Biden, as you say, repeatedly does small quiet nice things, that, taken together end up being a big fucking deal. Meanwhile, the poo flinging caucus of the Republican House wants inpeech for :::waves hands::: reasons.
I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but re: the worry from the military that the ICC might prosecute US soldiers (or leaders, for that matter), and speaking as an unAmerican: Yes, THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF THIS THING.
Not US soldiers specifically, but soldiers who commit war crimes and are not held responsible for them by their own countries' justice system (I'm not sure if this is explicitly in the ICC's charter, but like, they're busy people. I think they're going to prioritize criminals who would otherwise walk free).
I don't think I can stress enough how bad this looks from outside the US. It's basically saying "we want our soldiers to have the option to commit war crimes".
The Q-morons would rather live in a fantasy world where Tom Hanks and Orpah Winfrey are getting high on adrenochrome than deal with real cases of child sexual abuse.
This is, indeed, a big fucking deal. Possibly the first time since Nuremberg that the US has actually respected the concept of international laws of war.
Not true. In our military doctrine the US has always paid attention to the “laws of war” (although such a thing doesn’t exist), understanding that even beyond basic humanity, violating those principles makes it harder to achieve your military objectives. However, we have never ascribed to any principle which allows a foreign leader, court or authority to have jurisdiction over US troops. EVER. So while yes US forces have on occasion conducted themselves horrifically, they have more often than not been held to account, by US military authority. OF COURSE there are exceptions, and miscarriages of justice; der. But those are the ones you hear about because they are miscarriages; not all the others where the UCMJ does it’s job.
This happens when you're in college and reading Marx for the first time, and you go, Damn, this guy is SMRT and I think he's right about a lotta stuff.
I did it. Took me longer than it should have to acknowledge, youknow, Stalin and Mao.
True dat. I don't think that was ever me - I was more the naive college lefty. 50 years later I still would tattoo "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" on my upper thigh if I weren't opposed to tats and afraid of needles.
Domestic politics-wise an ICC prosecution of a Lt. Calley or CPO Gallagher would be a giant hammer on whichever candidate is up for reelection no matter how well deserved it might be. Nobody could run on that being a positive.
Not much, really. It's really more about geopolitics and geopolitical fuckery than covering up war crimes. It's very much on the same vein as Iraq/Afghanistan vets coming out overwhelmingly against allowing US citizens to sue the government of Saudi Arabia in US courts over 9/11.
The potential for a lot of terrorist activity on the one hand, and the possibility of prosecution for US nationals (which for a certain segment of the population is unthinkable) for war crimes.
That’s childish. There are many many countries who would be happy to bring US troops up for war crimes in the ICC for things which were absolutely authorized by the US government. And I’m not talking about napalming babies, but just performing the actions which US policy sent them to do. Don’t blame the troops for decades of US foreign policy.
Russians in Ukraine have committed and continue to commit actions which check all the boxes for both war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is time for them to be stopped and brought to justice no matter what the military might hypothesize could be a bad result in the future. Evil deeds are being done right now and should be ended right now.
You misspelled “INPEACH!” , Evan.
I, for one, welcome our new ICC overlords!
Biden, as you say, repeatedly does small quiet nice things, that, taken together end up being a big fucking deal. Meanwhile, the poo flinging caucus of the Republican House wants inpeech for :::waves hands::: reasons.
just security is my guilty pleasure.
Ta, Evan. I fully support the US assisting the ICC; I've always thought our staying out of it is wrong.
I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but re: the worry from the military that the ICC might prosecute US soldiers (or leaders, for that matter), and speaking as an unAmerican: Yes, THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF THIS THING.
Not US soldiers specifically, but soldiers who commit war crimes and are not held responsible for them by their own countries' justice system (I'm not sure if this is explicitly in the ICC's charter, but like, they're busy people. I think they're going to prioritize criminals who would otherwise walk free).
I don't think I can stress enough how bad this looks from outside the US. It's basically saying "we want our soldiers to have the option to commit war crimes".
