Whats he afraid of?

[Jarod]

Cheney Slams Obama's 'Politicized' Probe of CIA Interrogations
In blunt, unsparing language, former Vice President Dick Cheney accuses President Obama of setting a "terrible precedent" by launching an "intensely partisan, politicized look back at the prior administration," seeming to question Obama's fitness as commander-in-chief.
By Bill Sammon

FOXNews.com

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Calling it a "terrible decision" that undermines national security and devastates CIA morale, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed the Obama administration's probe of aggressive interrogation of terrorists.

"It's an outrageous political act that will do great damage, long-term, to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say," Cheney told "FOX News Sunday" in a no-holds-barred interview.


WHATS HE AFRAID OF?

[uscitizen]

One thing is that his revisionistic history will be rewritten correctly.

another aspect is that Cheney supported the torture. And as we all know Republicans just cannot be wrong.

[Jarod]

Cheney Slams Obama's 'Politicized' Probe of CIA Interrogations
In blunt, unsparing language, former Vice President Dick Cheney accuses President Obama of setting a "terrible precedent" by launching an "intensely partisan, politicized look back at the prior administration," seeming to question Obama's fitness as commander-in-chief.
By Bill Sammon

FOXNews.com

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Calling it a "terrible decision" that undermines national security and devastates CIA morale, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed the Obama administration's probe of aggressive interrogation of terrorists.

"It's an outrageous political act that will do great damage, long-term, to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say," Cheney told "FOX News Sunday" in a no-holds-barred interview.


WHATS HE AFRAID OF?


I want people with this much power to be worried about what those reviewing there actions will say!

[DamnYankee]

...

WHATS HE AFRAID OF?

Taking away important tools to protect America.

Obama's precedent-setting decision to prosecute political enemies from former Administrations will create an interesting situation when the Obama Administration is itself the former Administration. LOL

[uscitizen]

I want people with this much power to be worried about what those reviewing there actions will say!


Would Cheney have been posturing like this if Palin/McCain had been elected?

[Jarod]

Taking away important tools to protect America.

Obama's precedent-setting decision to prosecute political enemies from former Administrations will create an interesting situation when the Obama Administration is itself the former Administration. LOL

True, and thus I expect Obama will watch his ass and not do anything illegal!

[belme1201]

Cheney Slams Obama's 'Politicized' Probe of CIA Interrogations
In blunt, unsparing language, former Vice President Dick Cheney accuses President Obama of setting a "terrible precedent" by launching an "intensely partisan, politicized look back at the prior administration," seeming to question Obama's fitness as commander-in-chief.
By Bill Sammon

FOXNews.com

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Calling it a "terrible decision" that undermines national security and devastates CIA morale, former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed the Obama administration's probe of aggressive interrogation of terrorists.

"It's an outrageous political act that will do great damage, long-term, to our capacity to be able to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions, without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say," Cheney told "FOX News Sunday" in a no-holds-barred interview.


WHATS HE AFRAID OF?



Indictment. A "no holds barred interview"? "All it lacked was wet kisses!" (I forgot who said it, but so true.)

[maineman]

frog marching into a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

[DamnYankee]

True, and thus I expect Obama will watch his ass and not do anything illegal!


frog marching into a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
You liberals and your infatuation with anal sex. :eek:

[uscitizen]

You liberals and your infatuation with anal sex. :eek:

yeah pretty sad, but not as bad as your just wanting everyone not like you to die.

[Damocles]

I believe he is thinking about people who work in the CIA, afraid to do their jobs because what they are told is okay in one instance suddenly may not be okay in the next. I think he may believe that we are tying the hands of the newly rebuilt HUMINT while it is still in its juvenile stage...

[Socrtease]

I believe he is thinking about people who work in the CIA, afraid to do their jobs because what they are told is okay in one instance suddenly may not be okay in the next. I think he may believe that we are tying the hands of the newly rebuilt HUMINT while it is still in its juvenile stage...Bullshit! you and I were both in the military and we both knew what was and was not acceptable in the treatment of the enemy. The CIA needs to have the same rules that are scrupulously applied. If you are ordered to violate those rules, or you violate them of your own accord there needs to be swift and immediate sanctions. The end does not justify the means, at least it didn't when that was the overriding belief system of the Soviet Union. Cheney is afraid that crimes will be made public and his friends will have to pay.

[charver]

Bullshit! you and I were both in the military and we both knew what was and was not acceptable in the treatment of the enemy. The CIA needs to have the same rules that are scrupulously applied. If you are ordered to violate those rules, or you violate them of your own accord there needs to be swift and immediate sanctions. The end does not justify the means, at least it didn't when that was the overriding belief system of the Soviet Union. Cheney is afraid that crimes will be made public and his friends will have to pay.

What he said.

You either value the rule of law or you don't.

[Mott the Hoople]

Taking away important tools to protect America.
You mean like torture?

[Damocles]

What he said.

