US Officially Blames Russia

uke2se said:
The Geneva Convention, of which the US is a signatory, prohibits torture of enemies, so Bob is still wrong.
Click to expand...

This gets back to to the head money cases and the very argument I had with crossbow. Since those cases in 1884, it has been absolutely clear that treaties never have supremecy over future federal law. The most recent law applies. So, if Congress authorizes as I said, that nullifies the Geneva convention as a matter of US law.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Is Trump the biggest moron on the planet?

His tweet today, "Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to "leak" into the public. One last shot at me.Are we living in Nazi Germany?"


These are not classified documents. They are documents made by a private citizen as part of a financial deal. It would be really weird if intelligence agencies had the ability to stop it.
Click to expand...

In Nazi Germany, they would have. :p
 
BobTheCoward said:
You never replied after I quoted back to you where you said the court would overturn the precedent set by the head money cases.
Click to expand...

You are wrong again.

I did reply to you on that point and I never say that the court would overturn the head money case.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It wouldn't require an amendment. Congress can authorize torture in war under certain circumstances. The bill of rights are not universally extended to enemies on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

You are wrong again.

The USA is a signatory to treaties that prohibit torture and there is now a law which actually does forbid the USA to torture detainees.
 
Crossbow said:
You are wrong again.

The USA is a signatory to treaties that prohibit torture and there is now a law which actually does forbid the USA to torture detainees.
Click to expand...

We had the following discussion

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And you think the lack of preeminence of treaties is something courts might reverse?
If the court was deciding the issue of making torture legal, then "Yes!" I would definitely expect the court to rule against such a law regardless of any other previous rulings.

Just as the court did with abortion, gay marriage, civil rights, and numerous other cases.
Click to expand...
 
Crossbow said:
You are wrong again.

The USA is a signatory to treaties that prohibit torture and there is now a law which actually does forbid the USA to torture detainees.
Click to expand...

In the post you are quoting, I made specific reference to the process of withdrawing from the Geneva convention. You can argue about the process of doing that and if my description is sound, but you cannot make the argument I didn't factor that in.
 
BobTheCoward said:
We had the following discussion
Click to expand...

So genius ...

Tell me where I said that the Supreme Court was going to overturn the head money case.

And just in case it slipped your keen eye for detail, since the Supreme Court is not reviewing the head money case, therefore the Supreme Court cannot overturn the head money case.
 
phiwum said:
If the burden of proof is impossible, perhaps one should remain uncertain on the claim rather than proclaim, "It is impossible to prove, therefore must be assumed to be true!"
Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to disagree, because the null hypothesis, as far as I understand it, has always been and will always be the not-positive one. If you claim god exists, and you can't prove it, I'm more than justified in my conclusion that he doesn't.
 
BobTheCoward said:
In the post you are quoting, I made specific reference to the process of withdrawing from the Geneva convention. You can argue about the process of doing that and if my description is sound, but you cannot make the argument I didn't factor that in.
Click to expand...

There are other treaties and other laws which forbid torture besides the Geneva Conventions.

So even if the USA were to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, which is so unlikely as to be impossible, then such a withdrawal would still not sustain your nonsense argument.

And I already told you about that as well.
 
Argumemnon said:
Out of curiosity: could the US withdraw from the convention?
Click to expand...

I suppose it could. It's highly unlikely, though. Much more so than a constitutional amendment.

That said, international law still applies. It would be a war crime to torture prisoners.
 
Crossbow said:
So genius ...

Tell me where I said that the Supreme Court was going to overturn the head money case.

And just in case it slipped your keen eye for detail, since the Supreme Court is not reviewing the head money case, therefore the Supreme Court cannot overturn the head money case.
Click to expand...

I leave this here for our peers to assess the credibility of our arguments on what we said a year ago.
 
Crossbow said:
There are other treaties and other laws which forbid torture besides the Geneva Conventions.

So even if the USA were to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, which is so unlikely as to be impossible, then such a withdrawal would still not sustain your nonsense argument.

And I already told you about that as well.
Click to expand...

All those restrictions would be replaced by a new law simply authorizing torture.
 
Argumemnon said:
Out of curiosity: could the US withdraw from the convention?
Click to expand...

Sure could.

Since treaties are ratified by the congress and signed by the president, then all that congress has to do is enact a law that states withdrawal from the treaty and have the president sign off on it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I leave this here for our peers to assess the credibility of our arguments on what we said a year ago.
Click to expand...

In other words, you cannot support your often stated wrong statements because you actually did make wrong statements.

A decent person would simply admit he was mistaken. But then again, no decent person would advocate torture either.
 
Argumemnon said:
Are you aware that constitutional amendments and treaties are made in order to prevent such laws from ever coming into effects? Such a law wouldn't pass SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I said about the same thing to him some time ago and failed to comprehend that basic fact.

Hopefully, you will be more successful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom