13
   

Monitoring Biden and other Contemporary Events

 
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2024 08:53 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
You act like I want Trump to win.

1. Do you want Trump to win?
2. The more import question is: Do you want Trump to defeat Biden?
3. I'm more curious to what your answer is regarding the second question.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2024 10:09 pm
What you don't get about yesterday:

0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2024 10:37 pm
@Real Music,
Quote:
1. Do you want Trump to win?

Perhaps the better questions here are:
1. Who does Netanyahu want to win the next US election?
2. Who does Putin want to win?

And the answer is not Biden.
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Jan, 2024 11:43 pm
@blatham,
1. I have made it crystal clear that I will be voting for Biden.

2. I believe that Biden has done a wonderful job as President.

3. The very thought of Trump winning back the White House scares the living **** out of me.

4. The good news is I believe that America will re-elect Biden for a second term.

5. It's obvious that Putin wants Trump to defeat Biden.

6. I'm just curious if Lash also wants Trump to defeat Biden.

7. Ultimately, I'm just curious if Lash (prefers) Trump over Biden.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 12:19 am
@Real Music,
Yes, sorry. I did understand that your question was directed at Lash. And it's a fine question. But I doubt the answer she would provide, if any, will have value to you. Which is why I included the question regarding Netanyahu.

Lash has spent the last month and longer attacking Biden, most particularly, on the Israeli issue. And at the same time, she has left unaddressed the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu and the history of Republicans' relationship with Bibi/Likud and their attitude towards Palestinians/Muslims. She can't, with any credibility, claim or suggest that a Republican administration under Trump will be more sympathetic to the plight in Gaza and the West Bank than Biden and his administration. Nor can she, with credibility, claim or suggest that a Trump administration will move vigorously to slap down Netanyahu's policies given given past GOP behavior on Israel/Palestine and given the need for Trump to maintain support from his Evangelical base.

All of which pretty clearly suggests she isn't actually very interested in the plight of Palestinians or in Israeli politics. She has a different target.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 12:35 am
Trump’s Wrongful Pardons for Crimes Against International Law

The author, professor emeritus at Purdue University, argues that former president Trump’s dual-level legal derelictions not only coincide in speciousness, they also represent force-multiplying assaults upon America’s Constitutional and “higher-law” foundations.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 12:48 am
@blatham,
Quote:
Yes, sorry. I did understand that your question was directed at Lash. And it's a fine question. But I doubt the answer she would provide, if any, will have value to you. Which is why I included the question regarding Netanyahu.

1. I disagree on your assertion that Lash's answer to the question wouldn't provide any value.

2. The value is to (put her on the spot) with a direct straight forward question without beating around the bush.

3. Sometimes people can make disingenuous arguments and have hidden motives.

4. Sometimes people can (pretend) they believe in xyz while hiding or (disguising) their real motive or agenda.

5. In my experiences the best way to deal with pretenders is to be very direct and ask direct questions.

6. It's not a gotcha question. It is a direct question.

7. I'm not trying to trap Lash into some type of gotcha question.

8. Just a direct straightforward question.

9. My direct question to Lash is does she want Trump to defeat Biden? And does she (prefer) Trump over Biden?

10. Any other questions, and I do mean any other questions, are (distractions) to the actual question.

11. If you present an alternate question, that will only serve to distract from the actual question.

12. If you add something to the question, that will only serve to distract from the actual question.

13. When you change the subject, that will only serve to distract from the actual question.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 01:12 am
@blatham,
1. I'm not saying that the things that you are discussing aren't important.

2. I'm just saying that I am seeking an answer to a (very specific) question from a (specific) person.

3. Whether she answers or not is out of my control.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 01:26 am
@blatham,
Quote:
Lash has spent the last month and longer attacking Biden,

1. Actually, Lash has spent (years) attacking Biden and the entire Democratic Party on any and every issue under the sun.

2. Probably as long as I've been on A2K.

3. Maybe longer.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 02:56 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Perhaps the better questions here are:
1. Who does Netanyahu want to win the next US election?
2. Who does Putin want to win?

And the answer is not Biden.


I don't think you're right re Netanyahu.

Biden has given him pretty much everything he wants.

He has even gone as far as bypassing Congress to get weapons to Israel.

I don't think Trump could do any more.

Trump also has personal issues with Netanyahu and he would have no problems throwing Israel under the bus if it made him richer.

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 03:03 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

You act like I want Trump to win.


Your criticism of Trump is very gentle.

You used his pussy grabbing quote to smear women instead of looking at him as a sexual predator.

Whenever Trump's predatory behaviour is brought up you refuse to look at it instead talking about Biden.

