“International law” was only ever used to harm the US. The UN isn’t real, it’s a facade that cons retards into following it to their disadvantage, like all of progressivism, “rules for thee, not for me!”.
“You don’t want mass foreigners? Sorry, international law says we must take them in from halfway across the globe!”
“You want to punish illegal immigrants for forcing a border which is a killable offense in literally any other context? Sorry, international law says that if they say the magic word asylum you must instead pay for their existence for years and then pay millions in legal fees to deport them!”
The funny thing is that "international law" was the main justification for invading Iraq as well. So not only is it a Great Replacement mechanism, it was also used to get us into a 10-year war. It's the Swiss Army Knife of neocons.
“International law” was only ever used to harm the US.
The Iraq War was a violation of international law. Would it have harmed the US to follow or violate international law in that instance?
They only follow international law when it harms your country, but that's a different issue.
“You want to punish illegal immigrants for forcing a border which is a killable offense in literally any other context? Sorry, international law says that if they say the magic word asylum you must instead pay for their existence for years and then pay millions in legal fees to deport them!”
Most of this is just domestic laws, and even the right to asylum is just a treaty. Treaties can be repudiated. You might wonder why they're not when they damage your country.
Most of this is just domestic laws, and even the right to asylum is just a treaty.
The basis of all laws are treaties. You don’t get the domestic law on refugees from no basis. Every single adopted refugee and asylum law are directly taken by UN conventions. There is no legal definition of a refugee without the 1951 UN convention. It is the entire legal framework for every domestic law on the matter.
The Iraq War was a violation of international law. Would it have harmed the US to follow or violate international law in that instance?
No it wasn’t. In fact aside from lazy posturing by the UN there was no actual actions taken. The UN Security Council did jack shit. If you can show one actual action taken by the UN other than words I’d love to see it.
The basis of all laws are treaties. You don’t get the domestic law on refugees from no basis.
Of course you do. There have been refugees for as long as there have been states. I would be very surprised if there were no laws at all before the international conventions.
Every single adopted refugee and asylum law are directly taken by UN conventions. There is no legal definition of a refugee without the 1951 UN convention. It is the entire legal framework for every domestic law on the matter.
First of all, I don't at all disagree with you that the refugee treaty is bad, because I believe that there should be 0 refugees - at least from culturally incompatible countries. But it in no way requires what you said is justified under it. These are all domestic laws, and in a dualistic legal system, implementation laws go above treaties.
No it wasn’t. In fact aside from lazy posturing by the UN there was no actual actions taken. The UN Security Council did jack shit. If you can show one actual action taken by the UN other than words I’d love to see it.
The Security Council doesn't make wars illegal, it makes wars legal by authorizing them. Wars not waged in self-defense are presumptively illegal under international law. It's like saying that the police trying to get a warrant to raid your house, failing, but doing so anyway is not illegal because the judge who refused the warrant did "jackshit" about it. That's not his job. (This is leaving aside that the US has a veto and would be a judge in its own case.)
Furthermore, if the standard for a violation of international law is "the Security Council doing something about it", then you cannot simultanouelsy argue that not letting in unlimited refugees is a violation - as the same is true there.
I'm not arguing that you should like international law, although I think that its prohibition on wars of aggression is generally good, but if you hate it you should hate it for the right reasons.
Of course you do. There have been refugees for as long as there have been states. I would be very surprised if there were no laws at all before the international conventions.
Prepare to be shocked then. There wasn’t. The entire legal framework of what we call refugees started in 1951. Before then there was no legal protections for or legal designations of refugees.
But it in no way requires what you said is justified under it. These are all domestic laws, and in a dualistic legal system, implementation laws go above treaties.
Those domestic laws are literally framed from the 1951 convention, there is no other legal basis. Again domestic laws require a basis, the UN convention is that basis. If the US left the UN tomorrow those domestic laws become voided.
The Security Council doesn't make wars illegal, it makes wars legal by authorizing them. Wars not waged in self-defense are presumptively illegal under international law. It's like saying that the police trying to get a warrant to raid your house, failing, but doing so anyway is not illegal because the judge who refused the warrant did "jackshit" about it. That's not his job. (This is leaving aside that the US has a veto and would be a judge in its own case.)
