By heterochromatic, February 21 at 1:18 pm

Bluff and bluster all you wish,Hetero, I would not seek to stop you from exposing yourself here for all to see.

You have reverted to type, GRYM, as I knew you would.

tic,

You are then reading and comprehension impaired and like to kiss muslim men.

By heterochromatic, February 21 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment

“thanks, Patsy, but the link that you just posted
supports my statement that the friggin Taliban never
offered to turn bin Laden over to us.

such are the ways of the Pashtun…....”

You misspoke Hetero, what is evident about you is “such are the ways of the Trolls”

You have made a fool of yourself and you are not going to change that by blustering BS.

You never posted anything to prove your point even though some of us asked you to.  You were content to speak foul words as if that would convince those of us who did examine the evidence that our lying eyes were deceiving us.

And I’m pretty sure that you know how foolish you look.  You are hoping that if you dig that hole a little deeper you might find a way out.

You won’t.  You have lost all credibility on this site.

thanks, Patsy, but the link that you just posted
supports my statement that the friggin Taliban never
offered to turn bin Laden over to us.

such are the ways of the Pashtun…....

Say tic,  I just noticed a strikingly similar picture of you on another post.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/why_russia_just_cant_quit_syrias_dictator_20120206/

Whats with you and kissing posters?

Assad is not Raquel.

Tic, you look just like I thought you would but taller.  I didn’t know you swung that way.

I see you’ve mastered posting links now so post some which support your laughable positions.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10304975-taliban-offered-bin-laden-trial-before-911

yup, here’s a picture of crazy old me with a fictitious character.

http://www.bloomberg.com/image/img0ziBWiQMI.jpg

“Do you think the US could have other neferious motives to be in Afghanistan?”

I don’t think, Patrick Henry, that anyone with a functioning brain still thinks Osama bin Laden was anything but a patsy. I’ve believed for a long time that he served the same function as Goldstein in ‘1984’ - a bogeyman to scare the public into letting the mad dog neo cons run wild. You only have to look at what happened to the Wilsons, when Joe was crazy enough to go to Niger on a fact finding mission and then to point out that the story about the ‘yellow cake from Niger’ could not possibly be true. Normal governments don’t act this way and nothing about 9/11 was normal. I still remember watching Colin Powell with his little bottle of ‘anthrax’ lying his head off and starting to think that the entire Bush administration was insane. Nothing that’s happened since has changed my opinion: in fact the latest bunch of Republican candidates for the presidential nomination only reinforces the impression that the lunatics are running the Republican asylum. Hetero calls what happened after 9/11 ‘logic’ and that says all that needs to be said about his own.

ardee—-you’re just being an ass and a fantacist. the facts can’t be explained away
to suit your preconceptions,,, be ashamed for yourself and for whomever was
tasked with teaching logic to you.

By heterochromatic, February 21 at 7:20 am

I am ashamed for you,Het. Your position shows an increasing stridency and silliness, sorry. If we fail to accept the conditions of the Taliban vis-a-vis turning over bin Laden, or even to negotiate with them, you then interpret that as noncompliance by them and not by the Bushistas, your heroes apparently.

thank you for the offer, ardee, but my position concerning the Taliban is both
sincere and accurate.

It’s rather in your court to disprove the obvious truth of the matter that the
Taliban never did turn bon Laden over .......to anybody…....never contacted
anybody to say “come and get him or we’ll send him to you.

had they been sincere, and the big, bad old USA rebuffed their honest offer,
they could have either announced it to the world or contacted the UN.

there were some people in the Taliban who after 9/11 knew that they should
get rid of bin Laden but they never were able to prevail and act on that view.

It was not in accordance with cultural norms to turn the SOB over.

diamond——that’s not an offer to turn him over, that’s a counter demand.

Robert Sheer states “to his credit Paul ..” well, the ‘audit’ was hardly spot on and
it was Bernie Sanders was the driving force behind what figures were made
available, without Sanders, Paul had no chance and I’ve not seen Paul put up the
real figures. Oh right, Sheer’s gone off his lithium again :p

The closest thing to a real audit here:

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_698.pdf

The real Ron Paul here:

http://subversify.com/2011/09/02/ron-paul-fantasy-fallacy-and-foible/

‘Truthdig’ needs to ‘dig’ deeper, WAY DEEPER

By heterochromatic, February 20 at 3:12 pm

Oh dear, Hetero, you replace logic and reason with stupidity and insult. Welcome to the club.
Use a search engine, it will ,and rather quickly, disabuse you of your extreme right wing positions about the Taliban and their offer to turn bin Laden over for a fair trial.

When first you came here, under this name at any rate, I thought you were the return of GRYM. I now, again, believe you are. Your position is impossible , honestly, as the reality is there for all to see, all but you apparently.

I ask you, with much sincerity, to abandon this stupidity and rigidity, and return to honest and adult postings.

Diamond you win the cupie doll.

http://www.ronpaulactionfigures.com/

Do you think the US could have other neferious motives to be in Afghanistan?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1329822956-n9MI5d8psyuHJLYqoR6z+g

“Offers were made and NONE OF THEM were offers to turn bin Laden over to the
US.

give that shit up and admit you were wrong.”

Unfortunately Hetero, you are wrong. They offered to turn him over if America could produce one shred of evidence that he had anything to do with 9/11. Of course they couldn’t, because he didn’t and the fact is, bin Laden was never on the list of suspects on the FBI’s website and Mueller, head of the FBI, admitted openly that there was no evidence whatsoever that could have led to him being put on the FBI’s website as a suspect in 9/11. I’m imagining that Mueller could have no possible motive for saying this except that he knew it was true. It is also a simple fact, if, as you claim, you believe in the rule of law, that the US government should have conducted a criminal investigation into 9/11, not carried out a colonial invasion of an impoverished and destroyed country to inflict collective punishment (which is banned under international law) on people who had nothing to do with 9/11. This pattern was then repeated with the invasion of Iraq- which was opposed by 70% of American voters- and was carried out against people who also had nothing to do with 9/11. The only way anyone can justify either of these wars is by pretending we still live in the medieval era and collective punishment is the norm even when carried out against the wrong nations.

if you would be so kind as to remind me where you showed it…..

I’ve shown it several times already.

I know it, the others on this thread know it, and whats more important you know it.

What a sad failure you have made yourself.

Cliff—- you have SAID that the US had boots on the
ground in Afghanistan before 9/11….but haven’t
shown it to be so and haven’t attempted to explain
why it would have significance.

and what has the ill-treatment of surrendered
Talibani got to do with pre-9/11 US boots?

they most surely were foully slain and ill-
treated…as has so many times been the fate of those
captured by Afghan fighters.

the Taliban were humanely killed compared to the fate
of so many Russians captured in Afghanistan.

