Reports: Deem and Pass is dead; keep the no-mentum going
Well, well, well. Breaking news all over that the Dems have now abandoned Demon Pass.
WaPo alert:
House Democratic leaders say they will take a separate vote on the Senate health care bill, rejecting an earlier, much-criticized strategy that would have permitted them to “deem” the measure passed without an explicit vote.
The Hill tweets: “Our Roxana Tiron reports Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) told her Pelosi now WILL NOT use ‘deem and pass.’”
Keep cranking it up.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Catholic lawsuit against Obamacare mandate cites 1993 legislation written by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer
May 22, 2012 04:35 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Illinois Republicans flirting with cigarette tax hike for Obamacare — and a reminder about Orrin Hatch
May 21, 2012 11:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
32 CommentsHigh school fined $15,000 for… selling soda pop during lunch
May 19, 2012 01:29 PM by Doug Powers
101 Comments
Destroying private health insurance was always the goal
May 16, 2012 09:40 AM by Michelle Malkin
43 CommentsObamacare cronyism: The First Lady’s patient-dumping, privacy-meddling scheme
May 16, 2012 08:56 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 CommentsInsurers issuing new round of rebates must credit Obamacare
May 14, 2012 11:26 AM by Doug Powers
66 CommentsWhite House to SCOTUS: ‘Extraordinary disruptions’ to Medicare if Obamacare struck down
May 4, 2012 02:03 PM by Doug Powers
86 Comments
Biden predicts Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare
April 1, 2012 12:49 PM by Doug Powers
63 Comments
Categories: Health care
Villainous Company
» Must Read Post of the Day. Possibly, the YearJustOneMinute
» Mama Also Said There Be Days Like This
Nobody proposed armed rebellion in response to Obamacare.
Tell me whether you consider George Washington a terrorist by your definition.
Btw, it’s not liberal to understand that there’s no such thing as international law.
What?
It’s possible. The big thing is that Washington et al used violence for political ends. That would fit within the definition.
However,I do see some differences between what we currently conceive of as terrorism and what occurred in the Revolutionary War. Mainly, fighting was between armies (more or less) and adhered to the laws of war at the time (I believe, I don’t know too much about the specifics).
Just FYI, I got the definition from dictionary.com. Probably not the greatest source for definitions, but it doesn’t have a political leaning either.
You’re right. It’s not liberal, it’s just incredibly misinformed.
What’s possibly? Do you think George Washington was a terrorist or not. Use whatever definition or criteria YOU want.
I’ll repeat. Armed rebellion wasn’t mentioned in response to Obamacare. It was mentioned in respinse to the threat of declaring law outside the prescribes of the Constitution.
Please explain the basis for international law. Who do you believe has declared such laws? The UN?
I guess there is no room for nuance with you. If the definition is the use of force for political ends, then yes, he would be a terrorist. That being said, his tactics were nowhere near as vile as Al Qaeda.
I think you’re being disingenuous here. Regardless, there are procedures in place to deal with such situations – mainly judicial review. If armed rebellions occurred in response to every unconstitutional law, we’d be living in a much different, and in my opinion worse, country.
There are many sources of international law. Treaties are the biggest source. There’s also a concept called international customary law. Basically, if every country acts as if something is illegal, then it’s illegal. US courts recognize international customary law (but it’s really hard to prove that something rises to this level).
The UN is generally not a source of international law. The General Assembly resolutions are not binding. However, the security council decisions are pretty much binding. Decisions of the ICJ are likewise binding.
I sincerely doubt that anyone seriously would consider Washington as a terrorist. To do so would be to call all enemies terrorists, throughout history. Washington took over a declared army in Boston, after Breed’s Hill. He followed the rules of war, set at that time. However, one has to remember that this was more of a civil war, than a revolution. His army was recognized by Spain, France and Netherlands. Besides, the “Revolution” was a backwater campaign, compared to the world war in effect, at that time.
It’s nice to know that you think George Washington was a terrorist and that his tactics were vile.
George Washington led a uniformed military force to attack another uniformed military force.
We don’t need to discuss what is and what isn’t terrorism. The fact that you think George Washington was a terrorist says it all.
