That part of the constitution only says that federal overrules state. Meaning states can’t make laws that disagree with federal laws or treaties. By your interpretation, states would be responsible for enforcing federal laws, which is clearly not the case. This is a well established interpretation of this part of the constitution and is taught in most high schools.
I get that you don’t understand subtle differences. Ratifyng a treaty is not the same as passing a law. In your head it is, but in a lawyers head it most certainly is not. They will argue about what legal precedence applies and what doesn’t based on the origin of the “law”.
The manual of course is an interpretation by the administration. Not a judge. So the judge can feel free to completely ignore any and all of it. They could litterally write that by thier interpretation, they don’t believe we need follow the geneva convention. Nothing stops them. So no, saying someone went against the manual doesn’t mean they broke the Geneva convention.
Last, the international laws are not only the geneva convention. There were several updates. The US did not ratify ANY of the updates. So no, the geneva convention rules are not all law in the US.
You are way off in your understanding of these things and are confidently wrong on a lot of them.
It being law in the US is highly questionable. But again, the op wasn’t talking about the geneva convention, it was talking about the manual. And while the manual is “A” interpretation of international law, it isn’t the only one. So he can’t be tried for going against the manual. If someone wants to claim he violated the parts of the grneva convention that congress agreed to, which is not all. That would be different. But that isn’t what the post was about. And if they could reasonably do so, they probably would have.
Portal. It’s older than you think, but still solid.
How nice of you to only say endanger… surely many have died already.
He didn’t break any US laws because the manual isn’t law, and the action happened outside the US. So I think all that can happen is he gets impeached by congress.
I wouldn’t say it is obvious they won’t decline. This particular event could sway it significantly. If they end up throwing the admiral under the bus, I would bet people would think more about illegal orders in the future.
Only if hegseth and trump wanted him to. Which they don’t.
Well, you can sue for anything in civil court… But if they tried to sue the person, and not the gov, it would get tossed immediately. And the courts have established very narrow conditions to allow it if the act happened outside the US.
What courts? The UN courts? The manual covers international law interpretation.
The manual is for interpretations of international law. Not US law. So no congress involved.
You saying how it “should” be. But nothing stops them ftom changing the standard retroactively, which is relevant because it means change the standard now, and judge people’s actions based on the new standard. They can do that. They shouldn’t, but they can. And this guy certainly would if it was in his favor.
I am willing to bet that nothing in it rules out retroactive changes. It’s a manual, not the letter of law. And really, it is more of a guide.
Perhaps the core problem is that the people expected to follow the rules get to make them too. That usually works out well.
So I looked it up. The DoD owns the manual. They can change it if they want. And it is an interpretation of international law. So technically, what was done is legal per US law. International law is pretty sketchy. Since it lacks robust enforcement, it pretty much means nothing unless a world power decides it does. So she may technically be right on that one. But of course the question shouldn’t be if it was legal. It should be was it “right”. Which it most certainly was not.
Technicality question. Doesn’t the sec def make the rules for the manual. Like he can just change them on a whim. And the manual isn’t law, congress didn’t vote on it right? So it might technically be legal under US law. Though I doubt the airhead knows anything about that. As for war crimes and such… the US has been killing whoever it wants for a long time now. But… throwing the admiral under the bus… that could have real consequences that I can’t wait to see.
This more supports that trump is a child that is easily influenced in general. Oh and that he has a very short term version of loyalty.
There are several sets of people involved. First you have the ambitious. These are poloticians and such that probably aren’t really racist at the core, but are willing to act and be racist to get ahead. They are the real problem. But it isn’t hate that drives them. It’s ambition. For the people suffering, that doesn’t matter. But when it comes to solving the problem it does.
Then you have the people who are actually racist, hateful people. They do exist, but they are actually a very small minority. The rest are “followers”. They weren’t racist until someone convinced them to be. These are the people you can give better options to. Doing so errodes the power of the other two groups.
These followers aren’t being told black and white. They are be told lazy, or criminal. And when the ambitious people shut services, they don’t mention the “good” people who benefit, they only mention the bad people. So often followers don’t even know who is really losing out. The news is full of trump supporters who are unhappy that a local to them person they knew got picked up by ICE. That’s because they believed the propaganda that it would only be violent illegal immigrants and such. Some were just fooled. But a lot just idolize trump because he filled a place in thier life that was empty. Give them something better, and they won’t idolize him. And idolization causes a lot of people to believe illogical things.
There are several sets of people involved. First you have the ambitious. These are politicians and such that probably aren’t really racist at the core, but are willing to act and be racist to get ahead. They are the real problem. But it isn’t hate that drives them. It’s ambition. For the people suffering, that doesn’t matter. But when it comes to solving the problem it does.
Then you have the people who are actually racist, hateful people. They do exist, but they are actually a very small minority. The rest are “followers”. They weren’t racist until someone convinced them to be. These are the people you can give better options to. Doing so errodes the power of the other two groups.
I have no sympathy for the two groups that aren’t the followers.
I didn’t ignore it. It specifically means states can’t make laws that go against the treaties. That is all. It does not mean they are laws like any other law. Congress passes laws to say things are bad. Not everything that is technically a law is the same as something that a person can be put on trial for. But speaking of things being ignored. You ignored that congress has refused to approve any of the updates to the geneva convention. So you would have to check if the things that were done are even in the part they ratified. Even if they are, by not ratifying the updates, they have made clear they no longer support it. So again, it is highly questionable as to if the things they did ratify can be considered laws like normal bills that are drafted and passed by congress.