By heterochromatic, February 20 at 9:32 am Link to this comment

“cliff___ you have several times linked the “Convoy of death” with “pre-9/11
behavior”

why? “

Heterochromatic, You need to get Korky to help you learn to read or take a memory course.  What follows below is a copy of what I originally said.  Go read it again.

(By Cliff Carson, February 18 at 11:47 am Link to this comment
“Have you forgotten that the United States had boots on the ground in Afghanistan fighting for the Northern Alliance in a Civil War BEFORE 9/11?

And participated in the infamous massacre “Afghan Convoy to Death”? ) 

Heterochromatic, I said that the United States had boots on the ground before 9/11 in Afghanistan.  I also said that these troops were involved in the “Afghan Convoy to Death”.  Both things are true but the troops were there before 9/11 and after 9/11 when the massacre took place. I never said th massacre happened before 9/11.

The Convoy to death happened after 9/11 when the Taliban were offered amnesty if the Taliban soldiers would surrender.  Thousands accepted the offer.  Once the guns had been turned over to the Northern Alliance the defenseless Taliban were crammed into 18 wheeler vans, the doors were welded shut, and the vans were parked in the desert for seems to me it was 3 weeks, no food no water. A few survived and if you read the links you saw where witnesses said that U S Soldiers supervised the shooting of many of the survivors.

Why don’t you go read about it and watch the Documentary? You will learn things your handlers don’t want you to know.

Heterochromatic, you are flopping around like a fish out of water.  You have been proven wrong and your futile attempts to browbeat everyone on here have revealed just about every uncouth thing about you.

ardee___ you’re being an ass. we weren’t attacked by 19
independent individuals and it wasn’t the first attack
from their organization.

we have no inkling of law and little of logic in this
matter.

your mouth is made up but your mind is undone.

By heterochromatic, February 20 at 4:20 am Link to this comment

dear ardee, we have a sovereign right to make war following an attack upon us.

if you believe, as i do, that law is necessary in this world, perhaps you should
study it and learn what the law is, my friend.

Your smarmy and increasingly neoconservative ranting is placing you in a very bad light. You are exposing yourself as you did upon first arriving here, or rather your name first arrived here.

How you can wrap yourself in the law when you take a lawless position is unbelievable. According to your (lack of) reasoning if 19 Haitians rob a bank we have the right to declare war on Haiti.

The events of 9/11 were a criminal act perpetrated by 19 individuals from four different nations, undoubtedly supported by some infrastructure providing cash and material support of some kind. Our response should have been as a police action, not an invasion.

Your reasoning is specious, your logic absurd and your motive becoming clearer with every hateful post. Say Hi to your good friend and political bed fellow Dick Cheney.

Korky—-you understand as little about me as Paul
understands about the constitution and the post- Civil
War world.

Ron Paul and all the Green Party candidates understand that the USA makes much of the world into its enemies with heterochromatic’s kind of chauvinism.

Korky—-not usually monochromatic, but sometimes shit boils down to terrorist
killers have to be stopped from killing.

such was bin Laden and there was not a thing wrong with demanding that he be
tried according to our laws for the murders of our citizens.

“heterochromatic” wrote, “handing over bin Laden or not was not a very complex issue requiring years of negotiation…...they coulda, they chose not to.”

I guess you’re just a “my way or the highway” kind of person.  No complexities allowed.  You must be fun to live with, if one is a doormat.

Korky____ handing over bin Laden or not was not a very complex issue requiring
years of negotiation…...they coulda, they chose not to.

cliff___ you have several times linked the “Convoy of death” with “pre-9/11
behavior” 

why?

By heterochromatic, February 19 at 10:24 pm Link to this comment

Well Heterochromatic you said:

“Taliban were, and are, not fit to kiss that piece of shit Cheney’s asshole.”

And you took my offer to let you off the hook, as an agreement that you were right.  That was not my intent and you know it.

Heterochromatic, I did that as an offer of peace.  Here is what I said as my position to give you that window:

“You don’t know with certainty whether President Clinton or President George Bush were being truthful in their press releases, and I don’t know with certainty if the Taliban were truthful in their press releases.”

I then went on to give several examples of why we should be wary of believing any press release from our fearless leaders of the time, but when I ascribed the same behavior to the Taliban, I did that for your benefit so you could have a way to weasel out.  What I stated, in no way, changes the Press releases.  They are what they are.  The fact remains that neither you nor I know which press releases are factual.

You also ignored the pre 9/11 behavior in Afghanistan concerning the Northern Alliance and the US in the massacre commonly known as the “Convoy of Death”. 

Why should the Taliban believe anything the United States has to say after that butchery? 

You claim to be a person of principle but then in the next breath you reveal yourself as one of the most unprincipled people I have ever witnessed on this site.

You see I blame the leaders of the United States and their enablers, which obviously includes you, for the Empire carnage that has been visited on the world since WWII.

Do you accept that our last four Presidents meet the description as War criminals?  How many actions have the Taliban taken against any foreign Nation during that period of time?

We know for a fact that the United States has authored over 70+ incursions into Sovereign Nations causing the death of millions of innocent people since WWII.

Since the same Osama Bin Laden was fighting in Afghanistan - as an ally of America and Afghanistan and was played up as a Freedom Fighter in that land, equipped and supported by the United States - what do you pose as the reason that Bin Laden turned against America?  I have given my version of the truth, why not share yours?

Heterochromatic, you need to get real.  You are supporting a monstrous force of Evil that has the United States strangled in its tentacles.

What I, and people like me, want to see happen is a re-awakened Moral and Ethical America throwing off the yoke of bondage of that Evil force.

Remember what Eisenhower said in a speech in Boston in 1952:  “America is Great because America is good, If America ever ceases to be Good, America will cease to be Great.”

Today and every day now, you can see the validity and verification of that statement everywhere in this world.

That situation needs to be changed and it can only be changed by true Americans.

Heterochromatic, Are you a Moral and Ethical American?  If you consider yourself such you must believe in the right of all peoples of Earth the expectation to live free of oppression from all Governments - including the United States.

dear ardee, we have a sovereign right to make war following an attack upon us.

and while it is not terribly civilized, it is indeed recognized as lawful.

if you believe, as i do, that law is necessary in this world, perhaps you should
study it and learn what the law is, my friend.

I also reject you r attempt to link our clear right of this approach under our sovereign right of self- defense with any notion that support for this implies support for Empire.

Reject away, hetero, but your notion that we have a sovereign right to tell others what they must do is simply heinous. You claim to hate Dick Cheney yet you are firmly in his political camp.

Ignore the facts all you wish, embroider the truth any way you wish, your position is clear and obvious and very,very wrong.

