So????

Zed!

Boxturtle (zed)

He only cares what the fighting Kagans and Kristols think.

Returning from his eighth trip to Iraq, McCain didn’t back down on his promise to see the war through despite yesterday’s tragic milestone of 4,000 deaths

chris mathews hits the nail on the head;

winning in Iraq means bringing the troops home

Yeah. The American people say the surge isn’t working.

So?

The arrogance is staggering

The arrogance is staggering Chee-knee-esque

Fixed.

What does a fact on the ground look like?

Blue Texan:

Good picture, but you should have got the next frame, where he’s sucking the microphone.

Apparently, it looks like Iran is training al Qaeda.

He must be listening to Kagan.

The arrogance arises from ignorance and stubbornness.

That would be a fact that had been wrestled to the ground.

ARGH! Missed it by that much.

I can’t say i’m shocked that McBush would have this attitude. For reasons not clear to me, he thinks being close to Bush and favoring the Iraq war will help him get elected. I hope he keeps thinking that.

Boxturtle (Somebody give McBush another koolaid!)

My friends,…..(insert bullshit comment here)

Well so then what is this crap about polls showing that Americans favor McCain to handle Iraq? I just don’t understand people sumtimes.

Recent national polls have shown voters choosing McCain by large margins over Clinton and Obama as the candidate most capable of handling the war. A recent Gallup poll showed McCain favored on Iraq over Clinton and Obama by identical 54-to-40 margins. A Los Angeles Times poll had McCain over Clinton on the war by 51 to 35, and Obama by 47 to34.

Democrats view those numbers with suspicion, noting that McCain’s views on Iraq are more hawkish than the public realizes, since they haven’t been much in the news. And pollster Karlyn Bowman of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute tends to agree.

“It’s biography” that’s driving McCain’s Iraq support more than his positions, she said. “McCain has a lot of experience in this area.”

But Bowman also points out that polls show that “people are worried about what a quick pullout would mean. That’s a second reason they might support McCain.”

Indeed, a poll released last week by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center showed that when asked to choose between withdrawing troops as soon as possible – as the Democrats have promised – and keeping them in Iraq until the country achieves stability – as McCain vows – voters chose withdrawal by only a statistically insignificant 49-to-47 margin.

Like a dead american soldier??? No disrespect meant.

He won’t remember

Opportunity to further the theme Doubletalk Express. McCain already did the spadework of establishing the Express brand… time to turn it back around on him. Strength into fatal flaw.

Now McConomy is an instant expert on the economy…MSNBC…Jack Kemp….hmmm…wonder who wrote the speech Andrea?

What does a fact on the ground look like?

I don’t know but I hope he steps in one.

McCain’s anger and arrogance will bring him down in debates. He’s so vulnerable on facts and appears to be quite dumb.

This picture always makes me think they are getting ready to do a fast foxtrot. Doesn’t it?

A fact on the ground looks like this.

(thanks, eCAHN)

I re-listened to Fred Kagan this morning on a panel with the Amrerican Enterprise Institute. He is beyond arrogance. There is something so twisted and perverted about his mind that he resonates evil. How does he get air time to spew these deliberate lies and rewritten history of events?

I swear Kagan is clinically insane.

More like dead Iraqis: remember, he believes we don’t care how many Iraqis die, as long as US casualties are low. 40, 50 dead in a month, pffft, pocket change. Mad money.

Where are the rabid press members with their follow up questions on McCain’s “facts” ? One gets the sense folks on his press bus can’t discern between journalism and infotainment.

What does a fact on the ground look like?

How about these facts from UN weapons inspectors in February 2003?

The inspectors do acknowledge, however, that they would not be here at all if not for the threat of U.S. military action.

So frustrated have the inspectors become that one source has referred to the U.S. intelligence they’ve been getting as “garbage after garbage after garbage.” In fact, Phillips says the source used another cruder word. The inspectors find themselves caught between the Iraqis, who are masters at the weapons-hiding shell game, and the United States, whose intelligence they’ve found to be circumstantial, outdated or just plain wrong.

Yep, McCain’s “facts on the ground” are turds.

And this.

Did you know anything about the graves outside the city where the murder victims are placed? Most revolting.

it’s a family trait

Someone should ask McCain why it’s ok that no one from the Bush family is willing to serve in Iraq. McCain’s own son served.

