[Vision2020] Say What?

[Donovan Arnold]

Sunil,
 
You aren't pointing to any specifics, so it is hard to say. 
 
I know that the Constitution allows for the suspension of Habeas Corpus in times of war.  I know you think this is a violation of international law and the Geneva Convention. 
 
I believe, that the right to preserve the Union outweighs any international law, including the dropping of nuclear bombs on millions of innocent people and the denial of terrorists their basic human rights, including the right to live or have a fair trial.  
 
Further, I don't see the United States government as having the right to concede powers it doesn't have. The people of the United States never consented to international law. So it isn't valid unless if also happens to also be federal or state law. 
 
Treaties are simply agreements between to two or more parties. I don't consider them law abiding. They are simply if and then statements, such as if you give a $10 Billion and shut down your ship production I will not bomb you. If you don't I will continue, or if you allow us to ship in 100 million auto parts, we will allow you to ship in 20 million computer parts if you don't, we won't. 
 
You must have the consent of the governed, international law doesn't.
 
Best Regards,
 
Donovan

--- On Tue, 3/31/09, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:


From: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Say What?
To: 
Cc: "vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 8:53 AM




#yiv1929964352 .hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;padding:0px;}
#yiv1929964352 {
font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

Which treaties are you talking about?

It seems to me you can't point at anything to support your position.  You're simply saying 'Might makes right.'

Sunil



Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:11:50 -0700
From: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Say What?
To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com






Sunil,
 
If a treaty violates the Constitution, it isn't a valid treaty is it?
 
Best Regards,
 
Donovan

--- On Tue, 3/31/09, Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:


From: Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Say What?
To: 
Cc: "vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 6:51 AM




#yiv1929964352 .ExternalClass #EC_yiv657394139 .EC_hmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
#yiv1929964352 .ExternalClass #EC_yiv657394139
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}

Donovan,

Is it correct that you cannot cite a legal basis for your position that we are allowed to violate international law?  So far you've offered examples of instances where we have apparently done so, but have not offered a reason or rationale that makes such actions legal.

Is it your position that it is legal for us to do so?  If so, how? 

I'm talking here of violations of treaties that we have adopted, and therefore are US laws, under our constitution.

Sunil

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================


      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090331/4f748082/attachment.html