You either value the rule of law or you don't.
True that. I'm just saying that is likely how he justifies it in his mind. HUMINT does not have to contain "enhanced interrogation techniques," nor should it. There was a reason that the Iraqi military was so ready to surrender in the first Gulf Conflict, and it wasn't because they were sure we'd torture them.

[Mott the Hoople]

You liberals and your infatuation with anal sex. :eek:Well after 8 years of Bush he had to learn how to like taking it up the ass!!!

[DamnYankee]

You mean like torture? We used frat boy pranks. Torture is cutting and burning and shit like that. Don't be a wussie.

[Mott the Hoople]

What he said.

You either value the rule of law or you don't.
Ahmen Bro! If Obama reinforces the precedent that no one is above the law then Fuck Cheney, he's dong a real good thing.


What I hear Dick Cheney saying is "What we were doing was right, therefore it was above the law."

[Mott the Hoople]

We used frat boy pranks. Torture is cutting and burning and shit like that. Don't be a wussie.
We've gone over this time and again. You're just factually wrong.

[DamnYankee]

We've gone over this time and again. You're just factually wrong.
No, you just don't understand the dictionary definition of torture. *shrug*

[maineman]

No, you just don't understand the dictionary definition of torture. *shrug*

the legal definition is what matters. sorry.

what does the supreme law of the land say... not what mirriam webster says.

[DamnYankee]

the legal definition is what matters. sorry.

what does the supreme law of the land say... not what mirriam webster says. Your definition doesn't apply to combatants, sorry.

[maineman]

Your definition doesn't apply to combatants, sorry.

the definition in the UN treaty most certainly does.... it applies to EVERYONE.

sorry.

[DamnYankee]

the definition in the UN treaty most certainly does.... it applies to EVERYONE.

sorry.
Actually, it applies to folks who abide by the treaty. Sorry.

[maineman]

Actually, it applies to folks who abide by the treaty. Sorry.

you're wrong. sorry.

and we ought to abide by it in any case...it IS the supreme law of OUR land.

[DamnYankee]

you're wrong. sorry.

and we ought to abide by it in any case...it IS the supreme law of OUR land. Actually, as usual, I'm right on this. In spite of your vehement opinion.

[maineman]

Actually, as usual, I'm right on this. In spite of your vehement opinion.

the definition of torture in the UN treaty applies to the United States and everyone who serves it....

it IS the supreme law of the land.

sorry....any opinion you have to the contrary is inaccurate.

[DamnYankee]

the definition of torture in the UN treaty applies to the United States and everyone who serves it....

it IS the supreme law of the land.

sorry....any opinion you have to the contrary is inaccurate.

Actually, it does not apply to non-signers of the UN treaty, which of course means terrorists. An applicable analogy would be that it is an offense to point a loaded gun at someone, unless that person poses a threat, then it is perfectly legal.

[maineman]

Actually, it does not apply to non-signers of the UN treaty, which of course means terrorists. An applicable analogy would be that it is an offense to point a loaded gun at someone, unless that person poses a threat, then it is perfectly legal.

wrong. it is not a treaty that only applies between citizens of two signatory countries...it applies to how those serving signatory countries treat anyone else.

sorry. read the treaty. I have.

[DamnYankee]

wrong. it is not a treaty that only applies between citizens of two signatory countries...it applies to how those serving signatory countries treat anyone else.

sorry. read the treaty. I have.I've read the treaty, and like any other law or regulation, does not exist in a vacuum. It is therefore subject to the same legal situation that makes pointing a gun at someone legal or illegal depending on the prior actions of the "pointee". Sorry.

[maineman]

I've read the treaty, and like any other law or regulation, does not exist in a vacuum. It is therefore subject to the same legal situation that makes pointing a gun at someone legal or illegal depending on the prior actions of the "pointee". Sorry.

nowhere in the UN treaty does it state or even imply that one must be a citizen of a signatory nation in order to be protected by the treaty.

sorry.

[DamnYankee]

nowhere in the UN treaty does it state or even imply that one must be a citizen of a signatory nation in order to be protected by the treaty.

sorry.Again, like any other law or regulation, the UN treaty does not exist in a vacuum. Sorry.

So if you have nothing new to add...

[Jarod]

I believe he is thinking about people who work in the CIA, afraid to do their jobs because what they are told is okay in one instance suddenly may not be okay in the next. I think he may believe that we are tying the hands of the newly rebuilt HUMINT while it is still in its juvenile stage...

Do you really belive that?

[Damocles]

Do you really belive that?
Do you ever read more than one post?

[maineman]

Again, like any other law or regulation, the UN treaty does not exist in a vacuum. Sorry.

So if you have nothing new to add...

it is YOU who are unable to refute the fact that torture, as defined by the UN treaty, is forbidden by the supreme law of OUR land... forbidden against ANYONE.

sorry.

so..if YOU have nothing to add other than your weasly wiggling excuses as to why a treaty signed by our country is not the supreme law of the land, why not do us both a big favor and shut the fuck up?

thanks in advance.

