Trump administration to withdraw from Open Skies

[Fonzy]

See link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...8e1_story.html

[Joker]

Good, I always thought that is was a bogus deal. They intercepted and escorted our planes but they then had access to our airspace.

[Box]

pelosi will be squealing about it by COB friday

[Badger52]

Flow charts for all COA's end at the same place because:

OrangeManBad

[Airbornelawyer]

I have said it before, most notably in the context of the sentimental and narcissistic decision to extend the protections of the Geneva Convention to non-party unlawful combatants, and I will say it again. Under international law, a party not only has the right to deny treaty protections or withdraw from a treaty if the other party is not in compliance, it has the obligation to do so. International relations work as much, if not more, on the basis of negative reciprocity (the stick) as they do on the basis of positive reciprocity (the carrot). A party which can gain the benefits of a convention without entering into or complying with that convention on its own part, has no incentive to enter into or comply with the convention. You weaken the carrot (whatever benefits compliance brings) if you abandon the stick (penalizing non-compliance).

I apply this to international relations, where there are fewer outside forces to influence the actions of sovereign parties, but it also applies in domestic relations. We see it when Republican politicians refuse to get down and dirty in response to the Left's tactics, on the basis of maintaining the moral high ground. If the other side incurs no penalty for its underhanded tactics, it has no incentive to stop.

I described the conventional wisdom above as "sentimental and narcissistic" because while taking the moral high ground may make you feel better about yourself, if it does not in fact result in a better situation, it is not the moral high ground at all.

[Ret10Echo]

I just love history.... It's a MF'r

Terminating Treaties

The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

I have said it before, most notably in the context of the sentimental and narcissistic decision to extend the protections of the Geneva Convention to non-party unlawful combatants, and I will say it again. Under international law, a party not only has the right to deny treaty protections or withdraw from a treaty if the other party is not in compliance, it has the obligation to do so. International relations work as much, if not more, on the basis of negative reciprocity (the stick) as they do on the basis of positive reciprocity (the carrot). A party which can gain the benefits of a convention without entering into or complying with that convention on its own part, has no incentive to enter into or comply with the convention. You weaken the carrot (whatever benefits compliance brings) if you abandon the stick (penalizing non-compliance).

I apply this to international relations, where there are fewer outside forces to influence the actions of sovereign parties, but it also applies in domestic relations. We see it when Republican politicians refuse to get down and dirty in response to the Left's tactics, on the basis of maintaining the moral high ground. If the other side incurs no penalty for its underhanded tactics, it has no incentive to stop.

I described the conventional wisdom above as "sentimental and narcissistic" because while taking the moral high ground may make you feel better about yourself, if it does not in fact result in a better situation, it is not the moral high ground at all.

Very eloquent.