community believes otherwise.

Sounds like a plan for success!

Abstruse: John Paul Jones: 'cause we don't want no furriners tellin us what to do.

I'm serious...is there an actual reason us paying attention to the international stage is a bad thing?

Personally, I don't like America being bound by rules that weren't passed by our own elected representatives. Most international bodies (UN, EU) have little accountability to voters.

KaponoFor3: I haven't listed any failures of international law nor have I asserted that the whole scheme has failed.

Sorry. When you said "international law is largely toothless", it sure was a huge leap for me to think you were considering it a rather pointless endeavor, and essentially a failure.

KaponoFor3: I said, and I still maintain, that international law is effectively toothless because it lacks a strong enforcement mechanism -- do you disagree?

Yes. I do. Vigorously.

DarnoKonrad: As far as the general Bachmanesque thesis that the Obama administration is actively subverting American sovereignty, that's bat shiat insane.

I think its pretty stupid to overreact like many on the right are, no doubt. Now, is this administration steering the giant ship of state closer to internationalism/"transnationalism" than it was before? Yes, I think that is clear and I think the Obama administration would agree to that. The question is whether those baby steps are enough to go batshiat crazy over. Under a slippery slope theory, perhaps, but I don't really think its anything to get our panties in a bunch over.

Discussing the issue of Constitutionality superiority/supremacy versus international norms of law though is a worthy exercise.

KaponoFor3: Go ahead, UN. Go ahead and sanction me. Sanction me with your army. Oh, wait, that's right. You don't have an army! I guess that means you need to shut. the. fark. up!

You realize that this little tirade basically admits that might is the last arbitrator of what it right and wrong and that justice is really only what is demanded by the barrel of a gun.

Interesting position for an attorney to take.

This is an increasingly idiotic smear campaign. There is nothing even remotely controversial about Harold Koh's legal views.

Harold Koh is not a radical legal figure. He is the dean of the most prestigious law school in the country, and he has served with distinction in both Democratic and Republican administrations (under Presidents Clinton and Reagan). In that capacity he has sued both Democratic and Republican administrations. He was confirmed unanimously 11 years ago, and yet this time around, he is supposedly a threat to American sovereignty. It's, quite frankly, ridiculous.

In other words, how every level of society works: interactions and trade offs between narrow and/or short-term self-interests and broad and/or long-term self-interests.

PC LOAD LETTER: Our turn. Sit down, shut up Conservatives. You had your chance, screwed up. Let the grownups handle things.

have fun expanding the war in Afghanistan and never leaving Iraq. Liberal Bush = Liberal Obama

You know... I recalled states in North America joined together for mutual interest, it creates this insanely powerful and prosperous entity. I keep forgetting its name.

DamnYankees: Sorry. When you said "international law is largely toothless", it sure was a huge leap for me to think you were considering it a rather pointless endeavor, and essentially a failure.

No, it's me saying that it is largely ineffective because there is no threat of force, which is the ultimate "stick" in negotiations with countries. Iran, North Korea, and Israel do not give a shiat about what the United Nations because there is really nothing that they can do. Any attempt at serious sanctions will be vetoed by one of the major Security Council power (US for Israel, Russia/China for Iran/North Korea). They can basically give a big middle finger to the UN and the IAEA for that very reason.

Note that I am not suggesting the UN start building a military to enforce its edicts or anything of the sort. I don't think they could even if they tried. Good luck convincing countries to send their soldiers to be under the orders of some UN military leader, not likely.

DamnYankees: Yes. I do. Vigorously.

Then why do Israel, Iran, and North Korea basically say "fark you" anything the UN passes a resolution condemning them?

I know it's wrong to mock a crying girl... but she'll do alright in life. I'm thinking she'll be a standout lawyer at Liberty University and from there she'll move into a cushy gig at the Heritage Foundation. Get married to a well-connected Republican boy and pop out a few rug rats.

There, now I feel better about laughing at the crying girl.