There’s a huge difference between passing unconstitutional laws and by-passing the constitution to declare law. Surely, this isn’t too complicated for you to understand.
Treaties aren’t a source of international law. They are simply agreements.
These are not LAWS. Is this the best you have? Are these your source of authority? That’s laughable!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t a bill that was not passed in accordance with the constitution unconstitutional?
What do you mean they are not laws? Perhaps I’m dense, but I really don’t understand what you mean.
I want to crawl into a fetal position and cry (ironic); I want to not look at anymore news or read anymore blogs due to the depression that is sure to further come upon me in the coming days, weeks and months.
No, I won’t. I will be as brave as the Polish people under Communist rule; I will be as determined as the People Power Revolution in the Philippines. Peaceful and powerful opposition can work to overcome this desecration of our constitution. I won’t believe those conservatives I am now hearing say that we can never go back once this passes into law; I JUST WON’T BELIEVE IT! Don’t you believe it. Don’t be alone. Join up with someone to keep constant pressure on your local political offices. Keep a public presence of protesting. Even if the media doesn’t cover it, people in your area will see it and it will be in their minds that something is still brewing…change is brewing back to conservatism. We won’t forget like they think we will come November. No way.
Even if they pass that health care bill, the fight isn’t over. Funny. My wife and I are enjoying a Jeff Daniels movie (The Crossing) right now. It was the low point in our fight for liberty. We will win yet, with our own Trenton/Princeton.
All laws that aren’t passed in accordance with the constitution are unconstitutional, but not all unconstitutional laws were passed in an unconstitutional manner.
You really need to give up this whole international law thing. There is no convention (such as a constitution) which serves as the foundation for anything resembling international law. Therefore, there is no “authority” being granted to those that you would otherwise label a terrorist.
Is Dmitry Medvedev a terrorist for threatening and executing violence against Georgia? Or are you going to claim that Georgia violated international law thereby giving Dmitry the authority to threaten violence without such threat being defined as terrorism according to you.
Actually, don’t answer those last two questions. You consider George Washington a terrorist so I don’t really care what you think about Dmitry.
You just proved my point, no? If it wasn’t passed in accordance with the constitution, it’s unconstituional. Like I stated earlier, we have procedures in place to deal with unconstitutional laws.
You can have law without a constitution. Just look at the UK. Moreover, our very legal system is based on the Common Law, which does not get its authority from a constitution.
What does that have to do with anything?
The question is what procedures do we have in place to deal with those that unconstitutionally declare laws.
I didn’t claim otherwise. I merely gave the constitution as an EXAMPLE of a legal foundation.
Fail. You could not be more wrong and have demonstrated that you don’t understand anything about the law. The authority of our common laws is absolutely rooted in our Constitution. You know…like…um….our entire judicial branch relies on the Constitution for its authority to make the common laws. No Constitution then no judiciary branch then no common law.
The Common Law is British.
Perhaps I was a bit unclear in my previous posts. The common law is british, and does not rely on a constituion. Our legal system is based on the common law. It would be odd for us to adopt a legal system that was not founded on a constituion if laws required a constituion for authority.
Also, I’m not sure what these “conventions” are you speak of.
Just keeping digging yourself in deeper.
You don’t understand common law. Read about it and come back.
This sentence is unintelligible because of your lack of understanding.
I have no doubt that you don’t understand this.
But it really doesn’t matter. I don’t need to debate someone that doesn’t understand foundations of law and claims that George Washington was a terrorist.
I’m not sure if you’re still reading this, but if so, I’m not really sure where my understanding of the common law is misguided. You simply said I don’t understand it, which isn’t a very helpful criticism. Personally, I think my understanding is decent.
And the reason i’m confused about he conventions thing is that conventions are treaties. Yet you claimed earlier that treaties can not be a source of international law.
You don’t need helpful criticism. You need a class.
At the very least read up on common law. The United States very much utilizes common law.
Treaties aren’t international law. Treaties are self-contained agreements (contracts) between countries that enter into them. There are no international laws to govern a treaty default or to bind countries to the treaties they sign. Countries are bound by treaties according to the treaties’ provisions. Domestic laws may internally bind countries to the treaties they sign (the case you cited is germane to this), but no international
This is direct contrast to domestic contract law. Such contracts are enforceable by methods outside the provision of the contract itself.