Preemptive self defense is already listed under standing UN resolutions, the Security Council refused to rule on the matter. Your analogy is horrendous, this is really where the court refused to see a case so the war is justified.
Prepare to be shocked then. There wasn’t. The entire legal framework of what we call refugees started in 1951. Before then there was no legal protections for or legal designations of refugees.
You do know how many refugees there were from Belgium and Spain before WW2?
Those domestic laws are literally framed from the 1951 convention, there is no other legal basis
They don't "need" that legal basis. You can make such laws in absence of any treaty.
Preemptive self defense is already listed under standing UN resolutions, the Security Council refused to rule on the matter.
You're very confused. Self-defense requires an imminent threat and does not require Security Council authorization, nor was there any attempt to make it rule for this to be a "refusal".
Your analogy is horrendous,
Then show it to be that.
this is really where the court refused to see a case so the war is justified.
It's based on your own claims. And no, being laughed out of court because your lies are so transparent doesn't justify either a raid or a war.
You do know how many refugees there were from Belgium and Spain before WW2?
And there was not a single law on whether or not a country had to take them in or how they had to be treated. Same with the Irish famine refugees, on and on and on.
They don't "need" that legal basis. You can make such laws in absence of any treaty.
Yes, they actually do, that’s the entire premise of the legal system.
You're very confused. Self-defense requires an imminent threat and does not require Security Council authorization, nor was there any attempt to make it rule for this to be a "refusal".
Wait till you find out that’s why there were intelligence reports of weapons of mass destruction.
It's based on your own claims. And no, being laughed out of court because your lies are so transparent doesn't justify either a raid or a war.
The people claiming international laws were broken were the ones laughed out of court. Let me help you understand, claim of illegality was made, courts refused to hear claim, defendant (US) wins by default.
And there was not a single law on whether or not a country had to take them in or how they had to be treated. Same with the Irish famine refugees, on and on and on.
You sound very sure of yourself. Of course, such sweeping claims are rarely correct, and indeed yours isn't. It didn't take me long to find this:
The Immigration Act of 1917 required all immigrants aged 16 years and older to demonstrate they could read. However, Congress exempted from this new literacy requirement all those seeking admission to the United States to avoid religious persecution.
Yes, they actually do, that’s the entire premise of the legal system.
You're very confused. If Congress lacks the power to allow refugees, then a treaty does not magically create that power, nor does abrogation of that treaty remove the power. This isn't complicated.
Wait till you find out that’s why there were intelligence reports of weapons of mass destruction.
That does not make for an imminent threat. The only allowable reason for a self-defense invasion is when the other side is about to attack you.
The people claiming international laws were broken were the ones laughed out of court. Let me help you understand, claim of illegality was made, courts refused to hear claim, defendant (US) wins by default.
Nope, the US applied to a judge for a warrant to wage a war, this was laughed out of court. Conclusion? Illegal war.
Sadam had repeatedly violated the Treaty of Bagdahd following the first Gulf War. Regardless of the idiot justifications of Bush the Younger, invading him was legitimate.
I don't even really disagree with Matt's point, but the entire postwar moral order is based on the concept of international law, which was drafted to repudiate Nazi Germany. Now that particular golem doesn't serve Zionists anymore, it seems like they are abandoning it.
Seems kind of shortsighted to promote "will to power."
Walsh is explicitly not a zionist so how is he abandoning something he never participated in. The man has been saying international law is horseshit for years.
Exactly. These European leaders are blatantly ignoring laws that are in place to protect their own citizens from third world retards, but now they're crying about Trump not following international law as if they give a fuck about laws.
Yes, international law is indeed fake and gay. The strong will do what they can and what they want. That is how it has always been and how it will always be. Doesn't mean I agree or am on board with more world policing though unless it has actual legitimate benefits for actual Americans. But spare me the crocodile tears over muh international law or muh sovereignty.
International law only ever existed for as long as the United States was willing to enforce it.
Trump has rightly made the decision that if every other major power (China, Russia, etc) is going to routinely violate the rules-based international order and deal in realpolitik while the West alone tries to follow the rules, then our enemies will be emboldened to keep fucking around in the confidence that they'll never have to find out. So now we're back to a might-makes-right world, and the liberal establishment is having a meltdown about it.
As much as I can't abide Matt Walsh, he isn't wrong here.