But Bowman also points out that polls show that “people are worried about what a quick pullout would mean. That’s a second reason they might support McCain.”

Kagan just said on an AEI panel that there is no civil war in Iraq. He says, “Let me be clear. The Civil War in Iraq is over. We stopped it.” (pretty close to the quote). He’s thrilled and salivating at the prospect of staying in Iraq until they become a little AEI minion.

What is AEI doing back in such a dominant position? Damn!!!

Anyone care to join me in writing LTEs about our Facts on the Ground?

LOL I was thinking the same thing. I’m sure my jaw was dropped a bit

I don’t think folks get it. There are a number of Americans who think we lost our will, guts if you will, in Vietnam and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Don’t tell me how the war was based on a lie, don’t tell me about the suffering because the answer is “so” or “I don’t care”. These same people are the ones that will hang on in Iraq as long as they can. If they are forced to withdraw before anything less than what they see as victory they are going to hammer the democrats for the next 50 years.

Boy they sure put him right in the same bubble with the President, didn’t they. And did he fight going in? Heck no! If he gets to be President, he doesn’t mind being put in a hamster ball for four years…

I swear Kagan is clinically insane.

I have come to the conclusion that these are sociopaths, nothing they do is wrong, if they want something that makes it right

is being a sociopath being insane?

I am under the impression a person like cheney learns to be a sociopath, since they get away with it they continue their depravity

the only real solution is punitivity for their depravity

[punitivity is conjugation I just came up with]

Did you see Wolfowitz in the audience? The camera did a close-up.

The thing that Kagan said at the end was that it is all about protecting “US interests” and that is all he cares about. He said that.

Kagan just said on an AEI panel that there is no civil war in Iraq. He says, “Let me be clear. The Civil War in Iraq is over. We stopped it.” (pretty close to the quote). He’s thrilled and salivating at the prospect of staying in Iraq until they become a little AEI minion.

well, one solution to a civil war WOULD be genocide so perhaps he is correct

Sociopaths are not mentally ill in the psychiatric sense of the word. And evil can be banal.

Permanent Vice President Cheney agrees with you.

Respectfully, I don’t think those people should be dictating our foreign policy, regardless of how much hammering they do.

More like dead Iraqis: remember, he believes we don’t care how many Iraqis die, as long as US casualties are low. 40, 50 dead in a month, pffft, pocket change. Mad money.

The Cheney koolaid is strong, grasshopper…

One gets the sense folks on his press bus can’t discern between journalism and infotainment.

It’s all about access, McBush flies into a rage when you confront him with a known indisputable fact. And I also believe that these journalist abdicate to their editors who want that access. The MSM has to be disbanded and crushed.

I re-listened to Fred Kagan this morning on a panel with the Amrerican Enterprise Institute. He is beyond arrogance. There is something so twisted and perverted about his mind that he resonates evil. How does he get air time to spew these deliberate lies and rewritten history of events?

I swear Kagan is clinically insane.

It’s what the media do. It doesn’t matter that Kagan has been consistently wrong about everything or that he continues to be so. Kagan is a spokesman of the Bush line and therefore his views will be given preferential treatment and frequent airings. Like his emperor he has no clothes but the media don’t care because they aren’t wearing anything either.

The party of the Fortunate Sons. Bush, Kagan, McCain, Kristol…

Yes. Wolfowitz is food for the jowls of hell. The sight of his repulsive face makes me physically sick. He so carelessly and cavalierly said of Iraq, “Our premise was wrong.” And, that made it an open and shut case to the NeoCons.

Kagan said repeatedly “I” and “We”, meaning the NeoCons and what they want for Iraq at the lives of American soldiers.

These are the most dangerous people in America and little attention is given to them. I think we need a NeoCon Watch.

It’s really sad that, as BT says, “St. McCain doesn’t give a rat’s ass what the American people think about his awesome war” yet people are actually going to vote for this man.

Sociopaths are not mentally ill in the psychiatric sense of the word.

Yes, they are. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a diagnosis in the DSM. It is a personality disorder as opposed to a mood disorder like schizophrenia but as such is more intractable. As someone once said, a mood disorder is what you have. A personality disorder is who you are.

Let me set your mind at rest concerning the insanity of the American sheeple:

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
–H.L. Mencken

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and
deserve to get it good and hard.”
–H. L. Mencken

I love Mencken. Funny and absolutely accurate.

