DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Actually, the opposite is true.
Torture
- Thread starter SR_
- Start date
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I would advocate for leaving the UN, except for the fact that we can stay and just vote down all the asinine things they do.
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
Could it be the spinning of this crap and trying to divert attention from the real problems we face, be considered the definition of torture?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
If we pull out they will become financially bankrupt and then if that doesntt kill the beast we'll be able to stand alone and give it the one fingered salute- that's all he veto power that we need.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
If we pull out they will become financially bankrupt and then if that doesntt kill the beast we'll be able to stand alone and give it the one fingered salute- that's all he veto power that we need.
Great idea. Unilateral action is always preferable.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I agree. We don't need to support the rest of them.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
We agreed to, and sign the resolution. That means we should abide by the rules.
If they didn't agree with the measure, then they shouldn't have signed off on it.
And this is not about control of our military. This is about what the international laws (which we agreed to) say.
I would have no problem if we pulled out of the UN.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
WE did not sign anything.
Some butt kissing politicians did.
If the leader of some countries leader signs an agreement that the popullation of that country are now the slaves of the US, does that mean that the population of the US should adhere to it??
W
WinterBorn
Guest
The duly elected leader of our country appointed the person who signed it. And our duly elected leader did not do anything to change it.
Our leaders cannot force anything that is unconstitutional (at least theoretically). But we are not talking about slaves. We are talking a resolution concerning torture. And the only reason we are discussing this UN measure is the insistence by certain people that the Geneva Convention did not apply to unlawful combatants.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
It doesn't.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You didn't answer my question.
The Geneva Convention does address unlawful combatants and they don't get the same consideration as recognized combatants get.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
No I did not. Because the example you used was beyond anything close to credible.
If our leadership signed a resolution, and we, as a population, did nothing to remove the leaders or disavow the resolution, and it did not violate any of our laws, we should abide by the rules.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
True. It only covers lawful combatants and innocent citizens.
Annie
Not So Junior Member
It does address unlawful combatants.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
It says they can be shot, on the spot; or after a Military Tribunal.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
How they are to be treated? Where?
maineman
Banned
this has nothing to do with "listening" to the UN. It has to do with abiding by Article VI of our own constitution.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
maineman
Banned
irrelevant. I am not suggesting that the Constitution is at odds with any treaty. It is not a matter of complying with the treaty or complying with the constitution.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You're the one who insists that our foreign treaties supersede the Constitution- they don't, not by a long shot. The Founders would find your concern for the psychological well being of our vicious enemies amusing if not so disturbing. Washington's troops extracted information from British spies and soldiers, and I doubt that they cared what the French thought about their methods.