[uscitizen]

What he said.

You either value the rule of law or you don't.

What he said.

[DamnYankee]

it is YOU who are unable to refute the fact that torture, as defined by the UN treaty, is forbidden by the supreme law of OUR land... forbidden against ANYONE.

sorry.

so..if YOU have nothing to add other than your weasly wiggling excuses as to why a treaty signed by our country is not the supreme law of the land, why not do us both a big favor and shut the fuck up?

thanks in advance.

Again, the situation with the UN treaty is analogous to many situations that makes something legal or illegal depending on the prior actions of the parties involved. This includes wiretapping, searches of private property, and detention when there is "probable cause".

So in spite of your wish that the UN supersedes the Constitution as well as common law, it doesn't. Sorry.

[maineman]

Again, the situation with the UN treaty is analogous to many situations that makes something legal or illegal depending on the prior actions of the parties involved. This includes wiretapping, searches of private property, and detention when there is "probable cause".

So in spite of your wish that the UN supersedes the Constitution as well as common law, it doesn't. Sorry.

the UN treaty is, per the constitution, the supreme law of the land.... and your explanation is without merit and no such allowances for torture are contained therein.

sorry.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

the UN treaty is, per the constitution, the supreme law of the land.... and your explanation is without merit and no such allowances for torture are contained therein.

sorry.

Sorry wrong again, maineman. The constitution is greater than treaties.

[maineman]

Sorry wrong again, maineman. The constitution is greater than treaties.

the UN treaty, as per the constitution, is the supreme law of the land...and NOTHING in it contradicts the constitution in any way.

sorry

[Jarod]

Do you ever read more than one post?

You said it, I saw below where you equivocated.... But the question still stands... Do you really belive that!?

[Damocles]

You said it, I saw below where you equivocated.... But the question still stands... Do you really belive that!?
I'll repeat what I said since you refuse to actually read more than the one post.

I said:
True that. I'm just saying that is likely how he justifies it in his mind. HUMINT does not have to contain "enhanced interrogation techniques," nor should it. There was a reason that the Iraqi military was so ready to surrender in the first Gulf Conflict, and it wasn't because they were sure we'd torture them.

Now that I've "read" it to you, are you going to continue to pretend that your question has any merit? To call it "equivocation"? I've been straight forward and clear on what I believe, and what I think the VP is doing by justifying his current statements.

[Jarod]

You said...

"I believe he is thinking about people who work in the CIA, afraid to do their jobs because what they are told is okay in one instance suddenly may not be okay in the next. I think he may believe that we are tying the hands of the newly rebuilt HUMINT while it is still in its juvenile stage..."

Then you said something contradictory...

"...I'm just saying that is likely how he justifies it in his mind. HUMINT does not have to contain "enhanced interrogation techniques," nor should it. There was a reason that the Iraqi military was so ready to surrender in the first Gulf Conflict, and it wasn't because they were sure we'd torture them."

Your two statements are in contradiction to each other, thus the question stands, do you really belive your first statement?

What is true, your first statement of your second? And, as to the one you say is untrue, why did you write it if it were untrue?

[Jarod]

If you truely belive your second statement, "...I'm just saying that is likely how he justifies it in his mind. HUMINT does not have to contain "enhanced interrogation techniques," nor should it. There was a reason that the Iraqi military was so ready to surrender in the first Gulf Conflict, and it wasn't because they were sure we'd torture them." and not your first...

Then another question stands, What is Cheney really afraid of? Not how does he "justifies it in his mind".

[Damocles]

If you truely belive your second statement, "...I'm just saying that is likely how he justifies it in his mind. HUMINT does not have to contain "enhanced interrogation techniques," nor should it. There was a reason that the Iraqi military was so ready to surrender in the first Gulf Conflict, and it wasn't because they were sure we'd torture them." and not your first...

Then another question stands, What is Cheney really afraid of? Not how does he "justifies it in his mind".
In justifying it, that is what he "fears". I don't think he allows a full rendering of the issue even to himself, that introspection is not one of his strong suits. It would take a personal belief that he had done something wrong, instead he works out justification.

I believe both of the statements.

[Jarod]

In justifying it, that is what he "fears". I don't think he allows a full rendering of the issue even to himself, that introspection is not one of his strong suits. It would take a personal belief that he had done something wrong, instead he works out justification.

I believe both of the statements.

I see, so you have it both ways, in your mind...!

[Jarod]

Ususally when someone, "justifies" something its because they dont want to admit the truth to themself or others. What "truth" is he avoiding admiting to himself or others?

[PostmodernProphet]

the UN treaty, as per the constitution, is the supreme law of the land...

that's just silly.....if the UN treaty were the supreme law of the land, the constitution would be looking to the treaty for authority, rather than the other way around.....

now if you just want to say the constitution makes the treaty valid law, (which I still would disagree with), your statement at least wouldn't be nonsense....