The bottom line is that none of this matters. You’ve already proven yourself to be a crazy radical by believing that George Washington was a terrorist.
I’m well aware of the role of the common law in the US.
It sounds like you’re arguing that there is no universal international enforcement mechanism in international law. I think that’s slightly different than saying that there is no such thing as international law. I don’t see why it is necessary that there be a universal method of enforcement for there to be law. Perhaps you will explain this to me.
I would think that the leaders of the Khmer Rogue who are currently before the ECCC would feel differently about internaitonal law. They’re being prosecuted for breaches of the Geneva convention and for crimes against humanity (international law), and they will serve prison time if convicted. Just because there is no universal enforcement mechanism doesn’t mean that interntional law doesn’t exist and have very real consequences.
I’m happy you finally understand. Feel free to retract some of the statements you made prior to reaching your current level of understanding.
Nope. I’m saying there’s nothing that governs it at all.
Don’t be confused by little remnants of international cooperation, customary practices, treaties, etc. There is no international law which would give world leaders the ability to threaten violence with authority. If you disagree, then please cite the specific law which gave Churchill the authority to threaten the Germans with violence.
Actually, don’t bother. Your definition of terrorism stated nothing about authority. Feel free to disavow that definition. Otherwise, this authority issue is moot. Therefore, this international law issue is moot.
The bottom line is that none of this matters. You’ve already proven yourself to be a crazy radical by believing that George Washington was a terrorist.
The UN Security Council is authorized to use force.
Moreover, the UN Charter states:
The Charter is binding law on member states.
Churchill got his authority from international customary law at the time. There were likely treaties at the time as well (though I don’t know for certain).
However, since you don’t believe that treaties nor customary law are sources of law, I’m guessing this won’t be persuasive. What I’ve gathered from our discussions, however, is that you’re not an international lawyer, and it does not seem that you will ever be in a position of power that interacts with international law, so I suppose it’s not a big deal.
Just out of curiosity, from what sources did you get this “there’s no international law” stuff? Is this pure reasoning on your part, or do you have substantive support as well?
just an addendum to the previous post: I’ve heard lots of persuasive arguments about the lack of enforcement mechanism in international law, and that states (particularly the US)shouldn’t give up their sovereignty to international organizations, but I’ve never heard the argument (persuasive or not) that international law doesn’t exist. That’s why I’m curious.
Which international customary law was that? Please cite it.
A lawyer doesn’t need to be an “international lawyer” to understand and work on international issues. But you bring up a GREAT issue! Why is the IBA merely a consortium of national bar associations?
At this point you need to decide. Are you disavowing your terrorism definition or are you going to continue to pursue this silly authority issue?
The bottom line is that none of this matters. You’ve already proven yourself to be a crazy radical by believing that George Washington was a terrorist.
Every example in history of a country using force (or threatening force) in self-defense, without thinking it illegal. That might be a bit unclear, but “citing” customary law is like asking someone to prove that something is a custom – it involves more than pointing to a particular line of text.
You’re right. It is kinda silly to argue about authority under international law with someone that does not believe there is such a thing as international law (that really is your position?).
I take your lack of response to my question about sources to mean that you developed this idea on your own?
1. You still haven’t addressed the lack of an authority carve out in your terrorism definition.
Notice that it doesn’t state, ‘the use of violence and threats without authority.’
In fact, the first part of the third definition implies that the existence of authority doesn’t matter.
2. So you’re claiming that Churchill had the authority to threaten violence because countries customarily had the right to self defense? Wow! That’s impressive authority. We can end this discussion right there IF you’re happy with that.
3. Please provide sources that state the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist. If you don’t provide sources, then I’ll assume you developed the idea that there is no such thing as the Tooth Fairy on your own (or that you actually do believe that the Tooth Fairy exists).
4. You’re wrong on so many fronts that you’re just digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself.
5. The bottom line is that none of this matters. You’ve already proven yourself to be a crazy radical by believing that George Washington was a terrorist. And maybe now you think Churchill was a terrorist for using threats to intimidate esp. for a political purpose.
