Harris Will Continue to Ignore U.S. Law and Arm Israel, If Elected
Harris Will Continue to Ignore U.S. Law and Arm Israel, If Elected
theintercept.com
Harris Will Continue to Ignore U.S. Law and Arm Israel, If Elected
33 comments
-
-
Yeah, it sucks. I still think we have a better shot at pressuring her to take a harder stance on Israel while in office than Trump, so I'm still gonna vote for her.
-
You have a shot at pressuring her to take a stance before she gets in office. That is what elections are for.
-
-
Saw this coming a mile away. Truly nothing will fundamentally change
-
Democrats should stop ignoring the Leahy Law.
Notice who this upsets.
-
Why isn't Trump being mentioned as well? Because he sure as hell would also arm Israel, and probably with more enthusiasm than Harris would. It's a fair enough criticism of Harris. But Trump should be mentioned in the same breath in this situation.
-
If you’re expecting our government not to be heinous and awful when it comes to foreign affairs you’re gonna have a bad time.
33 comments
It really hasn't, no. It's just telling truths that you don't like as much.
Other than the headline (which is still factual. It's against US law to supply weapons when you have a reasonable suspicion that they might be used to commit war crimes. In the case of Israel, it's a certainty.), the tone of the article is neutral and describes what's actually going on rather than the rosy picture the likes of Politico usually paint or the fact-averse demonizing Faux News would do.
If anything has gone downhill, it's the ability of "Blue No Matter Who" Democrats accepting any criticism of people with a (D) behind their name.
Perfectly said
Human rights violations, not war crimes. The US interprets that as things like torture and rape of captives, not civilian casualties in general.
More importantly, not "you". It doesn't matter what the general public suspects or even considers a certainty. The only thing that matters is what the Secretary of State suspects.
Finally, there is an exception: the prohibition is lifted if the Secretary of State (again, not you) believes "the government of such country is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice."
In law, wording matters. You can certainly argue that the spirit of Leahy Laws is ignored, but it's easy to see how the text is being followed.
How do you feel about Glen Greenwald's inexplicable shift to the far right over the years?
Why/how?