Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(UPI)   International Courts: U.S. must follow international law. U.S. Supreme Court: Suck it. USA. USA. USA   (upi.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, U.S. Supreme Court, war on terror, International Court, United States, Military Commissions Act, Gitmo detainees, Geneva Conventions, U.S. Court of Appeals  
•       •       •

37922 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2010 at 10:42 AM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



377 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-01-10 09:22:02 AM  
Nice to know that the treaty clause of the constitution is meaningless.
 
2010-01-10 09:26:54 AM  
From the opinion: "War is a challenge to law, and the law must adjust," Brown wrote. "It must recognize that the old wine skins of international law, domestic criminal procedure or other prior frameworks are ill-suited to the bitter wine of this new warfare.


That's the ticket. Throw out all legal framework, both international and domestic, and create a judicial system comparable to a drunken croquet match.
 
2010-01-10 09:42:06 AM  
Cool, the US Circuit Court of Appeals is now the Supreme Court, and that court saying that "US courts can only rule on US laws" means "SUCK IT USA USA USA". Nice to know that, I would've assumed otherwise.
 
2010-01-10 09:45:10 AM  
Stay classy, US.
 
2010-01-10 09:49:21 AM  
I'm pretty sure that this entire article was written purely as a vehicle for the word "paean." Probably on a dare.
 
2010-01-10 09:50:14 AM  
What article were you reading subby? Surely not the one you attached to your fantasy.

Where does your article say anything about what international courts have ruled about the U.S.?

Where does the article say anything about the latest ruling coming from the U.S. Supreme Court?

Yes, it is a powerful court. Yes, it is a disturbing ruling, but it's only the two minute warning for the loss of Constitutional rights, not the final gun.
 
2010-01-10 09:54:19 AM  
Uh, UPI, I hate to tell you this but that wasn't the Supreme Court. Even the worst Justice wouldn't write that:

"War is a challenge to law, and the law must adjust. It must recognize that the old wine skins of international law, domestic criminal procedure or other prior frameworks are ill-suited to the bitter wine of this new warfare."

Not even the couple of assholes on the Supreme Court would be so casually dismissive of two hundred years of Habeas corpus.
 
2010-01-10 09:54:55 AM  

notmtwain: Where does the article say anything about the latest ruling coming from the U.S. Supreme Court?


The title of the article, unfortunately.
 
2010-01-10 09:57:54 AM  

Abstruse: Cool, the US Circuit Court of Appeals is now the Supreme Court, and that court saying that "US courts can only rule on US laws" means "SUCK IT USA USA USA". Nice to know that, I would've assumed otherwise.


To be fair to subby, the article makes no allusion to the Supreme court, but the headline of the article does. I think this is a case of a journalist being an idiot, and the subby only reading the first half of the first paragraph before submitting.

/No, I'm not bitter about all those redlights under my belt, not at all...
 
2010-01-10 10:01:05 AM  
"War is a challenge to law, and the law must adjust," Brown wrote

She sounds like an activist judge
 
2010-01-10 10:03:45 AM  

vernonFL: "War is a challenge to law, and the law must adjust," Brown wrote

She sounds like an activist judge


More like an anarchist judge.
 
2010-01-10 10:04:04 AM  
Evidently, you morons have no desire to be a sovereign nation.
 
2010-01-10 10:06:33 AM  

real shaman: Evidently, you morons have no desire to be a sovereign nation.


So you're against the WTO, NAFTA, and NATO?
 
2010-01-10 10:07:18 AM  
real shaman: Evidently, you morons have no desire to be a sovereign nation.

We ceased to be a sovereign nation when we started relying on the Saudis (and those filthy Canadians) for our oil and became debtors to the Chinese and Japanese.

These days the only truly sovereign nations are the ones nobody wants to trade with.
 
2010-01-10 10:08:06 AM  

real shaman: Evidently, you morons have no desire to be a sovereign nation.


Ha ha ha ha that's exactly what the apologists are going to say when they get here. It's always nice to take the wind out of their sails by predicting the quite ridiculous spin they're likely to put on it.
 
2010-01-10 10:15:05 AM  
"War is a challenge to law, and the law must adjust," Brown wrote. "It must recognize that the old wine skins of international law, domestic criminal procedure or other prior frameworks are ill-suited to the bitter wine of this new warfare. We can no longer afford diffidence. This war has placed us not just at, but already past the leading edge of a new and frightening paradigm, one that demands new rules be written. Falling back on the comfort of prior practices supplies only illusory comfort."

Jesus Christ is every conservative a crying, weak, coward? What a pathetic country we've become in so many ways.
 
2010-01-10 10:19:23 AM  

DamnYankees: "War is a challenge to law, and the law must adjust," Brown wrote. "It must recognize that the old wine skins of international law, domestic criminal procedure or other prior frameworks are ill-suited to the bitter wine of this new warfare. We can no longer afford diffidence. This war has placed us not just at, but already past the leading edge of a new and frightening paradigm, one that demands new rules be written. Falling back on the comfort of prior practices supplies only illusory comfort."