You might understand, well not you but those who think that laws are necessary and civilized behavior important, that there are clearly defined ways to ask for and receive extradition of suspected criminals. Threats of war are not listed among them, except in you and your fellow neocons minds.

My point, in short, is that international communication always occurs, openly or not, in any conflict.  The public stance of “there’s nothing to negotiate” is ALWAYS just for show, in order to convince the naive masses that they must shed their blood and pay high taxes for war without question.

I learned on the playground that I wasn’t usually the toughest, but even if I was tougher than an enemy, it was better to create a win-win solution, not just push my weight around, as heterochromatic suggests the USA should do. 
On the international stage, of course, a country can push for peace talks even while fighting, if it feels it must fight.  They are not mutually exclusive, contrary to what “heterochromatic” insinuates.
Any nation refusing to negotiate is criminal right there, aside from what else is happening.  That is why countries have permanent embassies in, ideally, as many countries as possible.  So even if talks are secret, they can occur.  But much better if they are publicly known.  If a country refuses to exchange ambassadors, that’s almost criminal right there.  But even in those cases, other diplomatic routes are used because it’s just plain stupid to refuse to communicate with the other country.

Korky—- not to be insulting or anything but that was idiotic.

I loathe Dick Cheney and WOULD piss on him if he was afire,  but not on his
flaming parts.

there was nothing to negotiate about bin Laden….either they were going to
comply with our demand to hand him over to us…....or they were not going to
do so.

we waited two years before 9/11 and had not the slightest reason to wait any
longer after 9/11…..

stick to the playground ground, Korky cause if some kid takes your lunch
money and kicks your ass during third-gradfe recess you’ll have three years to
negotiate for the return of it before you graduate and go to junior high.

“heterochromic” said,
“after 9/11 there was nothing to negotiate”.
There is ALWAYS something to negotiate in EVERY conflict or disagreement—or it’s worth trying, anyway.
Any other stance is bullying and dooms us to endless wars and the hatred of the world. 
I learned that concept on the school playground in the 1950s.
“heterochromic” is positioning him/herself in favour of unnecessary wars and apologist for Dick Cheney.

Cliff——- “Prior to 9/11 the US was after Bin Laden for suspected actions not
9/11.  If the Taliban was not convinced of Bin Laden’s complicity, should they
have given him up without having any proof that he was indeed guilty?”——-

they had every right to refuse the demands from the United Nations and every
right to refuse the demands from the United States.

They were not part of the United Nations and had no appreciation of
international law,,,and they were not even recognized as a legitimate
government by the world.

The choice was there’s to make and they made it.

We had every right to proceed as we chose to proceed.

The Taliban should by what passes for principle in their view and you’re
welcome to applaud them Cliff.

and we can share loathing for the Bush administration and for the way it
degraded the standard of conduct and of justice in this country…..... but the
Taliban were, and are, not fit to kiss that piece of shit Cheney’s asshole.

By heterochromatic, February 19 at 6:08 pm Link to this comment

heterochromatic to ardee:

“I also reject you r attempt to link our clear right
of this approach under our sovereign right of self-
defense with any notion that support for this implies
support for Empire.”

A most interesting approach heterocromatic.  Are you saying that the Taliban should have given up Bin Laden because the United States demanded it?

Prior to 9/11 the US was after Bin Laden for suspected actions not 9/11.  If the Taliban was not convinced of Bin Laden’s complicity, should they have given him up without having any proof that he was indeed guilty?

Would this approach apply to any Nation?  That a country should give up someone in their country simply on the demand of another Nation?

For example, the lies, spread by George Bush concerning Iraq, resulted in over a million deaths, more than a million injuries, over five million displaced, a Nation devastated, over 5,000 American soldiers dead, over 30,000 seriously injured, and all this to profit the 1%.  Is this a criminal act?

If Iraq demanded he be delivered to them for prosecution as a war criminal, would the US immediately give him up without question?

How about torture of innocents, renditions, holding innocents as “illegal Combatants”, Drone attacks that have killed an unknown number of innocent Pakistanis, Would the US Government give him up to Pakistan on demand to be tried as a War criminal?

And Clinton in the Sudan bombing a Pill factory, is Oops, sufficient for that loss of innocent life, would the US give him up to Sudan to be tried as a War Criminal?

Heterocriomatic, can’t you see the illogical thinking in your statements?  No American of authority will be given up to any Nation, even if the United States knows he is a War Criminal.

Heterocromatic, no country on Earth should give up an accused without sufficient proof from the accuser that he is likely complicit in the crime.

Especially they should not give up someone to a country that has not had their obvious war criminals prepared to be shipped on demand to any country for trial. 

Isn’t the United States right now trying people who have been tortured to elicit confessions.  Are these trials being help in the open for the public to see?

scott—- I believe that our intent was expressed in the
AUMF….and that Paul’s proposal that we should realize
that intent through the issuance of letters of marque
and reprisal rather than the use of the US military was
a very poor and erroneous and bizarre suggestion.

By Cliff——-
Heterocromatic, If the content of your latest comment
means that the only issue you disagree with me about
is the one concerning whether or not the Taliban
“offered up” Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11, I can let
you off on that since your contention that “offered
up” is not as correct as “making contact with the U S
about how to resolve the issue of whether to
surrender Osama Bin Laden unconditionally or with
conditions”.”———

yes, I’ve been arguing at length that the Taliban
never offered to turn the SOB over.

THAT’S what you said and THAT’S what I’ve turned blue
denying and deriding.

======

The Taliban offered to give up Osama Bin Laden
before 9/11’‘’‘’‘

The Taliban offered NOT to give bin Laden up but to
have bin Laden “tried” in some vague setting without
reference to any court of law that the US would
recognize. a bunch of Islamic scholars in Afghanistan
or a tribunal formed by some Islamic organization was
not anything like “giving him up”.

===========

are we clear here. Cliff?

the Taliban might have made some kind of
counterproposal as they spent two years rejecting our
demands to turn him over…...and thy might, after
9/11 have really been looking for some way to NOT
turn him over and still avoid our attack, but ..the
record remains clear that they REFUSED TO TURN HIM
OVER.

ardee—- I’m a strict supporter of the nation that
bin Laden was a criminal and a firm believer that the
Taliban was affording him hospitality and protection.

and I’m also a believer that we had every right to
demand that the fuckin Taliban turn him over after
two years and that we needn’t have negotiated with
the Taliban for his turn over after 9/11.

is there anything unclear in what I’m saying or
anything unclear in my complete rejection of your
position that we hadn’t any right to go after bin
Laden and his organization AND the Taliban who were
protecting him and them from us?????????

I also reject you r attempt to link our clear right
of this approach under our sovereign right of self-
defense with any notion that support for this implies
support for Empire.

