In short, the United States signed a Treaty that they would not violate Human Rights and Torture people within our boundaries and can only do so if it does not conflict and is in line with the US Constitution. The United States then put in provisions to provide the loop holes by which the United States and government officials could not be prosecuted by the World Court if they violated what was contained in the Treaty and in effect our Constitution.
In I(2) the Senate made sure that the United States would never be held to outside interpretation by another State (country) if a complaint filed against the United State had merit via arbitration or a court outside US control.
In short-short, it's not a crime until we (the US) say it is a crime even if the rest of the world says it is a crime. Article 30 reads as follows: Article 30
1. Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.
2. Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by paragraph I of this article. The other States Parties shall not be bound by paragraph I of this article with respect to any State Party having made such a reservation.
In II(1)(e) the Unite States says that violation of legal procedures does not per se mean a violation of the law and that a person was tortured. What the hell does that mean? Do legal procedures involve torture or can they, Gitmo maybe?
In II(3) that if you are tortured by the United States you can only receive damages if it happened on US soil. In a story by John Burton, he wrote about the US courts decision rejecting the claim of four British citizens tortured by the United States and he wrote:
On January 11, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed a case brought by four British citizens seeking money damages to compensate them for having been tortured by the US government. The four individuals were held for more than two years at the United States Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
With an outlandish display of convoluted and specious logic, the three-judge panel issued a precedent establishing that non-US citizens outside US national borders cannot seek any redress in any US court for torture or other deprivations of constitutional and statutory rights inflicted by US government officials.
In reality the Senate in this Treaty created the out for the US courts to deny damages to anyone who is tortured if it happened outside the US soil. Gitmo again, pattern getting clearer.
In II(5) the United States guarantees that all law enforcement personal, federal, state and local will be bound by this Convention and the appropriate "avenues" will be available to make sure that these personal are trained on Articles 10-14 and 16, which are as follows:
Article 10
1. Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.
2. Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such person.
Article 11
Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.
Michael C. Morris has been involved in racing since the age of twelve (12) when he took a summer job working at Terry's Speed Shop located in Phoenixville PA.
With the help of his brother John Morris, they teamed up and joined Razzberry Racing. In the 90's, the team was building their own cars to complete in the Sports Car Club of
America's National Classes when in 1993 Michael joined Ed Arnold Racing with David
Donahue, son of the legendary Mark Donahue, to run in the 1993 IMSA Supercar.
Michael Morris is accredited and newly accepted journalist with the World Bank. Michael Morris as worked for ABC News Radio covering auto racing venues such as LeMans and SEMA.
His special interests in journalism are politics with special interest in the nation's court system, especially the Family Court System and the intentional use of children for profit by that system, and the special interest groups that control our nation's courts.
You are obviously living in another time when all that is written in those laws meant something - good for you. But that was before the Constitution became a "God-damn piece of paper".
We in live a lawless totally corrupt state now. Written laws have no meaning other than to suppress those unfortunate enough not to be able to enforce them. It's why the Attorney General can spit in our faces and brazenly tell us he's not going to do a damn thing about the crimes committed by an obviously criminal organization we refer to as our government.
But keep up that fight if it makes you happy. But please don't look for justice in what's become a Deadwood of nations.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1254 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 12:32:24 PM
But I still think that the People of the United States know the truth, and can find the time to care about the truth, that we do have the power to right this great nation.But it will take the courage demonstrated by our founding fathers to cast off this plague growing on our backs and restore the ideals and words, The Constitution and Bill of Rights, that our the true foundation of this nation.
Of course, it also could also mean the end of the greatest nation on the face of the earth to date.The choice is the peoples.
by
Michael Morris (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 298 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 12:54:06 PM
Will you be willing to shed your own and other's blood for the 'saving of our state'? I believe that FEW of this "homeland" will be willing to do that and without that kind of STAND, the 'neocons' (read that nationalists .... [german:Nazis].....) will continue their pillage of our once proud nation even if they are not 'in office'. The "corporados" (read...fascists) have the controls regardless which group of 'the politic' is seated.
