Yeah, it sucks. I still think we have a better shot at pressuring her to take a harder stance on Israel while in office than Trump, so I'm still gonna vote for her.
You have a shot at pressuring her to take a stance before she gets in office. That is what elections are for.
Nope, Not at all the time to try to fix things...what's what a term is for.
The term is to fulfill campaign promises. She is campaigning on unconditional support for Israel.
Democrats should stop ignoring the Leahy Law.
Notice who this upsets.
If you’re expecting our government not to be heinous and awful when it comes to foreign affairs you’re gonna have a bad time.
Why isn't Trump being mentioned as well? Because he sure as hell would also arm Israel, and probably with more enthusiasm than Harris would. It's a fair enough criticism of Harris. But Trump should be mentioned in the same breath in this situation.
The intercept sure has gone downhill.
Why/how?
It really hasn't, no. It's just telling truths that you don't like as much.
Other than the headline (which is still factual. It's against US law to supply weapons when you have a reasonable suspicion that they might be used to commit war crimes. In the case of Israel, it's a certainty.), the tone of the article is neutral and describes what's actually going on rather than the rosy picture the likes of Politico usually paint or the fact-averse demonizing Faux News would do.
If anything has gone downhill, it's the ability of "Blue No Matter Who" Democrats accepting any criticism of people with a (D) behind their name.
It really hasn't, no. It's just telling truths that you don't like as much.
That, but with a “lot” of “finger” “quotes”.
What are they saying that isn't true?
It's against US law to supply weapons when you have a reasonable suspicion that they might be used to commit war crimes. In the case of Israel, it's a certainty.
Human rights violations, not war crimes. The US interprets that as things like torture and rape of captives, not civilian casualties in general.
More importantly, not "you". It doesn't matter what the general public suspects or even considers a certainty. The only thing that matters is what the Secretary of State suspects.
Finally, there is an exception: the prohibition is lifted if the Secretary of State (again, not you) believes "the government of such country is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice."
In law, wording matters. You can certainly argue that the spirit of Leahy Laws is ignored, but it's easy to see how the text is being followed.
Human rights violations, not war crimes.
A distinction of no consequence in this case, as the IDF is committing a laundry list of both on a daily basis.
The only thing that matters is what the Secretary of State suspects.
Again, irrelevant to the specific example as the Secretary of State ALSO KNOWS.
if the Secretary of State (again, not you) believes "the government of such country is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice."
Which nobody in their right mind would honestly believe. Especially after a few soldiers being questioned on suspicion of torturing and raping Palestinian hostages almost sparked a civil war.
You can certainly argue that the spirit of Leahy Laws are not being followed
Because it's not.
it's easy to see how the text is being followed.
Only if Blinken is honestly as obtuse and naïve as he's pretending to be. I which case he's profoundly incompetent to fulfill the duties of the public office he's been entrusted with.
Especially after a few soldiers being questioned
Those soldiers were arrested. Which is the first step to bringing them to justice, as required by Leahy Laws.
For questioning.
They hadn't even been charged with anything yet and still it was so extraordinary that it sparked riots supported by several senior government officials.
Not just questioning. They are still being detained while the prosecutors consider charges.
Again, they are a drop in an ocean of routine human rights violations and the fact that actual members of the Knesset and the Netanyahu cabinet support people storming a military base in reaction to the mere questioning of them speaks volumes about how EXTREMELY rare it is for Israeli soldiers to be held accountable for their human rights violations.
The Secretary of State is legally required to act only on "credible" reports of human rights violations. Video is certainly credible, but he doesn't have to find all other reports equally credible.
The public and political reactions to prosecution and/or disciplinary proceedings have zero bearing on Leahy Laws.
The Secretary of State is legally required to act only on "credible" reports of human rights violations.
Of which there was several a year every year by the world's leading experts for the last several DECADES, lately more than one each month.
The time to pretend with any seriousness that he's not ignoring mountains of credible evidence has long since passed.
Don't be an apologist for a genocide apologist. It's not a dignified thing to be.
I'm not defending his actions. But the law has enough loopholes that he can ignore those mountains and technically comply with the law.
I'm not defending his actions
You're defending his INaction by falsely claiming that there's no credible evidence that he's failed to act on. Amounts to the same thing.
the law has enough loopholes that he can ignore those mountains and technically comply with the law.
Does it, though? Or is it that the government is deploying a modified version of Wilhoit's Law?
~~Conservatism~~ Zionism consists of exactly one proposition ... There must be in-groups* whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups** whom the law binds but does not protect
*the Israeli and US governments
** Palestinians and anyone speaking up for them
by falsely claiming that there's no credible evidence that he's failed to act on
The law requires him to determine whether a report is credible, and then determine that the responsible parties are being brought to justice.
There are a few reports that he determined were credible, and in each case he determined that the responsible parties were being brought to justice.
So he is complying with the letter of the law, because the law gives no consideration to what anyone else finds credible. And unfortunately there is no mechanism to appeal what he determines, even if the entire rest of the world disagrees.
Or is it that the government is deploying
Leahy Laws give the president extra leverage in foreign policy when they want to use it. In practice, they don't ever bind the president.
So what you're saying is that the Leahy Law is worthless as long as Blinkin or another dishonest Zionist is the Secretary of State?
Talk about the fox guarding the fucking henhouse! 🤦
So what you're saying is that the Leahy Law is worthless
It's worthless for the goal you intend.
But imagine the President actually wanted to pressure another country, like maybe Hungary. In that case, it could be very useful.
It's worthless for the goal you intend
Which is the goal the law was supposed to have as well.
But imagine the President actually wanted to pressure another country, like maybe Hungary. In that case, it could be very useful.
Except the US isn't sending weapons to Hungary and is almost exclusively sending weapons to countries that are amongst the worst human rights violators in the world.
To be worth anything, the law would have to constrain the administration rather than empower it to make unilateral decisions that run counter to international law.
Which is the goal the law was supposed to have as well.
If so, it wouldn't be the first time the spirit of a law was broken but not the letter.
Except the US isn't sending weapons to Hungary
Of course they do, Hungary is a NATO power. In fact, those weapons were recently pressured by the Senate.
Know nothings downvoting this post.
How do you feel about Glen Greenwald's inexplicable shift to the far right over the years?
Greenwald hasn't been with the intercept for nearly four years.
Overwhelmingly negatively. He hasn't been with The Intercept since, though, so that's sorta like blaming CNN for Tucker Carlson just because he was part of Crossfire ages ago.
Perfectly said
Saw this coming a mile away. Truly nothing will fundamentally change
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News