[Damocles]

Ususally when someone, "justifies" something its because they dont want to admit the truth to themself or others. What "truth" is he avoiding admiting to himself or others?
That would be something he would need to find out through introspection. It may be that he has no personal fear. You project your own thoughts onto him, then expect others to think exactly as you do, if they give a different answer you talk about how it is "in their head."

I don't think he has anything to personally fear at all, and also I do not believe that anybody will be prosecuted.

Does that mean I think that "enhanced interrogation" is necessary and that it should be done? No, it doesn't.

[DamnYankee]

the UN treaty is, per the constitution, the supreme law of the land.... and your explanation is without merit and no such allowances for torture are contained therein.

sorry.

Again, in spite of your wish that the UN supersedes the Constitution as well as common law, it doesn't. Sorry.

[Jarod]

That would be something he would need to find out through introspection. It may be that he has no personal fear. You project your own thoughts onto him, then expect others to think exactly as you do, if they give a different answer you talk about how it is "in their head."

I don't think he has anything to personally fear at all, and also I do not believe that anybody will be prosecuted.

Does that mean I think that "enhanced interrogation" is necessary and that it should be done? No, it doesn't.

WHere have I expected others to "think exactly as I do"?

SO what do you belvie Cheney was "justifying"?

[Damocles]

WHere have I expected others to "think exactly as I do"?

SO what do you belvie Cheney was "justifying"?
More often than not past administrations remain silent. I think he justifies going public with opinions using exactly what I said.

You expect me to "think exactly as you do" in a belief that he is personally afraid of something, when I give a likely and different point of view you say it is "in my mind." If you wish to practice a bit of personal introspection it is right there before you.

I do not believe that Cheney is personally afraid of anything here, and have given my reason why. I think he justifies his current action using exactly what I said he uses. And lastly, since you insist he "fears" something, I believe that at most he "fears" the crippling of HUMINT.

I disagree with the "necessity" of specific types of HUMINT, because it makes the fields more difficult for soldiers if the "enemy" is sure that we will use certain techniques, it makes the "enemy" less likely to surrender.

[maineman]

Again, in spite of your wish that the UN supersedes the Constitution as well as common law, it doesn't. Sorry.

nowhere have I said that the UN supercedes the constitution. Common law does not apply when statute clearly defines torture, and that definition is, according to OUR constitution, the supreme law of the land.

Mirriam Webster's definition is absolutely irrelevant.

sorry

[maineman]

that's just silly.....if the UN treaty were the supreme law of the land, the constitution would be looking to the treaty for authority, rather than the other way around.....

now if you just want to say the constitution makes the treaty valid law, (which I still would disagree with), your statement at least wouldn't be nonsense....

have you ever READ the constitution?

From Article VI:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

[Damocles]

have you ever READ the constitution?

From Article VI:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
It binds the judges and executives of each state to that particular law, it does not supersede the constitution itself. One law cannot supersede that which gives it authority. It specifically excludes the Constitution of the US and says only that it supersedes the constitutions of the States.

[Jarod]

More often than not past administrations remain silent. I think he justifies going public with opinions using exactly what I said.

You expect me to "think exactly as you do" in a belief that he is personally afraid of something, when I give a likely and different point of view you say it is "in my mind" it is right there before you.

I do not believe that Cheney is personally afraid of anything here, and have given my reason why. I think he justifies his current action using exactly what I said he uses. At most he "fears" the crippling of HUMINT.

I disagree with the "necessity" of specific types of HUMINT, because it makes the fields more difficult for soldiers if the "enemy" is sure that we will use certain techniques, it makes the "enemy" less likely to surrender.

I do not expect you to belive that he is afraid of anything, to me when you answered my question, "what is he afraid of" by saying...

"I believe he is thinking about people who work in the CIA, afraid to do their jobs because what they are told is okay in one instance suddenly may not be okay in the next. I think he may believe that we are tying the hands of the newly rebuilt HUMINT while it is still in its juvenile stage..."

You are saying that you do not belive he is afraid of anything. I later asked you if you really belived that to which you directed me to your second post...

"...I'm just saying that is likely how he justifies it in his mind. HUMINT does not have to contain "enhanced interrogation techniques," nor should it. There was a reason that the Iraqi military was so ready to surrender in the first Gulf Conflict, and it wasn't because they were sure we'd torture them."

which made me belive you felt he was "justifying" something that he was really doing out of fear.

Now that I have had the chance to examine you, I understand what you are saying more thoroughly!

[Damocles]

I do not expect you to belive that he is afraid of anything, to me when you answered my question, "what is he afraid of" by saying...

"I believe he is thinking about people who work in the CIA, afraid to do their jobs because what they are told is okay in one instance suddenly may not be okay in the next. I think he may believe that we are tying the hands of the newly rebuilt HUMINT while it is still in its juvenile stage..."

You are saying that you do not belive he is afraid of anything. I later asked you if you really belived that to which you directed me to your second post...

