Reply #6: Two problems. [View All]

[Warren Stupidity]

1) no other nation appears to be willing to hold us accountible;
2) new law invalidates existing treaties.

The latter seems counter intuitive. After all, a treaty requires ratification by 2/3 of the Senate, so surely treaty obligations are superior to mere law. I thought so. However if you research the topic it turns out that while it is a very difficult constitutional process to ratify a treaty, there is no constitutional process defined for abolishing treaties. The practice has been that the executive can simply declare, by executive order, all or part of a treaty null and void. No congressional action at all is required. Even odder, it seems that ratification does not complete enactment of a treaty. Where the provisions of a treaty conflict with existing law, congress has to specifically act to pass new laws to enable those conflicting sections of the treaty. The Torture, Indefinite Detention, and Kangaroo Court Act of 2006 legally invalidates (legally within the United States, see point (1) above) treaty obligations that are in conflict with its provisions. This odious legislation might not pass constitutional muster for other issues, such as its attempt to do away with habeas corpus, but its invalidation of parts of the GC will stand, in my opinion.