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’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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A distinction of no consequence in this case, as the IDF is committing a laundry list of both on a daily basis.
Again, irrelevant to the specific example as the Secretary of State ALSO KNOWS.
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.
Because it’s not.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
Know nothings downvoting this post.
That, but with a “lot” of “finger” “quotes”.
What are they saying that isn’t true?
🙄
So nothing. You just don’t like that they’re saying the inconvenient truth out loud.
You guys get as tribalist as the fascists in red hats sometimes 🤦
Again, you’re mostly arguing with yourself here, based on the tangent you yourself went on based on my first comment.
More than welcome, but let’s not pretend your hallucinations have anything to do with me.
So if there’s no fabrications or distortion in the article, what makes you lament the state of The Intercept here?
If you don’t want people to make assumptions as to what you’re talking about, you could try being much less vague.
Lemmy has the most egotistical fucks I swear.
Get off your high horse dweeb
Make me
I did. It’s done
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