this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
207 points (88.5% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2791 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
quinten@lemmy.world
NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
lemmyAtom@lemmy.world
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
207
Palestinians Ask Federal Court to Rule Biden Is Complicit in Israeli Genocide (truthout.org)
submitted 5 months ago by TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“Genocide can never be a legitimate foreign policy choice,” plaintiffs argue in case against Biden, Blinken and Austin.

all 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 32 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Nevertheless, on January 31, White reluctantly dismissed the case based on the “political question” doctrine, which reserves foreign policy decisions to the political branches of government (executive and legislative), not the judiciary. That leaves the court with no jurisdiction to check the executive in this case.

At the same time, White wrote, “it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide” and the evidence and testimony “indicate that the ongoing military siege in Gaza is intended to eradicate a whole people.” White exhorted the Biden administration to “examine the results of their unflagging support” of Israel.

If Biden sets this precedent, everyone is going to be so fucking shocked when Republicans abuse it.

The ruling was essentially the US president can violate US and International law without being held accountable and it counts as "political policy" because they're the president.

trump could glass an entire country he doesn't like, and there'd be no way to hold any accountabile because we decided Joe Biden can do a genocide for some fucked up logic that Trump would do more.

This is the danger of the only standard being the letter by someone's name.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It’s not just the President, no matter hard you like to point the finger. The entire US government has been responsible for supporting Israel since Congress voted in favor of aid.

The problem the CCR is going to have, prosecuting as a US organization, is evidence of war crime. News reports and foreign court findings are inadmissible as evidence of crime in US court, and they clearly won’t have support from the State Department.

[–] Miaou@jlai.lu 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Because Americans are used to accountability, give me a fucking break

[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

Yea, like the whole „war on terrorism” wasn’t just an excuse to go shoot some brown people just because profit.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I love how libs have to everyone about Trumps trial every 5 minutes as if accountability is real and he justice system is functional. Then blame all on the GOP judges.

But when Biden is complicit in literal Genocide it's 'nah fam who cares anw accountability isn't real the president can do whatever he wants"

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago

I love how trumpers pretend to be leftists and whine about whatever can make Biden look bad enough to influence the election.

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The ruling was essentially the US president can violate US and International law without being held accountable

I mean, this has been the case for a while, it's good to get it in writing for when we have to name every rogue state

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

Republicans are already prepared to do more than abuse it. Haven’t you been paying attention?

[–] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (6 children)

What’s the end goal here?

they seek a declaration from the court that defendants are violating their duty under customary international law

Here’s the nasty little secret about “international law” that people don’t seem to understand. The most powerful countries don’t have to abide by it. There are no mechanisms for enforcement. There aren’t world police who have international jurisdiction, there aren’t world courts that have international subpoena power. So the countries at the top can enforce it when it’s in their interest, and ignore it when it’s not. Them the rules of an anarchical system, “rules for thee not for me”

[–] nautilus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It really does make me wonder if people genuinely believe something would come of this. Honestly I’d love for there to be some kind of consequence but it’s pretty laughable to think that anything will happen when the power dynamic is so skewed

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago

Exactly.

[–] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The goal is to expose and to try every avenue available. Which should be the logic thing to do in face of a genocide.

Maybe something comes out of it. Probably not. But in the latter case at least it is evident, that there is no moral high ground with the US and its allies. It is evident that working with these terror states creates complicity in the most heinous crimes and other countries can be held accountable for it.

It can create an understanding for future generations that neoliberalism like it is endorsed by both US parties or so called "social democrats" or "greens" in countries like Germany is nothing but fascism with extra steps.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 0 points 5 months ago

💯💯💯 If this process weren’t going on, others would come out of the woodwork going “if Biden is committing war crimes why isn’t the international community calling him out for it?”

Maybe not the same people who are doubting this, but it would happen. When genocide is happening it’s good to do what we can rather than send thoughts and prayers.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 3 points 5 months ago

Sometimes I do think Lemmy forgets that structured social pressure among leadership is a thing.

