 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Prove that sucession is implied power. |
Read the 10th Amendment, followed by Article 2.
quote:
The GC did envision a court system. That is the only way to enforce it. It was most definetly implied. |
I disagree - but your position doesn't address the problem that Nuremburg was a trial by the victors who rejected defenses they didn't like, rather than a proper trial by ones peers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Read the 10th Amendment, followed by Article 2. |
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
And Article 2 deals with the President, and how to elect him.
The power of Federal governance has been designated to the United States, which means sucession is illegal. By agreeing to the federal governance of the US, the states have given away their rights to leave. Federal power has been delegated to the government.
Read Article 1: Section 10
Clause 1
Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility
The signing of the Constitution is a contract that the state is part of the government of the United States. Succession is imparing the obligation of that contract.
Clause 3
Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Speaks for itself.
I think the evidence is very clear that leaving the United States is illegal under the Constitution.
quote:
I disagree - but your position doesn't address the problem that Nuremburg was a trial by the victors who rejected defenses they didn't like, rather than a proper trial by ones peers. |
Any trial of, say, treason at the end of a revolution or civil war is a trial by the victors who rejected defenses they didn't like.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
I'm sorry I meant Article 1 
quote:
Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility |
This clause applies only to States. If a state secedes it is no longer a state.
quote:
The signing of the Constitution is a contract that the state is part of the government of the United States. Succession is imparing the obligation of that contract. |
The states would never have agreed to the Constitution if they thought it was an eternally binding contract.
quote:
Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. |
Once a state is no longer a state, this doesn't apply.
Secession is an implied 10th Amendment power, because nothing in the Constitution forbids the act of secession.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Any trial of, say, treason at the end of a revolution or civil war is a trial by the victors who rejected defenses they didn't like. |
Yes, and such trials are really not moral either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
A state that attempts to succeed is breaking the Contract that it signed when it signed the Constitution. |
And what part of that contract says it is eternal? Fact is, all it says is that states can do as they like as long as such an action is not expressly forbidden, which secesion certainly is not.
quote:
Whoops... sucks to be them then. It is binding... every Constitution is. |
Why would states enter into a Constitution they were stuck with when they just got finished fighting a 8 year war to throw off a government they no longer wanted to be stuck with? It defies reason.
quote:
But it can't no longer be a state, because it would break it's contract. |
You haven't adequately shown that the contract - if any, in the normal sense - could not be withdrawn from.
quote:
Article 1, Clause 10, makes succession totally illegal. Anyone that can't see that is making things up to fit their political ideology. |
No, Article 1 Section 10 says there are certain things states can't do. Secession isn't one of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, I read it... and I have NO idea where you got your interpretation from. |
Article 81, section 3[c]. Look it up and try to remember what I was responding to in my previous post.
quote:
Meaning that he is put in jail with some charges, |
Good then they can strike out the odious Article and not give themselves easily abused power.
quote:
I'm sorry, but I see this as much more harmful than any piddling things that you don't agree with. |
The hostages that would be used a bargaining chips for his release and those that would inevitably die in any rescue attempt might disagree.
quote:
And how does that violate the rule of law? It is still a fair trial. |
I hope you can see how secret evidence can taint the very notion of a fair trial but perhaps you can explain how the articles I listed do not hurt the tribunal's credibility.
quote:
You would rather not have a trial at all, and be judge, jury, and executioner. |
I would rather save lives and, on the plus side, I'd be following the law at the sametime given the fact that GWB recently changed the law regarding assassination.
quote:
Statements like that make me ashamed to be American at times. |
Hey, at least I don't advocate randomly killing civilians like some Apolytoners. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
Look David, there's what Immy posted for the 10th Amendment:
quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. |
Allow me to spell this out: if a power is not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, it is reserved for either the states or the people (since the states must have a Republican form of government). Therefore, there are no implied powers for the states.
