Going All-In for Israel May Make Biden Complicit in Genocide
(theintercept.com)
from TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 22 Oct 2023 19:52
https://lemmy.world/post/7184056
from TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to world@lemmy.world on 22 Oct 2023 19:52
https://lemmy.world/post/7184056
TheIntercept.com
#world
threaded - newest
Well, that’s certainly a hot take
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
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.
What Biden actually said:
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:
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.
I’m not worried about the International Criminal Court. The ICC isn’t The Intercept, so the ICC doesn’t twist words or invent quotes to fit anti-American prejudices. The ICC judges people by what they actually said, and it’s clear that Biden didn’t say what you wish he said.
My wishes are immaterial. The lawyers have made their case to the world. Find their emails and tell them what you told me. I would say good luck, but to be honest, I don’t think your argument is strong.
You’re dreaming. There are no lawyers on this case. There isn’t even a case.
After all, the Dutch Prime Minister has expressed the same views as Biden. If holding that opinion was a war crime, The Hague could arrest Mark Rutte within 45 minutes.
@FlowVoid of course you're not worried. The US doesn't recognise the ICC, and would not submit to its judgement.
I don't really get why you are arguing with @TokenBoomer about what Biden did or didn't say, though. One person's words are not really what this warning is about. It's about the actions taken by the US government and military under the Biden administration:
I wouldn’t worry about US actions even if they did recognize the ICC.
“Aid and abet” has a specific legal definition. It means doing something in the hopes that a crime will succeed, or encouraging someone to commit a crime.
So for instance, if you sold your car to someone who used it to rob a bank then you wouldn’t necessarily have aided and abetted the robbery. A prosecutor would have to prove that you sold the car because you wanted the buyer to use it in a bank robbery.
I think it’s pretty clear, by word and action, that the US does not want to see a genocide in Gaza. To the extent that they are providing support to Israel, they are actively encouraging Israel to use it only for legal activities, i.e. destroying Hamas, not killing civilians unnecessarily.
Thanks, that's a clear viewpoint.
I can see your point. I think time will tell, but the lawyers would probably right to give them a warning even if you turn out to be correct.
Genocide is comprised of thousands of actions. The US has many people involved on the one hand - and also a very efficient, secretive surveillance network on the other, so if they do provide material support to genocidaires there would be inevitable questions about who knew what when etc.
All moot because of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act (aka Hague Invasion Act) of course.
So I’m wrong if I say everyone who downvoted the post is a fascist sympathiser to genocide? That’s a bad take? Wow.
Edit: pretty sure this should pass rule 5, since it isn’t directed at a specific user.
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
I heard there’s a fork called mbin I think.
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.
Yes
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.
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.
But who are you arguing with? Nobody in the thread disagrees with you.
You’re being an asshole. People were having a conversation on topic, and you have been aggressive and accusatory nonstop.
@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.