Like no, BDS isn’t going to suddenly cripple the Israeli economy, nor is Biden going to suddenly get arrested for war crimes.

But that doesn’t make these actions meaningless. Best case it compounds with other action over time into concrete progress, and worst case it at least provides conviction and encouragement to leaders trying to do the right thing.

[–] Atin@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Rules for thee and not for me is the founding basis for conservative politics

Edit: fixed a typo

[–] slurpinderpin@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It’s American foreign policy… there’s a reason the US helped write the laws for the ICC and yet still doesn’t cooperate. Because they don’t have to. That’s the way it rolls when your military is larger and more capable than the next 5 combined. What are they gonna do?

[–] Atin@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

The US is a deeply conservative country, but also has a very long history of not cooperating with others unless they can get something big out of it.

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago

And even bigger aspect of international law that people don't seem to understand is who writes international law.

What we call "international law" is actually just a variety of treaties most countries have agreed to follow. So international law is actually just a vague consensus among the leaders of the countries of the world.

So international law doesn't actually prohibit world leaders from doing the things they want to do. Because they wouldn't agree to treaties that wouldn't allow them to do what they want.

War is something countries do, so war is not against international law. But there are defined rules to conducting a war in international law. Sometimes there are civilian casualties in a war, so civilians casualties in a war doesn't automatically mean the country broke international law. Blockades? That's something countries want to do so that's legal, in fact the rules around a blockade is defined in the oldest of international law.

Countries have militaries that wear uniforms so there's additional protections for soldiers in uniform than there are for combatants that aren't in uniform (like Hamas). Uniformed soldiers held captive are prisoners of war and must be released when the war is over. Non-uniformed combatants are basically stateless criminals and can be held indefinitely even after a war is concluded. Countries don't need to take civilians hostage, so that's against international law.

So Hamas taking hostages, civilian, off duty soldiers, even uniformed soldiers on duty, it's all illegal. They aren't following the rules of war and are criminals under international law.

As long as Israel follows the rules of conducting blockades and rules around how to conduct a war, these are legal under international law no matter how much people want to scream genocide.

[–] DevCat@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

The US is not the only country that has enacted laws governing jurisdiction in cases of genocide that has occurred outside their borders. Many of these countries also have laws that are automatically in force when a determination of genocide has been made by the UN. These laws generally cover sanctions and doing business with "those who perpetrate or support genocide".

https://thesentinelproject.org/2013/06/14/when-to-act-a-states-obligations-and-responsibilities-regarding-genocide/

Many other States have adopted statutes pursuant to Article VI, which explicitly provide not only for territorial jurisdiction, but also for universal jurisdiction over genocide. Examples of such statutes include: the 2002 German Code of Crimes Against International Law (Völkerstrafgesetzbuch) Section 1 of which recognizes the jurisdiction of German courts over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed outside the German territory and to which Germany has no specific link. Likewise, Section 2, § 1(a) of the Dutch International Crimes Act of 19 June 2003 makes provision for universal jurisdiction over genocide provided that the alleged perpetrator is physically present in the Netherlands. Moreover, the Canadian’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, adopted on 24 June 2000 sets the basis for universal jurisdiction for genocide; Section 6, §1 of this Act reads as follows:

Every person who, either before or after the coming into force of this section, commits outside Canada (a) genocide […] is guilty of an indictable offence and may be prosecuted for that offence in accordance with section 8.

Many other countries, including France, Switzerland, Spain, Belgium, and Austria, have adopted national legislation, as required under Genocide Convention Article VI, that allow for the prosecution of genocide committed outside their territories.

[–] DevCat@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

The political question of the US' position on genocide rulings can be better understood by reading what it has done with previous atrocities.

This repost was done during Bush Sr's presidency by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. It goes through the US' response in the past to quite a few incidents and describes the decisions that were made and the thinking behind them.

https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/Todd_Buchwald_Report_031819.pdf