I think you should look at the torture issue from a libertarian perspective. Torture is a hallmark of authoritarian governments throughout history, and has/is been used as a means to brutally force one's will on another individual. Using torture as a method of interrogation becomes an excuse that hides the real reason why governments use torture: people get consumed by power and want to abuse their power in any means possible to show their dominance over others. It's not a coincidence that governments who regularly use torture tend to be extremely authoritarian.
the US government could use torture as a means of interrogation. Whether or not it is an effective means is a different matter altogether.
It is still illegal under international law, which the US is supposed to follow. But hey, we have a pretty long history of throwing that sort of thing out the window and hoping no one notices.
Ah. See, we shouldn't have done that. Horrible as they were, these people knew how to deal with their extremists. We should've left them to it.
Syria has been on the "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list for like 40 years. Yes, the Assads would happily massacre a city from time to time if the extremists targeted their regime, but I'm not sure that counts as "knowing how to deal with extremists" if you're also sponsoring them to fight elsewhere in the world. Palestinian Islamic Jihad has their headquarters in Damascus. So did Hamas until recently.
America wasn't having problems with ISIS until after we ousted Saddam and started helping the rebels in their fight against Assad. They're fights we had no business being in, and I'm surprised we've got politicos that want to keep up those fights. Iraq's FUBAR, but we should let Assad and Putin sort out their own affairs rather than continue nation-building.
America wasn't having problems with ISIS until after we ousted Saddam and started helping the rebels in their fight against Assad. They're fights we had no business being in, and I'm surprised we've got politicos that want to keep up those fights. Iraq's FUBAR, but we should let Assad and Putin sort out their own affairs rather than continue nation-building.
But that's not because Assad is or was somehow doing a good job of "dealing with his extremists".
He was a pretty brutal leader by all accounts, you only need look at the refugee crisis to see it. I imagine that helped cull the extremists somewhat. Not a pleasant thought, though there's no good choices here...but if it ain't broke - don't fix it. Or break it even worse by trying to fix it.
He was a pretty brutal leader by all accounts, you only need look at the refugee crisis to see it. I imagine that helped cull the extremists somewhat. Not a pleasant thought, though there's no good choices here...but if it ain't broke - don't fix it. Or break it even worse by trying to fix it.
But it was broke. He was actively sponsoring a variety of terrorist organizations. Others were operating with impunity from his territory. In what insane world does that count as "ain't broke"?
We didn't have to worry about ISIS while Assad had control of Syria; whatever he may or may not have been sponsoring (I don't see any evidence here), it wasn't impacting America. Hence we didn't need to go and play nation builder in his little sandbox. There's no good choices, but I'll take the lesser evil here, that being the tyrant that keeps his loons out of our business. To bring this discussion back around to the thread, this is something I actually agree with Trump on - we don't need to be fighting Assad or Putin (and Iraq was a monumental mistake on our part). We should be working with Putin and Assad against ISIS.
Of course we needed to worry about them when Assad had control of Syria - they were called ISI and we were fighting them in Iraq.
I'm not saying all of this justifies our involvement in Syria, but it is absolutely false that Assad was doing a good job of handling terrorism, and it's absolutely false that we didn't have to worry about ISIS when he was in control of the country.
We didn't have to worry about ISIS while Assad had control of Syria; whatever he may or may not have been sponsoring (I don't see any evidence here), it wasn't impacting America. Hence we didn't need to go and play nation builder in his little sandbox.
Because maybe you missed it the first time you were told: (1) Assad lost control of his country all on his own. (2) We're not playing nation builder in Syria.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
the US government could use torture as a means of interrogation. Whether or not it is an effective means is a different matter altogether.
It is still illegal under international law, which the US is supposed to follow. But hey, we have a pretty long history of throwing that sort of thing out the window and hoping no one notices.
Given the Supremacy Clause and the implicit violation of sovereignty by international law, I dispute its applicability in the US and elsewhere. This does not even get into the technicality that any law passed by an extrajudicial entity, the international community-for example, is not in fact a law within the US as all laws which may be meaningfully executed by the US must first pass the House, Senate, President, and Supreme Court.
To give a more tangible example of the silliness of the idea of international law: it is something like, say, California instructing Texas to adopt a law without going through the appropriate channels there. Ordinarily, such could occur through the federal government passing a Californian law, but there is no equivalent form of government above the nation. A notable exception is the EU, but the US is not a part of that meta-nation.
