So you've mentioned the state of exception and actually it's funny because I feel like

people can't stop talking about carl shmit.

It's not just academics, it's like the pages of the New Republic which is a little scary

don't want New York or liberals talking about fucking carl shmit.

But putting that aside for a second.

The state of exception you said you mentioned that the US post-World War II, like how did it come to be that the US just operates under a permanent state of exception, which is how it's basically governed since I guess 9-11, right?

Or do you think prior to that?

And I'll try to explain why. So the article and also my dissertation, although the dissertation has a different subtitle, but the article that I published in administration and society in 2015, I coined the term to explain this, I call it exceptionism and the article and the dissertation are both called American exception because the state of exception that carl shmit first elucidated gets institutionalized in the United States during the Cold War.

That the US is in violation of laws all the time the CIA carries out things that are illegal all the time.

And the common response to that idea from mainstream political scientists is to say that well, you know, you're talking about international law and that doesn't really count because the international law really just sort of informal and between people.

Yeah, which there's an argument to be made about that having historically been the case.

However, in the United States, in the United States, we have our constitution and the supremacy clause states that ratified treaties are the highest law in the land, which means that the US is violating the constitution when it violates treaties that we have ratified, we have ratified the UN charter, the UN charter establishes that it is illegal to act aggressively against other nations.

And so to attack them militarily to try to overthrow their government to invade them.

And so on to assassinate their leaders, those are violations of the UN charter, which is ratified by the US.

And therefore violation of the US constitution.

And it's so routinely violated that, you know, I wouldn't even try to guess how many things the US has done that would be considered violations.

I mean, it would be, I mean, huge numbers of them on a weekly basis where we are violating the UN charter, you know, I mean, the occupation of the Syria is totally illegal right now.

We're occupying parts of Syria completely illegal.

Unless it had been given approval by the United Nations Security Council. That's the only way it can be considered legal.

According to the UN charter, that's why Kofi Anon said about the Iraq war. It's illegal.

He is not William Blum or known Chomsky or some other radical. He's a guy who wouldn't be in that position if he wasn't friendly to Americans.

And even he was so clear cut, he even had to say it's illegal.

...