I believe I did not express myself correctly.
<br>
<br>Basically, what I wanted to say is that any international treaty, regulation or agreement is ABOVE any local constitution / law / regulation. This Includes the US constitution. What triggered my (poorly written) response was your affirmation that since you are a citizen of the US you only have to obey the US constitution / law – and nothing else. The quoted text sounds arrogant, does not hold true and is also illegal. Unfortunately I replied to my own perception of arrogance, and that was not adequate.
<br>
<br>One example to make the (real) point easier to understand:
<br>
<br>The “rules of the road” are an international treaty signed by most (if not all) nations. The treaty supersedes any internal country rule. The local coast guard, congress or even the constitution can not go against this regulation/treaty – they can only add to it or specify its application. Besides, it is enforceable in any signatary country, independently of whatever the local constitution or law says.
<br>
<br>In case of conflicts, the treaties come first, the local constitution second, local federal law third, local states law third, coast guard regulations fourth, ISAF fifth, etc.
<br>
<br>That said, I want to ahare a very interesting meeting I had yesterday.
<br>
<br>The owner of the company that is constructing new house’s windows and doors is a German citizen who worked in the Mid-East and was kidnapped (for no reason) by the Iraqis for 3 months during the Iran-Iraq war. He was taken together with two other friends - one of them British – when driving to a nearby fishing spot.
<br>
<br>He told me that since England does not negotiate with terrorists, they decided that the Englishman was worthless and shot him dead in front of the others. He also said that this people don’t care about human life whatsoever and would have no problem to bring chemical weapons into a country even inoculating a pregnant women for the purpose, if necessary!
<br>
<br>His opinion is that it is useless to try to understand or fight this people conventionally. He says that he would use atom bombs and give it a final solution. When “final solutions” are defended with a German accent it gives me the shivers… In my opinion this is an emotional response that does not resist to rational analysis, but made me understand better the US feelings.
<br>
<br>Needless to say, that man gave up working in the Mid-East and also does not want to live in Europe or the US. He prefers an “emerging” country, with ample space for all people and much simpler problems – and that’s how he came here.
<br>
<br>I still think this war is an intelligence war and time and money wasted in bombs is useless. I understand the emotional and internal US political reasoning for the bombing, but it will not solve any problem and will probably cause more harm then benefits.
<br>
<br>Just my opinion
<br><br><br>Luiz