Thank God Matthews is finally getting it. When will the rest of the MSM transcriptionists wake up?

Thank God Matthews is finally getting it. When will the rest of the MSM transcriptionists wake up?

are you sure Matthews isn’t just blowing with the prevailing wind?

you know, I read something that was really a great point to be made;

nobody ever marched to impeach clinton and I believe nodody ever marched to impeach nixon

we are marching to impeach this maggot

that speaks volumes

Another candlelight dinner with McStain will bring him around.

I might be giving him too much credit, but for the past several months, all I have read and heard is the surge has been a terrific success. My point has always been, if the surge is such a great success why can’t the troops come home? Why are we in the exact same position we were prior to the surge? I am glad someone is recognizing this point.

NO
THIRD
TERM

How hard is it for America to grasp this concept?

I believe that Mathews is merely angling for an invite to the next McCrazy weenie roast. We all know that this is all that is necessary to win the press over to the Cheney side.

You including Team Clinton in that?

Per McCain:

For the first time, I have seen Osama bin Laden and General (David) Petraeus in greement, and, that is, a central battleground in the battle against al-Qaida is in Iraq today. And that’s what bin Laden was saying and that’s what General Petraeus is saying and that’s what I’m saying, my friends.

Of course, Petraeus, bin Laden, and McCain are correct. But the U.S. is fighting a no-win war in Iraq. If we leave, the forces of militant Islam have defeated us. If we stay, bin Laden’s announced bleed-’em-till-bankruptcy strategy will reduce our economy to that of a not-so-super power.

Sure a population of 300 million can sustain the blood cost of 800 fatalities and 12,000 injuries per year indefinitely. But our economy cannot sustain the treasure cost of $600 billion per year indefinitely, which means that sooner or later we’ll have to acknowledge monetary defeat and withdraw. Let’s cut our losses short.

No matter tomorrow, today is a beautiful day and my little Molly is eager for a stroll around the neighborhood so she can explore and greet everyone she meets. I call her Will Rogers – She never met a person she didn’t like. Her tail wags, she gets a big smile on her face and she steals hearts. Maybe she should head up our foreign policy.

Be in touch with everyone later.

That is the one.

Keep Molly away from Cheney! If she doesn’t become vicious foreverafter, she will be wrestled to the ground, tasered, and then shot, after finding that Cheney is perhaps the only person on earth that she viscerally despises.

I’m not just talking about politicians. Here in the south they love that lost cause shit.

Barbecue this, McCain…

Madame Nu!

No third term for Clinton by electing Hillary?
No third term for Bush by electing McCain?

:D)

NO
THIRD
TERM

How hard is it for America to grasp this concept?

to echo Teddy

I’m not just talking about politicians.

Neither am I.

Quaker Girl – in case you’d never seen these, here is Gilliard on the scourge of the Kagans

Fred

Robert

we are truly bereft

Well, we better get on it then huh?

I think it’s time to start calling this so-called surge what it really is – an escalation.

Actually the father Donald Kagan was no prize either.

I think it’s time to start calling this so-called surge what it really is – an escalation.

the president has to be confronted with this, they are giving him a pass, this was not a surge, this was diverting assets that are required in other arenas for national security and keeping them where they aren’t doing anything

I aslo want patreaus asked directily if this escalation is having a negative affect on our national security and I want an answer, if he gives the wrong answer I want other generals asked the same question

and don’t forget Kimberly Kagan

May I offer a new nickname for McSwine? “silly putty” Every day he hears the shooter or king george say something, he repeats it. He is just a mimic looking for material. I bet you get him hot enough, he would imitate almost anything. Get the right host working him over and he would forget who he is in 5 minutes, and forget which side of the street he is on all his campaign promises in less than 1 minute.
But woe be the person that has to speak to such as this. Treason is not a game. McCain has committed treason helping Boeing to lose jobs as foreign nationals have paid him for his vote and support. That is an offense that for some odd reason, no one has arrested him for? Most surprising in a country that is supposed to have laws. There are few that seem to be applicable these days.

we were a few hundred thousand men in Vietnam….vs millions upon millions of them….how in the heck ere we supposed to win that? drop some more A-bombs?

So has anyone asked the media to go back and look up the term ’surge’ and see if a permanent force escalation fits that definition?

