I could go read Jeralyn’s site, but that would be sixteen seconds of my life that I’ll never get back.

I tried reading her site but I couldn’t take it anymore. I did find it interesting that noone would respond to your questioning of the constitutionality of the ICC. For those who are always squawking about constitutional rights being violated they seem to have no concern about possible American defendents being deprived of those rights as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Xrlq,

I like seeing how the other half lives, plus I agree with her on some crime issues.

Karen,

It is amazing that in over 100 comments not one addressed the constitutionality issue. As I understand it, and Xrlq could help here, but SCOTUS usually passes on judging treaties unless there’s been enabling legislation that writes them into law. I think they are viewed as political documents, rather than legal.

I wonder if they would take a different view if one of those political documents sought to change our form of government by something other than the amendment provisions?

My goodness Robert… such strong language! “Unalterably opposed”, ...“an abomination”...

You are beginning to sound like that crackpot Scalia with his overheated rhetoric about “meaningless dicta”. Watch out – before you know it, we’ll win you over to The Dark Side :)

As a man of letters, you of all people should know how important it is for us to create that ‘all-important good impression’. You don’t want to miss that glorious moment when we all join hands with our friends across the pond in a rousing global chorus of Kumbaya….

Cass,

The odd thing in all of this is that I’m not even a social conservative!! How could I possibly think like this?

It seems to me that the left is getting increasingly devoid of values. When I think of us invading Iraq, I see a liberal democracy knocking over a tyrant and providing the potential for future freedom. Yes, we didn’t find any WMD and I thought they were there—though I also supported the war, and think we were actually acting, in accordance with this document—but it’s nothing like the horror the left is portraying it as. I also see us as defenders of many of the same values that the left claims to favor, such as free speech, religious liberty (the biggest problem in the ME, IMO) and others. Yet, they keep comparing Bush to Hitler and calling him a war criminal, even though he was acting in accordance with our constitution.

Oddly, as much as I love the internet, it hasn’t made me love the rest of the world. I read their newspapers—like The Guardian—and it has turned me off more than anything. I’m more convinced than ever that they are, as I said above, devoid of values and that we should limit our involvement with them, regardless of how Iraq turns out.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, season 8 of “Friends” is calling me (Joey just told Rachel he’s in love with her) and I have comparative statics and Lagrangian multipliers to deal with.

For the record, opposition to the Iraq war is not confined to the political left. There are plenty of libertarians, and a minority of social conservatives who think that the Iraq war was foolish at best, unlawful and immoral at worst. (Count me among those think it was foolish.)

If Iraq doesn’t descend into civil war, and there’s something approaching a liberal democracy in five years, it will have been worth it. I’m betting against it, but I’ll be happy to be proved wrong.

The Iraq doves are not “devoid of values.” For the most part we have the same values that the hawks do. We just disagree about empirical matters. And yes, our perceptions of empirical matters are colored by our preconceptions of the president. But so are yours.

Brock,

I agree that Iraq doves are not, as a class, devoid of values. I have a friend who’s in the military, on the right and voted against Bush. Why? Because of Iraq and the belief that the military is being misused. He’s in Iraq now and none too happy about it.

If you read the comments in Jeralyn’s thread you’ll see who I was referring to; these are people that generally don’t see our involvement in Iraq as foolish, but rather as “evil” and “illegal”. They likewise characetrize Bush as a “war criminal”—ignoring Congress’ role in all of this—and routinely make excuses or run interference for some of the most despotic countries on earth. It’s their voices I’m hearing on this; not people with your view. It’s one thing to consider Iraq a strategic error on our part; another thing entirely to consider our country evil for having done it.

Brock:

I agree with Robert’s comment above. I think part of the misunderstanding may be that, at least for me, when I refer to “the Left”, I don’t mean “all liberals” – I mean the radical fringe of the Democratic Party. Often however, it is taken to mean ‘anyone who disagrees with me”, which, at least when I use the term, is not my intent.

My best friend is against the war, but is reasonable in her dissent (i.e., she isn’t in the ‘war criminal’ camp). She voted for Kerry, whom I can’t stand. We disagree about the war, but can have a reasonable discussion although we are both passionate in our convictions. What a concept. We respect each other.

My brother and sister in law, on the otter heiny, I’m afraid, get all their news from NPR and the WaPo. They are criminally misinformed about the war, have zero desire to find out more than their narrow little worldview currently will accommodate (as this might cause them to have to rethink their strong opinions). I cannot respect someone who won’t even entertain the possibility that there is another way to look at the issue.