I agree, the definition is lacking. I do not, however, take back my characterization of an armed rebellion by the likes of BruceB as terrorism.
That’s pretty much it, although It’s slightly more complex. For customary international law there must be sustained state practice with the recognition that such action is legal/illegal. I would think that self-defense would fall into this category.
I was sincerely asking because I honestly have never heard any one make this argument.
Now that you say it…
Here’s a definition of terrorism that might be better
This would not include Churchill, probably not include Washington, but might include BruceB.
Sorry, that would probably still include Churchill. I’d add “non-state actor” in there as well. That would get rid of Churchill and possibly Washington
So now you’re backing down to a mere claim that BruceB might have made a terrorist statement.
That’s an improvement, but let me know when/if you know for sure one way or the other.
But here’s a tip. Rework your definition of terrorism to definitively exclude George Washington.
Do you not see how flimsy that is? How can you possibly believe that something so flimsy can grant anything except flimsy authority? Is there even such a thing as flimsy authority?
Here are a few questions for you.
1. Does Libya have a “legal” claim to the Gulf of Sidra? If not, then why not? Simply because the US Navy deliberately transits the Gulf every few years (sustained state practice)? If the Navy stopped its otherwise useless Gulf of Sidra transits and since no other state transits the Gulf of Sidra (in other words, the sustained state practice ended) at what point would Libya have a “legal” claim? Now, if Libya had a more powerful military which prevented any sustained state practice of transiting the Gulf, then would Libya currently have “legal” claim to the Gulf? See what I mean about international law really being about power?
2. Can China “legally” allow its populace to sell items which pirate foreign copyrights? For hundreds of years there was a sustained state practice of not pirating foreign copyrights so why isn’t this “illegal” under “international law?”
3. Can OPEC members “legally” collude to limit production? There was a sustained practice of not limiting production throughout history (until 20 years AFTER Churhill’s speech). Why wouldn’t this have been “illegal” in 1960 according to the sustained practice concept of international law if Churchill had the “authority” to threaten violence in 1940 according to the sustain practice concept of international law?
Look, I’m not claiming that there are no weak international guidelines for certain practices which can loosely be defined as International Law. There are. But take a good look at it. It’s certainly not something than can grant authority. Power completely overshadows any concept of international law in determining authority. International law isn’t concrete enough to determine anything resembling authority.
Actually, you wouldn’t need to add “non-state actor” to exclude Churchill’s speech. You removed “threat” from the definition. Right?
I think I was unclear in describing what customary international law is.The sustained state practice is state practice by all (or almost all) states. This is a very high standard, and as a result, few things are considered international customary law. The big ones, that almost everyone agrees on, are genocide, torture, piracy, slavery.
I wouldn’t say this is necessarily flimsy, although it can be difficult to determine exactly what the law is. However, if you bring an Alien Torts Claim Act in a US Federal Court, and prove that something violates international customary law, the court will award damages.
I didn’t go through your hypos individually, but they all involve practice by one (or a few) states. This, alone, isn’t enough for international customary law.
I guess I don’t understand how this differs from domestic law, and why it invalidates one but not the other.
First, you need to learn the difference betwween power and authority.
Second, you’re 100% wrong about my “hypos” which really aren’t hypos. I asked about scenarios in whuch ALL states practiced a custom – such as the custom of NOT transiting the Gulf of Sidra.
Third, none of your “big ones” would have given Churchill the authority you claimed he had in 1940.
Fourth, why would you bring an international tort claim to a domestic court? Is it because there is no inernational venue for your tort claim? Now think real hard why that is.
Fifth, how will you collect on your damages awarded by a US court? On what “authority” will you be able to collect? What “authority” does a US court and the Act you mentioned have over Sudan (for example)?
Sixth, you removed the threat criterion from your definition of terrorism, right?
Seventh, why don’t you give up this debate and just ask me to teach you?
Eighth, change your definition of terrorism to exclude George Washington.
Btw, after you learn the differnce between power and quthority, you will then understand why domestic law is so different.
Collecting a damages award from an entity which is subject to the authority of a US court is simply an administrative matter. The courts will apply their leverage on your behalf. The US courts, themselves, have no leverage over an international party.