"...I'm just saying that is likely how he justifies it in his mind. HUMINT does not have to contain "enhanced interrogation techniques," nor should it. There was a reason that the Iraqi military was so ready to surrender in the first Gulf Conflict, and it wasn't because they were sure we'd torture them."

which made me belive you felt he was "justifying" something that he was really doing out of fear.

Now that I have had the chance to examine you, I understand what you are saying more thoroughly!
I can repeat it but why?

I'll just copy and paste it.

Here I answer your question:

I do not believe that Cheney is personally afraid of anything here, and have given my reason why. I think he justifies his current action using exactly what I said he uses. And lastly, since you insist he "fears" something, I believe that at most he "fears" the crippling of HUMINT.

Here I give my personal opinion:

I disagree with him on the "necessity" of specific types of HUMINT, because it makes the fields more difficult for soldiers if the "enemy" is sure that we will use certain techniques, it makes the "enemy" less likely to surrender.

I believe that at most he "fears" Obama's actions crippling future HUMINT.

Now you can continue to pretend you cannot comprehend my opinions, or that you have never participated in a conversation where people have made a statement and then further elucidated on that same central theme, but it becomes more inane the further you try to take this. You are beginning to compete for the most personally disingenuous poster.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

that's just silly.....if the UN treaty were the supreme law of the land, the constitution would be looking to the treaty for authority, rather than the other way around.....

now if you just want to say the constitution makes the treaty valid law, (which I still would disagree with), your statement at least wouldn't be nonsense....

what does this mean:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

He said plainly he's afraid of crippling the agencies effectiveness.

Why can't Jarod read?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

nowhere have I said that the UN supercedes the constitution. Common law does not apply when statute clearly defines torture, and that definition is, according to OUR constitution, the supreme law of the land.

Mirriam Webster's definition is absolutely irrelevant.

sorry

i don't think that is right....if recall...the treaty the treaty uses, in part, amend viii of the constitution....which is not clearly defined and has been defined by federal common law....

imo...without going back and reading the treaty, i believe federal common law can be used to define torture by the US under the treaty.....and sometimes, dictionaries are uses to define terms.....

[maineman]

It binds the judges and executives of each state to that particular law, it does not supersede the constitution itself. One law cannot supersede that which gives it authority. It specifically excludes the Constitution of the US and says only that it supersedes the constitutions of the States.

now...if you could only find one single post where I EVER said that any treaty superceded the constitution itself, you'd have some sort of a point.

[DamnYankee]

nowhere have I said that the UN supercedes the constitution. Common law does not apply when statute clearly defines torture, and that definition is, according to OUR constitution, the supreme law of the land.

Mirriam Webster's definition is absolutely irrelevant.

sorry That statute doesn't apply to folks that aren't signers to it and don't abide by its precepts; common law does. Sorry. :pke:

[maineman]

That statute doesn't apply to folks that aren't signers to it and don't abide by its precepts; common law does. Sorry.

you are wrong. the UN treaty protects individuals, not signers.

sorry.

[DamnYankee]

you are wrong. the UN treaty protects individuals, not signers.

sorry. You are again wrong, and can't offer any evidence to the contrary. So since you have nothing further to add...

[maineman]

You are again wrong, and can't offer any evidence to the contrary. So since you have nothing further to add...

Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever"[5] may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.[6] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.[6] Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials.[7] The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.[6] Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.[6]

Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.[6]

[PostmodernProphet]

what does this mean:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

it means that in a conflict between state and federal law, federal law wins....

[Cancel 2018. 3]

it means that in a conflict between state and federal law, federal law wins....

it also means the treaties share power with the constitution

[PostmodernProphet]

nowhere have I said that the UN supercedes the constitution.


that is precisely what you said in the post I replied to.....you said the UN treaty was the supreme law of the land....it isn't, the constitution is.....

[maineman]

that is precisely what you said in the post I replied to.....you said the UN treaty was the supreme law of the land....it isn't, the constitution is.....

read article VI of the constitution.

if you need help understanding it, let me know.

[PostmodernProphet]

it also means the treaties share power with the constitution
???....uh, no.....treaties have power, but it is power granted BY the constitution....

[PostmodernProphet]

read article VI of the constitution.

if you need help understanding it, let me know.

no help needed....no constitutional lawyer would give you the time of day based on that argument.....here's a one sentence summary from the wiki article....can't say it any clearer, so I will quote it...


It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be upheld. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.

the clause does NOT make treaties, or even federal statutes the equivalent of the Constitution......to the contrary, as the article also states....

Clause two provides that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.

[maineman]

no help needed....

then what part of
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

do you NOT understand?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

???....uh, no.....treaties have power, but it is power granted BY the constitution....

then how are both the "supreme law of the land?"....

any treaty of course cannot supersede the constitution....but they both share status as "supreme law"....

the word "and" and "shall" is mandetory language....you can't get around it

[PostmodernProphet]

it also means the treaties share power with the constitution
not even remotely.....

[PostmodernProphet]

then what part of
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"

do you NOT understand?

the part where you try to make it mean something completely unrelated to what it says......