Heterocromatic, If the content of your latest comment means that the only issue you disagree with me about is the one concerning whether or not the Taliban “offered up” Osama Bin Laden prior to 9/11, I can let you off on that since your contention that “offered up” is not as correct as “making contact with the U S about how to resolve the issue of whether to surrender Osama Bin Laden unconditionally or with conditions”.

I can do this for the following reasons:
You don’t know with certainty whether President Clinton or President George Bush were being truthful in their press releases, and I don’t know with certainty if the Taliban were truthful in their press releases.
 
You and I both know that President Clinton questioned the meaning of “is”, George Bush lied between his teeth about the involvement of Iraq in the 9/11 episode,  and that Clinton and Bush plus daddy Bush gave the American people the worst 20 years of Governance in America’s history.

Here I go again but you might also remember the Tillman, Private Lynch, and the Kuwaiti Hospital lying episodes by Bush and conspirators, the Clinton insistence that the Pill factory bombed in the Sudan was a weapons factory, and the Daddy Bush sandbagging Saddam to start a War by having April Glaspie lie to Hussein about the United States reaction if Iraq stopped the cross border drilling by the American Oil Company drilling from Kuwait into the Ramallah Oil field in Iraq.

If these mentioned events don’t expose them to the world as liars and war mongers that caused deaths of over a million people, displacement of millions more, destruction of several societies,  nothing will, and all done to profit the 1%.
What kind of nut job should believe anything these murders said?
The Taliban wasn’t much better so we can’t believe anything they said either.

Heterocromatic, do you agree with the above?

If so lets stop the crap and try to discuss things intelligently.

By heterochromatic, February 19 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

ardee——I’ve no idea of what you mean and also no idea of what you think
that there was to negotiate.

They were ask to hand bin Laden over in 1999 and they said no and no and no.

Oh dear, Het, thanks for the glimpse into your psyche. Of course you know exactly what I mean, if you are as smart and topical as you seem to be.

Firstly, who the hell are we to demand anything of another nation? You betray yourself as a supporter of Empire and rabid nationalism to post such as this.

Secondly, it is rather easily noted that the Taliban laid down specific conditions under which they said they would comply with our “request” for bin Laden’s extradition. I know you can use a search engine and recommend that you do so.

if you can’t differentiate between what was going on in 2011 and what is
going on 10 years later….that’s not so good.

conditions at the time meant that we were correct as well as justified for attacking
Afghanistan’s regime and their “honored guests”.  and conditions at that time,
made Paul a crazy-assed old fool for talking crap about not using the military and
instead “putting out contracts”.

I don’t even know what your point is.  Against his better judgment, Paul voted in favor of the initial Afghan mission.

To pretend the invasion was about destroying Al Qaida, even then, is (after 10 years of occupation) an exhibition of gross naivete.  There are the reasons for invasion given to the public and expressed in public by media/politicians.  And then there are the real reasons.

Whatever the “real reasons” are, the American public deserves straight talk from its leaders, rather then the secrecy and subterfuge we have gotten.

ardee——I’ve no idea of what you mean and also no idea of what you think
that there was to negotiate.

They were ask to hand bin Laden over in 1999 and they said no and no and no.

When they were told, after 9/11, that they MUST hand him over or face war,
then they tried to negotiate something or other RATHER than comply with the
demand.

But after 9/11 there was nothing to negotiate….... it was comply or not and
they chose not.

By heterochromatic, February 18 at 12:56 pm

Yes, Het, I am sorry, sorry that you continue to support the absurdity of your position . It was not the Taliban that killed any chance of negotiating a bin Laden surrender it was George W.Bush.

The record on this is quite clear, and thanks to Mr. Carson for his continual efforts to break through your absurd denials.

Cliff——- did they ever turn bin Laden over to anyone at all in the years
between 1999 and the end of their regime??????????

that’s prooof enough.  had they ever said ‘STOP!!!! We’ll give him up right
away!” everyone on the planet would know it.

instead, they dicked around.

being wrong and saying that I’m not credible just isn’t any use to you, Cliff….

you were wrong. admit it and move on.

after you do, we can talk about the other stuff.

Provide proof that the things I stated and that you challenged as being untrue are actually untrue.

Its time to put up or shut up.

Your creditability is about as low as it can get on these issues.

Cliff——-this is what you wrote…....“You may have also forgotten that the
Taliban offered up Osama Bin Laden to the U S forces in Afghanistan? “
@February 18 at 11:47 am

it remains untrue….. 

offers were made and NONE OF THEM were offers to turn bin Laden over to the
US.

give that shit up and admit you were wrong.

after that we can argue other points where you may have some firmer ground.

”

Heterochromatic, First you said I was wrong that the Taliban didn’t offer to give up Bin Laden before 9/11.  You said prove it.  I gave you the links. You were proven wrong.  When proven wrong you changed to ” It wasn’t an offer without conditions.  I don’t know if any of the offers before 9/11 had conditions or not and neither do you.  What you should know by the links I provided is that my statement that “offers were made” is accurate beyond a doubt.  You need to admit that or show evidence that my statement is incorrect.  And then I will be prepared to argue whether or not there were conditions before 9/11.
 
I said that the United States had boots on the ground in Afghanistan before 9/11.  You said that wasn’t true.  I proved you wrong.  When I proved you wrong you said Boots on the Ground only meant your definition.  I haven’t found that definition anywhere.  The United States had forces in Afghanistan working and supporting the Northern Alliance before 9/11.  You need to admit that.    After that we can argue what their function was.
 
Next when you try to keep from being proven wrong,  you need to offer proof .  You pressed me for the proof, I gave it to you.
 
If you have any proof that my original statements :

1.  The Taliban offered to give up Osama Bin Laden before 9/11
2.  The United states had Boots on the Ground in Afghanistan before 9/11 that participated in the Afghan Convoy to Death

Refute the links.
 
Provide Links to prove that Osama Bin Laden was not offered up prior to 9/11 and that there were no United States Forces in Afghanistan allied with the Northern Alliance and that they did not participate in the Afghan massacre.

If you prove that I will say I was wrong.  If you can’t do that I expect you to admit you are wrong.

Should be that simple.

Cliff——if the UN official documents system is part of some malware scheme,
you have my apologies. I’ve just opened the document three more time in
addition to opening it prior to posting. don’t know what to tell you except
maybe just type in “Security Council Resolution 1267 ” on your own and read
the thing.

http://daccess-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/300/44/PDF/N9930044.pdf?OpenElement
———

HOWEVER…. it still is certain that whatever reason the USA rejected whatever
offer the Taliban made…..it was because none of it matched the US demand
that the Taliban stop sheltering the son-of-a-bitch and turn him over to us.

You made the unfortunate error to say that the Taliban agreed to do that, and
it’s simply NOT TRUE.

