301–310 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it a threat to American sovereignty? It has no jurisdiction in America, only within nations that are party to the treaty - which is their sovereign right? Is a foreign nation convicting an American tourist for crimes in said nation also a threat to American sovereignty?
It has juridiction when referred to by the UN Security Council, and possibly other cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute#Jurisdiction,_str...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Not what I claimed Yet what you directly claimed hinges upon this fallacy. >Vocal, motivated minorities who are willing to back a primary challenger Or foreign countries. (is Russia also a "vocal, motivated minority" in Moldova...? or is it just plain and simple foreign meddling? Russia believes it's motivated minorities). >What the majority loosely believes is irrelevant Sure. But, this would make your clain of "Is…
> what you directly claimed hinges upon this fallacy No. It doesn’t. It’s why I never cite general popularity for Israel. Only strong favour for and against. > this would make your clain of "Israel has had unique sway in America because for most of its history it has been uniquely popular" completely untrue Nope. Israel has a vocal minority that loves it. It has not had, until last last year, a vocal minority that ha…
Yet you cited "Israel is uniquely popular" as a reason for why they get their way.
Which is not true.
>Israel has a vocal minority that loves it. It has not had, until last last year, a vocal minority that hates it
It not only had a vocal minority that hates it it had a vocal minority of Jews that loathe it.
The minorities arent the point though, the money and the foreign influence over America's government is.
Remember the "vocal minority" in Moldova who fight for pro Russian policy? Theyre not "vocal minorities" thats just Russia.
Israel is no different. It's a foreign country taking control over the American government.
>Even today, very few voters would trade pocketbook issues for a pro-Palestinian policy portfolio
That's probably increasingly less true these days (genocide isnt a historically popular policy) but beside the point.
The "minority" which operates on behalf of a foreign government is getting real close to ramming $200 per barrel oil down everybody's throats not because theyre "motivated" but because America is run along plutocratic lines and is fully captured by that foreign government.
>It’s a tempting tale, and simplifying model, to assume unilateral causes of policies
I assume that'd where the "uniquely popular" thing came from.
This is insane. They aimed his corporate account. Europeans move away from the US even faster now. This guy is literally breaking decades old relationships.
You think Europe would really behave any different? Israel is the wedge and leverage to eliminating governments of Iran, Pakistan, China and then India and weakening Russia further. Colonialism hasn't gone anywhere, evidence? Europe fully protects settlers and their ambitions despite what they say publicly. It is a long road but the most realistic one they have.
What we should instead focus on is digital sovereignty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the US is in the wrong, why should I as a citizen not want our government officials held accountable?
> If the US is in the wrong, why should I as a citizen not want our government officials held accountable? A core principle of American justice is judgement by a jury of your peers from your community according to our laws, not by foreigners on the other side of the planet according to foreign laws. Violations of our core principles through means we were not a party to is a violation of our sovereignty.
when it comes to Crimes against humanity (genocide, mass killings, tortures, etc) - our peers are whole Humanity, and everyone who support United Nation's Human Rights Declaration.
You cannot have American human rights to live, and at the same time deny the right to live to non-Americans. Which is what America is doing: extrajudicial murder of foreigners (drone strikes + collateral murder) and sponsoring of terrorism and genocide (Israel-gaza war).
the point is not to argue specific bullet points on obscure US codes, but 30 very basic unalienable universal human rights.
if USA denies these rights to the whole world, then there is no reason to expect the whole world support america in any way, like lending money by buying US treasuries, exchanging oil for freshly printed worthless USD, respecting US tourists' right to live when they are exploring the world, etc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People really need to resist the urge to anthropomorphize corporations. Corporate behavior is well-established science at this point. They almost always do what is in their own financial interests. "Feckless" means "lacking initiative or strength of character". Corporations have one character: Making money. Fighting the government over a few user accounts has no short-term or long-term monetary value. It doesn't even…
> People really need to resist the urge to anthropomorphize corporations. I understand where you are coming from, but this also sounds like a way to remove individual responsibility from the people that make up a corporation.
No responsibility should be expected when there is no accountability.
Israel strikes again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
10 years from now either a non-state entity or the People's Republic of China will have the strongest military, and geography won't matter for military power.
Let’s say for the sake of argument, that’s true just to shortcut this: the PRC is also not party to the Rome Statute. Neither is Russia if you’re wondering. The largest military of a country party to the Rome Statute and the largest financial contributor to the ICC is Japan. Good luck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't conflate the interests of an American with "American interests".
Like it or not, the elected President does lead on defending American interests, including which ones to prioritize, and they get to do that because they won the election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We also elect the leaders that make those decisions and form the parties that nominate leaders to choose from. The winners of those elections get to choose the direction to lead.
you don't elect the leaders in america. Two major party leaderships nominate their candidates, backed by hundreds of millions of corporate and special interest funding. Then some process called electoral college (that has some vague resemblance of the plebiscite) weights two candidates and picks a winner. The candidate then has to obtain approval for every cabinet position from the congress (which is also getting fun…
We do.
> Two major party leaderships nominate their candidates, backed by hundreds of millions of corporate and special interest funding.
Other Americans. You’re also discounting the impact small-dollar donors have had in American politics as of late and the public primary system.
> Then some process called electoral college (that has some vague resemblance of the plebiscite) weights two candidates and picks a winner.
1) The Electors of the Electoral College are in turn elected by the people of the United States.
2) This only applies to the President and Vice President of the United States and no other public office.
3) Most States have laws against faithless electors, but the slate of electors appointed by each State’s elected legislature reflects the popular vote within that State.
> The candidate then has to obtain approval for every cabinet position from the congress (which is also getting funding in hundreds of mils from major corporate and special interest lobbying groups), that ensure that people occupying cabinet positions have policies aligned with their financial donors
Half of what you’re doing is just describing politics, but yes, the elected President makes appointments, and the elected Senate confirms or denies them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ICC takes actions against people. It very specifically does not have jurisdiction over conflicts between states . The ICJ pursues cases against states. > Not one iota of attention of the court ever went to that. The ICC only has jurisdiction over the territories and nationals of the State Parties to the Rome Statute. In the case of Israel, the actions are taken on the basis of alleged crimes in Palestinian territ…
So it’s like a court where only law abiding citizens agree to its jurisdiction and all the criminals get away with murder because they never signed a treaty.