Recent Posts

Show posts from buddies only

Last I checked however, we are not the UK. The UK also has a King; shall we be like them in that regard too?

MTG was wrong for stirring the pot, Crockett was wrong for equally immature response. Both should be punished. What is the point of having standards, rules, or any guidelines if they are not going to be followed? Saying both are wrong doesn't make you a bad person or somehow make you a supporter of MTG. It's okay to sometimes drop partisan blinders and say someone you like is wrong.

1. The UK having a King is completely irrelevant to what I said.

2. I mentioned that other countries besides the UK have even worse things happen in their parliament.

3. Democrats strategy of "going high" while Republicans "go low" is tired and weak strategy based on a false sense of "decorum".

4. This was just a one time incident, Rep. Crockett had enough and was pointing out Republican hypocrisy. She did nothing wrong. You can feel however you want but it doesn't matter.

[Why we support ICC prosecutions for crimes in Israel and Gaza]

Why we support ICC prosecutions for crimes in Israel and Gaza

The attacks by Hamas in Israel on October 7 and the military response by Israeli forces in Gaza have tested the system of international law to its limits. This is why, as international lawyers, we felt compelled to assist when the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan, asked us to advise whether there was sufficient evidence to lay charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Today, the prosecutor has taken a historic step to ensure justice for the victims in Israel and Palestine by issuing applications for five arrest warrants alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity by senior Hamas and Israeli leaders. These include applications for a warrant of arrest against the political and military commanders of Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

For months, we have engaged in an extensive process of review and analysis. We have carefully examined each of the applications for arrest warrants, as well as underlying material produced by the prosecution team in support of the applications. This has included witness statements, expert evidence, official communications, videos and photographs. In our legal report published today, we unanimously agree that the prosecutor’s work was rigorous, fair and grounded in the law and the facts. And we unanimously agree that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the suspects he identifies have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity within the jurisdiction of the ICC.

It is not unusual for the prosecutor to invite external experts to participate in an evidence-review, under appropriate confidentiality arrangements, during the course of an investigation or trial. And this is not the first time an international prosecutor has formed a Panel of Experts to advise on potential charges related to a conflict. But this conflict is perhaps unprecedented in the extent to which it has given rise to misunderstandings about the ICC’s role and jurisdiction, a particularly fractured discourse and, in some contexts, even antisemitism and Islamophobia. 

It is against this backdrop that, as lawyers specialised in international law hailing from diverse personal backgrounds, we felt we had a duty to accept the invitation to provide an impartial and independent legal opinion based on evidence. We were selected because of our expertise in public international law, international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law, and, in the case of two of us, experience as former judges of international criminal tribunals. Our common goal is advancing accountability and we have reached our conclusions based on an assessment of the warrant applications against an objective legal standard. We have reached these conclusions unanimously. And we believe it is important to publish them given the extent to which discourse has been politicised, disinformation has been rife and international media has been denied access to the front lines.

[...]

https://www.ft.com/content/aa2089c5-6388-437d-bf5c-9268f3a788ce

Israel should tell the ICC any attempt to arrest Israeli officials will be treated as a declaration of war and we should tell the ICC that we support Israel in doing that

I would say they would be better off communicating that to the countries the ICC would try to turn into their enforcement agents.

Did I forget anyone?

Stefanik

My brain is having trouble parsing that X post lol.

I'll take your word for it.

And we have a new poll out today as well. This of course included Zuma's party. ANC still under 50% but with a slight bounce compared to that Ipsos poll.

https://www.enca.com/videos/2024-elections-latest-enca-poll-puts-ancs-support-434

Michigan doesn't close until 8 PM, but I'd keep an eye on Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor). If Biden isn't over 70 here he's likely to lose the state (and thus the election). If there's going to be a massive movement of young college voters away from Biden due to Gaza, Washtenaw will be ground zero.

Not voting over that is truly stupid.

we should tell the ICC that we support Israel in doing that

Will ensure Biden loses his re-election.

American voters are way more pro Israel than pro Palestine . Biden being pro Palestine would ensure he loses reelection.

Democrats are not and most Republicans are not going to vote for Biden no matter what his Israel/Palestine policy is.

[the rest of the world can easily point out the laws don't apply to western countries and their allies.]

https://twitter.com/jdiamond1/status/1792508517544243416?s=12

Israel officials themselves said out loud that Israel is committing genocide.

ICC was forced to do it.

The crime is so blazon that if ICC don't do it, the rest of the world can easily point out the laws don't apply to western countries and their allies.

We can? We’ve been doing that since the conflict began! And we will keep doing it because the difference in treatment is extremely obvious.

You’re right that ICC was forced to do this, especially after the precedent of Putin being condemned by same court at a muuuuch faster rate than anybody moved anything to condemn Netanyahu.

They clearly don’t want to hold Israel accountable but they kinda have to in order to protect their relevance within the Global South under risk of becoming a joke that works AGAINST them, only stimulating more countries to leave the ICC.

Hot take: Both Putin and Netanyahu condemnations are very wrong in the sense the court is egregiously overstating their reach. It’s absolutely ridiculous to establish that country leaders cannot have diplomatic visits to another country (otherwise they’re jailed) because they’re at war.

A Netanyahu condemnation would soften perceptions of disgusting Western Double Standards, but the general dissatisfaction of an International Court feeling empowered to dictate to countries which main leaderships can or cannot be received is always going to be seen as interference on national business.

You will have both the Westerners pissed that their relation with Israel is directly affected by not being able to receive the Israel leader AND the Global South pissed about westerners lecturing about their relations with Russia.

Sometimes these silly theatrics are just counterproductive for everyone. I don’t think the Netanyahu condemnation solves anything regarding the conflict and dissatisfaction towards the ICC will remain.

Exit polls showing that most Americans believe the economy is bad and getting worse.