• Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    The idea was one excuse buried in several paragraphs about multiple subjects. The Leahy law prohibits selling weapons to governments that we know are committing war crimes. Pretending that Netanyahu isn’t committing war crimes and vaguely announcing that you support an investigation because that’s the only way you can proceed is slow-walking compliance with a law that centrists don’t want to follow and have no intention of ever following.

    Frankly, I doubt you will accept any explanation that involves anything that might curtail weapons sales to Netanyahu before his genocide is complete and it’s too little, too late.

    • Dragon "Rider"(drag)@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Okay, the law says we need to know it’s a genocide. That means Harris needs proof that it’s a genocide. And the proof needs to be compelling enough to stop the MAGA SCOTUS from meddling. Therefore, investigation. Seems to drag like Harris is doing the right thing. You explained the law in a way that matches what drag heard.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        That means Harris needs proof that it’s a genocide.

        The standard for the Leahy law is that the nation in question has to be credibly implicated in a serious abuse of human rights. The idea that any proof needs to be acceptable to genocide-happy MAGA is just an excuse to continue selling weapons. Any investigation would determine if we should resume arms sales, not a slow walk to delay ceasing arms sales.

        Seems to drag like Harris is doing the right thing.

        Seems to me like anything that keeps the genocide going is considered by you to be the right thing.

        • Dragon "Rider"(drag)@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          You’re making an ethical argument, and drag already 100% agrees with you ethically. If you want to disagree with drag, try making a legal argument.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 hours ago

            You’re making an ethical argument, and drag already 100% agrees with you ethically.

            I doubt that.

            If you want to disagree with drag, try making a legal argument.

            I did. You ignored it more than once. It’s why I doubt your agreement with my ethical argument.