-G

Eeeeegad! I know what you mean. Fred Kagan reminds me of the character Vincent D’Onofrio played in the Men in Black movie where he portrayed a giant cockroach wearing a human suit.

The Military Industrial Complex can look at Freddie with pride as one of their special SS force stormtroopers in continuing the propaganda effort for all war all the time.

So has anyone asked the media to go back and look up the term ’surge’ and see if a permanent force escalation fits that definition?

Bwahaaa! Sorry but just the idea of the media going back and looking up anything struck me as really funny.

it truly AMAZES me that these cretins can make a good living selling this HATEFUL tripe

Bush is probably hoping it gets to that. He’ll feel like a real tough guy, even more than when he signed death warrants.

i think there is some poison in the water in Yale,to produce soooo many sick mofos…

MSNBC:

Heavy fighting erupts in Basra

Iraqi forces clash with Shiite militias in the nation’s southern oil hub. The violence comes as authorities try to cope with the exit of British troops…
____________

This will be pointed to by the Stay The Corpse folks as proof that we cannot leave.

Ever.

If you want at least four more years of stupid, delusional government, John McCain is your man.

please let me wake up one day verrrry soon to find impeachment is back on the table

Vincent D’Onofrio played in the Men in Black movie where he portrayed a giant cockroach wearing a human suit.

that was an All-Time-Great performance imo.

it truly AMAZES me that these cretins can make a good living selling this HATEFUL tripe

Prgressives have to make it on their own, but if you are a crazy right wing loon there is a whole system of think tanks and universities waiting to hire you. They are the real welfare queens.

Clearly a sign that the surge is working.

Call Coo Coo Bananas John and tell him of the great new developments.

-G

If you want at least four more years of stupid, delusional government, John McCain is your man.

Stupid is as stupid does. We’ve tried stupid; let’s try smart for a change.

I’m holding my breath for my weatherman to go back as far as yesterday and admit he really screwed the pooch with that call for “partly sunny.”

You DO realize, don’t you, that the heavy fighting in Basra can be blamed on…IRAN! Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!

My wife and I recently suffered a bought of flu that has been spreading like wildfire around our work environs. That is Iran’s fault too.

dunno ’bout that, but there are skulls and bones there.

Where did Bill Clinton go again?

The only thing that will happen is that one day Pelosi will have moved to the “we should have impeached them” camp.

The only message they will take from it is that we cannot leave, as the Brits did out of Basra.

Great post, BT! I think this is the very sort of thing we should concentrate on. The MSM has totally decided to ignore the war as much as possible, now we have to pick up the slack. I saw a show the other day with one or the other spokesman saying how the american soldiers want to know they are not forgotten. It’s pretty pitiful that they have to wonder where we’re all at. America needs to hear about McCain’s complicity in keeping their sons in a foreign land to fight and possibly to die as much as possible.

Even better than Full Metal Jacket?

he’s no razorback

Did you see this article on alternet this morning about how to talk to right wingers?
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/80507/
Perhaps this would be a place to start.

The sociopathy of the neoconservatives derives from their common ethnic
contempt for the old WASP establishment that dissed them in the mid-20th
century. These successor generation neocons are fueled by the messianic
aura of the 1967 Israeli war and the supposed guilt of the WASP elite
to stop the holocaust. It all gets legitimated by immense power of AIPAC
upon both political parties… it is nothing less than a death cult
posing as foreign policy experts who never have, never will, never could
fight for this country… porcine Kagan is the poster child mascot of the
cult.

O/T- a curious (and hopeful) ruling from The Supremes:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt President Bush a defeat today and ruled that he does not have the “unilateral authority” to force state officials to comply with international treaties.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts said the Constitution gives the president the power “to execute the laws, not make them.” Unless Congress passes a law to enforce a treaty, the president usually cannot do it on his own, Roberts said…

…The International Court of Justice in the Hague, acting on a suit by Mexico, ruled that the United States had failed to carry out its treaty duty to inform a native country when one of its citizens was arrested and charged with a serious crime. The decision pointed to 51 Mexican nationals who were under death sentences in Texas, California and several other states.

It was unclear how this ruling could be enforced. But in a surprise move in 2005, Bush told Texas officials they must reopen and reconsider the cases of the Mexican-born murderers on death row. Bush, a former Texas governor, said he was acting “pursuant to the authority vested in me as president by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Texas officials refused to go along with Bush’s order, and they fought him in court.