[Cancel 2018. 3]

not even remotely.....

then how are both the "supreme law of the land?"....

any treaty of course cannot supersede the constitution....but they both share status as "supreme law"....

the word "and" and "shall" is mandetory language....you can't get around it

[Damocles]

then how are both the "supreme law of the land?"....

any treaty of course cannot supersede the constitution....but they both share status as "supreme law"....

the word "and" and "shall" is mandetory language....you can't get around it
It makes it equal to laws passed pursuant to the Constitution, one could not pass a treaty that violates the constitution without it being capable of being struck down for non-constitutionality for instance.

[maineman]

unrelated?

Ther is no relatedness being discussed here at all. the words are clear and unambiguous. the constitution, laws made in pursuance of the constitution, and treaties that we make are the supreme law of the land.

that is not RELATED or UNRELATED to anything. it IS what it is.

[PostmodernProphet]

then how are both the "supreme law of the land?"....


in the sense that they both carry more authority than state law, state judges, state constitutions....

look at it this way....federal law creates treaties and eliminates them....how can you argue that treaties and federal law "share" power.....treaties cannot change federal law....ditto federal law and the constitution, and certainly the constitution and treaties.....

this clause of the constitution is about nothing more than state's rights versus federal rights.....you both are trying to make it into something about "treaties" versus "constitution" versus "statutes"......

[maineman]

It makes it equal to laws passed pursuant to the Constitution, one could not pass a treaty that violates the constitution without it being capable of being struck down for non-constitutionality for instance.

absolutely... are you suggesting that the UN treaty against torture violates the constitution?

[PostmodernProphet]

It makes it equal to laws passed pursuant to the Constitution, one could not pass a treaty that violates the constitution without it being capable of being struck down for non-constitutionality for instance.

in reality, it isn't the equal....if a president signs a treaty (Kyoto for example), it isn't law until Congress passes a further resolution making it a law....the treaty itself isn't enforceable, the law Congress passes accepting it is.....

[PostmodernProphet]

unrelated?

Ther is no relatedness being discussed here at all. the words are clear and unambiguous. the constitution, laws made in pursuance of the constitution, and treaties that we make are the supreme law of the land.

that is not RELATED or UNRELATED to anything. it IS what it is.

so what state law are you arguing is in conflict with the treaty?.....unless you are, your argument is unrelated to the clause of the constitution you are raising.....

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It makes it equal to laws passed pursuant to the Constitution, one could not pass a treaty that violates the constitution without it being capable of being struck down for non-constitutionality for instance.

exactly

[Jarod]

He said plainly he's afraid of crippling the agencies effectiveness.

Why can't Jarod read?

I know what he said, I do not belive that is really what Cheney is afraid of. I belive he is afraid of being exposed for what he is.

[DamnYankee]

Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever"[5] may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.[6] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.[6] Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials.[7] The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.[6] Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.[6]

Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16's prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.[6]

That's not evidence to the contrary. Sorry.

[maineman]

so what state law are you arguing is in conflict with the treaty?.....unless you are, your argument is unrelated to the clause of the constitution you are raising.....

Are you suggesting that we are not required to follow the terms of the UN treaty against torture? Are you suggesting that that treaty does not have the force of the supreme law of the land? Or are you saying that, somehow, that treaty contradicts the constitution, and if you are saying that, please show me what portion of the treaty does so.

[maineman]

That's not evidence to the contrary. Sorry.

yes. it is. sorry.

[DamnYankee]

yes. it is. sorry. Again, zero basis for your statement. *shrug*

[maineman]

Again, zero basis for your statement. *shrug*

the treaty wording is quite explicit.... and it IS the supreme law of the land.

and you cannot refute a word of it.

*shrug*

[DamnYankee]

the treaty wording is quite explicit.... and it IS the supreme law of the land.

and you cannot refute a word of it.

*shrug*Just because you keep repeating the same shit doesn't make it true. You never addressed my points about common law. That obviously means that you have no argument. *shrug*

[TuTu Monroe]

I know what he said, I do not belive that is really what Cheney is afraid of. I belive he is afraid of being exposed for what he is.

Believe me, Cheney is not afraid of anything or anyone. He spoke the truth and now his popularity ratings are going up.

[DamnYankee]

Cheney's a great American; a true hero. :)

[maineman]

Just because you keep repeating the same shit doesn't make it true. You never addressed my points about common law. That obviously means that you have no argument. *shrug*

common law does not supercede the constitution.

moron

[TuTu Monroe]

Cheney's a great American; a true hero. :)

You betcha. I would like to see his daughter Lynn run for a public office. She's one sharp woman.

[DamnYankee]

common law does not supercede the constitution.

moron Are you trying to make a point or is this more mental masturbation on your part?

[DamnYankee]

You betcha. I would like to see his daughter Lynn run for a public office. She's one sharp woman.Lynn's his wife. Their daughters are Liz and Mary.

[TuTu Monroe]

Lynn's his wife. Their daughters are Liz and Mary.