I firmly believe I’m right, but I will listen to, and think about, and evaluate another POV. Why can’t they? I don’t get all emotional and start frothing at the mouth when my ideas are challenged. Why do they? As a military wife and daughter, I really, really loathe John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and their ilk for the irresponsible things they’ve done and said during this campaign, but I would NEVER call them any of the names I’ve heard Bush called. Why can’t they show the same restraint?

On the five year question, why set an artificial time limit? Democracy isn’t something you cook up in an EasyBake Oven. It takes time. We’ve been trying to get peace between Israel and Palestine for my entire lifetime, it seems, Saddam plundered Iraq for over 30 years, Russia has been floundering for how many years now trying to find its way, and all of a sudden Bush is supposed to add water, stir, and…. voila! instant Democracy! It’s not Lipton Iced Tea.

Be patient. This war has been remarkably cheap in human lives and, (yes) even in money. And I can, and will, say that as someone who has seen the cost close up and personal. We count every missing chair. We take care of the families left fatherless and comfort the widows and visit the wounded. You guys, for the most part, just read about it in the papers.

We still believe it is the right thing to do. We still think it is “worth it”, even if you don’t. And we volunteered for this. And your Congress voted for it. And if they later changed their minds, haven’t had the balls to stand up and be counted. Your representatives, if they truly dissent (and I don’t believe they do) have failed you.

I think they secretly know this is right and they want it both ways. And they’re a bunch of cowards.

And FWIW, my husband is a career Marine and we both thought VERY long and hard before throwing our support behind this war. We did a lot of reading and talking. And neither of us made the decision based on WMDs – they were a relatively minor factor in a decision based on what we thought were the long-term strategic interests of the US in eliminating a sworn enemy of ours who was known to harbor and fund terrorists.

IMHO, what sense did it make to go after Osama in Afghanistan and leave the back door open for him or his operatives to escape to Iraq? Al-Zarqawi did exactly that, and look at all the trouble he is causing now. And we know Saddam gave shelter to the terrorists who planned the 1993 bombing of the WTC. There is plenty of historical precedent.

Bush would have to be a complete moron to go after Osama and not take out Saddam at the same time. After 911, Saddam was the ONLY world leader who applauded the attack and called for more of the same. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that he might support future attacks on us. Why did we have a 911 commission if not to think about how to prevent future attacks?

Study after study has shown that neither poverty nor lack of education causes terrorism. Rather it is the lack of freedom. Bringing stable democracy to a region is the single best means of stopping terrorism at the source. It seems to me that what Bush did was reasonable and prudent: visionary thinking of the kind we seldom see anymore. Instead of putting a Bandaid on the problem, he is trying to solve it as best he can.

And for this, he is called a war criminal.

Robert, sorry for the overlong comment… I believe the cliche “get your own blog, woman” applies here :)

Robert and Cassandra,

I think both of you have fallen into a certain intellectual trap that’s all too easy for partisans of all stripes to fall into. Abstractly, it goes something like this: “So-and-so, a partisan of type A, has said such-and-such an obnoxious thing. I, a partisan of type B, would never say anything like that. Therefore, B partisans are, as a group, morally/intellectually superior to A partisans.”

From the left, it goes like this: “Ann Coulter, a conservative, said that we should forcibly convert Arabs to Christianity. I, a liberal, would never advocate forcible conversion. Therefore liberals are morally superior to conservatives.”

From the right, it goes like this: “That liberal antiwar protester was carrying a sign that said Bush=Hitler. I, a conservative, would never carry a Kerry=Hitler sign. Therefore, conservatives are morally superior to liberals.” (Andrew Sullivan is a great example of this on the conservative side.)

And even if you’re not really thinking that way at your most reflective, you’re both guilty writing that way in this thread.

One of my personal rules, as a blogger, is never to write “conservatives say this” or “libertarians say that.” I always write “So-and-so says this,” quoting the individual by name (or pseudonym, as the case may be). I don’t have anything against conservatives pointing out the general nastiness of Atrios, any more than I object to liberals pointing out the general nastiness of LGF. I do object to anyone on either side trying to indict a whole group based on the heated rhetoric of some members of that group.

Brock, the problem is that among prominent left-wing bloggers, nastiness and intolerance of dissent appears to be more the rule than the exception. Atrios isn’t the only example of this. Markos “Screw ‘Em” Zuniga (aka Kos) is every bit as bad, if not worse. Jeralyn Merritt (aka Talk Left) is if anything worse, as she not only attacks those who disagree, but edits their comments “for language” to cover up their substantive arguments. Josh Marshall doesn’t allow comments at all. So among sensible, top-tier lefty bloggers, that leaves Kevin Drum, and just about no one else.

