- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
US president’s remarks to Time magazine about PM’s role in conflict draw heavily critical response from Israeli government
Joe Biden has said that there is “every reason” to draw the conclusion that Benjamin Netanyahu is prolonging the war in Gaza for his own political self-preservation.
Biden made the remarks about the Israeli prime minister in an interview with Time magazine published on Tuesday morning, drawing a sharp response from the Israeli government, which accused the US president of straying from diplomatic norms.
Netanyahu’s popularity plummeted after the 7 October attack by Hamas, which exposed serious flaws in Israeli security. Most political observers say Netanyahu would lose elections if they were held now, and would be forced into opposition, facing court hearings on corruption charges. But elections have been put off until the war is over, or at least until major military operations are deemed to have been completed.
Time asked Biden whether he believed Netanyahu was “prolonging the war for his own political self-preservation”.
“I’m not going to comment on that,” the president said in response, but added: “There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion.”
Good thing Congress can’t do shit about it short of repealing the Leahy Law with a veto proof majority.
Now what would be comical (not actually comical) is to see Congress declare war for the first time since world war 2. They can do so without the presidents approval I believe, and can fund it against the presidents wishes. Now… The president can just tell the troops not to go to war though, showing how broken that system is.
No war, the president can send troops. War, the president can not send troops.
So the other representatives don’t matter to awfully much when it comes to starting wars. Now ending them on the other hand … Congress holds that with the funding part.
Well not really @ last part bc the president can declare an emergency for ~any reason and appropriate funds. Yaaay demoncracy
Generally, us presidents fall into the do whatever they want, “move fast and break shit” philosophy. And as the world’s arms dealers, the USA has every reason to be involved in every conflict. That’s our greatest national industry
Emergencies can only exist for 6 months and then have to be voted for termination by Congress. So say Prump pulled a Trutin, if the rest of the house/Senate weren’t bought and paid for that war would be over “years” ago now and congress could impeach the president if he tried to act like it was another emergency, followed by the Senate voting to oust them.
All the mechanisms are there, tainted and charred.
We need an age of restoration to clean it all off and update everything to fit with modern times.
““Jefferson states that each new generation has a right to choose for itself “the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness.” That every 20 years, the state constitution should be handed off to the next generation to amend and repair as they see fit””
So a bit controversial but I’d say that would point at older generations not supposed to be holding legislational positions/powers. If we up the age to fit lifespan from 20 to 30 years, then take the average age of the writers/powers at be during that time it would place a retirement age for legislative members at maybe 60-65.
Being that our supreme Court is somehow altering legislation at this point that would say 4 or 5 out of those 9 would have to retire immediately. The average age of senators is 64, so ~50 there, and a significant chunk of Congress.
Get out the steel woal and start cleaning the rust of this jalopy.
Cool info, thanks
Yeah it’s not a great system and the war powers act was only ever a band aid.
Leahy Law only works if the State Department provides proof of human rights violations. Findings from the ICC or ICJ only matter if they are corroborated in US intelligence. Biden needs to mandate a conclusive reassessment from the State Department to disregard congressional direction.
So as far as I know, we don’t need the State Department to acknowledge it. The laws bind State and Defense from sending stuff but that information can come from anywhere. They can stop based on their internal assessment or the President can stop them based on reports from the intelligence community or the ICC.
Without support of US intelligence or recorded first-hand accounts, he has no defense in an impeachment hearing for taking actions against the advisement of Congress and the State Department. He needs the support of one branch to make a move like this, or he’ll face impeachment by Republicans in Congress.
He oversees the State Department as they’re part of the Executive Branch. He can mandate reassessment due to new information such as the recent “accidents” by Israel, or disclosure of suppressed information by former employees. It’s his best option other than direct oversight with a ceasefire agreement.
Well good thing he has those. And the ICC assessments would work too. Which he also has.
You think state department returned that finding without asking him first? People are literally quitting that working group and telling the news. This isn’t a deep state thing.
Biden can shut off the aid any time he wants.
For a bonus round - how about we see some “strategic voting” by our representatives and Senators? Why are we coddling them? A successful impeachment would basically ensure a Trump victory, and anything less isn’t paid attention because the Republicans cried wolf too many times. So why are we worried about this again?
ICC statements are not recognized in the US unless included in State Department intelligence reports. POTUS cannot justify action based on them, nor can he use them as defense in an impeachment hearing.
Again, while he can amend existing agreements whenever he wants, he will have no legal defense for his actions against advisement and legislation of the rest of our government.
Oh? Is there a law saying we can’t use ICC evidence? Or is that just inconvenient to your narrative?
For one, the US did not sign the Rome Statute, therefore the US government does not recognize the ICC as an authority.
Secondly, the ICC, the ICJ, the UN, news sources, etc. report findings based on evidence. It’s considered hearsay in US court unless the evidence is submitted directly in trial or substantiated by the State Department.
POTUS must rely on domestic intelligence or recorded first-hand experiences to make decisions. That’s why Biden needs to mandate a reassessment by the State Department.
Good thing the Congress isn’t a court. That was made obvious the last ten million times they tried to impeach a president in the last 15 years. And it doesn’t matter whether the US recognizes the ICC’s jurisdiction or not. That’s a credible accusation. That’s all the Leahy Law requires. Unless you care to make an argument that the ICC isn’t a credible organization?