As for secession, I have no idea why you're bringing that up. You do have a recollection of all of those Civil War debates, don't you? 
quote:
You can't liberate dead people, |
And you can't lock up the forces of the state KIA.
quote:
and in many cases those camps were worse than death. |
Which does not mean that the liberation is worse than letting them continue to suffer in the camps.
quote:
Regardless, you can't punish someone for following orders to avoid death or harsh imprisonment - it's utterly immoral to put someone in a situation where they will be harshly punished no matter what. |
Immoral according to you.
quote:
Nope, but if you believe Germans should have been you must also logically accept that Soviets should've as well, and probably even Americans. |
Absolutely. And the Brits. And any other state that engages in war crimes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Article 81, section 3[c]. Look it up and try to remember what I was responding to in my previous post. |
(c) In case of an acquittal, the accused shall be released immediately, subject to the following:
(i) Under exceptional circumstances, and having regard, inter alia, to the concrete risk of flight, the seriousness of the offence charged and the probability of success on appeal, the Trial Chamber, at the request of the Prosecutor, may maintain the detention of the person pending appeal;
(ii) A decision by the Trial Chamber under subparagraph (c) (i) may be appealed in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
So? If it is thought that the defendant might flee to try to avoid facing appeal, he can be kept in jail until the appeal is done. I'm not sure why this is so horrible to you.
quote:
Good then they can strike out the odious Article and not give themselves easily abused power. |
Hey, you better watch out. Those black Sikorsky helicopters will get you  .
I think it is a very important article and needed.
quote:
The hostages that would be used a bargaining chips for his release and those that would inevitably die in any rescue attempt might disagree. |
 So then no one should be tried because there might be hostages used as a bargining chip? I thought you were against negotiating with terrorists  .
Please keep from refering to strawman arguments.
quote:
I hope you can see how secret evidence can taint the very notion of a fair trial but perhaps you can explain how the articles I listed do not hurt the tribunal's credibility. |
It is used in Europe, and I think they have fair trials. And the credibility of the ICC isn't hurt at all by ANY article you have mentioned.
quote:
I would rather save lives and, on the plus side, I'd be following the law at the sametime given the fact that GWB recently changed the law regarding assassination. |
Save lives instead of a trial. Yeah, I guess a police state would sound good to you
quote:
Hey, at least I don't advocate randomly killing civilians like some Apolytoners |
I thought you supported Hiroshima as well .
And that is way better than backing basically backing a police state with no civil liberties such as trials.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Allow me to spell this out: if a power is not explicitly delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, it is reserved for either the states or the people (since the states must have a Republican form of government). Therefore, there are no implied powers for the states. |
At this point we're simply arguing semantics.
quote:
As for secession, I have no idea why you're bringing that up. You do have a recollection of all of those Civil War debates, don't you? |
Of course.
quote:
And you can't lock up the forces of the state KIA. |
Eh? Sorry that came across as unclear to me...
quote:
Which does not mean that the liberation is worse than letting them continue to suffer in the camps. |
No, but why should they suffer in the first place?
quote:
Immoral according to you. |
I would think most people would agree as to it's immorality.
quote:
Absolutely. And the Brits. And any other state that engages in war crimes. |
So you can agree Nuremburg was unfairly biased?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
I really would like a real answer to this question because Roland wasn't too clear on this point. In addition, it smacks of double jeopardy. |
How does trying the person on appeal lead to double jeopardy? Does that mean the system of Appeals in the US is double jeopardy?
And what do you mean by what legal bases do they claim... etc, etc. I've answered your question 2 or 3 times already. Because they don't want him to flee and avoid trial. That is the legal basis... war criminals should not be allowed to avoid their trials.
quote:
Forgoing the use of secret evidence will NOT require the release of dangerous war criminals, Imran. It would merely require that the ICC establish fair procedures for dealing with classified information in thier cases similar to the procedures used in US criminal cases. Those procedures require the government to give the defendent an unclassified summary of the classified information. People such as those who bombed the World Trade Center and the federal building in Oklahoma City, have been successfully prosecuted under these methods. I fail to see why it couldn't work on the international scale. |
Just because this is how it is done in the US, doesn't mean that other Western nations have unfair trials because they do not do it in the same way. Some european countries have secret evidence and their trials seem very fair.
Secondly, international courts are very different than US courts. Countries would, rightly I think, be worried about espionage from other states. By giving up sensitive information, even a summery, would help in espionage attempts.
Now, what are the specific articles we are dealing with her that deal with secret evidence?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
If we hold the person in jail while we protest his acquittal, it probably would be. |
How does that even qualify under the definition of double jeopardy?!
quote:
It seems fair TO YOU |
And to you as well... unless you think Europe has unfair trials, and thus aren't truly democratic .