Really, until such a time as there is a one world government, international law is a talking point with no teeth.
the US government could use torture as a means of interrogation. Whether or not it is an effective means is a different matter altogether.
It is still illegal under international law, which the US is supposed to follow. But hey, we have a pretty long history of throwing that sort of thing out the window and hoping no one notices.
Given the Supremacy Clause and the implicit violation of sovereignty by international law, I dispute its applicability in the US and elsewhere. This does not even get into the technicality that any law passed by an extrajudicial entity, the international community-for example, is not in fact a law within the US as all laws which may be meaningfully executed by the US must first pass the House, Senate, President, and Supreme Court.
To give a more tangible example of the silliness of the idea of international law: it is something like, say, California instructing Texas to adopt a law without going through the appropriate channels there. Ordinarily, such could occur through the federal government passing a Californian law, but there is no equivalent form of government above the nation. A notable exception is the EU, but the US is not a part of that meta-nation.
Really, until such a time as there is a one world government, international law is a talking point with no teeth.
In the case of international law, we go via the treaty process, which requires the president and 2/3 of the Senate, as the Constitution says. Since the US signed and ratified the Convention against Torture, that's the law of the land.
We didn't have to worry about ISIS while Assad had control of Syria; whatever he may or may not have been sponsoring (I don't see any evidence here), it wasn't impacting America. Hence we didn't need to go and play nation builder in his little sandbox.
Because maybe you missed it the first time you were told: (1) Assad lost control of his country all on his own. (2) We're not playing nation builder in Syria.
Everything I've seen in the media points to US involvement in the nation's destabilization and the refugee rigamarole, and the subsequent power struggles that wouldn't be an issue if the secular warlord was in charge, as opposed to the Middle Eastern version of the Deliverance hillbillies (replace the banjos with their goats). I've got no reason to not trust what I've been told by the news outlets, whereas random people on the internet...there's a portal back to Thunderclap in rural Maine with my name on it.
Adieu, I'm due for tea and cookies with the Crimson King.
We didn't give the rebels weapons to facilitate the uprisings? I'd swear we were complicit there in some capacity.
You might be thinking of Libia were Britain and the France did provide air support to the rebels. Then largely left them to it once the house of cards collapsed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
In the case of international law, we go via the treaty process, which requires the president and 2/3 of the Senate, as the Constitution says. Since the US signed and ratified the Convention against Torture, that's the law of the land.
While this is true, a law must be enforced for it to be more than some ink on a page. As there is no entity which can enforce international law upon the US, at the present time, I must conclude that it is little more than the slimmest of agreements: followed until it is inconvenient. Of course, the moment some entity can, and then does try, to enforce some law against the will of the US at that time, the US will have valid cause to declare war. This is true for every member of the international community, and highlights the fact that any international law, as the term exists today, is a voluntary agreement by each party not to violate its terms and with minimal recourse for punitive measures should it be so violated. In other words, it is not law, in the sense generally meant by the term.
That torture specifically has been so banned is not the point, my point is that all international law is fragile, and, as such, is not the best possible premise for contemplating possible outcomes.
In the case of international law, we go via the treaty process, which requires the president and 2/3 of the Senate, as the Constitution says. Since the US signed and ratified the Convention against Torture, that's the law of the land.
While this is true, a law must be enforced for it to be more than some ink on a page. As there is no entity which can enforce international law upon the US, at the present time, I must conclude that it is little more than the slimmest of agreements: followed until it is inconvenient.
International treaties are enforced by sanctions against the country breaking them.
While this is true, a law must be enforced for it to be more than some ink on a page. As there is no entity which can enforce international law upon the US, at the present time, I must conclude that it is little more than the slimmest of agreements: followed until it is inconvenient. Of course, the moment some entity can, and then does try, to enforce some law against the will of the US at that time, the US will have valid cause to declare war. This is true for every member of the international community, and highlights the fact that any international law, as the term exists today, is a voluntary agreement by each party not to violate its terms and with minimal recourse for punitive measures should it be so violated. In other words, it is not law, in the sense generally meant by the term.