Care to explain?
Not unless the reason states don’t transit the Gulf is because they think Libya has the legal authority to prevent others from using it.
There are two requirements for customary international law (I’m not sure if I made this clear earlier). 1. sustained state practice and 2. out of a perceived legal obligations (or belief that there is a legal obligation).
This is why your example of Libya using a strong navy to prevent others from transit does not necessarily create customary law. If the reason people are not transiting is because of fear of the navy and NOT out of legal obligation, it doesn’t fulfil the criteria.
There’s also lots of maritime international law, which might cover such a claim.
As to the other examples, I think you’d have difficulty showing sustained (near-universal) state practice.
Under customary international law, and state has the right to use force in self-defense. There.
There are lots of international judicial bodies where claims can be heard, such as the European Court of Human Rights, the ICC, the ICJ, ECCC, ICTR, ICTJ, Inter-American Court of Human Rights. States almost always comply with the rulings of these courts.
The point I was trying to make is that US courts recognize the existence of international law (and in specific international customary law).
If there is a treaty between the states, then under that authority. If no treaty, then there probably isn’t any authority to collect damages. However, states typically adhere to such judgments for political reasons.
If I did, it was inadvertent. Someone who threatens to blow up a building is a much a terrorist as someone who actually does it.
About why there is no such thing as international law? please do teach…I’ve been waiting.
US courts ultimately rely on threats of force. If you don’t pay, the court will take your property with the backing of law enforcement.
You’re correct that US courts aren’t authorized to use force against international parties. Only the UN Security Council is authorized to use force against States.
Your criteria is wrong and further demonstrates the weakness of what you consider international law.
How can you possibly not realize that this isn’t strong enough to represent any type of authority? Adherence doesn’t stem from deference to authority – adherence stems from political agreement – often on a case by case basis. This is not law.
Then you should rewrite your definition. (Btw, the act of blowing up a building, per se, is not terrorism by ANY of your definitions.)
Which they have the direct legal authority to use. An actual legal procedure will be used, and the mechanism will be a legal routine – not a political negotiation.
So, you are now only left with claiming that the UN is your source of international law. Right?
But wait! How can the UN be the only entity authorized to use force? You’ve already mentioned other scenarios which authorize the use of violence by entities other than the UN. It’s kinda difficult to cause violence without force.
Can I assume that your interest in this topic is now merely academic? You’ve already retracted your claim about an authority criteria. Have you acknowledged that you were wrong about your terrorist claim, and now you just want to learn something?
Why wont you change your definition of terrorist to exclude George Washington? Do you actually WANT to include him as a terrorist? Seriously, do you harbor ill feelings toward the founding fathers?
The teaching is there. The learning is missing.
Please read
So, I believe the thrust of your argument is as follows (and please correct me if I’m wrong). For law to exist, there must be a higher authority from which it is derived. There is no higher authority on which “international law” is based, and therefore there is no international law. Is that accurate?
US domestic law, on the other hand, is based on the authority of the constitution (is that right?) Therefore, it is law.
I see a few problems with this argument , which I don’t think you have adequately discussed (or perhaps I have not articulated them).
The Constitution is not an intrinsic source of authority. It derives its authority from “we the people.” If “we the people” abandon the Constitution, it no longer has authority (it’s just a piece of paper after all).
International law derives its authority from the voluntary relinquishment of state sovereignty/authority. In modern democracies, that state sovereignty comes from the people. In such cases, it really does not look that different from the authority afforded to the Constitution (just with one intermediary step). Obviously, not all modern states are democracies. These states may view sovereignty as deriving from elsewhere.
All this authority talk also does little to explain British Common Law. If it has no constitution or other similar source of authority, how can it be law? I’m really interested to hear your take on this in particular.
There was nothing impressive on your weak wikipedia page.
In fact it stated, “there are many differing opinions as to what rules are contained in it.” For the sixth time (at least) – that’s not authoritative.
Of course it looks different. There is no consistent voluntary relinquishment internationally.
Seriously? How many more times do I need to tell you that a constitution isn’t a requirement for law/authority?
