• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brewer condemns report to UN mentioning Ariz. law

I'm forced to agree... I don't see what the UN has to do with this, especially given that the court decision is still pending.

This just proves how much of a wimp Obama is... goes crying to the UN that he can't handle his own citizens...

It would keep on going. The United Nations is an international organization whose goals are cooperation, law, and pressing for human rights, among others. While it's understandable that you view America as so incredibly powerful and influential that all international organizations would fail if we didn't partipate, it's not correct. In addition, it's arguable that we'd more likely lose a lot of influence by doing such a thing.

Yes, that's exactly what the UN is all about on the surface. They are far more corrupt then any representative that's been elected on average... they are a political organization, in the sense how politicians will answer questions without ever actually answering the questions... and so, even in the face of denial Bush simply circumvented the UN and attacked Iraq on phony intelligence and "My way and I kill you anyway" level diplomacy skills.

I could go further, but someone else put it succinctly enough... the UN is a cesspit of corruption.

Let's assume you are correct that black market oil brought in more revenues. Once again, the UN failed, as did our president at the time (Clinton) and the press.
....

Eventually a price is paid for incompetence and corruption. Someone has to deal with the harsh realities at some point... and that task landed on Bush 43's desk.
.

Are you kidding, if anything Bush was finishing daddies war. That's why it required so much flawed intelligence, and all sorts of other things that will just detract...

I like Boo... me thinks he is a Republican dressing up as a Democrat.
Boo don't know Didley :)

....
After 12-years, 16 UN resolutions, kicking out weapons inspecteurs de la UN... one last chance after 911 is all that need be set on the table for the Despot to understand. He didn't take the out, and perhaps because he thought he bought off the UN. He pokered and lost.

And no, the UN can't stop us, but Democrats who hand over foreign policy as Clinton had... stop us.
The yellow bellied, corrupt to the core pervert.

.

This is not a left - right issue... this is a pro-war / anti-war issue.

No, Bush was reported to have had diplomatic talks where you can literally paraphrase as : If you don't prove a negative instantly we're going to bomb you... after how many years of sanctions the people were mostly defeated before they started shock and awe... and every few years they shift things around claim the war is over and move on.
 
Read the link. It notes the problems with that interpretation of what happened.

I read the link. However, the US signed the treaty and is obligated to abide by it under international law. The US is also a party to the ICJ, which has jurisdiction in such cases...
 
J, just because someone grows weary of the same nonsense over and over again is not a nerve being touched. And I was never asked whether I supported a treaty, but if we sign one, if we sign an agreement, just like when you and I sign agreements, do you think we have no obligation to what we sign? And if I sign a anagreement with you, will you accept me saying your usurping my soverngeny when I don't want to do it?

Please, stay with the confines of the issue we're addressing. No diversions. No snipe hunts. No silliness. ;)


Good grief. :doh Ok, we will do it your way. Joe, do you think that the US should sign the Land of the Sea Treaty? And why?


j-mac
 
I read the link. However, the US signed the treaty and is obligated to abide by it under international law. The US is also a party to the ICJ, which has jurisdiction in such cases...

Does the ICJ supersede the US court system in regards to US law?


j-mac
 
Good grief. :doh Ok, we will do it your way. Joe, do you think that the US should sign the Land of the Sea Treaty? And why?


j-mac

haven't looked into it much, but what has this to do with us being usurped?

u·surp (y-sûrp, -zûrp)
v. u·surped, u·surp·ing, u·surps
v.tr.
1. To seize and hold (the power or rights of another, for example) by force or without legal authority. See Synonyms at appropriate.
2. To take over or occupy without right: usurp a neighbor's land.
3. To take the place of (another) without legal authority; supplant.
v.intr.
To seize another's place, authority, or possession wrongfully.

usurp - definition of usurp by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


If we make an agreement, we are being usurped. This is the issue we're discussing. Unless you can show me how us agreeing or disagreeing to something is equal to being usurped, I fail to see the importace of your question to this topic and can't figure out why your so intent on diverting the discussion.
 
I read the link. However, the US signed the treaty and is obligated to abide by it under international law. The US is also a party to the ICJ, which has jurisdiction in such cases...

And did the US directly violate their ability to contact their consulate? Or did they never ask?
 