Jesus Christ is every conservative a crying, weak, coward? What a pathetic country we've become in so many ways.


What I find hilarious is that our "Founding Fathers" were some of the very first terrorists. They were guerrilla fighters who would do such cowardly things as using German rifled guns to be more precisely aimed and specifically targeting officers...hiding in trees for ambush strikes then running away...not standing in a line across from one another firing unrifled muskets and letting God decide the victor. We were some of the first terrorists, now we're freaking out over "terrorism".
 
2010-01-10 10:20:09 AM  

Abstruse: What I find hilarious is that our "Founding Fathers" were some of the very first terrorists. They were guerrilla fighters who would do such cowardly things as using German rifled guns to be more precisely aimed and specifically targeting officers...hiding in trees for ambush strikes then running away...not standing in a line across from one another firing unrifled muskets and letting God decide the victor. We were some of the first terrorists, now we're freaking out over "terrorism".


They also hid their provisions inside churchs so that the British wouldn't find them.
 
2010-01-10 10:20:09 AM  
"...a new and frightening paradigm..."

Not particularly new.
Not at all.
 
2010-01-10 10:22:05 AM  

Bucky Katt: Nice to know that the treaty clause of the constitution is meaningless.


quite a lot of the constitution has been invalidated. just look what the war on drugs did to the 4th and 5th amendments. stands to reason that the war on terror would gut whatever is left of our rights.

And you know what? people will stand and cheer the erosion of our protections.
 
2010-01-10 10:25:23 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: "...a new and frightening paradigm..."

Not particularly new.
Not at all.


People just forget history. From the time of 1880 to 1920 or so, anarchism terrorism was *MUCH* more scary than Islamic terrorism. Anarchists not only pulled off random bombings, but they managed to pull of the following acts:

Assassinated the President of the United States.
Assassinated the President of France.
Attempted assassination of Kaiser Wilhem, the King of Spain and the Czar.
Assassinated the King of Greece.
Assassinated the PM of Spain.

You might even be able to say they started World War I; no doubt that's how it would have been spun in today's media world. They were a huge force with legitimate power, dwarfing modern terrorism in its effectiveness.

Those who forget history are doomed to ungodly arrogance, and that's what modern conservative foreign policy is so good at in so many ways.
 
2010-01-10 10:29:12 AM  

DamnYankees: People just forget history.


Someone around here is going to argue that the anarchist example actually proves this Judge correct, because the Sedition Act of 1918 was necessary to stop the anarchist scourge. And that we should do much the same today.

Call it a hunch.
 
2010-01-10 10:29:47 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: DamnYankees: People just forget history.

Someone around here is going to argue that the anarchist example actually proves this Judge correct, because the Sedition Act of 1918 was necessary to stop the anarchist scourge. And that we should do much the same today.

Call it a hunch.


Yeah. That's what happened.

:eyeroll:

/not at you, at your theoretical idiot
 
2010-01-10 10:32:36 AM  
The editor for that story should probably be fired. But while Submitter has engaged in a bit of hyperbole, the idea of going it alone and expressly discarding international laws of war as a fundamental framework is pretty much there in full. Of course, this means no one will listen to any U.S. Administration that accuses others of violating "laws of war." That becomes mere rhetoric at this point.
 
2010-01-10 10:34:05 AM  
American exceptionalism; how's that working out for us these days?
 
2010-01-10 10:36:12 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: Someone around here is going to argue that the anarchist example actually proves this Judge correct, because the Sedition Act of 1918 was necessary to stop the anarchist scourge. And that we should do much the same today.


Someone stupid enough to argue that probably doesn't even know what the Sedition Act of 1918 is. That is, until they google it and therefore decide that they have a full grasp on history and law in a historical context.
 
2010-01-10 10:44:35 AM  
WOOOOO!
We are number 1!!! All other competitors are number 2 or lower!!!

Time to start bumping Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner and driving to Idaho to buy me an assault rifle! I'm Nicaragua bound baby!
 
2010-01-10 10:47:16 AM  
You've earned it, subby:

inox.org
 
2010-01-10 10:47:23 AM  
This country espoused many lofty standards of justice...

...until 9/11/2001.

Then we said, "Never mind, we only meant that stuff when it was easy."

/when the going gets tough, the USA gives in
 
2010-01-10 10:49:11 AM  

Weaver95: Bucky Katt: Nice to know that the treaty clause of the constitution is meaningless.

quite a lot of the constitution has been invalidated. just look what the war on drugs did to the 4th and 5th amendments. stands to reason that the war on terror would gut whatever is left of our rights.

And you know what? people will stand and cheer the erosion of our protections.


And fess up the naughty bits just to get on a plane.
 
2010-01-10 10:52:15 AM  
What would you expect from the greatest purveyor of state terrorism (see link).

http://american-genocide.netfirms.com/html/americanstateterrorism/Chro​nologyofT e rror3.html

Gangsters and gangster states like the US don't obey the law.
 
2010-01-10 10:53:28 AM  
Who's the largest arms dealer in the world? Would peace be in it's best interest?
 
