4 ms·

Is that US law or international law?

JohnFen 7mo ago
International law is also US law. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3588&context=mlr https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
- franktankbank 7mo ago
  That says internation law as US law. Light investigation says it is selectively applied for national security. So... pretty big loophole.
  - JohnFen 7mo ago
    > it is selectively applied for national security. This is true. The US gets creative when it wants to avoid adhering to the law. But international law is established through treaties, and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law.
    - OrangePilled 7mo ago
      > and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law. Which according to your source the President is allowed to disregard within his "constitutional authority". A can of worms on its own.
      - JohnFen 7mo ago
        It is a can of worms indeed. Sadly, the President may be able to break the law without any repercussions. However, the same isn't true for the people under him.
    - OkayPhysicist 7mo ago
      This is true in this case, but in general complicated in the US. Since the executive branch is responsible for diplomacy, but only Congress can pass laws, there's a weird wiggle room where the Executive branch is completely on board with signing some treaty, but then when it comes time to actually implement it in any way that actually binds, Congress can refuse to do so. It's one of the reasons why for a lot of the "everybody joins" treaties, a bunch of countries sign with a statement that they don't recognize the US as a signatory.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
bdbdbdb 7mo ago
They left "obeying the law" behind a long, long time ago
recursivecaveat 7mo ago
There was this legal analysis about the Iran war crimes situation posted yesterday by some former military lawyers: https://www.justsecurity.org/135797/war-crimes-rhetoric-power-plants-iran/ https://www.justsecurity.org/135797/war-crimes-rhetoric-powe... Among other things they link to this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
nofriend 7mo ago
International law consists of treaties that have been bilaterally agreed to by several countries, in most cases including the US. Being treaties, they are US laws that are much more difficult for the US to amend than ordinary laws. US law/international law is a false distinction, when we speak of international law in the context of the US, we are generally referring specifically to treaties that the US is party to.

International law is also US law. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3588&context=mlr https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...

franktankbank 7mo ago
That says internation law as US law. Light investigation says it is selectively applied for national security. So... pretty big loophole.
- JohnFen 7mo ago
  > it is selectively applied for national security. This is true. The US gets creative when it wants to avoid adhering to the law. But international law is established through treaties, and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law.
  - OrangePilled 7mo ago
    > and the terms the US agrees to in treaties is US law. Which according to your source the President is allowed to disregard within his "constitutional authority". A can of worms on its own.
    - JohnFen 7mo ago
      It is a can of worms indeed. Sadly, the President may be able to break the law without any repercussions. However, the same isn't true for the people under him.
  - OkayPhysicist 7mo ago
    This is true in this case, but in general complicated in the US. Since the executive branch is responsible for diplomacy, but only Congress can pass laws, there's a weird wiggle room where the Executive branch is completely on board with signing some treaty, but then when it comes time to actually implement it in any way that actually binds, Congress can refuse to do so. It's one of the reasons why for a lot of the "everybody joins" treaties, a bunch of countries sign with a statement that they don't recognize the US as a signatory.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

bdbdbdb 7mo ago

They left "obeying the law" behind a long, long time ago

recursivecaveat 7mo ago

There was this legal analysis about the Iran war crimes situation posted yesterday by some former military lawyers: https://www.justsecurity.org/135797/war-crimes-rhetoric-power-plants-iran/ https://www.justsecurity.org/135797/war-crimes-rhetoric-powe... Among other things they link to this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441

nofriend 7mo ago

International law consists of treaties that have been bilaterally agreed to by several countries, in most cases including the US. Being treaties, they are US laws that are much more difficult for the US to amend than ordinary laws. US law/international law is a false distinction, when we speak of international law in the context of the US, we are generally referring specifically to treaties that the US is party to.