You can see why people assume you want Trump to win.

Trump is the only one arguing damages in court after being found guilty of rape.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 04:30 am
Pakistan has retaliated by firing missiles into Iran.

This could be far more significant than Israel/ Palestine.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 04:38 am
@izzythepush,
And Jordan has bombed Syria, so much for avoiding a wider bloody conflict.

Ceasefire now.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 04:54 am
Quote:
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton responded this evening to the federal government’s demand that state troops give U.S. Border Patrol agents access to Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas, the site where three migrants died last week as they tried to cross the Rio Grande.

Aarón Torres and Joseph Morton of The Dallas Morning News reported that Paxton’s letter acknowledged that by law the federal government’s Border Patrol officers are allowed “warrantless access to land within 25 miles of the border, but only ‘for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.’” Paxton claimed that this law doesn’t apply because the current administration’s policies—the law, after all, is written by Congress—are not intended to stop undocumented immigration. “There is not even a pretense that you are trying to prevent the illegal entry of aliens,” he wrote.

Torres and Morton note that, in fact, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported more than 142,000 migrants in 2023 and that Paxton presented no evidence for his claims.

Two weeks ago, House Homeland Security Committee chair Mark Green (R-TN) demanded that Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas testify as part of the House’s impeachment proceedings against him. As Rebecca Beitsch points out in The Hill, testimony from a cabinet secretary is usually arranged several weeks or even months in advance, and Mayorkas said he could not make the date because he will be discussing immigration with a delegation from Mexico at that time but he asked to arrange another time. Mayorkas has testified before the House panel twice in the past year and before Congress 27 times since he took office.

In a letter obtained by Punchbowl News, Green wrote: “Since you continue to decline to come in person, I invite you to submit written testimony for the January 18th hearing record, so that our Committee Members may hear from you directly.”

This evening, an inadvertently circulated internal Republican memo obtained by Rebecca Beitsch of The Hill shows that Republicans on the House Homeland Security Committee likely have switched their demand for live testimony to a demand for written answers because they have already committed to impeachment on a tight timeline and cannot wait for the live hearing to be rescheduled.

Green had previously suggested on the Fox News Channel that an impeachment document had already been written even though there had been no impeachment hearings. The memo appears to corroborate that suggestion, saying: “We have scheduled the markup for impeachment articles at 10:00 AM ET on Wednesday, January 31, 2024.”

Republicans argue that Mayorkas lied to Congress because he said the government has operational control over the border. They dispute this characterization because the Secure Fence Act defines operational control as one in which not a single person or object enters the country improperly. This perfect standard has never been met, and yet they apparently decided to impeach over it before even holding hearings.

Republicans are clearly hoping to use the issue of immigration against President Joe Biden and the Democrats in the upcoming election. After insisting in November that immigration was in such a crisis that there could be no more aid to Ukraine, Israel, or Taiwan without it, Republicans in December rejected the idea of new legislation and said Biden must handle the issue himself. Then, in early January, 64 Republicans traveled to the border to demonstrate the importance of the issue.

But now that the Senate appears to have hammered out a bipartisan immigration reform measure, House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said this morning: “It’s a complex issue. I don’t think now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform, because we know how complicated that is.” After a meeting at the White House today with President Biden, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, and committee heads, Johnson still refused to put the proposed deal up for a vote in the House.

In today’s meeting, Biden emphasized the danger of leaving Ukraine’s defense unfunded. “He was clear,” the White House said, “Congress’s continued failure to act endangers the United States’ national security, the NATO Alliance, and the rest of the free world.”

Johnson is caught between U.S. national security and Trump. On the Fox News Channel tonight, Laura Ingraham told Johnson she had just gotten off a phone call with Trump and Trump had told her that he was against the immigration deal and had urged Johnson to oppose it. “He…was extremely adamant about it,” she said. Johnson agreed and said that he and Trump had been “talking about this pretty frequently.”

Trump needs the issue of immigration to whip up his base for the 2024 election.

Today the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, chaired by James Comer (R-KY) held a hearing titled “The Biden Administration’s Regulatory and Policymaking Efforts to Undermine U.S. Immigration Law.” The administration has asked for additional funding for border patrol officers, immigration courts, and so on, but Comer said in his opening statement that the problem is not a lack of resources but rather an unwillingness to enforce the law.

Representative Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) replied: “You know we have failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform up here for decades.” He noted that one of his colleagues had provided statistics showing that President Barack Obama deported more people in each term than Trump did, so “if the border wasn’t a problem until President Biden was elected, then how are we deporting all of these people in administrations before Trump was elected? It’s because this situation has been going on for decades. So stop lying to the American people that none of this happened until President Biden was elected.”

