Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by fleinn, Apr 10, 2008.
Anyone want to parse that one for me?
I think the U.N. is a bunch of unelected beaurocrats that have no say over American law.
Very well. Then why the fuck is the army using international law as justification for holding people in prison indefinitely without charge?
And what does American law say? Come on, now, I really want to hear this.
They aren't American citizens, and they are also not on American soil. I had no American rights when I lived in Singapore.
Are the soliders american, by any chance?
What law are they answerable to? Do you know that?
The Pentagon suggests obviously that the military can make their own law - under the UN mandate of all things - and that's just fine with you, I suppose?
What I can't wrap my head around, is why in the name of fuck you would defend this. How could someone find a reason to jump to the defense of this?
Indefinite detension without charge. Do you think you can answer that?
International law only applies insofar as citing it becomes a convenient excuse for something.
That may be so. But don't we even know what that law says?
So that when the pentagon claims to have the UN's approval to export Yooian executive tyranny and torture regime to Iraq (and thereby save it from US law) - can no one see that they're full of shit? Can no one in the US demand that they'd argue for continuing torture and indefinite detension under US law?
I guess what I'm saying is - when did you all turn into a bunch of sickly cowards? Who are happy to take the glory of the US for granted - but won't do a damn thing to uphold it? Indeed, who will rebel at any suggestion that doesn't fit with the preconcieved myth.
Really. When did that happen? It sure as hell wasn't yesterday.
Riddle me this then Flienn... since when has the U.N . respected American law and soverignty? Why should we obey them? The military answers to the commander in chief... and the commander in chief answers to the people.
Well. Four- year olds learn in school about the UN charter around here. But the UN have been corrupted - and they're taking your guns, no? Evil Clenis betraying the Nation with globalisation?
It's still irrelevant, becuase the charter is unchanged, and so is quite frankly the mandate issued after the invasion as well. It does not read: torture and implement martial law, and be immune from any lawbreaking.
So I asked you why you defend torture and indefinite imprisonment, and feel that doing so is in defiance of the evil UN. Honestly, I'm having a hard time understanding how someone arrogant enough to brazenly jump to the defense of torture and secret justice, would start equivocating about this afterwards.
So.. you support the president because he orders people to be tortured?
If these 'fat cats' don't have any say over our law, why should we have say over anyone else's?
Did the US Military occupy Singapore, act as the regional authority and detain you?
Better question: When haven't they? Who dominates the security council?
Which commander in chief are we talking about?
Separate names with a comma.