Lean 'dressing' would be highly advisible over the next decade; physical, fiscal, material; all the better to survive the upcoming onslaught. It will not be pretty!
by
Kahnaya Wasahtoha (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 27 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 1:18:49 PM
I on the other hand am a Pragmatist and as such don't hold much faith in "the people". Maybe before this society became an under-educated, misinformed, lazy, spoil lot there may have been some hope of righting this ship but not from my vantage point is it going to happen. Too many holes in this ship to have it float much longer.
Believe me, I would be the first to say I hope I'm wrong. But from observation of recent acts by this so-called government I see nothing short of a revolution rivaling one that the Founding Fathers had to separate themselves from the oppression of the English Crown do I see any hope and even then I envision a descent into a Hell on Earth as our economy crashes, more wars for dwindling resources expand, loss of habitable land from climate change and population explosion produces forces beyond reason and allows the darkest elements of human-nature to propel us into a Dark-Ages we may never recover from.
I wish I could say something positive but every day that goes by, every article, book, news story I read gives me no hope we can escape the physical, emotional, environmental and economic damage we've inflicted with out coming away severely scared, if we come away at all. I see no reason to believe that as a species we haven't run our course and like other species that were stronger than ourselves vanished from this planet. Only with us we have had a major roll in causing our own extinction.
I take that back - maybe I'm more of a Fatalist as a Pragmatist, but believe me, show me a sign and I'm willing to change - but until then ...
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1254 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 3:45:49 PM
We humans are mortal and the price of each of our one births is our one death.
Whether humanity progresses (or regresses) in our lifetimes can depend on nothing other than the people alive and active in our lifetimes.
Why not take a stand Mr M? Post another letter, send another email. Resist the regression that you see in your own way.
We humans look to each other for our signs and whilst you are still typing you are still one of us. There'll be plenty of time to be a fatalist when you are dead but your chance to stand for something other than yourself and to be appreciated for standing for it comes now while you are alive.
In the Vietnam war there was a monk that set himself on fire in protest. For seconds certainly and a minute possibly he was probably in agony. But he sent a message. We don't have to do those sorts of extreme things but if we choose to we could. Individuals can choose their degrees of heroism and/or villainy. There is power in being alive and the future is not yet written.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:38:26 PM
All I see here is the Congress stating that they will enforce this insofar as it does not interfere with the Constitution. What do you see wrong in that? You seem to think that just because we agree to something that the UN proposes, that it automatically makes us a defacto extension of Europe and that we should automatically do everything the way Europe does it. Sorry, but I believe in the Constitution and American sovereignty. Our membership in the UN is not absolute. It is by authority of the Congress by way of the powers granted by the Constitution. The Congress can pull us out of the UN at any time with the stroke of a pen. We are not subservient to the United Nations, the E.U., or anyone else. Implementing UN resolutions without taking our own Constitution or framework of laws into consideration would be a bigger crime.
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 314 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 6:58:39 PM
All I see here is the Congress stating that they will enforce this insofar as it does not interfere with the Constitution. What do you see wrong in that? You seem to think that just because we agree to something that the UN proposes, that it automatically makes us a defacto extension of Europe and that we should automatically do everything the way Europe does it. Sorry, but I believe in the Constitution and American sovereignty. Our membership in the UN is not absolute. It is by authority of the Congress by way of the powers granted by the Constitution. The Congress can pull us out of the UN at any time with the stroke of a pen. We are not subservient to the United Nations, the E.U., or anyone else. Implementing UN resolutions without taking our own Constitution or framework of laws into consideration would be a bigger crime.
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 314 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 6:59:36 PM
of the Constitution that states that all treaties signed and ratified become The Supreme Law of the Land...that means they are part of the Constitution.
While you are right and we could withdraw....at the time all of this was going down this treaty was part of our Constitution and therefore part of our laws.
by
Michael Morris (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 298 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 7:05:32 PM
From your comments elsewhere I'd formed the opinion that you were Republican. In my experience Republicans in particularly tend to be very touchy about sovereignty and very confused about where treaties fit into the supreme law of the United States.
Sovereigns (nation states) can freely form contracts when it is in their interests to do so.