I liked the point in history where the only time the phrase international law came up was at the beginning of a VHS tape you'd fast forward through to get to the movie.
Technically correct, that's how national sovereignty works. "International law" is just an abstract way to refer to treaties, which only apply to the nations that ratify them and only until they choose to withdraw from it.
I don't know if he's saying it's a good thing, but he's completely correct.
Clearly, international laws are make believe, if they can't actually hold the US, or Russia, or Israel, or any of the other big boys to account.
If countries can violate "international law" with impunity then, yeah, it's fake.
And, it was always a tool for the strong/winners to oppress the weak/losers, and push their interests. The very idea of "international law" is massively utopian. It requires the idea that a bunch of groups with different interests come together to hold themselves and others to account, without abuse power or pushing their own interests, or falling under the sway of any outside powers.
That's just reality. You can be a massive anti-interventionist, and still realize international law is fake and gay. It's not a big reach.
It also assumes that those disparate groups will send men and material to be under the command of some other force that will then dictate where they go to enforce the rules. That would mean we are intervening everywhere at the behest of foreign powers.
It is, and they were. Far more war criminals were moved, and given bennies, by various world governments, than were tried. It was a show. And the highest law is your nation's constitution. Everything between countries amounts to business agreements.
Weird comment for a Catholic. Does Matt believe in natural law? It's not enforced. If you say that it's enforced after one's death, then certainly the Christian just war tradition also is after one's death.
The moment we start treating some international entity like a legitimate arbiter of international law, we are giving up our sovereignty. I don’t even consider our own government to be legitimate at this point, there’s no fucking way in hell I’ll ever accept the edicts of some international bureaucracy that doesn’t care in the slightest bit about American interests.
Lmao this has been the position of the right forever. The neocon position is that we should recognize international law. What actual right winger is arguing in favor of literal global homo
Nuremberg was keyfabe theater for the masses to justify what was no different that torturing and quartering the leaders of a vanquished enemy in order to despair and submit their people.
I mean, it is, but not for the retarded authority reasoning Walsh is making. "International law" and the Nuremberg horseshit was made up to punish Germans for standing up for themselves and to make an example of them to cow other Europeans.
It also was a deliberate dismantling of who holds responsibility for military action. For a thousand years, no one would bat an eye at "just following orders" because the supreme commander was responsible for the conduct of his troops. No one ever, ever wanted infantry thinking for themselves.
But suddenly not only is every individual soldier now responsible for determining the morality of orders, but the military is corporatized overnight to the effect that no one besides ground-level units are responsible for anything. Suddenly, your prince or general losing his head is no longer a consequence of military action. And the rest of twentieth century military actvity is very obviously carried out in such a way that the commanders were aware of the new rules.
“International law” was only ever used to harm the US. The UN isn’t real, it’s a facade that cons retards into following it to their disadvantage, like all of progressivism, “rules for thee, not for me!”.
“You don’t want mass foreigners? Sorry, international law says we must take them in from halfway across the globe!”
“You want to punish illegal immigrants for forcing a border which is a killable offense in literally any other context? Sorry, international law says that if they say the magic word asylum you must instead pay for their existence for years and then pay millions in legal fees to deport them!”
The funny thing is that "international law" was the main justification for invading Iraq as well. So not only is it a Great Replacement mechanism, it was also used to get us into a 10-year war. It's the Swiss Army Knife of neocons.
The Iraq War was a violation of international law. Would it have harmed the US to follow or violate international law in that instance?
They only follow international law when it harms your country, but that's a different issue.
Most of this is just domestic laws, and even the right to asylum is just a treaty. Treaties can be repudiated. You might wonder why they're not when they damage your country.
The basis of all laws are treaties. You don’t get the domestic law on refugees from no basis. Every single adopted refugee and asylum law are directly taken by UN conventions. There is no legal definition of a refugee without the 1951 UN convention. It is the entire legal framework for every domestic law on the matter.
No it wasn’t. In fact aside from lazy posturing by the UN there was no actual actions taken. The UN Security Council did jack shit. If you can show one actual action taken by the UN other than words I’d love to see it.
Of course you do. There have been refugees for as long as there have been states. I would be very surprised if there were no laws at all before the international conventions.
First of all, I don't at all disagree with you that the refugee treaty is bad, because I believe that there should be 0 refugees - at least from culturally incompatible countries. But it in no way requires what you said is justified under it. These are all domestic laws, and in a dualistic legal system, implementation laws go above treaties.
The Security Council doesn't make wars illegal, it makes wars legal by authorizing them. Wars not waged in self-defense are presumptively illegal under international law. It's like saying that the police trying to get a warrant to raid your house, failing, but doing so anyway is not illegal because the judge who refused the warrant did "jackshit" about it. That's not his job. (This is leaving aside that the US has a veto and would be a judge in its own case.)
Furthermore, if the standard for a violation of international law is "the Security Council doing something about it", then you cannot simultanouelsy argue that not letting in unlimited refugees is a violation - as the same is true there.
I'm not arguing that you should like international law, although I think that its prohibition on wars of aggression is generally good, but if you hate it you should hate it for the right reasons.
Prepare to be shocked then. There wasn’t. The entire legal framework of what we call refugees started in 1951. Before then there was no legal protections for or legal designations of refugees.
Those domestic laws are literally framed from the 1951 convention, there is no other legal basis. Again domestic laws require a basis, the UN convention is that basis. If the US left the UN tomorrow those domestic laws become voided.
Preemptive self defense is already listed under standing UN resolutions, the Security Council refused to rule on the matter. Your analogy is horrendous, this is really where the court refused to see a case so the war is justified.
You do know how many refugees there were from Belgium and Spain before WW2?
They don't "need" that legal basis. You can make such laws in absence of any treaty.
You're very confused. Self-defense requires an imminent threat and does not require Security Council authorization, nor was there any attempt to make it rule for this to be a "refusal".
Then show it to be that.
It's based on your own claims. And no, being laughed out of court because your lies are so transparent doesn't justify either a raid or a war.
And there was not a single law on whether or not a country had to take them in or how they had to be treated. Same with the Irish famine refugees, on and on and on.
Yes, they actually do, that’s the entire premise of the legal system.
Wait till you find out that’s why there were intelligence reports of weapons of mass destruction.
The people claiming international laws were broken were the ones laughed out of court. Let me help you understand, claim of illegality was made, courts refused to hear claim, defendant (US) wins by default.
You sound very sure of yourself. Of course, such sweeping claims are rarely correct, and indeed yours isn't. It didn't take me long to find this:
The Immigration Act of 1917 required all immigrants aged 16 years and older to demonstrate they could read. However, Congress exempted from this new literacy requirement all those seeking admission to the United States to avoid religious persecution.
https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-history/stories-from-the-archives/refugee-timeline
You're very confused. If Congress lacks the power to allow refugees, then a treaty does not magically create that power, nor does abrogation of that treaty remove the power. This isn't complicated.
That does not make for an imminent threat. The only allowable reason for a self-defense invasion is when the other side is about to attack you.
Nope, the US applied to a judge for a warrant to wage a war, this was laughed out of court. Conclusion? Illegal war.
As usual, you're confident and totally incorrect.
Sadam had repeatedly violated the Treaty of Bagdahd following the first Gulf War. Regardless of the idiot justifications of Bush the Younger, invading him was legitimate.
Going full mask-off as the neocon you are, eh?
You: "treaties don't real."
You: sperging over Obama's treaty with Iran.
Neocon on.
I mean, Obama is an idiot and a traitor who gave away our shirt on that, but the Senate didn't ratify it. No force of law.
Learn basic civics already, so you don't look like a retard.
You mean it made you mad because it prevented the war against Iran that you desperately wanted.
Did the Iraqi Senate ratify your treaty which you said they violated?
Slow tap... I'm not an Amerifat.
Defending the Iraq war now, paid shill?
Nope lol. We should have nuked Afghanistan and then left.
But trying to pretend like treaties don't exist and are a matter of public record is just retarded lol.
I don't even really disagree with Matt's point, but the entire postwar moral order is based on the concept of international law, which was drafted to repudiate Nazi Germany. Now that particular golem doesn't serve Zionists anymore, it seems like they are abandoning it.
Seems kind of shortsighted to promote "will to power."
Walsh is explicitly not a zionist so how is he abandoning something he never participated in. The man has been saying international law is horseshit for years.
I mean, we're seeing that domestic law is also pretty much make-believe as long as you're in the right group, so it's not that surprising.
Exactly. These European leaders are blatantly ignoring laws that are in place to protect their own citizens from third world retards, but now they're crying about Trump not following international law as if they give a fuck about laws.
the pen is always mightier than the sword until the sword is drawn
Inter Enim Arma Silent Leges.
The Nuremberg Trials WERE made-up nonsense.
Yes, international law is indeed fake and gay. The strong will do what they can and what they want. That is how it has always been and how it will always be. Doesn't mean I agree or am on board with more world policing though unless it has actual legitimate benefits for actual Americans. But spare me the crocodile tears over muh international law or muh sovereignty.
International law only ever existed for as long as the United States was willing to enforce it.
Trump has rightly made the decision that if every other major power (China, Russia, etc) is going to routinely violate the rules-based international order and deal in realpolitik while the West alone tries to follow the rules, then our enemies will be emboldened to keep fucking around in the confidence that they'll never have to find out. So now we're back to a might-makes-right world, and the liberal establishment is having a meltdown about it.
As much as I can't abide Matt Walsh, he isn't wrong here.
I liked the point in history where the only time the phrase international law came up was at the beginning of a VHS tape you'd fast forward through to get to the movie.
International law is just made up BS for winners to justify their actions against losers.
Technically correct, that's how national sovereignty works. "International law" is just an abstract way to refer to treaties, which only apply to the nations that ratify them and only until they choose to withdraw from it.
I don't know if he's saying it's a good thing, but he's completely correct.
Clearly, international laws are make believe, if they can't actually hold the US, or Russia, or Israel, or any of the other big boys to account.
If countries can violate "international law" with impunity then, yeah, it's fake.
And, it was always a tool for the strong/winners to oppress the weak/losers, and push their interests. The very idea of "international law" is massively utopian. It requires the idea that a bunch of groups with different interests come together to hold themselves and others to account, without abuse power or pushing their own interests, or falling under the sway of any outside powers.
That's just reality. You can be a massive anti-interventionist, and still realize international law is fake and gay. It's not a big reach.
It also assumes that those disparate groups will send men and material to be under the command of some other force that will then dictate where they go to enforce the rules. That would mean we are intervening everywhere at the behest of foreign powers.
How is that anti-intervention?
Hey OP, "International law" IS make believe.
China spent the last 50 years bribing its way through the UN (to legitimize their takeover of taiwan and block taiwan from entering the UN)
Obviously they love “international law” - its always their judges repeating what Beijing says
It is, and they were. Far more war criminals were moved, and given bennies, by various world governments, than were tried. It was a show. And the highest law is your nation's constitution. Everything between countries amounts to business agreements.
Weird comment for a Catholic. Does Matt believe in natural law? It's not enforced. If you say that it's enforced after one's death, then certainly the Christian just war tradition also is after one's death.
it is make believe, for now anyway.
The moment we start treating some international entity like a legitimate arbiter of international law, we are giving up our sovereignty. I don’t even consider our own government to be legitimate at this point, there’s no fucking way in hell I’ll ever accept the edicts of some international bureaucracy that doesn’t care in the slightest bit about American interests.
We live in the state of nature, but it's less obvious until you start examining international interactions.
Yes.
Lmao this has been the position of the right forever. The neocon position is that we should recognize international law. What actual right winger is arguing in favor of literal global homo
Correct. And?
Nuremberg was keyfabe theater for the masses to justify what was no different that torturing and quartering the leaders of a vanquished enemy in order to despair and submit their people.
I mean, it is, but not for the retarded authority reasoning Walsh is making. "International law" and the Nuremberg horseshit was made up to punish Germans for standing up for themselves and to make an example of them to cow other Europeans.
It also was a deliberate dismantling of who holds responsibility for military action. For a thousand years, no one would bat an eye at "just following orders" because the supreme commander was responsible for the conduct of his troops. No one ever, ever wanted infantry thinking for themselves.
But suddenly not only is every individual soldier now responsible for determining the morality of orders, but the military is corporatized overnight to the effect that no one besides ground-level units are responsible for anything. Suddenly, your prince or general losing his head is no longer a consequence of military action. And the rest of twentieth century military actvity is very obviously carried out in such a way that the commanders were aware of the new rules.
haha.. faggot.