Comer has also used the House Oversight Committee to spread the idea that President Biden is corrupt, but while he has made many allegations on right-wing media channels, the committee has not, in fact, turned up any evidence linking the president to illegal activity. Instead, the investigations there appear to be a continuation of the technique Republicans have used since the 1990s to insinuate that a Democrat has engaged in wrongdoing simply by holding investigations.

Trump employed this technique effectively in 2016 in his constant refrain that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent, had illegally deleted emails, and less effectively in 2019 when he tried to strong-arm Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky into announcing an investigation into Hunter Biden. It was central to the plan of convincing state legislatures that they could recast their 2020 electoral votes: lawyer Jeffrey Clark wanted to tell them (falsely) that there were voting irregularities that the Department of Justice was investigating.

But this technique has backfired so far in this Congress. After a year of hearing that Biden is corrupt, MAGA Republicans have expected to see him impeached. But Democrats have come to hearings exceedingly well prepared and have pushed back on MAGA talking points, turning the tables on the Republicans so thoroughly that Comer recently was forced to back down, saying, “My job was never to impeach.”

Creating a false reality to trick voters is central to undermining democracy, and it is no secret that autocratic states like Russia, Iran, and China are spreading disinformation in the U.S. But I have always wondered what would happen when the American people finally pushed back against suggestions and innuendo and instead demanded actual evidence and policies designed to address problems, as they did before American politics turned into entertainment.

hcr
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 06:07 am
Quote:
‘Different rules’: special policies keep US supplying weapons to Israel despite alleged abuses
Revealed: review of internal state department documents shows special mechanisms have been used to shield Israel from US human rights laws

Top US officials quietly reviewed more than a dozen incidents of alleged gross violations of human rights by Israeli security forces since 2020, but have gone to great lengths to preserve continued access to US weapons for the units responsible for the alleged violations, contributing – former US officials say – to the sense of impunity with which Israel has approached its war in Gaza.

An estimated 24,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, have been killed by Israeli forces since Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, a death toll that has spurred condemnation of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US president Joe Biden, who has been criticized for failing to rein in Israel’s “indiscriminate” bombing of Gaza.

An investigation by the Guardian, which was based on a review of internal state department documents and interviews with people familiar with sensitive internal deliberations, reveals how special mechanisms have been used over the last few years to shield Israel from US human rights laws, even as other allies’ military units who receive US support – including, sources say, Ukraine – have privately been sanctioned and faced consequences for committing human rights violations.

State department officials have in effect been able to circumvent the US law that is meant to prevent US complicity in human rights violations by foreign military units – the 1990s era Leahy law, named after the now retired Vermont senator Patrick Leahy – because, former officials say, extraordinary internal state department policies have been put in place that show extreme deference to the Israeli government. No such special arrangements exist for any other US ally.

The lack of enforcement of the Leahy law in Israel appears especially troubling to its namesake. In a statement to the Guardian, the former Vermont senator said the purpose of the Leahy law was to shield the US from culpability for gross violations of human rights by foreign security forces that receive US aid and deter future violations.

“But the law has not been applied consistently, and what we have seen in the West Bank and Gaza is a stark example of that. Over many years I urged successive US administrations to apply the law there, but it has not happened,” Leahy said.

Among the incidents that have been reviewed since 2020 were the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, the Palestinian-American journalist who was shot by Israeli forces in May 2022; the death of Omar Assad, a 78-year-old Palestinian-American, who died in January 2022 after being held in Israeli custody; and the alleged extrajudicial killing of Ahmad Abdu, a 25-year-old who was shot at dawn by Israeli forces in May 2021 while sitting in his car.

A report in Haaretz describes how, after opening fire on the car, Israeli troops pulled Abdu out, dragged him a few meters down the road, then left his bloody body in the road and departed.

In the review into Abdu’s death, which reports suggest may have been a case of mistaken identity, internal state department documents note that Israel declined to respond to questions by state department officials about the shooting.

In Omar Assad’s case, the Israeli military said last June it was not bringing criminal charges against soldiers that were involved in his death, even after he was alleged to have been dragged from a car, bound and blindfolded after being stopped at a checkpoint. The army said the soldiers would not face prosecution because their actions could not directly be linked to Assad’s death from cardiac arrest, the Associated Press reported. Assad, a US citizen, had spent about 40 years in the midwest before retiring home to the West Bank in 2009.

Internal state department documents show that the incidents were reviewed under a little-known process established by the state department in 2020 known as the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum (ILVF), in which representatives from relevant state department bureaus examine reports of alleged human rights violations by Israeli forces.