In today’s 6-3 decision, the high court sided with the Texas prosecutors.

Roberts said the treaty known as the Vienna Convention was not “binding federal law” because Congress had not passed a law to enforce it. And the president cannot do this on his own, the chief justice said.

“The president’s authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental power, must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself,” Roberts said. “We therefore conclude, given the absence of congressional legislation, that the non-self-executing treaties at issue here did not expressly or impliedly vest the president with the unilateral authority to make them self-executing,” he said.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Roberts’ opinion. And Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in the result…

But, but, but, I thought Bu’ush was the Plenary Unitary Executive who could simply rule by fiat as dictated by exigency (not to mention be the final arbiter of the meaning and applicability of treaties like Geneva, e.g., as conferred by the cowardly Military Commissions Act.

Curious, indeed.

That is BULLSHIT! For once, Bush was right. Where does Roberts get off saying that a treaty is NOT the LAW OF THE LAND!? Read the Constitution and it states unequivocally that any treaty signed by the United States is the friggin’ Law of the Land.

With THIS “logic” on the part of Roberts, it is clear that the Geneva Accords, the Conventions Against Torture, Abuse, and Inhumane Treatment are non-binding on the states and the Constitution is somehow wrong in its very clear, original intent, words!

WTF WTF WTF! Don’t impeach Cheney until we impeach Roberts for obviously not EVER having read the Constitution.

These successor generation neocons are fueled by the messianic aura of the 1967 Israeli war and the supposed guilt of the WASP elite to stop the holocaust. It all gets legitimated by immense power of AIPAC upon both political parties… it is nothing less than a death cult

I have been needing an answer to this question. This makes sense. Being a human and filled with hubris is a dangerous combo.

Yeah, and I’m really angry at that arrogance, and at having leaders who don’t give a rat’s ass what I and the majority of the rest of We The People think and want!!! It seems to be that way MOST of the time, and assuredly in the last 8 years. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, and we DO have the option of firing presidents who feel this way! IF CONGRESS gave a rat’s ass what we wanted, anyway.

Then we get an “off the table” newly elected Speaker of the House and we’re all just terminally FUCKED!

NOT what the founders had in mind, I am certain!

haven’t see that so I can’t say, sorry. Can’t imagine that he would disappoint tho.

So????

I hereby renew my proposal/suggestion that So?!?> be considered to be the new “Zed!”

Bobby,

If this is ‘good’ news then why did them ~!@#$%^&* Librul Justices vote agin it?

They made some silly claim that International Treaties, signed onto by the US, became, in effect, the ‘law’ which America, Nation and States, are bound to follow.

I’m not certain I’m ready to celebrate, just yet. ;~)

This ‘decision’ might have some twisted sensibilities tangled-up in it? :~(

but I thought our treaties were binding law, I think I disagree with this court decision

With THIS “logic” on the part of Roberts, it is clear that the Geneva Accords, the Conventions Against Torture, Abuse, and Inhumane Treatment are non-binding on the states and the Constitution is somehow wrong in its very clear, original intent, words!

on this I agree

This ‘decision’ might have some twisted sensibilities tangled-up in it? :~(

I am smelling a setup

I think the president deliberately made ths request with full knowledge of the supreme court decision

this is a setup to grant state rights over government mandate

Maybe Roberts is in charge of the country and not Bush. Maybe Cheney wanted this decision. One thing for certain is that the inmates are running the asylum.

I’m not seeing that in the Constitution. (e.g., Article VI). Are you saying the President has the authority to commit the U.S. to binding treaty terms? THat if he just signs some treaty not issued by Congress, it’s binding? (and, never mind Article III, Section 2, the final say of the Judiciary on interpreting the meaning and extent of treaties).

“The president’s authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental power, must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself,” Roberts said. “We therefore conclude, given the absence of congressional legislation, that the non-self-executing treaties at issue here did not expressly or impliedly vest the president with the unilateral authority to make them self-executing,” he said.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Roberts’ opinion. And Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in the result…

OMFG… This is a landmark decision indeed. For if nothing else, it marks the first time in a long and incredibly undistinguished career that Clarence Thomas has ever decided *anything* correctly.

The President, unilaterally, does NOT have the constitutional power to run off and make treaties to his, and his alone, liking.

What the fuck, Clarence? Asleep at the wheel?

I think your ’sniffer’ done got it correct.

