Obama made a decision to “look forward” rather than prosecute the architects of the GWB torture program.
-
Obama made a decision to “look forward” rather than prosecute the architects of the GWB torture program.
That kind of impunity can seem expedient, but it’s morally offensive and bad for democracy.
If Dems should find their way back to power (?), the criminality of Trump and Co. will need to be prosecuted. Political (democratic) legitimacy demands it.
One possibility is outsourcing. Hand perps over to the international courts and let them mete out justice.
ICC, if you’re listening…
That would certainly be a real sign of adherence to international law.
-
Obama made a decision to “look forward” rather than prosecute the architects of the GWB torture program.
That kind of impunity can seem expedient, but it’s morally offensive and bad for democracy.
If Dems should find their way back to power (?), the criminality of Trump and Co. will need to be prosecuted. Political (democratic) legitimacy demands it.
One possibility is outsourcing. Hand perps over to the international courts and let them mete out justice.
ICC, if you’re listening…
@xankarn There is a problem: which is that the US does not recognize the ICC.
I agree that the entire world has a case against trump and his gang, much as the world had a case against the Nazis and Japanese militarists after WW-II.
-
@xankarn There is a problem: which is that the US does not recognize the ICC.
I agree that the entire world has a case against trump and his gang, much as the world had a case against the Nazis and Japanese militarists after WW-II.
But the US could submit to the ICC's jurisdiction, yes?
-
@xankarn There is a problem: which is that the US does not recognize the ICC.
I agree that the entire world has a case against trump and his gang, much as the world had a case against the Nazis and Japanese militarists after WW-II.
Understood. There are many reasons why this scenario is unlikely, but I'm wondering whether things might change if there were indictments handed down?
-
But the US could submit to the ICC's jurisdiction, yes?
Ratification of Rome Statute would require 2/3 of Senate. We're not close to that at present. But I wonder what could happen if MAGA were deposed? Surely there are some GOP who would feel liberated to take the vote on its merits?
-
But the US could submit to the ICC's jurisdiction, yes?
-
Ratification of Rome Statute would require 2/3 of Senate. We're not close to that at present. But I wonder what could happen if MAGA were deposed? Surely there are some GOP who would feel liberated to take the vote on its merits?
I'd love to see it.
-
Understood. There are many reasons why this scenario is unlikely, but I'm wondering whether things might change if there were indictments handed down?
In any case, here's former ambassador David Sheffer (who negotiated the Rome Statute on behalf of the US--unsuccessfully) explaining in 2023 why he thinks the US should ratify. Clinton tried (w/ Scheffer in the lead). Obama and Biden did not.
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/united-states-should-ratify-rome-statute/
-
Obama made a decision to “look forward” rather than prosecute the architects of the GWB torture program.
That kind of impunity can seem expedient, but it’s morally offensive and bad for democracy.
If Dems should find their way back to power (?), the criminality of Trump and Co. will need to be prosecuted. Political (democratic) legitimacy demands it.
One possibility is outsourcing. Hand perps over to the international courts and let them mete out justice.
ICC, if you’re listening…
@xankarn Pretty much the same playbook we have used to sweep our horrific actions under the rug for the past 250 years.
-
Obama made a decision to “look forward” rather than prosecute the architects of the GWB torture program.
That kind of impunity can seem expedient, but it’s morally offensive and bad for democracy.
If Dems should find their way back to power (?), the criminality of Trump and Co. will need to be prosecuted. Political (democratic) legitimacy demands it.
One possibility is outsourcing. Hand perps over to the international courts and let them mete out justice.
ICC, if you’re listening…
@xankarn
Nuremberg the feckin' lot of them. -
@xankarn There is a problem: which is that the US does not recognize the ICC.
I agree that the entire world has a case against trump and his gang, much as the world had a case against the Nazis and Japanese militarists after WW-II.
There is a second problem, which is hard to say out loud. The US is kind of acting in tandem with Israel. Many politicians on both sides are funded by AIPAC. (1) ICC indicting Israel for war crimes, whether warranted (no pun intended) or not, is bad optics given the whole Holocaust thing. (2) not enough stones for the US to ratify the treaty knowing how many war crimes we’ve committed in the last 25 years plus the ongoing set with Israel.
-
Obama made a decision to “look forward” rather than prosecute the architects of the GWB torture program.
That kind of impunity can seem expedient, but it’s morally offensive and bad for democracy.
If Dems should find their way back to power (?), the criminality of Trump and Co. will need to be prosecuted. Political (democratic) legitimacy demands it.
One possibility is outsourcing. Hand perps over to the international courts and let them mete out justice.
ICC, if you’re listening…
Congressman Lieu saying what needs to be said. Laws exist, not on paper, but in their application.
Covenants without the sword, Hobbes wrote in the 17th C, are but words.
-
Congressman Lieu saying what needs to be said. Laws exist, not on paper, but in their application.
Covenants without the sword, Hobbes wrote in the 17th C, are but words.
@xankarn
“The next administration”
Somebody’s an optimist -
@xankarn
“The next administration”
Somebody’s an optimistWhatever we believe or fear privately, doesn’t responsible leadership require this kind of rhetoric?
If we concede the possibility of subversion, it starts to invite anticipatory obedience, no?
-
Whatever we believe or fear privately, doesn’t responsible leadership require this kind of rhetoric?
If we concede the possibility of subversion, it starts to invite anticipatory obedience, no?
@xankarn
With those people, I think the only thing that’s gonna make a dent in their ideology is taking away their money if they can profit off it they’re gonna do it they don’t care -
@xankarn
With those people, I think the only thing that’s gonna make a dent in their ideology is taking away their money if they can profit off it they’re gonna do it they don’t care@xankarn or as Daffy duck would say “consequences shmonsequences as long as I’m rich“
-
S suneauken@mastodon.world shared this topic
