[Vision2020] Say What?

[Sunil Ramalingam]

I am putting Donovan's statements in quotation marks, and posting my responses below.





“You aren't pointing to any specifics, so it is hard to say.”

 

You are right that I am not pointing to any specifics.  Earlier you said “If a treaty violates the
Constitution, it isn't a valid treaty is it?” 


I am asking YOU for specifics, not offering to point to any.  I am asking you to point to a treaty that
violates the Constitution. 

 

“I know that the Constitution allows for the suspension of
Habeas Corpus in times of war.”

 

I disagree with this statement.  Article I, Section 9 reads, “The
privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public Safety may require it.”  War does
not necessarily mean Rebellion or Invasion, and therefore the writ cannot be
suspended because we are at war.  More is
required than that.

 

“I know you think this is a violation of international law
and the Geneva Convention.”

 

I think the efforts to do away with the writ also violate
our Constitution.  That is my starting
point. I think it mischaracterizes my position to simply frame my opposition to the Guantanimo kangaroo courts as violations of international law or the Geneva Convention, when I think we are violation our Constitution first and foremost.

 

“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.”

 

This appears to be your personal belief, to which you are
welcome.  It is not the same as a legal
right to do the things you defend.  

 

“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.”

 

False.  If the Senate
ratifies a treaty, then The People have consented to it.  The Constitution provides for treaties to
become law in the United
  States.  Neither you nor I have any personal right to ratify treaties, nor as private citizens to vote in Congress.


 

“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.”

 

False again, for the reasons I gave above. 

I think you have stated your personal position, and in reading your post I took it to mean you believed there was a legal defense for it.  I think I was wrong to think so, and nothing you've written since leads me to believe there is such a defense.  So I guess we simply have a fundamental difference of opinion regarding what a country can and should do.
Sunil



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090331/2eaa500b/attachment.html