Comment by franktankbank
12 hours ago
That says internation law as US law.
Light investigation says it is selectively applied for national security. So... pretty big loophole.
12 hours ago
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.
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.
> 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.
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.