Obama administration: ACTA is infact binding to the US

[mysticwaterfall]

The Supreme Court established in Reid vs Covert (1957) that the Constitution is supreme to treaties domestically. So if something in a treaty is ruled unconstitutional, that provision is null and void on US soil. So as far as US law is comcerned domestically, my original version is correct.

International Law does not equal "treaty" though. I'll give you an example - let's say that the U.S all of a sudden decides that from now on, torturing POW's, especially terrorists, is legal. You would be in breach of several International Laws alogside the Human Rights bill, conviniently forgetting about the entire Geneva Convention.

Trust me, the repercusions againts the U.S would be more then severe. The fact that you "can" do it doesn't mean that you wouldn't be breaching any laws.

Well there may or may not be repercussions (for instance, your terroist example certainly happened in Guantanamo, with nothing coming of it. The US doesn't acknowledge the ICC, etc ) it doesn't change the fact that's the way it is on domestic soil.. Is this right? Maybe not. Is this reality? Yes.

The U.S did not face sanctions only because the acts in Guantanamo were not institutionalized - these were particular cases that have been "corrected" by the higher-ups and the responsible parties faced prosecution. There is no legislature in the U.S that would directly stand againts the international laws I mentioned.

Of course not, because torture is unconstitutional. That's why they put the terroists in Cuba, so it wouldn't be domestic. The supreme court later ruled that the Geneva conventions did apply. Overall it was a bad example on your part because there was nothing in conflict. With ATCA there is a potential free speech conflict, even though I think that the courts would dismiss that and uphold it.

While international law is a great principle, there isn't much teeth to it against strong countries. China has been violating it for decades and is doing better then ever.

 

[Foxi4]

Of course not, because torture is unconstitutional. That's why they put the terroists in Cuba, so it wouldn't be domestic. The supreme court later ruled that the Geneva conventions did apply. Overall it was a bad example on your part because there was nothing in conflict. With ATCA there is a potential free speech conflict, even though I think that the courts would dismiss that and uphold it.

While international law is a great principle, there isn't much teeth to it against strong countries. China has been violating it for decades and is doing better then ever.

I agree that international law doesn't have much "teeth", however you do have to consider the fact that China is a quasi-capitalistic communist regime - not exactly a player that's going to follow the rules now, is it? Moreover, doesn't constitution apply only to the U.S citizens, by any chance? Because if that's the case, torturing a prisoner would not be unconstitutional, by no means. Of course it has the sections about prisoners, human rights and whatnot, so it's a matter of interpretation. Theoretically though, the U.S. constitution applies to the U.S. citizens.

Also, according to the U.S. law and international law, the land on which embassies and military bases are placed is the property of the country with which the institution is affiliated with, so if you torture a prisoner in Guantanamo, you very much torture him/her in the U.S. Same applies to airplanes and ships - their board is the soil of the country they took off/sailed out of.

 

[mysticwaterfall]

Of course not, because torture is unconstitutional. That's why they put the terroists in Cuba, so it wouldn't be domestic. The supreme court later ruled that the Geneva conventions did apply. Overall it was a bad example on your part because there was nothing in conflict. With ATCA there is a potential free speech conflict, even though I think that the courts would dismiss that and uphold it.

While international law is a great principle, there isn't much teeth to it against strong countries. China has been violating it for decades and is doing better then ever.

I agree that international law doesn't have much "teeth", however you do have to consider the fact that China is a quasi-capitalistic communist regime - not exactly a player that's going to follow the rules now, is it? Moreover, doesn't constitution apply only to the U.S citizens, by any chance? Because if that's the case, torturing a prisoner would not be unconstitutional, by no means. Of course it has the sections about prisoners, human rights and whatnot, so it's a matter of interpretation. Theoretically though, the U.S. constitution applies to the U.S. citizens.

Also, according to the U.S. law and international law, the land on which embassies and military bases are placed is the property of the country with which the institution is affiliated with, so if you torture a prisoner in Guantanamo, you very much torture him/her in the U.S. Same applies to airplanes and ships - their board is the soil of the country they took off/sailed out of.

Constitutional rights for non citizens in US soil is a little bit of a tricky issue. For instance, the 14th amendment says no person shall be denied due process or equal protection of the law, which the Court has determined applies to non-citizens and was eventually extended to Guantanamo. However, the Court has only ever made mention of specific rights, and never all of them.

 

[Foxi4]

Of course not, because torture is unconstitutional. That's why they put the terroists in Cuba, so it wouldn't be domestic. The supreme court later ruled that the Geneva conventions did apply. Overall it was a bad example on your part because there was nothing in conflict. With ATCA there is a potential free speech conflict, even though I think that the courts would dismiss that and uphold it.

While international law is a great principle, there isn't much teeth to it against strong countries. China has been violating it for decades and is doing better then ever.

I agree that international law doesn't have much "teeth", however you do have to consider the fact that China is a quasi-capitalistic communist regime - not exactly a player that's going to follow the rules now, is it? Moreover, doesn't constitution apply only to the U.S citizens, by any chance? Because if that's the case, torturing a prisoner would not be unconstitutional, by no means. Of course it has the sections about prisoners, human rights and whatnot, so it's a matter of interpretation. Theoretically though, the U.S. constitution applies to the U.S. citizens.

Also, according to the U.S. law and international law, the land on which embassies and military bases are placed is the property of the country with which the institution is affiliated with, so if you torture a prisoner in Guantanamo, you very much torture him/her in the U.S. Same applies to airplanes and ships - their board is the soil of the country they took off/sailed out of.

Constitutional rights for non citizens in US soil is a little bit of a tricky issue. For instance, the 14th amendment says no person shall be denied due process or equal protection of the law, which the Court has determined applies to non-citizens and was eventually extended to Guantanamo. However, the Court has only ever made mention of specific rights, and never all of them.

If you want to hear my personal take, I believe the constitution should only concern people of Americal citizenship - nobody else pledged alligence to the U.S flag and shouldn't be subjected to laws that were imposed on him/her without his/her consent.

That said, the rights of prisoners without the U.S citizenship or held in prisons abroad which are under U.S jurisdiction should fall under a completely separate set of laws designed specifically for them to best serve their interests... but that's just me, blabbing.