Brewer smashed two targets with one stone.
Obama administration and bitch slapped Hillary so hard it makes a serious dent in any challenge for the presidency. She doesn't stand for upholding the law and defending our borders and thinks so little of our laws she cites them as against human rights.

.

This article is incredibly one sided. I didn't learn anything from this article besides the AZ governor's opinion.

Not sure if it is the intent behind Washington's mention of this legal challenge to the U.N., but I think it is appropriate to bring it up to show the world how civilized we are when it comes to disagreements, compared to some countries where the people threaten, attack or kill each other over their disagreements. Disagree with either side all you want... but the fact that we're not cutting each other's throats over this (or really any other) issue shows our civility.
 
I only wish that the Arizona law had included a portion of the law thatt would have put Officials from sanctuary Cities in jail for 2 years, if they don't act within 30 days to publicly announce they will begin to enforce the Federal and State laws. This would have driven the Muslim in Chief nuts.

That would've constituted a bill of attainder, which is unConstitutional.
 
Fun fact: This thread, which started off being about the governor of AZ squaring off against the State Department, is now about how evil the UN is and how much better off we'd be (or, how much worse off the UN would be) if we left it.

Well, that made for a rather effective distraction! :lol:


TED,
Just saying, is all.
 
Are you kidding, if anything Bush was finishing daddies war. That's why it required so much flawed intelligence, and all sorts of other things that will just detract...
This is pretty lame. Finishing Daddies War.
The intel may have been flawed, but the UN, Germany, France, Russia, The Brits, all agreed he had WMD.
Clinton sent Cohen to inform the people about WMD.
Top Dems including Clinton/Gore warned about Saddam's threat and WMD... years before Bush set foot in office.
After 911, the world change. Bush went to the corrupt UN and got a unanimous vote in the Sec. Council.
Saddam didn't fulfill his obligation after 12-years and 17 resolutions.

This is not a left - right issue... this is a pro-war / anti-war issue.
Pro war, anti-war is left vs. right.
Check the record during the past 40-years.

No, Bush was reported to have had diplomatic talks where you can literally paraphrase as : If you don't prove a negative instantly we're going to bomb you... after how many years of sanctions the people were mostly defeated before they started shock and awe... and every few years they shift things around claim the war is over and move on.
Hans Blix stated Saddam was continuing playing games. He was not cooperating. He believed he had weaponized VX and Anthrax.
Mistakenly... Saddam thought Bush was as weak as Clinton, and perhaps believed he had bought off the corrupt UN.

.
 
Brewer smashed two targets with one stone.
Obama administration and bitch slapped Hillary so hard it makes a serious dent in any challenge for the presidency. She doesn't stand for upholding the law and defending our borders and thinks so little of our laws she cites them as against human rights.

.

Most countries require that BOTH citizens and foreigners carry identification. The US does not. Why Arizona is somehow singled out for requiring foreigners to carry identification is simply political grand standing that is capitalizing off ignorance and false accusations of racism.

The fact of the matter is that an overwelming majority of Arizonan's support this law because they have been informed of what it actually says and does. This law is supported by both hispanic Arizonans (a majority ethnicity in our state) and non-hispanic Arizonans.
 
I like Boo... me thinks he is a Republican dressing up as a Democrat.
Boo don't know Didley :)



Post 911 the world was introduced to "connect the dots". On 911 they claimed we didn't, now the Libs claim we shouldn't have.
Make up your ****ing minds.

Democrats are on record for years warning (during the Clinton years after the Inspectuers got tossed) and then voting to send troops post 911... in the Senate they begged for a second vote because Dems realized how feeble they looked on national defense issues... a 30-year record of hostility does that. Hell, even Hillary spelled it out for Code Pink... citing intel received as she was third mate at the WH... (I think Bill probably preferred the intern over Frauline Shriek).


Well at least you admit the UN is corrupt (you could have added... to the core).
So, we kow tow on human rights to a corrupt body for upholding the laws of the land and protecting our borders and citizens. That was Jan Brewer's point.

Thanks Boo.


Note to Boo. Bush 43 went in and got their support. Unanimous vote. He gave Saddam one last chance to come clean. As Hans Blix reported... this didn't happen.

After 12-years, 16 UN resolutions, kicking out weapons inspecteurs de la UN... one last chance after 911 is all that need be set on the table for the Despot to understand. He didn't take the out, and perhaps because he thought he bought off the UN. He pokered and lost.

