“The truth is that from a legal perspective, these resolutions are not complicated,” Sanders said during a press conference Tuesday, alongside Sens. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Peter Welch, D-Vt.; and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore. “They are cut and dry. The United States government is currently in violation of the law, and every member of the Senate who believes in the rule of law should vote for these resolutions.”
Despite aid groups reporting that Israel has continued to block humanitarian aid into Gaza, the White House overlooked the blown deadline last week, saying that it will continue to provide weapons to Israel. The decision stands in direct violation of existing U.S. law preventing the government from sending weapons to countries that block U.S.-backed humanitarian assistance.
With the Biden administration unwilling to act and legislation targeting pro-Palestinian nonprofits still advancing, pro-Palestinian advocates and their allies in Congress argue that passing the joint resolutions is likely the last real opportunity for Democrats to address the crisis in Gaza before Republicans take control in January.
Despite Democrats’ unwillingness to vote for conditioning military aid to Israel in the past, Araabi hopes that at least some of the lame-duck senators who won’t be returning in January will take this opportunity to cement an anti-genocide record.
Can you give an example from, say, the last decade? Just one example will do.
I mean, trump pardoned a bunch of us government contracted (by the military) mercenaries who were convicted(by a US federal Court) of killing Iraqi civilians in 2014. The act of pardoning such criminals is in itself a war crime, and occurred in 2020.
It wasn’t a bunch, it was one guy. He was court marshalled, and his own men testified against him. He was found guilty and stripped of rank. He was about to be sentenced to federal lockup for war crimes. THEN Trump pardoned him against the wishes of the US Military. I think your apples and oranges comparison failed.
You asked for one example, I gave you one. Literally the incoming commander in chief committing a war crime 4 years ago.
deleted by creator
I didn’t ask you. I clarified for you
deleted by creator
Not this decade, but during the battles of Fallujah we gave the civilians there 24 hours to evacuate, and then after that the official rules of engagement were pretty damn close to “everyone left is presumed to be an Al Qaeda militant.” They were allowed to shoot people with phones or radios in their hands on sight. We also bombed the fuck out of that city, including with white phosphorous. We know WP was used because there was a recorded friendly fire incident with it.
And all of this was basically reprisal for the killings of those four Blackwater mercenaries.
So, no?
I can answer for you. The US betrayal of their Kurdish allies was evil and that was fairly recent.
The reason white phosphorus was used in Fallujah. If you’ve ever been to an Arab city, you’ll note that sometimes in markets, cloth is hung over the streets. This cloth provides shade to shoppers. Fallujah had more of that than usual, it masked movement from sight overhead. So, to get rid of it, they dropped white phosphorus to burn it away.
A logical and strategic justification. Still a literal warcrime.
Nope. Wrong on the law.
Protocol on incendiary weapons states that using them in civilian area, such as in a marketplace in an urban area that was not properly evacuated, is prohibited.
And we actually signed that one, which is surprising considering how many protocols and treaties we are not party to.
It was used as flares not as an incendiary.
Not really. White phosphorus is used for many things, mostly making smoke. It only becomes a crime when you use it against people.
And, blocked user. You have yourself a nice day now “rapidcreek”
Sorry if the truth offends you.
right, also known as a war crime.
No. Read the law.
Did you ready the Leahy law? I did.
Also the UN and ICC ruled on it. I imagine during their ruling on that they “read the law” and that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Not really