General Discussion

CharlesInCharge

(99 posts)

10. When the U.S. signs an international treaty (like, say, the

Wed Jun 5, 2013, 11:15 AM

Jun 2013

Geneva Conventions), that treaty assumes the full force of the U.S. Constitution. (It's actually written into the Constitution in Article VI, Clause 2.)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. (Emphasis added.)

So when someone commits a war crime by violating the Geneva Conventions, they are indeed committing a crime against the Constitution.

Civics 101.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

81 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution ... [View all] tk2kewl Jun 2013 OP

There is also an obligation nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #1

Nadin, don't you know that since 2001 the Geneva Conventions CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #8

I remember that nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #9

if he uncovered war crimes, why not just release those cables? arely staircase Jun 2013 #2

Why did Ellsberg release all those papers and not just the ones that sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #3

^^^This^^^. Wish I could rec your post to infinity - n/t CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #4

irrelevant arely staircase Jun 2013 #5

OK, so Ellsberg released way more Pentagon Papers than he needed to to CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #13

daniel ellsberg will not be deciding manning's fate arely staircase Jun 2013 #19

You're begging the question which was whether Ellsberg releasing more than CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #25

introducing ellsberg at all is a red herring arely staircase Jun 2013 #29

Oh, please. Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers' precedent have CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #33

so his lawyers will be talking about ellsberg at his trial? arely staircase Jun 2013 #35

Hell, I hope his lawyers call Ellsberg to the stand. That way, we CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #39

yeah, that should work arely staircase Jun 2013 #40

Your laughter at what most concede is a kangaroo court where CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #45

it isn't a kangaroo court just because the the defendant's case arely staircase Jun 2013 #53

If by most you mean a tiny few who don't understand law... Pelican Jun 2013 #72

Indeed, sulphurdunn Jun 2013 #55

Manning did not have a TS clearance. He didn't have access to TS information. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #21

Oh, Manning most certainly did have TS clearance. Manning CHOSE to release CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #28

Go right ahead and provide that link. jeff47 Jun 2013 #63

It seems he did have a TS/SCI clearance. premium Jun 2013 #67

Read the source they got that from. jeff47 Jun 2013 #69

You are correct, premium Jun 2013 #71

War crimes are NOT crimes against the Constitution aristocles Jun 2013 #6

When the U.S. signs an international treaty (like, say, the CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #10

Quite simply wrong. aristocles Jun 2013 #14

See my post as amended: CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #15

You are correct. I stand corrected. aristocles Jun 2013 #20

really? tk2kewl Jun 2013 #31

kick & recommended. William769 Jun 2013 #7

Honoring his oath was not a war crime. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #11

What is the benefit of him serving a few years in the brig? nt ZombieHorde Jun 2013 #78

Military can't function if PFCs feel that they can overrule geek tragedy Jun 2013 #79

. blkmusclmachine Jun 2013 #12

Didn't he also have an obligation to obey US law? hack89 Jun 2013 #16

The US has protections for Whistle Blowers. Doesn't the Government have an sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #22

Yes - but Manning first had the obligation to obey the whistleblower laws hack89 Jun 2013 #27

Then the question would be 'why did he not go to Congress'. I believe he explained sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #37

When you have to go back 42 years to justify Manning's actions hack89 Jun 2013 #41

Do elected officials 'have to try to follow the law'? sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #52

New York Times Co. v. United States would apply to Wikileaks, not Manning hack89 Jun 2013 #57

And the same elements that got Ellsberg's case dismissed exist here and, according sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #70

How can you get so many basic facts wrong? hack89 Jun 2013 #75

He had an obligation to follow the guidelines MineralMan Jun 2013 #30

He had an obligation to abide by his oath which he tried to do. Why didn't Ellsberg sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #42

That very oath also requires following the UCMJ. MineralMan Jun 2013 #47

Technical note: Ellsberg did go to Congress first but was blown off. Likewise, Manning did CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #48

And if this was only about that Collateral Damage video he probably would not be charged now however cstanleytech Jun 2013 #59

Dispelling a myth. Manning took the Collateral Damage video CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #23

He still had other legal options. hack89 Jun 2013 #34

"He made a poor choice" - He made a choice in the interests of CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #36

Then he made a principled choice and is willing to pay the price of this actions. hack89 Jun 2013 #38

Yes, he made a principled choice and is willing to pay the price for CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #43

Funny how we ignore the 'legal obligations' of our elected officials in this country. Can you sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #46

They both can be crimes. hack89 Jun 2013 #56

Maybe atreides1 Jun 2013 #49

An investigation did occur... Pelican Jun 2013 #54

Then we need to dispell another mith jeff47 Jun 2013 #74

JAG Web Site 4Q2u2 Jun 2013 #80

Thats what the "Oath Keepers" say too. Historic NY Jun 2013 #17

No, he wasn't. He had a dual obligation here. He violated one of them. stevenleser Jun 2013 #18

Manning did not reveal any war crimes. jeff47 Jun 2013 #24

Please provide a link to the supposed Wikileaks pointing to "the guy with an AK-47". Otherwise, CharlesInCharge Jun 2013 #32

Watch the video they labeled. They label and draw a line to the AK-47. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #65

Wikileaks pointed out CAMERA EQUIPMENT. If what was revealed in that video was sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #51

The military probably classified it I bet because they knew they screwed up and they were cstanleytech Jun 2013 #62

Well, killing people isn't a mistake. And once it is known that two of the people killed sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #76

No one is arguing that Manning was required to obey a law to coverup a war crime though. cstanleytech Jun 2013 #77

Wilileaks pointed out two things: The camera, and an AK-47. jeff47 Jun 2013 #68

The UCMJ is in that oath, too, MineralMan Jun 2013 #26

All 750,000 documents were war crime related hmm? Pelican Jun 2013 #44

Sorry- I disagree. James48 Jun 2013 #50

I took that oath a long time ago bluedeathray Jun 2013 #58

no doubt tk2kewl Jun 2013 #60

If he'd handed the documents to the Government of China, would he have been as honorable? brooklynite Jun 2013 #61

Yeah, he was honoring his conscience. Rozlee Jun 2013 #64

a sad truth tk2kewl Jun 2013 #73

insert: Rosco P. Coltrane Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #66

K&R idwiyo Jun 2013 #81