——give that up and then go on to gassing about whatever bullshit offers the
Taliban DID make….and about how the awful US just wouldn’t listen to them
after they spent a couple of years before 9/11 simply saying “NO”

By heterochromatic, February 18 at 4:00 pm

“Yeah Cliff——It shows that the U S was after Bin Laden for three years before 9/11 because he had declared War on the United States.  And the UN backed the US in demanding bin Laden be turned over prior to 9/11.

To those on this Tread:

I clicked on the UN Link given by Hetrochromatic in this post and my Computer Protection stopped an attempted download of Malware.  Heterochromatic, I hope this was a coincidence.  As to your earlier comment: 

heterochromatic, February 18 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

“Cliff——-“President George Bush rejected as “non-negotiable” an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.”

TO DISCUSS it, Cliff….not to do it….the deal was that the US would have to prove that bin Laden was guilty to the satisfaction of the Taliban and….then
they would think it over and get back to the US…....
and if they were convinced….they STILL wouldn’t turn him over to us…..but he would be sent to an unnamed thrid country…....again, not a western one, but
an Islamic one.  Stop trying to make that out to be an offer to turn bin Laden over to the US…........it’s just not such an offer.”

Heterochromatic, This stuff started under Clinton and has continued.  What you present is purely conjecture.  And as for the Governments excuse for not accepting the offer, neither you nor I know for sure the truthful reason, but here is another link that gives the Government rationale beginning in the Clinton Administration: 
“The Taliban government in Afghanistan offered to present Osama bin Laden for a trial long before the attacks of September 11, 2001, but the US government showed no interest, according to a senior aide to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar.

Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, Taliban’s last foreign minister, told Al Jazeera in an exclusive interview that his government had made several proposals to the United States to present the al-Qaeda leader, considered the mastermind of the 2001 attacks, for trial for his involvement in plots targeting US facilities during the 1990s.

“Even before the [9/11] attacks, our Islamic Emirate had tried through various proposals to resolve the Osama issue. One such proposal was to set up a three-nation court, or something under the supervision of the Organization of the Islamic Conference [OIC],” Muttawakil said.

“But the US showed no interest in it. They kept demanding we hand him over, but we had no relations with the US, no agreement of any sort. They did not recognize our government.”

The US did not recognize the Taliban government and had no direct diplomatic relations with the group which controlled most of Afghanistan between 1996 and 2001.

But proposals by the Taliban were relayed to the US through indirect channels such as the US embassy in Pakistan or the informal Taliban office for the UN in New York, Muttawakil said.

Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan at the time of 9/11, confirmed that such proposals had been made to US officials.

Grenier said the US considered the offers to bring in Bin Laden to trial a “ploy”.
“Another idea was that [bin Laden] would be brought to trial before a group of Ulema [religious scholars] in Afghanistan.
“No one in the US government took these [offers] seriously because they did not trust the Taliban and their ability to conduct a proper trial.”

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html

The link goes on but I copied the above for those who might not go there.  The fact is the US Government wasn’t interested in finding out what the Taliban in mind.

Heretochromatic, when are you going to provide links to prove that what I have said is not true?

Yeah Cliff——It shows that the U S was after Bin Laden for three years before 9/11
because he had declared War on the United States.

and the UN backed the US in demanding bin Laden be turned over prior to 9/11

see UN Security Council Resolution 1267

http://daccess-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/300/44/PDF/N9930044.pdf?OpenElement

Cliff——-“President George Bush rejected as “non-negotiable” an offer by the
Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the
bombing in Afghanistan.”

TO DISCUSS it, Cliff….not to do it….the deal was that the US would have to
prove that bin Laden was guilty to the satisfaction of the Taliban and….teh n
they would think it over and get back to the US…....

and if they were convinced….they STILL wouldn’t turn him over to us…..but he
would be sent to an unnamed thrid country…....again, not a western one, but
an Islamic one.

stop trying to make that out to be an offer to turn bin Laden over to the
US…........it’s just not such an offer.

When the USA government doesn’t want peace, which is almost always, they always find excuses to avoid peace talks.  Bush II refused public challenges to debate by Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Ralph Nader.
I think it’s a war crime to refuse to talk peace.
No excuses, ever!
During the USA’s attempts to conquer Vietnam, at least President Nixon had a pretense of peace talks in Paris.
Now they dispense with the pretense.
The public and the media hardly notice.

heterochromatic, February 18 at 1:13 pm

“You said that the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to the US….and the links say that they did not….the links say that the Taliban would not turn him over to any “westerners”.”

Heterchomatic, again I disagree.  For everyone to read, I went back and copied the full statement of the Taliban.  And to be in context, I am also giving a link to the revelation that the U S had on the 10th of September, 2001 decided to invade Afghanistan if the Taliban did not turn Osama Bin Laden over to the US.  My calculations show this to be before 9/11 2001.

“President George Bush rejected as “non-negotiable” an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban “turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over.” He added, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty”. In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: “we would be ready to hand him over to a third country”.

Heterocromatic, Haji Abdul Kabir made this statement AFTER the Bush rejection of the Taliban offer.  And for you to absorb Heterocromatic, is a link to what happened on 9-10-2001, note that is the day before before the Twin Towers attack.

It shows that the U S was after Bin Laden for three years before 9/11 because he had declared War on the United States.  Continue to read to find out why.

Heterochromatic , you might remember that Osama Bin Laden, a former ally of the United States, fought against the Soviets as a member of the Mujjahidin, funded and armed by the United States, told the US that if they went through their plan to place a Military Base in SA ( Bin Laden is a Saudi citizen), he would declare war against the US because he and the majority of the Saudi’s considered it an invasion of their Country.  Maybe you remember they refused the base until the US send someone to have a “discussion” with the King.  The King capitulated and the base was placed in SA, whereupon Bin Laden then announced he was declaring war on the United States in the early 90’s for placing a U S Military Base in Saudi Arabia.

This is why and when the search for OSBL was initiated.  From the Link I mentioned:

“The day before the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, according to a report by a bipartisan commission of inquiry”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/24/september11.usa2?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

See Heterocromatic you are in need of doing some reading, then remembering what you have read.

I am asking you again to prove these things didn’t happen.

Cliff—- i didn’t say that the links were lies….. I said that they DON’T show what
you’re saying that they show.

You said that the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to the US….and the links
say that they did not….the links say that the Taliban would not turn him over to
any “westerners”.

heterochromatic, February 18 at 12:56 pm

You said the links were lies.  Shouldn’t you be able to prove that?

Don’t you think it’s your turn to present some proof?

If you’re position is that the links are lying then there is no use continuing this conversation.

All I would want is proof that these two things didn’t happen.

Can you do that?

