They are talking about the ICC. I wonder how all this would play out on the ground.
The International Criminal Court is a “court of last resort” intended for those who lack the ability to prosecute war crimes in their own nations, whether due to lack of recourse or lack of infrastructure.
As such it’s supported by the majority of nations. But the US does not recognise or support it, and even passed the Hague invasion act which stipulates that the US gives itself authority to literally attack the ICC if it attempts to try any US soldier or official for war crimes.
deleted by creator
Are any people downvoting it?
I’m on kbin and we don’t federate downvotes so unless actual kbinners downvote something, I don’t see it.
I hope that gets changed when the next update finally goes out
deleted by creator
I quite like it to be honest. It’s quite relaxing. Like a sort of zen mode.
Also, for the most part we (kbin) have a different downvote culture because none of our voting is anonymous. If you or I downvote each other we can see who did it, which discourages petty downvotes and “disagree button” voting.
deleted by creator
May?
I think they mean in legal terms. It would have to be established that they provide them with material support or facilitation.
Edit in case this isn’t clear, the above sentence is about explaining the point made by the lawyers in the article about international law.
In my personal opinion the US has been complicit in everything Israel does in this context, and “soft power” is part of that as well as material aid.
You sound like a spineless dolt.
There is a vetted plan submitted to the federal government asking for 30 billion dollars to END homeless in America.
End it.
Our “democrat” progressive overlord just sent 50 billion dollars to Israel to blow up innocent people.
Stop with your bullshit.
Trump is HORRIBLE. Biden has been sickeningly absent, but now Biden is HORRIBLE.
Why? Because they both are The Party, and The Party is HORRIBLE. And if you aren’t a millionaire+, you aren’t a part of The Party. You just cook their meals, drive their cars, landscape their properties, and get the back hand if you call out their bullshit.
@Melkath I think you replied to the wrong comment?
For reference I’m not from the US and I am highly opposed to:
a) Israeli colonization of the West Bank b) human rights abuses perpetrated against the civillians of Gaza c) the US paying for/ supporting anything to do with the above.
I’m sorry for the US’s internal troubles you mention too of course (and its weird, old presidents) but that’s not what this thread is about, and I’m not much interested in discussing them.
You’re injecting legal drivel to minimize events that have now occurred.
Either you are an opportunistic asshole, an unwitting weasle who needs to find lands to burrow under that aren’t quite as land bearing, or you are a spineless prick who will soften the foundation of the master you surrendered your spine to.
Admittedly, I’m having a hard time being cordial in internet conversations these days, but I am pretty sure my second paragraph isn’t patently false.
You really need to chill mate.
You asked “May?” implying that you are questioning why it may be complicate and they replied that they think that the article means he may be legally complicit which has a specific requirement that they helpfully provided.
They didn’t inject the “legal drivel” the original article did. You’re arguing against things that they didn’t say.
And you really need to gaggle my ball sack.
Joe Biden just invested 50 billion dollars into genocide and told everyone to sit and spin on it.
Joe Biden just invested 50 billion dollars into genocide and told everyone to sit and spin on it.
But who are you arguing with? Nobody in the thread disagrees with you.
Removed by mod
@Melkath ha ha ha nah that’s a real swing and a miss.
OP’s article is literally about lawyers talking about international law.
I was simply clarifying the point in the article because as you point out the headline “may” makes no sense from a layperson’s perspective if you haven’t read the article.
Not sure why you’re projecting onto me.
Well, that’s certainly a hot take
There, Biden reiterated his administration’s unwavering support for Israel
His words.
Biden pledged unwavering support for Israel’s security.
That is not the same as unconditional support for Israel.
After all, the US government is also fully committed to the security of former President Trump, but otherwise does not support him at all. In fact, some in government are thinking about how to keep him secure in a prison cell.
That’s not what the article states. I posted the exact sentence. You are adding words that are not there. Why is that necessary?
Because the article was not directly quoting Biden.
My Administration’s support for Israel’s security is rock solid and unwavering.
That’s the speech he gave at the White House, not the speech he gave in Israel, which is what the article is referencing. Here’s the transcript.
Edit: Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with the lawyers with the Center for Constitutional Rights. Here’s their legal brief. IANAL, but generally arguing semantics with a legal center doesn’t strengthen your case.
If so then the article is wrong, because “unwavering” does not appear in that speech. Neither does “unconditional”.
However, “unequivocally” does:
United States unequivocally stands for the protection of civilian life during conflict, and I grieve, I truly grieve for the families who are killed or wounded by this tragedy. And people of Gaza need food, water, medicine, shelter. Today, I asked the Israeli Cabinet I met with for some time this morning to agree to the delivery of lifesaving humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza …
What sets us apart from the terrorists as we believe in the fundamental dignity of every human life; Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, Jew, Muslim, Christian, everyone, you can’t give up what makes you who you are. If you give that up, then the terrorists win and we can never let them win…
that’s why as hard as it is, we must keep pursuing peace. Must keep pursuing a path so that Israel and the Palestinian people can both live safely in security, and dignity and in peace. For me, that means that two state solution. We must keep working for Israel’s greater integration with his neighbors, these attacks and only strengthen my commitment and determination and my will to get that done.
Again, it is irrelevant. Maybe wear a tie when you argue this case to the International Criminal Court. Prepare a PowerPoint presentation listing your arguments in this thread. Use graphics, but not too many. You don’t want it to distract from your cause. And be on time, you don’t want to make the court wait.
deleted by creator