And no, the UN can't stop us, but Democrats who hand over foreign policy as Clinton had... stop us.
The yellow bellied, corrupt to the core pervert.

.

Wow, Zimmer show all the facts. Did they find WMD? Still looking? Nope? Lies presented to the UN, World, and most importantly our country got us involved in a piece of **** war that killed 4 k of our finest and put this country in trillion dollar deficit. The piece of crap that ran Iraq was less threatening to us then North Korea or Iran. Lets don't forget that we wasted funds that should of been used to get bin lauden. Tell all the story, not just Obama's blunder(s). Don't forget the Grand Old Party f@%ked up bad enough to lose the prez and congress. I don't see them doing any better when running on a platform of slam Obama?
 
Brewer smashed two targets with one stone.
Obama administration and bitch slapped Hillary so hard it makes a serious dent in any challenge for the presidency. She doesn't stand for upholding the law and defending our borders and thinks so little of our laws she cites them as against human rights.

.


So, largely what Brewer said was, "Wait, you're gonna turn me in for crimes against humanity? But I'm an American, you're not supposed to write reports about what I do! Go complain about human rights in China or something!"

Bloody hypocrite.
 
Does the ICJ supersede the US court system in regards to US law?


j-mac

No, but it IS an arbiter of international law, and treaty obligations that the United States voluntarily enters into comes under the scope of international law. The U.S. insists on the same rights when U.S. citizens are held overseas. The U.S. not holding to its end of the international agreements it signed on to makes it more difficult for the U.S. to make the case overseas.
 
And did the US directly violate their ability to contact their consulate? Or did they never ask?

The U.S. is obligated to inform the foreign consulate and to facilitate contact. If the German consulate did not know he was in custody and the suspect did not know he had these rights, it would be very difficult for either to insist on its implementation. There is previous case law establishing the responsibility of the host state to inform the consulate/embassy of the sending state if they have a national in custody.
 
To be usurped, the US would have to have been forced into the agreement. If the US volutarily signed the treaty, the US has not been usurped. And once signing a treaty, that is the law the US should live by.
 
To be usurped, the US would have to have been forced into the agreement. If the US volutarily signed the treaty, the US has not been usurped. And once signing a treaty, that is the law the US should live by.
As I understand it any treaty that puts a law into effect within the US MUST be ratified by congress. The president can't do it alone.

There have been cases in the past where a president has signed a treaty but congress does not ratify it. This pretty much nullifies the treaty.
 
So, largely what Brewer said was, "Wait, you're gonna turn me in for crimes against humanity? But I'm an American, you're not supposed to write reports about what I do! Go complain about human rights in China or something!"

Bloody hypocrite.

Then again, there's the minor problem that the Arizona law is not only 100% compatible with the United States Constitution, it's 100% compatible with extant federal law, and there is NO violation of civil or human rights embodied in that law.

So much for your senseless rant.
 
Except in this case, the ICJ was just noting the obligation the U.S. has to allow consulate/embassy personnel to contact their citizens if charged or undergoing court procedures that is borne out of a treaty the U.S. is party to and it itself insists on when Americans are imprisoned in foreign countries. This is not the only time this has happened in the U.S. and it jeopardizes the ability of the U.S. to gain access to U.S. citizens in foreign countries. Texas did the same with Mexican nationals. This is a violation of U.S. treaty commitments.

I agree with this fully.

EVERY person arrested for deportation as a illegal alien should be allowed to be visited by officials from his nation's embassy.

That fact that officials from a foreign nation officially recognized the prisoner as their citizen is evidence that the prisoner is indeed in the nation illegally and that person can then be shipped out the next day.
 
But let's not forget the point. Corru[tion is not limited tothe UN. In fact,the UN is made up of nations, of which we are a part. And we contribute to some of that corruption. What seems to make most American's most angry, it seems to me, is that the UN hasn't always done exactly what we tell them to do. And as we all know, that makes the UN very, very evil.

You're right.

The UN should be saved from corruption by the US. The US should immediately withdraw from the UN and the UN should be immediately relocated to a place more appropriate for it's members, like Mogadishu.

I just love your efforts at moral equivalency.
 