I’m sure we had spies in Afghanistan, arede, but that’s NOT what “boots on the
ground” means…..that’s an expression about infantry troops.

arde——-  heterochromatic, February 18 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

cliff——the Taliban never offered bin Laden to the US in the years prior to the
invasion despite our requests and the UN requests.

This is an untruth, sorry, Het, but you are either ignorant of the truth of this or
directly lying about it.
————

if you would please either demonstrate that the Taliban offered to turn bin
Laden over to us or take back the charge that I’m lying about it, I wold be much
obliged, ardee.

as you’re not going to be able to do the former, try skipping straight to “sorry”.

y heterochromatic, February 18 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

cliff——the Taliban never offered bin Laden to the US in the years prior to the
invasion despite our requests and the UN requests.

This is an untruth, sorry, Het, but you are either ignorant of the truth of this or directly lying about it.

and please do show me your proof that the US was fighting in Afghanistan prior to
9/11

Another questionable statement contradicting obvious truths. I have come to expect better from you. We trained bin Laden to fight against the USSR, we had boots on the ground there as well, CIA boots at the least.

heterochromatic, February 18 at 12:29 pm

“cliff——read your own links. they NEVER offered to give him up to us…....they made various noises about sending bin Laden to someplace governed by islamic
law and other such shit, not anything real.

your Convoy of death is not about anything that happened prior to 9/11 and it was not anything that the US did.”

Copied from Links:

“President George Bush rejected as “non-negotiable” an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.”

“A 2002 documentary named Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death by Jamie Doran produced testimony from eyewitnesses alleging hundreds or even thousands of prisoners had died, either during transport in the containers or being shot and dumped in the Dasht-i-Leili desert after arriving at hopelessly overcrowded Sheberghan prison. Witnesses presented in the documentary also alleged that wounded and unconscious survivors of the container transports had been executed in the desert under supervision of U.S. soldiers.”

I watched the Documentary, how about you?

cliff——read your own links. they NEVER offered to give him up to us…....they
made various noises about sending bin Laden to someplace governed by islamic
law and other such shit, not anything real.

your Convoy of death is not about anything that happened prior to 9/11 and it
was not anything that the US did.

heterochromatic, February 18 at 11:54 am

“cliff——the Taliban never offered bin Laden to the US in the years prior to the
invasion despite our requests and the UN requests.

and please do show me your proof that the US was fighting in Afghanistan prior to
9/11”

The Taliban offered Osama Bin Laden to U S before 9/11.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/09/al-jazeera-report-taliban-offered-to-give-up-bin-laden-for-trial-before-911/1

The United States was complicit in the Convoy to death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Massacre:_The_Convoy_of_Death

Comments?

no Korky, I do not forget that it requires a great deal of effort to thwart the two
national parties ......just as I don’t confuse an obstacle with proof that there’s no
democracy at all.

cliff——the Taliban never offered bin Laden to the US in the years prior to the
invasion despite our requests and the UN requests.

and please do show me your proof that the US was fighting in Afghanistan prior to
9/11

“heterochromatic” might forget that we have to be determined and clever to beat the entrenched 2-party system.  If it were easy, it would have been done long ago.  My strategy is to get the Green nominee to deal with a Trojan-horse duopoly nominee (Ron Paul) so the people can gain the presidency so we can amend the Constitution and make it democratic.

heterochromatic

Have you forgotten that the United States had boots on the ground in Afghanistan fighting for the Northern Alliance in a Civil War BEFORE 9/11?

And participated in the infamous massacre “Afghan Convoy to Death”?  This was where the Northern Alliance offered amnesty to the Taliban ( the other side of the Civil War ) and when ten thousand Taliban fighters accepted the offer, they were massacred after they turned in their guns? 

You may have also forgotten that the Taliban offered up Osama Bin Laden to the U S forces in Afghanistan?

Korky——nobody is forced to drink the Kool-Aide and vote for the major party
candidate, just as nobody is forced to vote for a crazy-ass such as Ron Paul.

if you’re free to support that idiot, you’re free enough to vote for decent people.

scott- if you can’t differentiate between what was going on in 2011 and what is
going on 10 years later….that’s not so good.

conditions at the time meant that we were correct as well as justified for attacking
Afghanistan’s regime and their “honored guests”.  and conditions at that time,
made Paul a crazy-assed old fool for talking crap about not using the military and
instead “putting out contracts”.

heterochromatic wrote, “nothing in the world actually prevents everyone voting for Jill Stein or Ralph Nader other than indifference.” 

And the media lies of the 1%; and the rigged “debates”; and the corrupt courts; and the laws forcing Stein and Nader to spend their resources just to get on the ballot (which exempt the duopolists); and voter suppression; and the Electoral College; and many other atrocities; but MOSTLY the ANTI-DEMOCRATIC one-X ballot which over the centuries has consistently driven MOST voters into a “lesser of 2 evils” panic.

If the ranked ballot and proportional representation had been invented in 1789, we’d have a democratic Constitution because the authors were very smart guys.  Even a Jill Stein or Ron Paul presidency will be wasted opportunities if we don’t amend the Constitution and make it democratic, which will abolish the 2-party system.

Ah I see hetero..  So obviously I’m ignorant of all the Al Qaida fighters and targets operating in Afghan that we’ve been fighting the last 10 years…except wait…there aren’t any.  They’ve been gone for 10 freaking years dude.  This war is about oil and drug profits and the next war on Iran—don’t kid yourself.

If the Taliban was under Al Qaida’s sovereignty then somehow I doubt NATO would be discussing turning the country back over to the Taliban in 2013.

But at least you’ve clarified why you dislike Paul so much.

scott—-I’m sorry for your lack of information about Paul’s stated preference NOT
to have the US military fight against the people responsible for the attacks on this
country that killed thousands of US civilians and sorry for your ignorance about
the relationship between Al Qaeda and the Afghan group that hosted Al Qaeda and
Al Qaeada’s terrorist training camps on Afghan soil and protected them and which
exercised sovereign control over Afghanistan,

CC____ feel free to disagree but the country is still run with the consent of the
citizenry…...none of us may like the candidates for whom the citizens cast their
votes, but the citizens still cast their votes for them…....

nothing in the world actually prevents everyone voting for Jill Stein or Ralph Nader
other than indifference.

it’s still a democracy and far more of one than when the constitution was first
approved

heterochromatic,

I must respectfully disagree with you.

Our Country is run by the 1%, not the 99%.  In a Democracy the people control the Governance - opposite is a Kleptocracy, a small group, ( I use the 1% as an illustration), run the Government for their own profit and are not bound by the laws established by any Constitution, because they can simply by coercion, bribery, and other criminally associated activities, operate unhindered in their corruption.