He's doing the right things.
He is an ethical man who's acknowledged where he erred in the past, and has worked to redress some of those things.
I hope the ethic he personifies takes root. We could use a lot more of it.
The Q-morons would rather live in a fantasy world where Tom Hanks and Orpah Winfrey are getting high on adrenochrome than deal with real cases of child sexual abuse.
Now do Bush/Cheney/Wolfowitz
This is, indeed, a big fucking deal. Possibly the first time since Nuremberg that the US has actually respected the concept of international laws of war.
Not true. In our military doctrine the US has always paid attention to the “laws of war” (although such a thing doesn’t exist), understanding that even beyond basic humanity, violating those principles makes it harder to achieve your military objectives. However, we have never ascribed to any principle which allows a foreign leader, court or authority to have jurisdiction over US troops. EVER. So while yes US forces have on occasion conducted themselves horrifically, they have more often than not been held to account, by US military authority. OF COURSE there are exceptions, and miscarriages of justice; der. But those are the ones you hear about because they are miscarriages; not all the others where the UCMJ does it’s job.
I have noticed that some of the 20 year old “I’m a communist now!” types are convinced that the Russians are the good guys.
The fact that they do that at the same time that Nick Fuentes does the same says something about cognitive dissonance from both sides.
Fucking Horseshoe Effect.
This happens when you're in college and reading Marx for the first time, and you go, Damn, this guy is SMRT and I think he's right about a lotta stuff.
I did it. Took me longer than it should have to acknowledge, youknow, Stalin and Mao.
True dat. I don't think that was ever me - I was more the naive college lefty. 50 years later I still would tattoo "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" on my upper thigh if I weren't opposed to tats and afraid of needles.
Only if it's from that gorgeous photo where he looks like Jesus.
Sounds good to me. Maybe they can add Henry Kissinger to the deal?
As a Player to Be Named Later.
"(Robert F. Kennedy Jr., how’s your sick conscience?)"
He has none, so no problem-o!
"resistance by the Pentagon, which had argued that it could pave the way for the court to prosecute American troops, according to the officials."
You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide. What are you hiding, Pentagon?
Atrocities like droning weddings.
Use of banned weapons, to start with.
Domestic politics-wise an ICC prosecution of a Lt. Calley or CPO Gallagher would be a giant hammer on whichever candidate is up for reelection no matter how well deserved it might be. Nobody could run on that being a positive.
Not much, really. It's really more about geopolitics and geopolitical fuckery than covering up war crimes. It's very much on the same vein as Iraq/Afghanistan vets coming out overwhelmingly against allowing US citizens to sue the government of Saudi Arabia in US courts over 9/11.
It's a door that people don't want opened.
But that door has been opened in many other first world countries. Why would the US be different than them? (actually curious)
Geopolitically we're the biggest target. It eventually boils down to that. It stops the fuckery before it starts.
At a pretty high price.
Which price would that be?
Trump.
If Bush et al had been held accountable for torture and what not, we might not have Trump.
Or a GOP for that matter.
The potential for a lot of terrorist activity on the one hand, and the possibility of prosecution for US nationals (which for a certain segment of the population is unthinkable) for war crimes.
Dear Pentagon,
There is a very easy solution to ensure that the ICC doesn't prosecute U.SMercan Soldiers for War Crimes. I bet I don't even have to give you a hint.
That’s childish. There are many many countries who would be happy to bring US troops up for war crimes in the ICC for things which were absolutely authorized by the US government. And I’m not talking about napalming babies, but just performing the actions which US policy sent them to do. Don’t blame the troops for decades of US foreign policy.
Don't do the war crime if you can't do the time?
Russians in Ukraine have committed and continue to commit actions which check all the boxes for both war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is time for them to be stopped and brought to justice no matter what the military might hypothesize could be a bad result in the future. Evil deeds are being done right now and should be ended right now.
Bring all the pressure that you can onto Putin. This is something we could do, and Biden did it.