3 ms·
The US holds that to be true when they are on the side of the majority. It is less clear [0] that they hold that when they are in the minority. The US opinion s
by roenxi 1y ago
The US holds that to be true when they are on the side of the majority. It is less clear [0] that they hold that when they are in the minority. The US opinion seems to be that democratic law can overrule international law when there is a conflict as long as the democracy is governed to a certain standard.
International law certainly doesn't represent a higher moral standard for the US. When it was set up the USSR and the British Empire both had vetos on what could be international law - it is hard to claim they had any higher moral opinion to add on how countries should treat each other.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...
- __turbobrew__ 1y agoRules for thee, but not for me. Seems like the current international order is if the US thinks you are violating international law they will kick the shit out of you, but if the US is violating international law they will also kick the shit out of you. That still doesn’t answer the question of what US generals do when given an order which violates international law.