@JimnLke @NewtypeApologia @Awright874 @KurtSchlichter Nope not AI. Just an inability to condense legal theorists into 140 characters in a proficient manner. Trying to engage people in good faith. I don’t believe you want to do that.
English
Nic Anderson
451 posts
@nanders144 @NewtypeApologia @Awright874 @KurtSchlichter No, I said it was written using AI.
Because reasoning with you is like trying to nail jello to a wall. We don't speak a common language.
English
The key word is "binding." We are not bound unless the US Senate ratifies a treaty. This is from the Geneva Convention Additional Protocol I, and we expressly did not ratify it, so not binding on us. Oops.
Angry Staffer@Angry_Staffer
English
@JimnLke @NewtypeApologia @Awright874 @KurtSchlichter Calling me a robot with no legal training begs the question, what is your legal training? And why do you keep involving yourself in the conversation if you do not want to engage?
English
English
English
@nanders144 @NewtypeApologia @Awright874 @KurtSchlichter The post, aside from questioning its source, is unworthy of substantive response.
English
@SMiller9867 @GregorJmacs @KurtSchlichter Please read the definitions of military objectives and indiscriminate attacks found within the CCW.
English
@nanders144 @GregorJmacs @KurtSchlichter The CCW refers to the use of specific weapons, not targets of attack. So unless Trump is planning on dropping land mines, incendiaries, small fragment bombs or laser beam these targets and the mullahs are going to move a bunch of civilians underneath them, you are all wet.
English
@JimnLke @NewtypeApologia @Awright874 @KurtSchlichter How do the Geneva Conventions legally bind the United States?
English
@nanders144 @NewtypeApologia @Awright874 @KurtSchlichter This has to be written using AI. No actual human being with any legal training would write this.
English
@Turkleton_Cat @KurtSchlichter We ratified the CCW, not API. The CCW is binding.
English
@nanders144 @KurtSchlichter Hey... pssst. I've got your CCW binding right here. Send your best ships..
GIF
English
@KurtSchlichter I agree there is no compulsory jurisdiction. But, your entire argument rests on the fact that there is no legally binding treaty obligation for which to find a war crime. How is there any legally binding treaty obligation if there is no court to adjudicate?
English
The ICJ has no jurisdiction over the United States.
Nic Anderson@nanders144
@JimnLke @KurtSchlichter It is binding under the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction over all members of the United Nations, under Article 93 of the UN Charter, which we ratified, and are therefore bound by its provisions.
English
@TrufflesTheDev @JimnLke @KurtSchlichter I didn’t argue that we violated API Art. 33 or 54. I don’t believe we have.
English
@nanders144 @JimnLke @KurtSchlichter The US is not bound by the international court of justice. And article 93 is limited in international disputes that can't be handled within their own agreements -_-
The US hasn't violated articles 33 nor 54 and you can't even demonstrate that we have because we haven't -_-
English
@NewtypeApologia @Awright874 @JimnLke @KurtSchlichter If we aren’t legally bound by a treaty, then we certainly aren’t bound by CIL. I don’t agree with that. I see our treaty obligations and CIL as binding, even though no court can adjudicate either.
English
@NewtypeApologia @Awright874 @JimnLke @KurtSchlichter The word bind assumes a legal obligation that can be adjudicated by a court. We have all agreed that no court has jurisdiction over the sovereignty of the United States. If there is no court to adjudicate our legal obligations, then we can’t legally be bound by any instrument.
English
@GregorJmacs @KurtSchlichter We ratified the CCW. I am not arguing that we are bound to API. We have not ratified it.
English
@nanders144 @KurtSchlichter The US is not a party to a treaty unless it is ratified. That's it. Your claims to the contrary, no matter how many you make up, are simply untrue.
English
@NewtypeApologia @Awright874 @JimnLke @KurtSchlichter You are absolutely correct. We make the determination. My entire argument is that we bind ourselves with the customary international law that we accept. Like almost every treaty, we can remove our consent to be bound.
English
@nanders144 @Awright874 @JimnLke @KurtSchlichter But just like with the cluster munitions we reserve our right to change our mind in the moment. We set all previous cluster munitions into Condition N, rather than getting rid of them.
English
@NewtypeApologia @Awright874 @JimnLke @KurtSchlichter Thank you! We enforce ourselves, recognizing that we want other nations to also play nice and pull punches.
English
@nanders144 @Awright874 @JimnLke @KurtSchlichter To play nice and pull punches. Same reason we don’t manufacture cluster munitions even though we didn’t agree to the Oslo Treaty.
English
@nava81815 If no one has jurisdiction to enforce our treaty obligations, why do we enter into any treaty?
English
I dont even care enough to look that shit up. My point stands. No one actually has jurisdiction over the US because what are they really gonna do if we do something they dont agree with? Blacklist us? Lmao come on.
Nic Anderson@nanders144
@nava81815 Who enforces the Geneva Conventions?
English
@WilliamGra28171 @WretchedDog1725 @KurtSchlichter The CCW is a signed treaty. The agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev was not a treaty as the executive cannot bind the U.S. in treaty. Only Congress can do this.
English
@nanders144 @WretchedDog1725 @KurtSchlichter You are confusing the distinction between a moral and a legal obligation. The US has not even followed the Minsk treaty that Reagan and Gorbachev signed restricting the expansion of NATO to the East. What you are referring to is not even a signed treaty. It is not gonna happen.
English
Imagine thinking thinking anybody has jurisdiction over the US lmao go ahead and enforce punishment.
Nic Anderson@nanders144
@JimnLke @KurtSchlichter It is binding under the Statute of the International Court of Justice, which has jurisdiction over all members of the United Nations, under Article 93 of the UN Charter, which we ratified, and are therefore bound by its provisions.
English
@WilliamGra28171 @WretchedDog1725 @KurtSchlichter And then we ratified the CCW, which prohibits indiscriminate use of fire bombs (incendiary weapons) in Protocol III. We have recognized since the Lieber Code in 1863 that certain methods and means of warfare cannot be used.
English
@nanders144 @WretchedDog1725 @KurtSchlichter You are apparently ignorant of history. This is exactly what we did to Germany in WW2. We destroyed all infrastructure, industry and power plants. In Iran we are not targeting civilians. In Dresden we targeted civilians with fire bombs. Both Iran and Germany have killed millions.
English
@GregorJmacs @KurtSchlichter Additionally, when you ask who is bound by the CCW? The answer is that the U.S. is as Congress has ratified the instrument in 1986 and its amended protocol in 1995.
English
@GregorJmacs @KurtSchlichter Well, Article II gives the treaty power to the president who may delegate authority to ambassadors. They then sign a treaty, which binds under a theory of intent to be bound. However, that treaty needs to be ratified by a 2/3 vote of Congress in order to be de jure bound.
English
English
English