11–20 of 585 posts
He's being sanctioned as a result by the USA, which flowed down to US companies who must follow US law.
Only the U.S. would actually sanction someone for trying to indict a war criminal.
I don't think that's true. Lots of countries out there led by thugs. It used to be that the US stood out because it took the law seriously and believed in its ideals to do the right thing (not that it always succeeded, but it did its best). Looks like that time has passed.
The "The Hague Invasion Act", where the US authorizes itself to invade an ally (the Netherlands) to break war criminal suspects out of prison, was signed in 2002. The US has always been a "rules for thee but not for me" type of place and the digital sanction discussed here fits in a long line of behaviors by the US government. Trump has changed the scale and intensity of it all but the basic direction has always been the same.
[flagged]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyXExGWGEyw "War crimes are defined by the winners. I'm a winner, so I can make my own definition.". The whole documentary is worth a watch, IMO. It's an incredible look about how people commit heinous acts and build an imaginary world for 40 years to say what they did was "right and justified". Including a scene where the killers imagine they're being thanked by their victims for taki…
where war can be maximalized into genocide when you don't like the winner, and the genocidal act that has started said war (classic genocide mass killings of civilians by death squads) is appropriated by the perpetrators turned victims
TLDR: he's a member of the ICC. Issues warrants against Israeli political leaders. Neither Israel nor the USA (nor China, Russia, India) are parties to the international conventions that formed the ICC. He's being sanctioned as a result by the USA, which flowed down to US companies who must follow US law.
I think that is the most important point in the article.
Archive link: https://archive.is/TleMk
This is a weapon that the US has been honing for a long time. Pretty much every modern company has some footprint in the US (for example, maybe trades on a US stock market) and is liable for even mild sanctions violations to the tune of millions at least.
I'm very curious what would happen then? Nothing presumable, as nothing ever happens, or it might be another step to separate the EU market from the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyXExGWGEyw "War crimes are defined by the winners. I'm a winner, so I can make my own definition.". The whole documentary is worth a watch, IMO. It's an incredible look about how people commit heinous acts and build an imaginary world for 40 years to say what they did was "right and justified". Including a scene where the killers imagine they're being thanked by their victims for taki…
I think the more interesting thing here is the ability to fantasize categories such as genocide where war can be maximalized into genocide when you don't like the winner, and the genocidal act that has started said war (classic genocide mass killings of civilians by death squads) is appropriated by the perpetrators turned victims
Wonko the Sane is right.
Ultimately this sources back to Europe being dependent on the US for defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's true. Lots of countries out there led by thugs. It used to be that the US stood out because it took the law seriously and believed in its ideals to do the right thing (not that it always succeeded, but it did its best). Looks like that time has passed.
Not sure about that. Internally, maybe it was true at some point, cannot say, but if we look at the US as an international player, when exactly was it ready to sacrifice its own interests for any kind of justice or greater good? And if you are not ready to pay the price, then all this talk of a higher moral ground is just that, an empty talk.