Mine be twitchin’ too …

With THIS “logic” on the part of Roberts, it is clear that the Geneva Accords, the Conventions Against Torture, Abuse, and Inhumane Treatment are non-binding on the states and the Constitution is somehow wrong in its very clear, original intent, words!

On this, I disagree. I believe that Congress did indeed ratify the acceptance of the Geneva Conventions as the law of the land. Probably oughta research this, – but I’m pretty damn sure.

Bobby,

When did the Treaty in question go into effect? Or has it?

Again I ask, why did ‘the three’ not go along?

Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Seems pretty clear to me. The Court just asserted its constitutional authority. Bu’ush does not have the unitary power to commit the U.S. or the indeividual states to adhere to treaties not authorized by Congress and validated by the Court.

That’s just it. Once a treaty is ratified, that’s it. Law of the land. I am operating on the assumption that the treaty in question has been ratified. If it hasn’t been, then no problem, but if it has been ratified, then the entire nation is BOUND BY THE TREATY because it IS the law of the land.

Findlaw:

Justice Chase: ”A treaty cannot be the Supreme law of the land, that is of all the United States, if any act of a State Legislature can stand in its way. If the constitution of a State . . . must give way to a treaty, and fall before it; can it be questioned, whether the less power, an act of the state legislature, must not be prostrate? It is the declared will of the people of the United States that every treaty made, by the authority of the United States shall be superior to the Constitution and laws of any individual State; and their will alone is to decide.’

Key phrase is non self executing, requiring an enabling act to place in
legal code status.

From the AP story on this in the FDL News Box:

An international court ruled in 2004 that the convictions of Medellin and 50 other Mexicans on death row around the United States violated the 1963 Vienna Convention, which provides that people arrested abroad should have access to their home country’s consular officials. The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, said the Mexican prisoners should have new court hearings to determine whether the violation affected their cases.

Bush, who oversaw 152 executions as Texas governor, disagreed with the decision. But he said it must be carried out by state courts because the United States had agreed to abide by the world court’s rulings in such cases. The administration argued that the president’s declaration is reason enough for Texas to grant Medellin a new hearing.

I’m not at all familiar with the treaty at immediate issue.

What I *am* concerned about, however, is that Boosh is trying to sign treaties w/Iraq – and utterly, falling-down amazed at who just stood up and shot him the finger.

Just when I think I’ve gotten it figured out, something like this jumps up and proves, once again, that I have *no* idea how Washington works….

Define “self-executing”, please.

Do NOT use the term “enabling act” in any thread that has Bush as a focus!

Vienna Convention on The Law of Treaties, 1969.

I don’t think we are signatory to it. Still searching.

I would hope, given further reading that suggests that the Convention in question has NOT been ratified (and is not legally binding), that the ruling of the SCROTUS would pretty much tell Bush that any “treaty that isn’t a treaty” he makes with Iraq doesn’t have any legal legs to stand upon.

I had no idea that there were so many Constitutional Law experts here at FDL.

I confess to only a short tenure in those regions and doubtless, ‘the three’ Justices have little enough experience amongst themselves, clearly, if Justice Thomas thought it a good idea, well then, of course, it must be.

Incidently, this question is for those who know, Is the Constitution still alive? Is it well, you know, okay? It has seemed rather palsied of late, at least to me, but … maybe I’ve missed sumthin???

Well, y’see, that was my take. Why I thought it was a curious yet hopeful sign. What I’m still looking into is just who constitutionally has the dispositive authority to commit the U.S. to treaties.

instead, use “the patriot” act…same thing

No, it is awful pale and listless. What you see here in the dregs of a dying thread stream are a few of us trying to hold fast to the few remaining threads of that piece of (toilet) paper.

well that would make me feel better, if they were talking about a treaty that was not ratified

Incidently, this question is for those who know, Is the Constitution still alive? Is it well, you know, okay? It has seemed rather palsied of late, at least to me, but … maybe I’ve missed sumthin???

Try this again so that my post isn’t just hanging there with its willy all out.

No, it is awful pale and listless. What you see here in the dregs of a dying thread stream are a few of us trying to hold fast to the few remaining threads of that piece of (toilet) paper.

Bobby,

Have you seen anything as yet regarding why ‘the three’ did not ‘pile-on’?

