Saddam's WMD's are in Syria

[rasetsu]

Weren't we allied to the Soviet threat some 60 odd years ago...?

[Ian]

An alliance doesn't mean a friendship. The US also made some major overtures with Mao's China forty years ago, again to American benefit. And I'm of the opinion that the US and Iran will come to a mutual understanding within the next ten years or so as well. It doesn't mean we'll suddenly be friends.

[Cormac]

An alliance doesn't mean a friendship. The US also made some major overtures with Mao's China forty years ago, again to American benefit. And I'm of the opinion that the US and Iran will come to a mutual understanding within the next ten years or so as well. It doesn't mean we'll suddenly be friends.

Yes. Reagan and good ol' Ollie North did exactly that when they committed treason in the Iran- Contra affair.

[MrJonno]

Are you actually a Klingon?

No Klingons are ruthless but honorable killers, Seth prefers supporting those who shoot unarmed school children

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, it's a rather silly contention to say that only the US can lawfully do "whatever it wants." It can't, and nobody else can.

Wrong. We can, and nobody else can. We're the world's enforce of peace and justice and the rest of you sheeple handed us that power and title 60 years or more ago when you came begging on your knees for us to protect you from the Soviet threat. The Pax Americana is alive and well, and you forget it at your peril. Just ask Osama. Ponder for a moment on the billions upon billions of dollars Americans spent to kill one man. Fuck with us and we will fuck with you right back, and you will lose.

We "can" in terms of capability. But, capability does not mean "lawfully," necessarily.

It was probably a violation of international law to kill Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. We breached Pakistani sovereignty without permission, invaded a foreign country the same way we invaded Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Nobody can do anything about it, though, and most people think it was a justified violation of the law anyway. So, it just is what it is, and Obama will never be called to answer for that extrajudicial execution, which he ordered. Good thing, too. It's a good reason we aren't allowing ourselves to be within ICC jurisdiction, or there would be an indictment issued.

The only grain of truth within Seth's argument is the reality that international law is still largely based on mutual, voluntary agreement and power balances between independent, theoretically sovereign, powers that each claim no authority above them other than that which they voluntarily agree to adhere to and only for so long as their consent continues.

Precisely.

Well, then you agree that you are wrong, because under the international law that the US adheres to, and has not revoked consent to, it cannot just do whatever it wants.

So, to some extent, the US can go further than other countries because the US has the power to do so. That doesn't make all US actions lawful, however.

Of course it does. If we declare it lawful, it's lawful,

Incorrect. We are bound to treaty obligations until we revoke the obligations. We've signed on to the Law of the Sea, and therefore we cannot just declare it lawful to station our warships in another countries' waters.

and since we're sovereign no one can gainsay us unless they can defeat us in battle. To the victor go the spoils, and might, in the case of the US, makes right. The US is the best nation on the planet and the rest of y'all are just barbarians and bungling boobs who need to listen to your betters when it comes to messing with our interests. As for socialists, Marxists and Communists, they are enemies of free people everywhere because they adhere to an inherently evil and tyrannical sociopolitical system and the US has the right and the power to crush such tyranny with extreme prejudice whenever and wherever it rears its ugly head, if we choose to do so.

Where people go wrong is picturing international law in the same way as domestic law, enacted by legislators, binding without individual consent, etc. The decisions of the UN are only binding via consent of the member states, and the decisions of the Security Council are only votes on what the law is, enforced by power.

Which means that the law is what the US says it is, and the decisions of the UN are not binding on the US because we may repudiate any such decision (by vetoing it) and we can enforce whatever law we determine is in the best interests of the US and world peace.

Anybody care to go to war to try to change that balance of power? Bring it.[/quote]

Not exactly. The US can issue communiques and make statements and declarations as to what it thinks the law is, but it is more complex than declaring black to be white if the US wants to. Any country can declare what they think the law is. But, then there is also voluntary bilateral and multilateral agreements which countries sign on to, principles of jus cogens/peremptory norms, and the like. The US has consented to an array of legal regimes. And, as long as that consent continues, then it is binding international law on the US. The US will be a party to NAFTA, for example, until it serves proper notice of revocation.