Oooooops, I meant Liz.

[uscitizen]

Cheney's a great American; a true hero. :)

He served in the military?

[uscitizen]

Believe me, Cheney is not afraid of anything or anyone. He spoke the truth and now his popularity ratings are going up.

why would anyone do populatity ratings on some not holding or running for an office?

[DamnYankee]

Lynn's his wife. Their daughters are Liz and Mary.

Oooooops, I meant Liz.

Yes, she holds this aggressive interviewer at bay.

2AF9rV0tw6A

[DamnYankee]

He served in the military? I wasn't aware that was a requirement. Is it?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

He served in the military?

then you must believe that obama is not a great american or a hero....

[Cancel 2018. 3]

common law does not supercede the constitution.

moron

so common law does not define or interpret terms in the constitution? it may not supersede it (and its with an S not a C you keep using C) but your argument is all wrong....you don't understand how federal common law works....scotus makes federal common law as well....if you read the treaty....the US signed an exemption or something like that that allows cases of torture to be defined by the 8th amendment....and guess who gets to define that......scotus....eg., common law

[Canceled1]

why would anyone do populatity ratings on some not holding or running for an office?

It certainly isn't normal, but seeing the Liberal whining, thumb-sucking crybabies getting their nappies in a twist over it is...


http://www.redhotlindyhop.com/Images%20Newletter/Nov%202006/Cry-Baby.gif

[uscitizen]

I wasn't aware that was a requirement. Is it?

Well it is if you weasel out of it.

Or were you guys wrong about Clowntoon?

[uscitizen]

It certainly isn't normal, but seeing the Liberal whining, thumb-sucking crybabies getting their nappies in a twist over it is...


http://www.redhotlindyhop.com/Images%20Newletter/Nov%202006/Cry-Baby.gif

I guess it shows that the repubs are still searching for a leader to follow.
Is Rush still #3?

[Canceled1]

Well it is if you weasel out of it.

Or were you guys wrong about Clowntoon?

Answer the question. Is it or isn't it a requirement?

[Canceled1]

I guess it shows that the repubs are still searching for a leader to follow.
Is Rush still #3?

Actually it shows, once again, when confronted with the incessant whining and hand-wringing you libs are defining yourself by, you still end up with pablum running down your chin.

Sooner or later even you should be embarassed that you couldn't get your own dog to follow you to the kibble bowl, oh great wise leader in retirement.

[maineman]

so common law does not define or interpret terms in the constitution? it may not supersede it (and its with an S not a C you keep using C) but your argument is all wrong....you don't understand how federal common law works....scotus makes federal common law as well....if you read the treaty....the US signed an exemption or something like that that allows cases of torture to be defined by the 8th amendment....and guess who gets to define that......scotus....eg., common law

yoiu seem to know a lot about the law... Are you saying that the UN Convention against torture is NOT the supreme law of the land? Are you saying that we are NOT bound to follow it?

[belme1201]

then you must believe that obama is not a great american or a hero....


There was no draft when Obama was service eligible. Cheney applied for and received 5 draft deferments and never served, instead sending those less able than he to avoid the draft to serve for him. I had my notice in hand the day I graduated, Cheney kept using the strings to stay out when he was eligible.
54,000 were killed in a war he supported and avoided.

[uscitizen]

Answer the question. Is it or isn't it a requirement?

Requirement no. But for someone to say that clowntoon was not qualified to be president because he weasled out of the draft and the say that another politician that weaseled out of the draft is a great American hero is hypocritical at worst. Partisan hackmanship at best.

[uscitizen]

Actually it shows, once again, when confronted with the incessant whining and hand-wringing you libs are defining yourself by, you still end up with pablum running down your chin.

Sooner or later even you should be embarassed that you couldn't get your own dog to follow you to the kibble bowl, oh great wise leader in retirement.

So juvenile, just grow up some.

[maineman]

Requirement no. But for someone to say that clowntoon was not qualified to be president because he weasled out of the draft and the say that another politician that weaseled out of the draft is a great American hero is hypocritical at worst. Partisan hackmanship at best.

yahtzee

[Cancel 2018. 3]

yoiu seem to know a lot about the law... Are you saying that the UN Convention against torture is NOT the supreme law of the land? Are you saying that we are NOT bound to follow it?

i read some lawstuff off of google...not an expert...but judge judy taught me everything i know

and i never said what you're asking....i suggest you go back and read what i've said.....because i've actually said it is the supreme law of the land, however, common law can be applied to interpret torture as the scotus can interpret the constitution and treaties.....that is what the judicial branch is for

[maineman]

i read some lawstuff off of google...not an expert...but judge judy taught me everything i know

and i never said what you're asking....i suggest you go back and read what i've said.....because i've actually said it is the supreme law of the land, however, common law can be applied to interpret torture as the scotus can interpret the constitution and treaties.....that is what the judicial branch is for

It is good to see you admit that you are not a legal expert. I am sure you are quite proud of that admission.... however...based upon what you learned from Judge Judy, and from what you know of the senate limitations to the UN treaty, would you say that we have violated that treaty by our treatment of enemy combatants at Gitmo?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It is good to see you admit that you are not a legal expert. I am sure you are quite proud of that admission.... however...based upon what you learned from Judge Judy, and from what you know of the senate limitations to the UN treaty, would you say that we have violated that treaty by our treatment of enemy combatants at Gitmo?

it is illegal to claim you're an expert unless given special certification by the state.....so yes....i am quite proud to not break the law.....and quite proud that i am honest....in a few years i can be eligible....perhaps more google searches....

i do not have the facts of those cases, and i think judge judy would not make a decision without knowing the facts....

for some a good example of how common law applies to treaties....