And contracts involve the forgoing of some freedoms (like the freedom to torture or launch aggressive invasions) in exchange for other freedoms (like the freedoms that come from having a rule of law where others will be less likely to do those things because they will incur the opposition of the many) are generally recognized as contracts that increase rather than decree the net amount of freedoms/benefits.
It seems that many Americans are of the view that any constraints on behavior or misbehavior in contracts and treaties made only apply to the non-American signatories to those treaties. Obviously that sort of wilfull self serving hypocrisy and ignorance is going to annoy non-Americans and the more it occurs the less trusted Americans will be and the more anti-American sentiment will increase because it will have a sound rational basis.
The nuttiest thing about the war on terror is that by using torture and aggressive invasions as tactics the United States is absolutely guaranteeing that the rest of the world will be more not less likely to use terror and to sympathise with terror as a tool against Americans.
When one is watching a fight between a small nasty meanspirited creature and large nasty meanspirited creature one tends to want to see the small nasty meanspirited creature not victorious but successful in doing its worst.
The Bush administration has cast America in the role of that large nasty meanspirited creature. No terrorists could have done that to America without the assistance of America. That was America's own choice.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:05:19 PM
Thank you for your comments and you are dead on target....
This War on Terror has created more terrorists than we started with, and with that same mentality being used by local law enforcement, it will not be long before something breaks and this country find itself in another war, an internal one.
by
Michael Morris (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 298 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 9:42:13 PM
is that even though treaties become part of the Supreme Law of the Land, they cannot at the same time be in contradiction with the Constitution. If the U.N. passed a resolution that said citizens of member nations no longer have the right to elect their leaders, that they will henceforth be appointed by the U.N. and Congress adopted it, would you sit idly by and accept it? Of course not, because it violates your Constitutional rights. Congress has every right to ignore or alter any part of any proposed legislation on Constitutional grounds and that includes the adoption of U.N. resolutions.
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 314 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:41:39 PM
is that even though treaties become part of the Supreme Law of the Land, they cannot at the same time be in contradiction with the Constitution. If the U.N. passed a resolution that said citizens of member nations no longer have the right to elect their leaders, that they will henceforth be appointed by the U.N. and Congress adopted it, would you sit idly by and accept it? Of course not, because it violates your Constitutional rights. Congress has every right to ignore or alter any part of any proposed legislation on Constitutional grounds and that includes the adoption of U.N. resolutions.
by
Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 314 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 8:42:28 PM
Isn't it remarkable that we are even discussing the acceptance of torture in this Country? After being leaders of the world against it, we have become leaders of the world DOing it.
I have to agree with the interpretation that the constitution is no longer top priority since it became the "goddamn piece of paper". Nice how the media doesn't play that clip over and over, eh? America would have rejected George Bush in a second.
I'm ready to shed some blood. It's plain and clear that this Government doesn't give a rat's butt about our Rule Of Law. The Senate voted against Dodd's bill and that included at least 20 Democrats voting against it. The corporations want immunity. The point of lawsuits is a smoke screen. What we would get with even one trial, would be the TRUTH about all the spying and just what and whom they were spying. You can bet it wasn't terrorists.
We are on Canada's "list of country's that torture". Britain has almost cashed us in as an ally for torturing their ppl. We have become the Rome, the imperialistic military power that whips every human being on the planet if they want to because they can.
I hope the UN holds our country accountable. However, the next Prez will probably just bow out of the UN and justify itself in that manner. Russia is getting wealthy(2nd largest oil holding nation in the world and their economy is rocking). CHina has 2400 miles of border with Russia and China's economy is rocking--largest growing middle class on the planet.
Call us a Superpower, but the only thing "super" about this country are ppl like you and me.
by
shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 273 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 7:18:27 PM
Do you have that "god damned piece of paper" clip?
I've heard others say Bush said it, and it is an extraordinary thing to say for a President that takes an oath to the Constitution, but probably a very George W Bush-like thing to say.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 961 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 7:42:15 PM
that the mentality of the people in control of this nation is that should it come to the point that they are about to lose it all, they will destroy the world in a bright flash rather than becomeing # 2 or # 3 in the world...
by
Michael Morris (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 298 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 9:47:21 PM