Robert: I’m not sure I understand your constitutional argument. Generally, treaties are the supreme law of the land, right up there with the Constitution. The Bricker Amendment would have prevented this result as to the Bill of Rights, but it was never ratified.

One last thing, Brock: if Andrew Sullivan is the best you can do as an example of the “right,” you’ve made my point better than I ever could.

Brock,

I’ll address you later as it will take a little time, which I don’t have.

Xrlq,

If a treaty is in opposition to an enumerated power in the constitution, which one wins? If the constitution describes our form of government and we ratify a treaty that attempts to change that, which one wins? I’m really asking.

I’m not sure how a treaty can be in opposition to an enumerated power. The treaty power is itself an enumerated power, so the possibility that Congress may exceed a different enumerating power when passing laws to implement a treaty is irrelevant. To the extent a treaty actually conflicts with a specific prohibition of the Constitution, it’s anybody’s guess who wins. The most intuitive result is that the treaty will be treated as the equivalent of a constitutional amendment, meaning that courts will enforce both to the extent possible, but to the extent a conflict between the two is inevitable, the later law will prevail.

IIRC, courts have hinted that they would not allow this in the event the treaty violated a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as the Bill of Rights. Mostly, however, we have to rely on the Senate’s good graces not to ratify such a treaty in the first place.

Xrlq,

Hmm. More than a little disturbing—that leaves an opening for the transnational progressivists.

Tell me this: does a treaty carry any legal weight on its own or does it require enabling legislation?

Assuming that by “enabling legislation” you mean a federal statute intended to implement a treaty that has already been ratified, the treaty itself carries more weight, if anything. With the statutes passed to implement the treaty, at least there is the potential to argue that the statute violates the treaty or exceeds the power conferred by it (assuming it can’t be justified under any other enumerated power).

The constitutional provision at issue is the second paragraph of Article 7. Note that while federal statutes must be passed “in pursuance” of the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, treaties need only be made “under the Authority of the United States.” Presumably, they have to be made in the manner prescribed by the Constitution to be made “under the Authority of the United States,” but apart from that, I don’t think they have to have much (or anything) to do with the Constitution.

If all this sounds like the treaty power is a dangerous one, that’s because it is.

Brock:

I think you have to be very careful in inferring subjective intent from general statements. In my experience, it is a rare person who draws inferences based on fact. More often, they are based on pre-existing assumptions or bias.

In your “Abstractly…” example, I did say parts I and II. However, I don’t believe I said anything that would cause a careful reader to logically infer “Therefore, B partisans are, as a group, morally/intellectually superior to A partisans.” A bit of a stretch.

If there is such a thing as an opposite to Freudian “projection”, I believe you just committed it…. :)

Looking at the actual text, my last comment goes to great lengths to distinguish reasonable liberal individuals like my friend, from more dogmatic and emotional ones like my brother and sister-in-law. To infer an extrapolation from my brother and sister in law to all liberals requires that one ignore the entire point of my comment (as well as the first two paras). Quite a feat.

Having done that, one must then infer a second claim, nowhere supported in my comment, that conservatives in general (of which I would be a poor representative, being something of a RINO) are intellectually superior. This is really an awful lot of work for a holiday weekend.

Although I did not so state, I agree with Xrlq that, in general, conservatives tend to be more tolerant of disagreement and less emotional. Of course, one rarely has conversations with groups. But the law of averages still applies. Still, I have observed boorish behavior from conservatives – it is just that we tend to be sarcastic or dismissive when an argument turns nasty, rather than calling names, editing out entire opinions, or banning IPs.

While we’re on the topic of things that annoy us in general, one of the things that mildly irritates me is to have someone (usually someone who claims to be neither conservative nor liberal, and therefore neutral) not read one of my comments carefully, then attempt to point out my supposed failings and/or partisanship by making generalizations that don’t really apply to what I actually said :).

What is generally revealed at that point is that the commenter made up his/her mind what “conservatives” are like before I ever started to type.

We are all biased, Brock. Furthermore, I very much doubt you’d find a person alive who doesn’t secretly think that, (a) they’re right and the rest of the world is wrong, and (b) they’re morally and intellectually superior to everyone else.

As long as we’re respectful and polite to each other (and you seem to be able to maintain that) we can talk about just about anything.