As I understand it any treaty that puts a law into effect within the US MUST be ratified by congress. The president can't do it alone.

There have been cases in the past where a president has signed a treaty but congress does not ratify it. This pretty much nullifies the treaty.

The treaty WAS ratified by the Senate...
 
I agree with this fully.

EVERY person arrested for deportation as a illegal alien should be allowed to be visited by officials from his nation's embassy.

That fact that officials from a foreign nation officially recognized the prisoner as their citizen is evidence that the prisoner is indeed in the nation illegally and that person can then be shipped out the next day.

Huh?!?!? You are saying that every foreign national is in the U.S. illegally?!?!? That is an interesting leap in logic...
 
This is pretty lame. Finishing Daddies War.

Ok, fine... that was a low blow...

The intel may have been flawed, but the UN, Germany, France, Russia, The Brits, all agreed he had WMD.

Because, to quote the downing street memo : "The intelligence is being fixed around this issue."

Top Dems including Clinton/Gore warned about Saddam's threat and WMD... years before Bush set foot in office.

Because if your puppet starts moving independently and knows where your skeletons are buried, you gotta come up with SOMETHING to shut him up... Like the PNAC document called for; 9-11 saved Bush from the long and drawn out justification.

I would note how only half of Saddam's trial was heard before he was executed... the kurds robbed of justice.

After 911, the world change. Bush went to the corrupt UN and got a unanimous vote in the Sec. Council.
Saddam didn't fulfill his obligation after 12-years and 17 resolutions.

That was only 1 of the 3 fraudulant claims that led us to invade Iraq, that he had ties to 9-11 (this one was heavily implied, never stated directly), and was a safe haven for al-ciada... but, there was no yellow cake, he had no ties to 9-11, and there were no ties to al-quaida.

Pro war, anti-war is left vs. right.
Check the record during the past 40-years.

I'll tell you the difference :
The republican will lie to get into a war.
The democrats will lie claiming peace before going to war.

The sad fact is that both political parties are warmongers, the only difference is the approach.

Honestly... look at the peacnik Obama, and his mimicking Bush's "military operations are over"... he said essentially 'the war is over' when he removed 50k troops from Iraq, only to have them replaced by private mercenaries and changing the name to 'combat assistance'. Oh ya, those 50k of troops mostly got shipped over to afghanistan (or 50k new troops moved to afghanistan, whichever)

Hans Blix stated Saddam was continuing playing games. He was not cooperating. He believed he had weaponized VX and Anthrax.
Mistakenly... Saddam thought Bush was as weak as Clinton, and perhaps believed he had bought off the corrupt UN.

.
Ya, Saddam still thought of himself as a protected CIA asset is all...

However, this situation DOES illustrate the importance of having probable cause rather then 'reasonable suspicion'... he had none of those things... he did have them at one point, but no more.

The funny thing is that the SAME justification is now being attempted against Iran (well, the rhetoric has toned down in the past week or so, but before that).
 
Huh?!?!? You are saying that every foreign national is in the U.S. illegally?!?!? That is an interesting leap in logic...

Do you know how to read?

How's your thinking powers doin' for ya?

Let's see....Governess Brewer is under fire for defending the State from the invasion from Mexico of ravening hordes of illegal aliens. That is the background of any contemporary thread about Arizona and Governess Brewer.

The recent knife in the back by the US Department of State, aka Hillary Clinton, was a political jab at one of the fifty United States on the international stage for the sole purpose of polarizing the electorate of the United States.

THAT'S what this discussion is about.

You need to comb my post carefully and see if you can find any more ignorant strawmen to fall out to join the comment that I claimed all foreigners arrested are illegal aliens. Hell, you need to find that statement itself.

Seriously, what the hell do you think the words "EVERY person arrested for deportation as a illegal alien " means?
 
Last edited:
As I understand it any treaty that puts a law into effect within the US MUST be ratified by congress. The president can't do it alone.

There have been cases in the past where a president has signed a treaty but congress does not ratify it. This pretty much nullifies the treaty.

Any treaty must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. Dot. There isn't any pretty much about it, and the House has no say in such matters.

I'm also a little curious about how many treaties contemplated by the government didn't have some sort of legal component. I don't think there's ever been such a thing, since a treaty is supposed to be a contractual agreement between 2 or more nations.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom