Why do conservatives deny America's obligation to international law??

Question

Whenever I talk to a conservative in a casual, friendly debate about the USA's defiance of international law, they always resort to childish tactics when they do not have an answer for something. Something like "Liberals shouldn't be allowed to give their opinions in public," or "That's what a commie would say." Conservatives often redefine laws, especially international law when it suits them, or they ignore it all together. The Geneva convention, for instance, does not apply to the US according to conservatives, because our supposed national defense is more important than the preservation of international law. When called upon to justify the breaking of international law by the US, conservatives say "those laws are stupid, anyway," while at the same time site Saddam and bin Laden's breaking of those same laws as unforgivable. Why do conservatives think they are above international law?

Chainsaw gives a good point, other nations cannot dictate policy to the US. But what gives the US the right to dictate policy to other nations, often under the threat of force?

Answer 1

Because Congress has the final say over what laws are in effect.

Obligation to international law is a nebulous concept. We only have an obligation to follow the Constitution, the laws enacted by Congress, and the Supreme Court holdings (plus appropriate state laws). There is no other obligation to follow any treaty or international consensus, except what is enacted as federal law.

If Congress overrides an international treaty, that's the new law.
If we as a people think that's a bad idea, then we should get involved, write our Congressfolk, or elect a new Congress.

Personally, I think it's insanely foolish to reject the rest of the international community, and say that because terrorists don't respect life or follow the laws, then we won't either. How any rational person could make that argument is beyond me. But, it's still up to Congress what the laws are going to be.

Answer 2

I am a Conservative, and thank you for not using the usual term, "neo-con", I agree that you have the right to your opinion, I also have the right to disagree (politely). I think the Geneva Convention does apply to the United States, I also think it would be appropriate to review it and define torture. To be completely honest I am not as concerned about the captives as I am the interrogators. I think if we are asking them to do a job for us, they need definate guidelines, and from what I understand those are quite vauge in the Geneva Convention. I remember some of the stories my father told me about WWII, and my husband about Vietnam, and this enemy seems quite different than what they were fighting. I just think we need definition, until we get it, this argument will rage on and on. Thank You

Answer 3

Syria in hassle-free terms banned journalist getting into via fact they did not pick the international seeing the evil issues the have been doing. And in my view i think of the newshounds are very brave and understand the risks they're taking. And the movies of expert government supporters are despatched by ability of the government so are probable not fabulous. the easy Syrian filming is probable greater so as they pick to tutor what's going on to their u . s . a .. in spite of the undeniable fact that I trust you approximately Pakistan, the human beings had no appropriate to accomplish an armed raid with out the governments permission and this does ensue plenty. look on the Iraq conflict.

Answer 4

what's hilarious is the fact that they believe everyone but the U.S. should abide by International law... why did we go into Iraq, they were in violation of U.N. resolutions... but if the U.S. was in violation of the Geneva conventions "who cares" all of a sudden...

either play by the rules or shut up when others don't play by the rules... that's the largest reason the world dislikes us right now, because we're acting like a bunch of three year olds that want everything their way, but won't compromise on anything...

I mean can Saddam say he was abiding by his Constitution and that would be fine then? THAT'S A SAD *SS EXCUSE AN YOU KNOW IT... TIME TO GROW UP AND TAKE SOME OF THAT "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY" YOU GUYS CRY ABOUT ALL THE TIME...

Answer 5

If your talking about Geneva....I don't call a terrorists that strap a bomb to themselves and walks into a pizza parlor or a car to blow up civilains....I don't call that compliance with Geneva...Do you?

Also Geneva only applies to Uniformed combatants. The terrorists dress like civlians to blend it

Answer 6

My friend, you misconstrue much. The Geneva convention is between countries who agree to those rules. We've never broken (at least as a policy) these rules in any such circumstance when they are valid.

The US is a sovereign nation, we aren't obliged to anybody, unless we've made a committment to do so.

Answer 7

We have a constitution. We follow that above anything. I do not care what other countries think or want us to do. We must do what is in our best interest. We are not in a government that includes other countries. We are a soverign nation.

Conservatives believe that other countries do not have the right to dictate to us what we can and cannot do.

Answer 8

A combination of arrogance and ignorance and narrow-mindedness.
Generally the types of comments you quote come from people who don't or can't realize that it's a big world out there.

Answer 9

Why should terrorist be treated with respect! The damnocrats are supporting terrorist activities with BS like this

Answer 10

we didn't break any international laws. there is no debate.