That torture specifically has been so banned is not the point, my point is that all international law is fragile, and, as such, is not the best possible premise for contemplating possible outcomes.
It's no more fragile than US law, because it IS US law. That's what happens when we sign and ratify a treaty. It becomes just as much the law of the land as the those laws passed by congress. What you're making is not an argument about the fragility of international law in particular, but of all laws.
If I break a US law, as a US citizen, I could be: fined, imprisoned, executed, etc. If the US breaks an international law, who shall do similar? Will the US cease to be should Europe ban trade, or whatever other sanctions they deem necessary? No. While any law I break could lead to a serious limitation in my ability to do any particular thing, the same is not true in the case of the US and international law. If the US is removed from the world throne as the most powerful nation, then, and only then, may that law be enforced against the will of the US itself and thus become a law and not an agreement. The ability to enforce is necessary for a thing to be a law.
If I break a US law, as a US citizen, I could be: fined, imprisoned, executed, etc. If the US breaks an international law, who shall do similar? Will the US cease to be should Europe ban trade, or whatever other sanctions they deem necessary? No. While any law I break could lead to a serious limitation in my ability to do any particular thing, the same is not true in the case of the US and international law. If the US is removed from the world throne as the most powerful nation, then, and only then, may that law be enforced against the will of the US itself and thus become a law and not an agreement. The ability to enforce is necessary for a thing to be a law.
This is not a question of the US breaking an international law. This is a question of the president or a cia agent, or whoever, breaking a US law (because that's what treaties that we sign and ratify become). The law that says the government can't torture terrorists is of exactly the same stature, and has exactly the same enforcement mechanisms as the law that says the government can't murder you. If the government tortures someone, and no one goes to jail for it, that's not a failure of the other countries to enforce international law. That's a failure of the US to enforce its own laws.
If I break a US law, as a US citizen, I could be: fined, imprisoned, executed, etc. If the US breaks an international law, who shall do similar? Will the US cease to be should Europe ban trade, or whatever other sanctions they deem necessary? No. While any law I break could lead to a serious limitation in my ability to do any particular thing, the same is not true in the case of the US and international law. If the US is removed from the world throne as the most powerful nation, then, and only then, may that law be enforced against the will of the US itself and thus become a law and not an agreement. The ability to enforce is necessary for a thing to be a law.
This is not a question of the US breaking an international law. This is a question of the president or a cia agent, or whoever, breaking a US law (because that's what treaties that we sign and ratify become). The law that says the government can't torture terrorists is of exactly the same stature, and has exactly the same enforcement mechanisms as the law that says the government can't murder you. If the government tortures someone, and no one goes to jail for it, that's not a failure of the other countries to enforce international law. That's a failure of the US to enforce its own laws.
Presume for a moment that the president, or whoever-acting as an agent of the US government, does torture someone. Who is going to press charges? We, the citizens, cannot due to sovereign immunity, the case would be dismissed upon filing with any clerk of court or judge. Other nations cannot because of the military might which the US enjoys at the present time. The US government will not as it was the entity which perpetrated the torture. Which leaves no entity in existence with the authority or power to handle the transgression. Therefore, if the US government really wanted to torture someone, assumed to be a person interest in a terrorist cell, it could with little to no real repercussions. Therefore, this restriction is not a law, it is a guideline.
Furthermore, the law preventing torture for a non-citizen does not share the same mechanisms as laws preventing torture of citizens. The laws dealing with the prosecution of citizens must dodge the various rights laid out in the Constitution. As the legal protections in th Constitution do not apply to non-citizens, especially terrorists-who are likely to be on the torture block, those protections exist only so long as the US says they do. Unless, again, you suggest non-citizens enjoy precisely the same rights as citizens, which is an argument for the forcible conquest of every corner of the globe and establishment of that one world government which would render this question somewhat moot.
Presume for a moment that the president, or whoever-acting as an agent of the US government, does torture someone. Who is going to press charges? We, the citizens, cannot due to sovereign immunity, the case would be dismissed upon filing with any clerk of court or judge. Other nations cannot because of the military might which the US enjoys at the present time. The US government will not as it was the entity which perpetrated the torture. Which leaves no entity in existence with the authority or power to handle the transgression. Therefore, if the US government really wanted to torture someone, assumed to be a person interest in a terrorist cell, it could with little to no real repercussions. Therefore, this restriction is not a law, it is a guideline.
