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.
You’re defending his INaction by falsely claiming that there’s no credible evidence that he’s failed to act on. Amounts to the same thing.
the law has enough loopholes that he can ignore those mountains and technically comply with the law.
Does it, though? Or is it that the government is deploying a modified version of Wilhoit’s Law?
Conservatism Zionism consists of exactly one proposition … There must be in-groups* whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups** whom the law binds but does not protect
by falsely claiming that there’s no credible evidence that he’s failed to act on
The law requires him to determine whether a report is credible, and then determine that the responsible parties are being brought to justice.
There are a few reports that he determined were credible, and in each case he determined that the responsible parties were being brought to justice.
So he is complying with the letter of the law, because the law gives no consideration to what anyone else finds credible. And unfortunately there is no mechanism to appeal what he determines, even if the entire rest of the world disagrees.
Or is it that the government is deploying
Leahy Laws give the president extra leverage in foreign policy when they want to use it. In practice, they don’t ever bind the president.
Which is the goal the law was supposed to have as well.
But imagine the President actually wanted to pressure another country, like maybe Hungary. In that case, it could be very useful.
Except the US isn’t sending weapons to Hungary and is almost exclusively sending weapons to countries that are amongst the worst human rights violators in the world.
To be worth anything, the law would have to constrain the administration rather than empower it to make unilateral decisions that run counter to international law.
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.
Of which there was several a year every year by the world’s leading experts for the last several DECADES, lately more than one each month.
The time to pretend with any seriousness that he’s not ignoring mountains of credible evidence has long since passed.
Don’t be an apologist for a genocide apologist. It’s not a dignified thing to be.
I’m not defending his actions. But the law has enough loopholes that he can ignore those mountains and technically comply with the law.
You’re defending his INaction by falsely claiming that there’s no credible evidence that he’s failed to act on. Amounts to the same thing.
Does it, though? Or is it that the government is deploying a modified version of Wilhoit’s Law?
*the Israeli and US governments
** Palestinians and anyone speaking up for them
The law requires him to determine whether a report is credible, and then determine that the responsible parties are being brought to justice.
There are a few reports that he determined were credible, and in each case he determined that the responsible parties were being brought to justice.
So he is complying with the letter of the law, because the law gives no consideration to what anyone else finds credible. And unfortunately there is no mechanism to appeal what he determines, even if the entire rest of the world disagrees.
Leahy Laws give the president extra leverage in foreign policy when they want to use it. In practice, they don’t ever bind the president.
So what you’re saying is that the Leahy Law is worthless as long as Blinkin or another dishonest Zionist is the Secretary of State?
Talk about the fox guarding the fucking henhouse! 🤦
It’s worthless for the goal you intend.
But imagine the President actually wanted to pressure another country, like maybe Hungary. In that case, it could be very useful.
Which is the goal the law was supposed to have as well.
Except the US isn’t sending weapons to Hungary and is almost exclusively sending weapons to countries that are amongst the worst human rights violators in the world.
To be worth anything, the law would have to constrain the administration rather than empower it to make unilateral decisions that run counter to international law.