Who knew that the Chemical Weapons Convention trumps the U.S. Constitution?

[kpete]

Carney pretty much gave away Obama's entire legal argument for intervention:

The Chemical Weapons Convention has more than 150 signatories and makes clear that the use and proliferation of chemical weapons is a clear violation of international norms, and that it is absolutely in the national security interest of the Unites States and in the international community that the use of chemical weapons on the scale that we saw on August 21st cannot be ignored. It must be responded to.

Because to allow it to happen without a response would be to invite further use of chemical weapons and to have that international standard dissolve. And the consequences of that, given the volatility of the region and the concerns that this nation and many others have about proliferation of chemical weapons, would be very serious indeed.

In the Libyan intervention, a vaguely worded UN resolution replaced congressional authorization. A UN resolution is clearly not obtainable for the coming Syrian adventure, so the new fallback is the Chemical Weapons Convention. Apparently the upholding of this Convention is sufficiently vital that it obviates any need for congressional authorization of force.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/27/press-briefing-press-secretary-jay-carney-8272013

[DontTreadOnMe]

1. Who knew the Founding Fathers didn't include chemical weapons?

Did anybody know? kpete, did you know?

[snappyturtle]

4. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare

war for reasons it deems a threat, e.g. use of chemical weapons.

[Arctic Dave]

2. Strange. There is a treaty banning the use of clusterbombs but the US uses them

and they want to sell them to a sponsor of terrorism, Saudi Arabia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bomb

[snappyturtle]

6. Maybe Saudi Arabia would like some depleted uranium

loaded ammunition too. It's a destructive tool that keeps on
giving.

[JayhawkSD]

11. The US is not a signatory to that treaty...

...and therefor not bound by it. I do not consider that to be a good thing, you understand, merely reporting.

We are also not a signatory to the treaty prohibiting the use of landmines. That one is really wierd considering what IEDs have done to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We make a shitload of money selling cluster munitions and landmines.

[Arctic Dave]

14. And there lies the rub.

We are sitting on a fake moral high ground and saying that what was done was "against international norms and UN treaties" when we are doing the same thing with other more damaging munitions.

Cluster munitions have killed far more innocent people then all gas used in the last fifty years.

[bobduca]

17. Hey now, atrocities are conveniences when going to war

don't make us think incongruous thoughts about our Dear Leader's plans!

[oldhippie]

3. But it's OK if our guy does it ......

It was bad when Bush did it.

Oh, wait ....... Didn't both Bush's get approval from Congress? Can someone refresh my memory?

Carney's statement seems quite a stretch.

[treestar]

5. How does a treaty duly enacted pursuant to the process described in the Constitution?

"Trump" the Constitution if we keep to it?

The only opposition there is to the argument is that the Syrians did not use chemical weapons.

This is a thorny question and we are stuck with it. No way out of it by claiming it's not legal - we signed the treaty.

[woo me with science]

8. It's not "thorny" at all.

It's a fucking scam. And your bullshit propaganda does not fly anymore.

[treestar]

9. Now it's BS propaganda to adhere to the Constitution?

It's a very tough question. If you believe government is more than just what you personally want.

[woo me with science]

10. ...

[treestar]

12. OK you have a problem with our form of government.

Just what do you propose?

[woo me with science]

15. I don't "have a problem" with our form of government, treestar.

What a slimy, ugly insinuation, for a slimy occupation. That's as offensive as your previous, absurd post trying to suggest that "adhering to the Constitution" requires bombing human beings in Syria.

We have a fine Constitution. I "have a problem" with its continual subversion by amoral corporatist liars and profitmongers who do not hesitate to implement surveillance states against their own citizens, jail journalists, imprison human beings for profit, torture and imprison human beings indefinitely, slaughter civilians, and destroy lives and countries for the almighty dollar.

Nobody is buying what you are selling here anymore, treestar.

Spare us. Seriously.

[treestar]

20. Your first paragraph is unfair - here you are complaining about

what you are doing yourself. I never said that.

But the Constitution provides for treaties and we are party to treaties, so what we do in terms of them can hardly be "unconstitutional."

People ought to be buying what I'm saying where I have more knowledge than your knee jerk emotional reaction. You don't get to decide the law by yourself.

Your second paragraph is just a rant against your imaginary enemies.

[woo me with science]

7. You know what trumps the Constitution these days?

Everything, it seems. But every damned thing boils down to

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Let's stop entertaining the bullshit propaganda already. It's about PROFIT. Again. And again, and again, and again. Blood and misery and pain raining down on human lives.

Going into Syria was planned a long time ago. This is just one more lucrative FU to the world from the corporate monsters who have taken control of this country.

[dawg]

13. Now they are telling us that the Constitution just means whatever ...

the current government tells us it means. If you don't like it, vote for different people. If you are still allowed to vote, that is.

[woo me with science]

16. It's just fucking surreal.

They act as though we are stupid, as though we do not recognize the script.

We are truly operating in Oceania now, where 2 + 2 = 5.

[Hydra]

19. "If voting changed anything,

...they'd make it illegal."
Emma Goldman

[polichick]

21. This is just about face saving. If the president hadn't drawn a line...

he wouldn't feel he had to do this.