This statement of the realities above more clearly define what is plaguing America than any reference to Democracy.  Not even close Heterochromatic.

it’s you who mischaracterize Paul’s stance on foreign policy and war.
he would order the military to fight if forced to do so, but would not otherwise
engage.

that’s isiolationism.

Paul’s the lunatic who wanted to issue letters of marque and reprisal rather than
fight after 9/11.

that’s beyond isolationism and sanity.

I don’t understand where you come up with this.  From what I understand, Paul wanted to go after the terrorists, and was willing to vote for the invasion of Afghan on this basis.

This is more or less the same position of 99.9% of the American people.  None of the American people believed we would still be in Afghanistan (doing God knows what) at this date.

If not wanting to be in Afghan for 11 years on some immoral shadowy mission against is isolationism, then sign me the fuck up.  The vast majority of Americans (and progressives/liberals) agree with Ron Paul on this issue.

If a terrorist group attacks the usa we should go after those responsible for the attack as if it was a criminal enterprise.  If a state sponsored the attack, we should consider attacking that state.

No 9/11 terrorists came from Afghan or Iraq.  Everyone knows this.  And Al Qaida was not the enemy in Afghan.

You can mis-characterize Paul all you want but unless you actually support (the reality, not the fantasy of) wars like Afghanistan and Iraq, Paul’s position is miles ahead of the GOP and DEM candidates.  These wars are criminal enterprises, founded on lies, designed to seize and control the resources of peoples who did no harm to the United States.

CC—there are governments in this world that might actually be kleptocracies…..
Nigeria comes to mind, Papa Doc’s Haiti, Russia following the fall of the soviets…

but, despite all the rot, the US still is closer to democracy than kleptocracy,,,,,,

being fine idealistic folks sometimes means that you magnify faults in those close
to home

Heterochromatic, I think I agree with Korky and his statements.

There is a great difference in the definition of Democracy and what is purported to be the practice of it.

According to the strict definition of Democracy as presented by you Heteochromatic ( Definition #1), the actual practice of America is not a Democracy.

Of course since the Founding Fathers founded a Republic one would expect that would be what we are.

But I agree with Korky when he says we live in a Kleptocracy instead of a Democracy.

We actually life in a practicing Kleptrocracy and that is what is wrong with the Governance of America.

That is what the people need to band together to change.

and I imagine, Korky, that a PRNK dictionary would mention North Korea as the
only example of democracy, but I doubt that either of us would be able to read it
and weep.

as for the rest of your comment, maybe you do read PRNK-speak as you babble a
bit of it toward the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OhohteHuyPM

Dictionaries, like any books, can err and have the biases of their authors. 
“heterochromatic’s” definition 1 of democracy is correct, in my opinion. 
Definition 2 is biased to define those 2 countries as democracies.  I imagine a Cuban dictionary would mention Cuba as an example of a democracy.
Definition 3 is a loose, colloquial definition used by those same biased people to shift attention from the original definition.
US Americans who do not realize how their governments fool and exploit them tend to justify and mis-label their pseudo-democracy and to avoid mentioning the true, basic, original definition by which the USA fails to qualify as a democracy.  Instead, it is a kleptocracy ruled with puppet duopolists who achieve minority rule with mathematically-backward (non-proportional) ballots, bought elections, etc.

Korky————de·moc·ra·cy? ?[dih-mok-ruh-see]  Show
IPA
noun, plural -cies.
1.
government by the people; a form of government in
which the supreme power is vested in the people and
exercised directly by them or by their elected agents
under a free electoral system.
2.
a state having such a form of government: The United
States and Canada are democracies.
3.
a state of society characterized by formal equality
of rights and privileges.

———-

when you repeatedly make errors of fact and provide
strained interpretations of things, I have very
little reason NOT to make you back up your assertions
rather than just accepting them.

you’re greatly in need of an editor, Korky, to
tighten your very loose grasp of fact.

“heterochromatic” is pretending to be very ignorant:
“in a state where people all democratically share almost no freedom and almost no food, such as the People’s Republic of North Korea, I care very little for their democracy.”

Democracy refers to the people as a whole ruling the country, not whether or not they share their deprivations or share them equally.  Furthermore, North Koreans have no such equality.  They have their 1%, as we do in the USA and Canada.  So, though you wrote “their democracy”, they have none.

Don’t you think that if the USA were democratic, there would be a much better chance for improvement in the conditions about which you care?

depends…....in a state where people all
democratically share almost no freedom and almost no
food, such as the People’s Republic of North Korea, I
care very little for their democracy.

other places, I care more.

How MUCH less, heterochromatic?

Korky—- I care less about democracy than I do about
individual liberty and enforceable remedies against
governmental overreach.

Democracy refers to how laws are made and executed, not whether the laws and execution are fair to the accused.  As far as actual democracy, I could tell you a dozen ways that Canada is more democratic than the USA and a much smaller list of ways that the reverse is true.

Korky——I don’t know where you get your ideas from,
but in the UK people have fewer rights during both pre-
trial and post-trial incarceration than they do in this
country.

Horrors such as Guantanamo are done less by the Canadian and UK governments in large part because of “question period”.  That’s like if the entire USA federal cabinet, including the president, had to appear in Congress on live television at least once a week and answer surprise questions by all members of Congress.  Those countries aren’t democratic, either, but they are closer than the USA to being so, and that’s one reason.  Ending the 2-party system is part of democratizing the nation, but so are features like that.

For what it’s worth.

“On January 11, 2002, the United States announced that it was refusing to abide by the 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. The Third Geneva Convention, which provides specific guidelines for treatment of prisoner combatants, is a part of the “law of nations” and is a mainstay of international humanitarian law. The United States explained that the prisoners taken in Afghanistan and Pakistan were not actually prisoners of war, but were in fact “unlawful combatants.”

Weird thing is that at Gitmo the detainees there supposedly the worst of the worst to quote Rumsfeld were found by a Senate Report to be less than 1% battlefield combatants and less than 7% of having any tie to either Taliban or Al-Qieda.

Yes Korky

I was being facetious about breaking a Treaty without concern for consequences.

This because if you are the Bully Nation what Nation can challenge you about abrogating a Treaty?  And if the Bully Nation is strong enough Militarily, why would it care about the content - promises, guarantees- of any Treaty?  Didn’t George Bush himself state the the Constitution was nothing but a G..D… piece of paper?  And his fellow Republican Party cheered him for it - including all those Religious Right hypocrites.

And I was speaking metaphorically when I said the Constitution was a Treaty with the people.

But I equated it to treaty since the great Treaty breaker of all time is the United States Government.

“White Man speak with forked tongue”.

CCarson——Finally if the foregoing is correct, does
that mean that any country, let’s say Iran, decides
they no longer want to be bound by the Nuclear
Proliferation Treaty because it is not binding on any
Nation that has previously signed it?  Or for any
Treaty should this be true? And if so what is the
binding force of any treaty?