You are misapplying the concept of sovereign immunity: it shields the federal government from being sued. In fact the procedure for impeaching a federal officer accused of a criminal act is quite clear, as Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton all found out.
As the legal protections in th Constitution do not apply to non-citizens, especially terrorists-who are likely to be on the torture block, those protections exist only so long as the US says they do.
As already pointed out, constitutional protections do apply to non-citizens unless the Constitution specifically says otherwise. (For instance, only citizens have the right to vote because the Constitution uses the word "citizen" when guaranteeing voting rights.) Even were this not the case, the Constitution is not the only law at play here. The Convention against Torture is US law just as much as any federal statute, and it definitely applies to non-citizens.
Unless, again, you suggest non-citizens enjoy precisely the same rights as citizens, which is an argument for the forcible conquest of every corner of the globe and establishment of that one world government which would render this question somewhat moot.
This is just a total non sequitur.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Presume for a moment that the president, or whoever-acting as an agent of the US government, does torture someone. Who is going to press charges? We, the citizens, cannot due to sovereign immunity, the case would be dismissed upon filing with any clerk of court or judge. Other nations cannot because of the military might which the US enjoys at the present time. The US government will not as it was the entity which perpetrated the torture. Which leaves no entity in existence with the authority or power to handle the transgression. Therefore, if the US government really wanted to torture someone, assumed to be a person interest in a terrorist cell, it could with little to no real repercussions. Therefore, this restriction is not a law, it is a guideline.
This is true of every law. If the US government chooses to violate a law passed by congress, or chooses to violate a restriction of the Constitution, who will punish it? Is the Constitution not a law, but a guideline? The treaty(s) prohibiting torture are every bit as much the law of the land as the Constitution.
Furthermore, the law preventing torture for a non-citizen does not share the same mechanisms as laws preventing torture of citizens. The laws dealing with the prosecution of citizens must dodge the various rights laid out in the Constitution. As the legal protections in th Constitution do not apply to non-citizens, especially terrorists-who are likely to be on the torture block, those protections exist only so long as the US says they do. Unless, again, you suggest non-citizens enjoy precisely the same rights as citizens, which is an argument for the forcible conquest of every corner of the globe and establishment of that one world government which would render this question somewhat moot.
We don't even have to wonder about whether the relevant rights of the Constitution apply to non-citizens (for the record, they do). As long as the US is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, the prohibition against torture it contains is the law of the land. On the same footing as the Constitution itself.
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
I don't understand what's confusing about this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think you should look at the torture issue from a libertarian perspective. Torture is a hallmark of authoritarian governments throughout history, and has/is been used as a means to brutally force one's will on another individual. Using torture as a method of interrogation becomes an excuse that hides the real reason why governments use torture: people get consumed by power and want to abuse their power in any means possible to show their dominance over others. It's not a coincidence that governments who regularly use torture tend to be extremely authoritarian.
Ah. See, we shouldn't have done that. Horrible as they were, these people knew how to deal with their extremists. We should've left them to it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Syria has been on the "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list for like 40 years. Yes, the Assads would happily massacre a city from time to time if the extremists targeted their regime, but I'm not sure that counts as "knowing how to deal with extremists" if you're also sponsoring them to fight elsewhere in the world. Palestinian Islamic Jihad has their headquarters in Damascus. So did Hamas until recently.
But that's not because Assad is or was somehow doing a good job of "dealing with his extremists".
But it was broke. He was actively sponsoring a variety of terrorist organizations. Others were operating with impunity from his territory. In what insane world does that count as "ain't broke"?
I'm not saying all of this justifies our involvement in Syria, but it is absolutely false that Assad was doing a good job of handling terrorism, and it's absolutely false that we didn't have to worry about ISIS when he was in control of the country.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Given the Supremacy Clause and the implicit violation of sovereignty by international law, I dispute its applicability in the US and elsewhere. This does not even get into the technicality that any law passed by an extrajudicial entity, the international community-for example, is not in fact a law within the US as all laws which may be meaningfully executed by the US must first pass the House, Senate, President, and Supreme Court.
To give a more tangible example of the silliness of the idea of international law: it is something like, say, California instructing Texas to adopt a law without going through the appropriate channels there. Ordinarily, such could occur through the federal government passing a Californian law, but there is no equivalent form of government above the nation. A notable exception is the EU, but the US is not a part of that meta-nation.