England doesn’t declare law via custom.
Then what is required for there to be law?
Just FYI, the wikipedia article was meant to respond to your claim that my criteria for customary law were wrong.
I explained it about 40 comments ago. There will be no review session prior to the exam.
Ya. I got that. Thanks for quoting wikipedia which is quoting a single book which happens to be wrong about the Gulf of Sidra which proves that it’s not an absolute statement.
Why would there be “many differing opinions as to what rules are contained in it” if the criteria are so absolute?
Is this the post you’re referring to?
Here’s a partial list of US federal cases that, at the very least, acknowledge the existence of customary international law.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A.,
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California
U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain,
Committee of U.S. Citizens Living in Nicaragua v. Reagan, 859 F.2d 929
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F.2d 876
Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202
U.S. v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56
Chubb & Son, Inc. v. Asiana Airlines, 214 F.3d 301
Galo-Garcia v. I.N.S., 86 F.3d 916
Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233
Aquamar, S.A. v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc., 179 F.3d 1279
Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 33 F.Supp.2d 1244
Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 988 F.2d 1437
Avero Belgium Ins. v. American Airlines, Inc., 423 F.3d 73
Kane v. Winn, 319 F.Supp.2d 162
Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 789
Rodriguez Fernandez v. Wilkinson, 505 F.Supp. 787
The list goes on and on…
Here’s some more info on customary international law from John Yoo’s law school.
Here’s an article from the Virginia Journal of International law on the topic of customary international law. It tackles an interesting question of whether customary international law trumps federal law.
Let me know if you need more reading materials. I’d be happy to provide them.
Puleeeze. You are a dim bulb. I never stated that US courts wouldn’t acknowledge the existence of customary laws. I even raised the issue of the US recognizing the need to transit the Gulf of Sidra with respect to customary law.
I stated that anything considered to be international law (by anyone – include US federal courts) couldn’t be relied upon as an exclusionary authority with respect your now-amended terrorism definition.
Here’s an example of our debate so far.
Me: The red in the color scheme of that car is ugly.
You: That car isn’t ugly.
Me: I didn’t say the car was ugly. I said the red in the color scheme of that car was ugly.
You: That car isn’t only red.
Me: I didn’t say the car was only red. I said the red in the color scheme of that car was ugly.
You: The other color in that color scheme is beautiful.
Me: I didn’t say the other color wasn’t beautiful. I said the red in the color scheme of that car was ugly.
You: Here’s links to articles that state that this car isn’t ugly.
Me: Puleeze. You’re a dim bulb….
Why didn’t you ever answer my question about George Washington and the founding fathers? Do you really harbor ill feelings toward them? I’m not replying to anything else until you answer this question.
Btw, not that it’s germane, but the first three cases you cited are a joke with respect to supporting some strong notion of international law. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld hinged on the UCMJ and Geneva Convention, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain was the SCOTUS granting the United States POWER!!!!! (and I’m sure you remember what I stated about power), and in Hoffmann-La Roche v. Empagran the SCOTUS punted a decision to allow an international action to proceed (in other words – while it may have acknowledged the existence of some sort of international law – the court deliberately avoided taking any action – it AVOIDED the “law”).
I’m not going to look at any others. I’m sure they were just as bad as the first three.
Not terrorists and no hard feelings. Now, on to more important things.
That’s true. But then why did you state that there is no such thing as international law (and especially no such thing as customary international law). It’s strange that US Federal courts would recognize its existence if, as you’ve stated, it didn’t exist.
I’d really like to know your argument for why it doesn’t exist. I know you said it was in previous comments, but I looked, and am still in the dark. I guess my bulb isn’t as bright as yours.
That’s good. But I guess you’ll have to redo your definition again since GW was a possible last you checked.
Check comment #146. I acknowledge some loose framework for international law and specifically included customary.
I’m sorry for calling you a dim bulb.
No worries.
I’d say there’s more than a “loose framework” and that international law can grant authority (especially to wage a defensive war), but it looks like we’re just going to have to agree to disagree here.
We disagree indeed.
I’m sure Churchill wouldn’t have waged his defensive war to save his nation without the authority granted by “international law.”
International law is an illusion.