Were this such a great idea (hopefully Praedor is correct, and this is a shot across W’s bow, but I for one, am yet to be convincicated) why did it not come down unanimous?

Just a wee little question.

Any answers?

Guess we’ll hav to wait and see. Mayhap the ‘three’ just don’t ‘get it.?

OK, here it is: Article II, Section 2:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

End of discussion. If the Vienna Convention was not ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, Bu’ush can just fu’uck off. He does not have the plenary power to commit the U.S. or any state to treaty terms not ratified by the Senate.

I return to my amazement that Clarence Thomas *seems* to have made a correct decision.

My world is shaken…

now I’m wondering if I was adopted…..

No problem then…if the Vienna “treaty” is not, in fact, a ratified (by 2/3 of the senate) treaty.

And it gives force to the idea that Bush cannot make any binding “treaty-like” agreements with Iraq as well. Perhaps that was why he pushed this in spite of “not liking the outcome” vis a vis the rapist/murderer convicts.

this is actually stunning to me, if the treaty is not ratified and roberts smacked bush top side the face

wow

I found this at TalkLeft that has the US withdrawing from that treaty in ‘05 but that we had originally proposed it and ratified it.

I am still digging to ascertain whether the Senate ever ratified this treaty. I bet not.

The cynic in me says that, Given that Bu’ush is now the lamest of lame ducks and politically neutered (he’s now the Black Knight at the Stream Crossing in “Holy Grail”), The Supremes’ right wing cohort can now comfortably go against him in asserting their constitutional purview. After all, he will be gone (we hope), whereas they will remain.

could it be, that now that roberts has a seat in power, he is not willing to give that power to the president?

could it be he has had his awakening and now act to protect his constitutional authority and the very constitution itself?

I am womdering, hoping, there might be a flip in progress

Perhaps Roberts et al were among those with a cutoff of 30% for blindly supporting Bush and everything he emits from his orifices. When Bush goes below 30% approval, that shaves off even Roberts, Alito, and Scabia. Thomas though, I had him pegged for a Bushie all the way down to 5% support.

“…The United States proposed the protocol in 1963 and ratified it — along with the rest of the Vienna Convention — in 1969…”
_________

I’d just like to see documentary confirmation of that, that the Senate ratified it.

What I’m finding is it was proposed in ‘63 and ratified in ‘69.

Well then…I am DAMN sure hoping that we did officially withdraw from the treaty or the ruling of the Roberts court, in spite of potential good side effects, has much MUCH bigger BAD side effects.

Gosh the ‘three’ are such dummies, must be they never learned what they needed to know in Kindergarten, you know, about how to play nicely together.

Geez, whudsamaddawidme?

Here the whole damned world has changed, Clarence got it ‘right’ and I’m just not all waggy-tail happy.

Must be havin’ a ‘moment’!

Praedor, you normally exhibit reason and perspective, hell so does Bobby!

Help me out brother, if this is a ‘good’ thang why did the ‘librul’ judges vote agin it?

Maybe we don’t have ta worry ’bout gettin’ in a Dem Prez, afterall, they’d just nominate more ‘bad’ libruls.

I do not, DO NOT, think we’ve reason to celebrate and I don’t feel like partyin’ no how.

There is more to this than meets the eye …

well that would suck, that would mean this is a setup and bush knew the outcome before he requested they follow the treaty

Personally, I think that is the ‘BINGO’!!!

I think the state behaved inappropriately and SHOULD have allowed the accused access to their embassy. That said, I was/am worried (until the status of the treaty is clear) that Roberts and the winger cohort are totally blowing off a simple, clear, and unequivocal part of the Constitution that says treaties are the law of the land. Full stop.

IF the treaty remains in effect then the Roberts ruling is BAD. If the treaty is no longer in effect then the Roberts ruling is bad on this case (lower case bad) but good in neutering Bush and his fantasies about unlimited magical unitary executive powers up the bunghole.

Does anyone care what reasoning the ‘three’ bad librul Justices used?

Or is that NOT germane?

I think it is, and don’t feel all warm and fuzzy.

The ruling is probably bad any way you look at it. It’s bad if the US hasn’t abrogated the treaty in question and it’s bad if the US has withdrawn as it sets the precedent that the President can unilaterally pull the US out of treaties.

Thanks Praedor for answering, that fleshs-out you response.

I hope you are correct regarding your most positive take, but I remain skeptical and want to know much more before I start cheering wildly.

