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.
> 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.
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-powe... Among other things they link to this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441
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...
That says internation law as US law.
Light investigation says it is selectively applied for national security. So... pretty big loophole.
> 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.
3 replies →
They left "obeying the law" behind a long, long time ago