Ceded by treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_1818

Es ist jetzt aber gleichzeitig nicht wirklich einzusehen, dass der Steuerzahler irgendwelchen Kindern, jenseits von irgendeiner Sozialauswahl, eine Ferienbespaßung bezahlt nur auf Basis von ihrem Wohnort.

Na soweit kann ich die Argumentation ja nachvollziehen, wenn auch nicht teilen. Das es da überhaupt eine Beschränkung nach dem Wohnort gibt ist halt auch schon wieder typisch Deutscher Kontrollwahn, aber das sei mal dahingestellt.

Wir reden hier ja nicht davon, dass armen Kindern nichts gegönnt wird, sondern auch Kinder reicher Eltern können weiter von der Schule entfernt wohnen und Kinder ärmerer Eltern können näher an der Schule wohnen.

Aber hier kann ich so nicht mitgehen. Betroffen sind ja gerade durch die Wohnortbeschränkung eben die Kinder welche weiter weg wohnen, was man ja an sich schon als soziale Schwäche ansehen kann. Und dann werden in dieser Gruppe gerade die Kinder der ärmeren Eltern eher betroffen, weil die können nicht mal eben 58-116€ für ein Ersatzdeutschlandticket hergeben.

Also technisch gesehen hast du Recht, das betrifft arme wie reiche Kinder, aber praktische gesehen hat es halt quasi nur Auswirkungen für arme Kinder.

Well now you lost me entirely. All I wanted to say was that the Geneva Convention is (part of) international law.

Or in other words: Geneva Convention ⊊ International Law.

Hence my confusion about your confusion.

Here’s a big UN document about what Israel can and cannot do under international law…

TL;DR.

Again, I wasn't agreeing with OP above, I was just pointing out that GC I Article 21 is applicable in Gaza since Israel is a signatory and thus Israel has to follow it (at least de jure if not de facto). This is the case even when Palestine isn't a signatory to GC I because of Article 2.

I don't quite follow, the Geneva Convention is international law. All international law is essentially just contracts between nation states, and the GC is one of those.

Wrong again, this is Protocol I which Israel isn't a signatory to. What I linked is Convention I which Israel is a signatory to.

And this also has nothing to do with the claim you made even if they were, you claimed the Convention doesn't apply to occupying forces when it explicitly states that it does apply.

Also note that I'm not saying Israel did abide by it (doubt it honestly) just that they are subject to it.

This section of the Geneva Convention does not apply to a belligerent occupying force.

Wrong, see Article 2.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

This particular Russian attack seems to have been retaliatory in nature, because right before it Ukraine attacked Russian territory including Moscow with hundreds of drones at the same time.

Reported on here for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBAIalMNCAA
And here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NbxXJJJNZk

I figure the logic of escalation here is something like "If Ukraine can already make massive strikes on Moscow with self produced drones there isn't much sense in keeping up the range restrictions on NATO equipment anymore".

Well acquisition of power through military means was a Roman tradition since Sullas march on Rome in 88 BCE though, so technically they have just as much of a claim as Charlemagne, the HRE, and the Tzars. A better one even since they actually conquered "new Rome" and its people and held it. What matters though is that they did claim the title of Caesar just as the other self-proclaimed successors of Rome did.

Hier ist der Link zur Bildserie (siebte Bild): https://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/bilder/regierungswechsel-100.html

Hier ist der Link zum Bild: https://images.tagesschau.de/image/24994fe4-1875-49a1-bc83-dab937fce9c6/AAABlqt3kkI/AAABkZLk4K0/16x9-768/oezdemir-baer-100.jpg

Nah they are spelling MS-05, which is just another chapter of MS-13, but the lying fake news media cut out the people on the left forming the M. /s

Hmm, the thumbnail change doesn't seem to have federated to lemmy.ml or other instances (so far at least), but it shows on lemmy.ca. Interesting. Thanks for updating it.

Besides the cross-posts there is another discussion in
!world@lemmy.world (this link should take you to the community in your app/website):
https://lemmy.ml/post/29400920 (this link will take you to the post on the website I'm viewing it from)
about the link to the Reuters video: https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW057230042025RP1/

Besides the cross-posts there is another discussion in
!world@lemmy.world (this link should take you to the community in your app/website):
https://lemmy.ml/post/29400920 (this link will take you to the post on the website I'm viewing it from)
about the link to the Reuters video: https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW057230042025RP1/

I see the Reuters video has already been posted to this community, so I'll refrain from cross-posting the Guardian article here as well. @engene@lemmy.ca if you edit the post and set the following as "Thumbnail URL" it will show up in the websites/apps better: https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/e439f142-4f5c-475a-b1b0-d0ee102de6f7.jpeg

Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/30/venezuelans-sos-texas

Image embed:

Well actually "don't do anything illegal" seems to be the thing giving an easy win to cops and politicians here.

"Oh, they are ignoring the laws and putting people in concentration camps? Just politely tell them they are wrong, that'll show them!"

And you are free to believe otherwise. But sadly I don't see legal protests having any effect on a government actively seeking to undermine the rule of law.

Insisting on the confines of legality when the opposing side has shed any pretence of legality months (arguably years) ago is... a stance to take. Just not a winning one.

Charges weren't dropped. Neither the judge nor the prosecution sought detention, so she is just out until the next hearing happens (May 15th).

From: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/milwaukee-judge-hannah-dugan-charged-with-2-federal-felonies-in-ice-case/ar-AA1DCrnR

On April 25, Dugan appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Dries during a brief hearing in a packed courtroom at the federal courthouse. Dugan, wearing a black dress with white flowers, made no public comments during the brief hearing.

At the hearing, Dries asked if prosecutors were seeking detention, and they said they were not. He answered that he did not believe that the charges were “eligible” for detention.

As it ended, her attorney, Craig Mastantuono, told the court: "Judge Dugan wholeheartedly regrets and protests her arrest. It was not made in the interest of public safety."

Dugan made her federal court appearance a little more than two hours after she was arrested at the county courthouse at about 8 a.m. April 25.