And also to most of the people in the world.
quote:
I've already realized that. The protections for the individual seem to be much less. |
Than the US. Who says the US court system is the one the rest of the world should be following?
quote:
How is this relevent given the fact that States don't have the final say on what information gets withheld from evidence. The ICC does.
Article 68, sections 1-6 deal with the circumstances in which closed sessions of the Court may be held and evidence may be withheld from the defense. |
2. As an exception to the principle of public hearings provided for in article 67, the Chambers of the Court may, to protect victims and witnesses or an accused, conduct any part of the proceedings in camera or allow the presentation of evidence by electronic or other special means. In particular, such measures shall be implemented in the case of a victim of sexual violence or a child who is a victim or a witness, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, having regard to all the circumstances, particularly the views of the victim or witness.
4.Where the disclosure of evidence or information pursuant to this Statute may lead to the grave endangerment of the security of a witness or his or her family, the Prosecutor may, for the purposes of any proceedings conducted prior to the commencement of the trial, withhold such evidence or information and instead submit a summary thereof. Such measures shall be exercised in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial.
6. A State may make an application for necessary measures to be taken in respect of the protection of its servants or agents and the protection of confidential or sensitive information.
 You wasted my time on such trivialness?!! This is absurd! How can you say that including a summery of the evidence (which means the prosecutor has a say in what information gets withheld, and the ICC can agree or disagree that certain types information may be withheld) to protect the victim from reprisals is against a fair trial?!
Hell, I have problems with this country's insistance on defendants being able to face their accusers if the accusers have a reasonable fear that they will be killed (this is the reason that it is so hard to get mob bosses convicted). And 'witness protection' programs are a crock.
In fact, I'd like the US to adopt the ICC standards in the protection of victims and witnesses. It is much more logical and fair. And I'd like to know where you think the the lawyers of the defense can't have the summary of the evidence of testimony from victims?
Are you just nitpicking at irrelevant non-issues just to be irritating? I'm sorry, but all the anti-ICC propaganda by the American far-right is simply that: propaganda, that unfortunetly many Americans have been snookered by.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Roland
|
 |
Auf'm Jahrmarkt :(
May 1999
time: 06:19
|
|
DinoDoc:
"Article 81, section 3[c]."
" We are assuming that the defendant would be acquitted if the charges against him/her. On what legal basis do they claim the right to continue holding the person in detention?"
Why is this such a problem ? If there is appeal, the acquittal is not final.
"On what legal basis do they claim the right to continue holding the person in detention muchless appeal his acquittal?"
I do not understand that question. If the law says you can appeal an acquittal, what more does it take ?
"I hope you can see how secret evidence can taint the very notion of a fair trial..."
I ask for the 2nd time - what exactly can be withheld, what can be withheld without the court having seen it ?
And what do you mean by use of secret evidence ? One is that the public is excluded, but where do you see that the PARTIES are excluded ?
"Those procedures require the government to give the defendent an unclassified summary of the classified information. People such as those who bombed the World Trade Center and the federal building in Oklahoma City, have been successfully prosecuted under these methods. I fail to see why it couldn't work on the international scale."
Where do you see the difference to the ICC statute ?
quote:
Where the disclosure of evidence or information pursuant to this Statute may lead to the grave endangerment of the security of a witness or his or her family, the Prosecutor may, for the purposes of any proceedings conducted prior to the commencement of the trial, withhold such evidence or information and instead submit a summary thereof. Such measures shall be exercised in a manner which is not prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial. |
"Article 68, sections 1-6 deal with the circumstances in which closed sessions of the Court may be held and evidence may be withheld from the defense."
Where do you get the withheld evidence from ? Is it the "in camera" that gets your balls in a knot ? If so, let me quote from the draft rules of evidence and procedure, like rule 72 2.:
quote:
2. In deciding whether the evidence referred to in sub-rule 1 is relevant or admissible, a Chamber shall hear in camera the views of the Prosecutor, the defence, the witness and the victim or his or her legal representative... . |
(my emphasis)
Not-public does not mean withheld from the defense. I'd be glad if you could order your points along that line and explain what kind of "secrecy" you mean where and object to for what reason.
Oh, and GP: The US will jump aboard in maybe 10 years or so.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-05-2002 08:56
|