Could the USA be banned from the United Nations? The USA has been accused of starting wars by false flag operations since the Maine. Some USA agencies linked to the CIA have admitted using covert means to start wars such us The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. This is an American think tank who is researching some programs all based on the middle east. This think tank have some former government officers including R.James Woolsey Jr former CIA director. Years ago Dr. Patrick Clawson director of research said in a press conference: I frankly think crisis initiation is really tough, and it's hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran... Video Here Later he talks about many questionable American wars that could have started by false flag operations. ...we are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians... This man also appears on the BBC and many other talk shows. Knowing that the USA spends more money on the military than the next 9 countries of the list combined (ref here) and 9/11 is being investigated by as a possible false flag operation. (ref here) and here. And the CIA has done many controversial operations installing and removing leaders all over the world. Would it be possible to start sanctions against the USA or even ban them from the United Nations?
Yes. This follows article 6 of the UN Charter: A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
The legal line is EU laws, with some considerations (at the time of enacting them) about what other countries and international organizations (like the WTO) reactions. The practical line is enforcement. As the country with the biggest stick (not only militarily but economically) the USA provides the best examples: the ongoing Huawei affair, with one tip executive arrested on the grounds of a Chinese company selling technology to NK. the Helms-Burton Act that punishes foreign companies trading with Cuba, and that asserts that USA courts can decide on issues of private property in Cuba. the Iran embargo. In the Google case, it is even simpler. If Google wants to do business in the EU, it must follow EU law like everyone else (same happens in the USA and elsewhere). The fact that parent company is registered in the USA is not relevant. And probably, the fine has been issued not to the parent company but to the subsidiary registered within the EU. In the John Doe CASE, France (not the EU) could try first to seize any of his assets in France and, if those are not enough, go to the USA courts and try to have them enforce its judgements. But if what John did was not illegal in the USA then the courts would probably refuse to do so. That does not mean that John is guaranteed to be immune to any consequences, as France could block international money transfers to John's accounts, force Amazon (or whoever) to make his shop unavailable in France, block his page, and even issue an international warrant that would mean that Jhon would have the risk of being arrested if he ever leaves the USA.
You cannot stop the claim. But the good news is that claims of jurisdiction by many countries are routinely ignored by many other countries. So enforcement attempts might fall short. I've written things here that might get me into real trouble with the authorities of North Korea if I ever traveled there and if they were able to match my real-world identity with this account. But I don't plan to travel there. Likewise, before I went to Turkey I should probably review what I've written about their government, and then wonder if it is worth the risk. Probably yes, it wasn't very incendiary. But my home country and those I tend to visit (if there is no pandemic ongoing) would not extradite me for what I wrote.
It is not the case that treason must be tried by a military tribunal. See for example US v. Kawakita, which was an ordinary civilian jury trial. I cannot even imagine why one would think that there is any such requirement. Here is the federal law against treason, and nothing says "offenses must be tried in a military court". Perhaps that misconception was based on the use of military tribunals during the American Revolution, which preceded the creation of a US legal system.
The article &quot;The Posse Comitatus Act...&quot; analyzes the legal restrictions on use of military power arising from that act. Following US v. McArthur, 419 F. Supp. 186, where the act played a role in trials related to Wounded Knee, it was found and subsequently supported in various ruling that the use which is prohibited by the posse comitatus statute is that which is regulatory, proscriptive or compulsory in nature, and causes the citizens to be presently or prospectively subject to regulations, proscriptions, or compulsions imposed by military authority. Mere &quot;involvement&quot; of &quot;deployment&quot; of the military is not contrary to the act. It should also be noted that the act includes a provision for actions expressly authorized by Congress, as was the case of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the related Magnuson Act of 1950. Hypothetically (in extremis), Congress might pass a law requiring the seizure of persons infected with a disease. If Congress expressly authorized USAMRIID to effect such seizures, that would not be in violation of the act. Otherwise, it would be. Since USAMRIID is a research lab and not an enforcement arm of the military, it is both highly unlikely that Congress would authorize such activities or that USAMRIID would get involved in this way. W.r.t. their ordinary operations, scientific research, nothing in what they do that contradicts the Posse Comitatus Act. Since we are dealing in hypotheticals, I should point out that SCOTUS has so far not definitively endorsed the &quot;regulatory, proscriptive or compulsory&quot; test, so that test could be overturned, though it is unlikely to be.
Chris Cuomo is wrong: the media are not different. For details, see this column by First Amendment specialist Eugene Volokh. My original answer was also wrong. Well, not wrong, but irrelevant. My answer was irrelevant because the hacked emails Cuomo was talking about do not involve national security. By focusing on the national security angle, I answered a question nobody asked. To make matters worse, in his comment on IKnowNothing's answer, A.fm. politely pointed out my mistake fourth months before I made it.
In the US, it is illegal to sell screwdrivers to Gaza without a license, see 31 CFR 595.409. There are numerous rules pertaining to the Palestinian Authority staring here. Dept. of State has a partial list of countries and their associated restrictions, if you want "like Gaza", and note that they warn you that this is not a complete list. If you are specifically interested in weapons-related restrictions, the US Munitions List is here. There is no generic "anti-drone" system, so you would have to look at the specifics of a system to see if it is on the restricted list, or not.
The President can’t declare war It’s not a power given to the President, the Constitution reserves it for Congress - Article One, Section Eight: Congress shall have power to ... declare War Congress has declared war 11 times, the last being on June 4, 1942. Declarations of war are largely an anachronism. However, that just begs the question ... Is there a particular circumstance where the U.S. president can be tried for [engaing in military action] against another country? Yes. If the President authorizes military action that is or is conducted in a manner that is against US domestic law then she can be impeached by the House and tried by the Senete. If it is a violation of international law then she could be tried by an International War Crimes Tribunal. However, this could not be the International Criminal Court since the US does not acknowledge its jurisdiction. It would need to be a tribunal established by the UN which means not vetoed by the USA - an unlikely circumstance. If he came into the custody of a foreign power, then they could try him under their own laws assuming they were willing to ignore the principle of sovereign immunity.