It’s pretty clear what constitutes binding treaty ratification (2/3 net Senate Advise and Consent vote), but not what constitutes lawful withdrawal. Just a letter from the Sec’y of State, saying “we’re outa here”?

The question of “self executing” is still open. I have no idea what a “self executing” treaty is vs a treaty that isn’t “self executing”. This is the distinction Roberts makes with regards to whether or not the treaty is binding without specific legislation by Congress to enforce a “non-self executing” treaty.

Didn’t Bush just end the ABM Treaty by saying “we’re outta here”?

I think we need an amendment that states that withdrawal from a treaty ALSO requires ratification by 2/3 of the Senate.

I have yet to find any constitutional language explicitly requiring Congress to enact treaty-enabling legislation.

Interesting, this whole deal.

But, for me, any restraint on Bu’ush’s self-declared Unitary Power has to be a good thing, irrespective of the otherwise utilitarian particulars at play here.

But here’s a potential problem (there’s lots of them). Let’s say the next Prez signs on to the Kyoto Protocols (almost too late for that one) or the follow on to the Kyoto Protocols. According to the Roberts ruling, that would mean the treaty is meaningless and that the states, if they so choose, can totally ignore it (and any other treaty too).

NO WAY! NO WAY! NO WAY!

“According to the Roberts ruling, that would mean the treaty is meaningless and that the states, if they so choose, can totally ignore it”
______

Yeah. Absent specific enabling legislation. Dunno. Is that too much to ask? In terms of subordinating U.S. laws to the terms of a treaty? I don’t read Roberts et al as saying U.S. laws always trump treaties.

Dunno.

Wow, an international ’signing-statement’.

Simple as that.

Amazing, so W says, ‘Condi, um, take a note, tell them pricks their boat don’t float, get it right off, and then, if Congress asks, tell ‘em to stick it! That’s muh gurl.’

Yeppers, I learn sumthin new evra day.

I don’t think so. But I’ve seen so much over the last seven-plus years that I didn’t ‘believe’ so, or So? maybe you’re right and no other Prez was smart enough ta figure it out.

Guess we’re in a whole new world of hurt these days.

Besides, Congress ratifies Treaties just for the heck of it so of course they don’t mean anything.

Why didn’t Bush just ‘unilaterally’ simply abrogate all Treaties and rescind all laws he didn’t like?

Damn! That’s what happened to gravity. Newton, ya bum, get over it, move along. George at ‘work’!

It is very very hard being the Decider.

‘Problems’?

You betcha! More than a few.

Until thangs are a lot more clear we should prolly temper our enthusiasm, even if them ‘three’ are no more than just obstructionistical twits.

That little ‘fact’ is the hippopotomus in the oinkment.

This self executing vs non self executing question is an area where
the court can inject itself depending on factors that all the definitions
I find via google search refer to as “complex”… the Roberts court seems
willing to sail into uncharted waters on several topics this term, not a
good sign. Too much latitude for the court to make law itself.

Hmmm, another of them little ‘problems’.

Are you worried about the ‘tack’ the court is taking?

‘Starboard’, perhaps, clear sailin’ that way fer sure.

Don’t think its to ‘port’, does you?

sorry – looong phone call.

the Roberts court seems
willing to sail into uncharted waters on several topics this term,…

I disagree – Roberts, at his confirmation hearing and since, has made clear that he views The Court as having very *little* to do with anything, and will only step in, at the greatest reluctance, to deal with any any question put before them.

Which leaves me still agog and amazed that they weighed in on this at all.

I cannot help but fear, however, that somehow we’ve been “taken”, in a way in which I do not yet understand, by this decision, if for no other reason than by noting those Justices voting in the affirmative.

I’m missing something.

Patience ‘is’.

There is a good deal of info yet ‘missing’ and I would not celebrate too soon, might have cause for regret later.

Why did the ‘three’ not climb aboard when the good ship lolly-pop Roberts’
set sail?

Landlubbers or seasick? Or just plain craven nay-sayers?

Avast there matey! Get them sea legs under ya a’fore the yardarm sweeps ya overboard …

We all may end up in the drink, me thinks, it doth bode an ill-wind and not a rum-doo.

Sorry for reacting to all this in such an nautical fashion, but I’m hard-pressed to understand the euphoria … a wee dram of caution I urge.

A hogshead, perhaps.