Really, until such a time as there is a one world government, international law is a talking point with no teeth.
In the case of international law, we go via the treaty process, which requires the president and 2/3 of the Senate, as the Constitution says. Since the US signed and ratified the Convention against Torture, that's the law of the land.
Everything I've seen in the media points to US involvement in the nation's destabilization and the refugee rigamarole, and the subsequent power struggles that wouldn't be an issue if the secular warlord was in charge, as opposed to the Middle Eastern version of the Deliverance hillbillies (replace the banjos with their goats). I've got no reason to not trust what I've been told by the news outlets, whereas random people on the internet...there's a portal back to Thunderclap in rural Maine with my name on it.
Adieu, I'm due for tea and cookies with the Crimson King.
You might be thinking of Libia were Britain and the France did provide air support to the rebels. Then largely left them to it once the house of cards collapsed.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
While this is true, a law must be enforced for it to be more than some ink on a page. As there is no entity which can enforce international law upon the US, at the present time, I must conclude that it is little more than the slimmest of agreements: followed until it is inconvenient. Of course, the moment some entity can, and then does try, to enforce some law against the will of the US at that time, the US will have valid cause to declare war. This is true for every member of the international community, and highlights the fact that any international law, as the term exists today, is a voluntary agreement by each party not to violate its terms and with minimal recourse for punitive measures should it be so violated. In other words, it is not law, in the sense generally meant by the term.
That torture specifically has been so banned is not the point, my point is that all international law is fragile, and, as such, is not the best possible premise for contemplating possible outcomes.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
It's no more fragile than US law, because it IS US law. That's what happens when we sign and ratify a treaty. It becomes just as much the law of the land as the those laws passed by congress. What you're making is not an argument about the fragility of international law in particular, but of all laws.
This is not a question of the US breaking an international law. This is a question of the president or a cia agent, or whoever, breaking a US law (because that's what treaties that we sign and ratify become). The law that says the government can't torture terrorists is of exactly the same stature, and has exactly the same enforcement mechanisms as the law that says the government can't murder you. If the government tortures someone, and no one goes to jail for it, that's not a failure of the other countries to enforce international law. That's a failure of the US to enforce its own laws.
Presume for a moment that the president, or whoever-acting as an agent of the US government, does torture someone. Who is going to press charges? We, the citizens, cannot due to sovereign immunity, the case would be dismissed upon filing with any clerk of court or judge. Other nations cannot because of the military might which the US enjoys at the present time. The US government will not as it was the entity which perpetrated the torture. Which leaves no entity in existence with the authority or power to handle the transgression. Therefore, if the US government really wanted to torture someone, assumed to be a person interest in a terrorist cell, it could with little to no real repercussions. Therefore, this restriction is not a law, it is a guideline.
Furthermore, the law preventing torture for a non-citizen does not share the same mechanisms as laws preventing torture of citizens. The laws dealing with the prosecution of citizens must dodge the various rights laid out in the Constitution. As the legal protections in th Constitution do not apply to non-citizens, especially terrorists-who are likely to be on the torture block, those protections exist only so long as the US says they do. Unless, again, you suggest non-citizens enjoy precisely the same rights as citizens, which is an argument for the forcible conquest of every corner of the globe and establishment of that one world government which would render this question somewhat moot.
As already pointed out, constitutional protections do apply to non-citizens unless the Constitution specifically says otherwise. (For instance, only citizens have the right to vote because the Constitution uses the word "citizen" when guaranteeing voting rights.) Even were this not the case, the Constitution is not the only law at play here. The Convention against Torture is US law just as much as any federal statute, and it definitely applies to non-citizens.
This is just a total non sequitur.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This is true of every law. If the US government chooses to violate a law passed by congress, or chooses to violate a restriction of the Constitution, who will punish it? Is the Constitution not a law, but a guideline? The treaty(s) prohibiting torture are every bit as much the law of the land as the Constitution.
We don't even have to wonder about whether the relevant rights of the Constitution apply to non-citizens (for the record, they do). As long as the US is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, the prohibition against torture it contains is the law of the land. On the same footing as the Constitution itself.
I don't understand what's confusing about this.