———

when they withdraw, they withdraw. such as part and
parcel of “sovereignty”.

and again you’re confusing things. it should have been
and COULD have been stopped by Congress and SCOTUS
because of constitutional and other US legal
prohibitions, not because of violations of what is
called international law.

the Geneva Accords are binding upon the US because
we’ve endorsed them and, had we not, they would be
without legal force.

Thanks, “heterochromatic”, for clarifying what you meant to write.  Nevertheless, I believe that international law IS important to your “discussion of constitutionally-mandated separation of powers”.  For example, Bush’s and Obama’s blatant and brutal violation of the Geneva Convention by his torture camp in Guantanamo should be stopped by Congress and the Supreme Court, but they are all male-bonding allies in their perverted crimes.

Korky____"I am still revolted, nevertheless, that
heterochomatic says, “it’s quite obvious that
international law is . . . not of any great
import.”“___

to a discussion of constitutionally-mandated
separation of powers, K.

be as revolted as you need to be, but base your
revulsion on a proper understanding of what’s being
said, for crying out loud.

Below I wrote, “That is why they wish for a god to end the wars.”  By that word “they”, I meant the vast majority of the world’s people in every country, who all fervently want peace.

Cliff Carson asks if “the United States may enter into an International Treaty as a signatory to that Treaty, and then the next Congress or even the same one, may remove the United States from the agreement without consideration of the Treaty or suffering any consequences from that action.” 

As far as I know, yes, a law may cancel a treaty, but, no, there is no magic shield to protect anyone from the consequences.  And as in any contract, the treaty itself could specify consequences for withdrawal or abrogation.

The Constitution is not a treaty because it is a higher law than a treaty.  Treaties and laws are invalid if they violate the Constitution.  The Supreme Court, the President and the Congress are sworn to uphold the Constitution, but all 3 of those often violate it.  Ron Paul is one of the few who tries to honour his oath.

Anyone or any country can break their agreements, but then they have to face the consequences.  Often bullies (and bully countries) simply get away with it, evading the consequences because there is no higher or greater power to do the enforcing.  (That is why they wish for a god to end the wars.)

Yes, Cliff, our world is like your proverbial jungle, and always has been.  Might makes right and the USA is going to be sorry for being the bully when other countries rise and become bigger badder bullies.  Instead, everyone should be democratizing, strengthening, and reforming the United Nations.  And I don’t mean piddly reforms like an expanded Security Council.  Instead, I mean electing the delegates from the home countries.  Even if Ron Paul is not interested in that, if he at least abolishes the 2-party system, we can improve the UN later.

Korky and Heterocromatic

If I understand you correctly you are saying that the United States may enter into an International Treaty as a signatory to that Treaty, and then the next Congress or even the same one, may remove the United States from the agreement without consideration of the Treaty or suffering any consequences from that action.

The question then is, do all the other states of our World have this same right?  And if this be so, can there be any action taken against a sovereign state that decides it will no longer be a signatory of the Treaty?

Finally if the foregoing is correct, does that mean that any country, let’s say Iran, decides they no longer want to be bound by the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty because it is not binding on any Nation that has previously signed it?  Or for any Treaty should this be true? And if so what is the binding force of any treaty?

Doesn’t this interpretation in effect return our World Society to the “Rule of The Jungle” where strength makes right?  Is this where we are headed?

From this Article:

“Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed. ... The Patriot Act, as bad as its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly ... The Bill of Rights has no exemption for ‘really bad people’ or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. This is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system.”

And we are headed down that road?  If so, we need to band together and take control of our runaway Criminal Government.

Treaty: A ‘treaty’ is a formally concluded and ratified agreement between States. The term is used generically to refer to instruments binding at international law, concluded between international entities (States or organizations). Under the Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties, a treaty must be (1) a binding instrument, which means that the contracting parties intended to create legal rights and duties; (2) concluded by states or international organizations with treaty-making power; (3) governed by international law and (4) in writing.

Our Government once signed a Treaty with the people of the United States.  It was called “The Constitution”.  Within that Constitution is a Bill of Rights - another Treaty within the original.  And now that a strong criminal element is in control they have set about to undo those treaties between our Founding Fathers and the people.

Those that will unilaterally break treaties will impose upon you “The Law of the Jungle”.

Those who wield the power will make the laws.

We the people of the United States should be the people who wield the power.

All we need to do is to band together in a common purpose:  Demanding, without compromise, Ethical and Moral Governance in conjunction with our Constitution - and enforcing that demand when the need arises.

I think the time is at hand.

“heterochromatic” is correct.  I had misremembered about treaties.  Sorry!  A treaty can over-rule a previous law, as any new law can.  However, contrary to what I wrote below, it is equally true that Congress also may modify or abrogate a treaty by passing a law and taking the consequences.  The only difference is that a treaty needs approval by the Senate and not the House, but regular laws require the approval of both houses.  So sometimes a provision is put into a treaty because it can’t pass the House and then that provision rules until both houses pass a law otherwise or the treaty is changed.

I am still revolted, nevertheless, that heterochomatic says, “it’s quite obvious that international law is . . . not of any great import.”

Korky…... when you’re discussing Constitutional
authority of the different branches of the federal
government…....

and you start a consideration of international law,
it’s quite obvious that international law is
subordinate to the Constitution in our system and is
not of any great import.

and I would love for you to explain how international
treaties supersede the expressed will of the
Congress, given that the Congress can modify or
cancel any or all of them.

Last I heard, in 1884 SCOTUS ruled that treaties do
not hold a privileged position above other acts of
Congress. ( 112 U.S. 580 )

Comrade “heterochromatic” says, “International law has no bearing on what is constitutionally permissible Korky and I don’t see what it has to do with anything.”

According to the Constitution, treaties approved by the USA over-rule other acts of Congress.  Some of those treaties are considered part of international law, such as the “Geneva Convention”, which our criminal presidents frequently violate.  But perhaps heterochromatic thinks that the Geneva Convention is “just a piece of paper”.  Who cares what the nations of the world think as long as the USA is the biggest, baddest bully on the block!

The War Powers Act of 1941 authorized increased executive power, to the point of censorship and opening mail.
The Second War Powers Act (1942) “repealed the confidentiality of census data, allowing the FBI to . . . round up Japanese-Americans.”
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act_of_1941

But if you mean The War Powers Resolution of 1973, it “was disregarded by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and again by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for attack on Libya, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action.[2] All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional.”
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

I’d guess that if the resolution is unconstitutional, it’s because it doesn’t restrict presidents as much as the Constitution does. 

Our power-hungry presidents start wars.  My first choice is for a Green Party president.  Ron Paul would probably be better than any of the presidents since WW2 on this point.