Kadic v. Karadzic

[Socrtease]

that's just silly.....if the UN treaty were the supreme law of the land, the constitution would be looking to the treaty for authority, rather than the other way around.....

now if you just want to say the constitution makes the treaty valid law, (which I still would disagree with), your statement at least wouldn't be nonsense....American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.

Treaties and other International Agreements: the Role of the United States Senate (Congressional Research Service 2001).

[uscitizen]

Just out of curosity for those who think Dicky Cheney is a great American hero. Please state how you think he earned that status?

Being VP? I am sure you do not think of Al Goretex as a great American hero.
So what do you base that statement on?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Just out of curosity for those who think Dicky Cheney is a great American hero. Please state how you think he earned that status?

Being VP? I am sure you do not think of Al Goretex as a great American hero.
So what do you base that statement on?

do you think obama is?

[uscitizen]

do you think obama is?

No not yet anyway. And at this point not likely to be unless he changes his ways.
He has certainly not earned hero status at this point in time.

I answered your question, now answer mine.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No not yet anyway. And at this point not likely to be unless he changes his ways.
He has certainly not earned hero status at this point in time.

I answered your question, now answer mine.

why? i don't fit your criteria.....

[uscitizen]

why? i don't fit your criteria.....

No but you were trying to deflect for your cronies.
You have taken on their stench by association.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No but you were trying to deflect for your cronies.
You have taken on their stench by association.

meadowmuffins....i have no cronies and i smell no stench....

how i was trying to deflect anything is beyond me....i was trying to understand what you considered an american hero....unless someone shows me more....i don't consider cheney a great american hero.....

jenna jameson on the other hand

[Socrtease]

do you think obama is?The word hero has been completely deflated by Americans. Atheletes are called heros, people that just do their jobs are called heros. Used to be that heros had to be heroic. They were required to place the good of others, especially comrades in arms, above their own. They had to go above and beyond the normal call of duty, usually at the expense of their own lives. Mere service in the military is not heroic.

This is what a Hero looks like:

SHUGHART, RANDALL D.

Rank: Sergeant First Class
Organization: U.S. Army
Company:
Division:
Born: Newville, Pennsylvania
Departed: Yes (10/03/1993)
Entered Service At:
G.O. Number:
Date of Issue:
Accredited To:
Place / Date: 3 October 1993, Mogadishu, Somalia

Sergeant First Class Shughart, United States Army, distinguished himself by actions above and beyond the call of duty on 3 October 1993, while serving as a Sniper Team Member, United States Army Special Operations Command with Task Force Ranger in Mogadishu, Somalia. Sergeant First Class Shughart provided precision sniper fires from the lead helicopter during an assault on a building and at two helicopter crash sites, while subjected to intense automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenade fires. While providing critical suppressive fires at the second crash site, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader learned that ground forces were not immediately available to secure the site. Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader unhesitatingly volunteered to be inserted to protect the four critically wounded personnel, despite being well aware of the growing number of enemy personnel closing in on the site. After their third request to be inserted, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader received permission to perform this volunteer mission. When debris and enemy ground fires at the site caused them to abort the first attempt, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader were inserted one hundred meters south of the crash site. Equipped with only his sniper rifle and a pistol, Sergeant First Class Shughart and his team leader, while under intense small arms fire from the enemy, fought their way through a dense maze of shanties and shacks to reach the critically injured crew members. Sergeant First Class Shughart pulled the pilot and the other crew members from the aircraft, establishing a perimeter which placed him and his fellow sniper in the most vulnerable position. Sergeant First Class Shughart used his long range rifle and side arm to kill an undetermined number of attackers while traveling the perimeter, protecting the downed crew. Sergeant First Class Shughart continued his protective fire until he depleted his ammunition and was fatally wounded. His actions saved the pilot's life. Sergeant First Class Shughart's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest standards of military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the United States Army.

http://www.cmohs.org/recipient-detail/2198/shughart-randall-d.php

[DamnYankee]

Well it is if you weasel out of it.

Or were you guys wrong about Clowntoon? He didn't weasel out of it.

[uscitizen]

He didn't weasel out of it.


HUH? He could have gone in the service after his multiple deferments.
They were deferrments after all not exemptions.
You blind hackmanship is showing.