2010-01-10 10:53:59 AM  

DamnYankees: Abstruse: What I find hilarious is that our "Founding Fathers" were some of the very first terrorists. They were guerrilla fighters who would do such cowardly things as using German rifled guns to be more precisely aimed and specifically targeting officers...hiding in trees for ambush strikes then running away...not standing in a line across from one another firing unrifled muskets and letting God decide the victor. We were some of the first terrorists, now we're freaking out over "terrorism".

They also hid their provisions inside churchs so that the British wouldn't find them.


...and now we have enough nukes to kill EVERYBODY, several times. We've graduated from terrorism to 'shock and awe', and we'll do as we damn well please.
 
2010-01-10 10:54:20 AM  

vernonFL: real shaman: Evidently, you morons have no desire to be a sovereign nation.

So you're against the WTO, NAFTA, and NATO?


I'm against NAFTA, but I wouldn't group it with those other two.
 
2010-01-10 10:55:20 AM  

Abstruse: Cool, the US Circuit Court of Appeals is now the Supreme Court, and that court saying that "US courts can only rule on US laws" means "SUCK IT USA USA USA". Nice to know that, I would've assumed otherwise.


Yes, it's always nice to see a submitter display the reading comprehenson skills of a 5yr. old.

Not quite as amusing as the "fark lawyers", but worth a chuckle none the less.
 
2010-01-10 10:55:49 AM  

Bucky Katt: Nice to know that the treaty clause of the constitution is meaningless.


So you think al-Bihani should be released? Based on his personal reading of rather vague international laws and customs? Ones we haven't specifically accepted?
 
2010-01-10 10:56:29 AM  
Damn Bush and Cheney. I can't wait until Obama gets into office and.....oh wait.

/nevermind
 
2010-01-10 10:58:24 AM  

DamnYankees: Jesus Christ is every conservative a crying, weak, coward?


Sure seems that way.

Can you imagine worrying that a terrorist is gonna kill you when the probability is so extremely small.

Bunch of wimps.
 
2010-01-10 10:58:32 AM  
the only Law the crony capitalist United States follows is the Law of cold, hard, cash.


and that is the reason why this Nation is in the hole its in.
 
2010-01-10 10:58:33 AM  
 
2010-01-10 10:59:21 AM  

phenn: Weaver95: Bucky Katt: Nice to know that the treaty clause of the constitution is meaningless.

quite a lot of the constitution has been invalidated. just look what the war on drugs did to the 4th and 5th amendments. stands to reason that the war on terror would gut whatever is left of our rights.

And you know what? people will stand and cheer the erosion of our protections.

And fess up the naughty bits just to get on a plane.


I want to fess up my naughty bits.
 
2010-01-10 10:59:31 AM  

Bucky Katt: Nice to know that the treaty clause of the constitution is meaningless.


IIRC, if there's a conflict between a federal law and a treaty, whichever was enacted more recently controls. If the US Constitution and a treaty conflict, the Constitution always controls. I think other countries allow international law to trump their constitution. But the Supreme Court doesn't want to allow the President and Senate to take actions via a treaty that wouldn't be constitutionally permissible as a regular federal law.
 
2010-01-10 10:59:41 AM  

7Mary3and4: This country espoused many lofty standards of justice...

...until 9/11/2001.

Then we said, "Never mind, we only meant that stuff when it was easy."

/when the going gets tough, the USA gives in


we had lots of problems way before 2001. It just got worse in 01.
 
2010-01-10 11:00:31 AM  
Article 11 of the US Treaty with Tripoli laughs at your ideas of abiding to signed treaties.
 
2010-01-10 11:00:50 AM  

vernonFL: real shaman: Evidently, you morons have no desire to be a sovereign nation.

So you're against the WTO, NAFTA, and NATO?


I'm against them. When the only country that abides by the agreement is the U.S. then they're meaningless.
 
2010-01-10 11:02:36 AM  

Walker: Damn Bush and Cheney. I can't wait until Obama gets into office and.....oh wait.

/nevermind


Just wait until one of those conservative SCOTUS judges retires. The crying from the right will dwarf all previous crying when and if he appoints a "liberal" justice.

//I assume anyone other than a to the right of Scalia and Roberts justice will be deemed "too liberal"
 
2010-01-10 11:02:43 AM  

Linux_Yes: the only Law the crony capitalist United States follows is the Law of cold, hard, cash.


and that is the reason why this Nation is in the hole its in

AWESOME.
 
2010-01-10 11:05:30 AM  
Don't be fatuous, subby.
 
2010-01-10 11:07:07 AM  

kukukupo: Linux_Yes: the only Law the crony capitalist United States follows is the Law of cold, hard, cash.


and that is the reason why this Nation is in the hole its inAWESOME.


It's impossible to be awsome when you come in almost last in "The Best Place To Live" survey.

http://www.aarpmagazine.org/lifestyle/Articles/a2004-09-22-mag-global.​html
 
2010-01-10 11:08:52 AM  
It's ironic that you take an oath with one hand on the bible in court while these same courts uphold and protect usury, which is strictly forbidden in that very bible. Legal torture eh? Muhahaha.
 
Displayed 50 of 377 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report