Under the Leahy law, for most countries and in most cases, a foreign military unit is granted US military assistance or training after it is vetted by the state department for any reported human rights violations. The law prohibits the Department of State and the Department of Defense from providing funds, assistance, or training to foreign security force units where there is “credible information” that the forces have committed a gross violation of human rights.

In the case of at least three countries – Israel, Ukraine and Egypt – the scale of foreign assistance is so great that US military assistance can be difficult to track, and the US often has no knowledge of where specific weapons end up or how they are used.

To close what was seen as a loophole in the law, Congress updated the process in 2019, by putting a system in place that prohibits the foreign government from providing US assistance to any unit of its security forces that the US identifies as being ineligible under the Leahy law due to a gross violation of human rights. The state department set up working groups to examine those countries where military assistance is considered “untraceable”.

But people familiar with the process who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Israel has benefitted from extraordinary policies inside the ILVF, details of which have not previously been reported.

“Nobody said it but everyone knew the rules were different for Israel. No one will ever admit that, but it’s the truth,” said one former state department official.

First, under the Israel process, all of the parties involved in an ILVF review must reach a consensus that a potential violations has occurred, and must then be approved by the deputy secretary of state, according to three people familiar with internal deliberations. In theory, a single bureau could raise a potential violation to the deputy secretary of state level as part of a “split memo”, in which other bureaus would air their disagreement, but no such thing has occurred. Among the groups that are involved in the process are the bureau of near eastern affairs, the bureau of democracy, human rights, and labor, the bureau of political-military affairs and the US embassy in Jerusalem.

For other countries, former officials said, such a Leahy law determination is made by state department staff, does not require the consensus of all parties, and would not require notification of and approval by the secretary of state or deputy.

Second, Israel must be consulted about alleged human rights violations that are under review and has 90 days to respond to claims, creating what some former officials said were significant delays. No other country’s government must be consulted under state department procedures, former officials said.

“Part of the reason why the ILVF has never worked is that the process is so gummed up with delay mechanisms that exist for no other country,” the former state department official said.

A state department spokesperson said details of internal department deliberations could not be discussed, but that there was “no requirement that consensus among ILVF participants be reached in order to move forward with an assessment under the Leahy law”.

“The department conducts Leahy vetting consistent with the law in the case of all countries receiving applicable assistance, including Israel,” the spokesperson added.

In response to questions about why consultation with Israel was considered part of the state department’s standard practice in all Israel Leahy vetting cases, the spokesperson said the department “routinely consults foreign governments on Leahy vetting matters, not just Israel”.

‘A broad impunity’
Some experts see a connection between the US’s hands-off approach to Israel on human rights violations and Israel’s conduct in the war in Gaza. Israel receives $3.8bn in military assistance annually and the Biden administration twice bypassed Congress last month to deliver an additional $250m in weapons. Progressive Democrats led by Bernie Sanders, the independent Vermont senator, have called on aid to Israel being conditioned on the US investigating potential human rights violations by Israel in its war in Gaza.

“I think Israel feels a broad impunity when it comes to consequences within the US for its actions,” said Josh Paul, a former state department official who has emerged as a vocal critic of the Biden administration policies on Israel. “We may say that Israel should abide by international humanitarian law. We may say that it should not expand settlements. But when it comes to actual consequences, there aren’t any and I think that has given Israel at senior government levels the sense that it is immune.”

Paul also sees the lack of Leahy law enforcement having an effect on how Israeli units are conducting themselves. By not pressing Israel on Leahy violations and not designating individual Israeli units as gross violators of human rights, Paul said the US has enabled a culture of impunity at the unit level, which he said “we see on the ground in Gaza today” in the actions of some Israeli soldiers, including videos that have circulated showing Israeli soldiers ransacking private homes in Gaza, destroying civilian property, and using racist language.

Nowhere is the US’s double standard on Israel more apparent than in a 2021 agreement that was signed by a senior state department official, Jessica Lewis, who serves as assistant secretary for political affairs, and the Israel ambassador to the US, Michael Herzog.

The two-page 2021 agreement, which has received little media attention, formalized changes in the Leahy law and included a statement about how Israel has a “robust, independent and effective legal system, including its military justice system”. The US signed more than two dozen similar agreements with other countries at that time – including Greece, Jordan, Georgia, Ukraine and Latvia – but none contain language endorsing the other countries’ military justice systems.

Former officials who spoke to the Guardian said they did not know how the language came to be included in the US-Israel agreement, but speculated it was likely added by Israel.

The Guardian requested a comment on the matter from the Israeli embassy in Washington, including on the provenance of the statement contained in the agreement, but did not receive a response.

Tim Rieser, a longtime senior adviser to Leahy, who helped write the Leahy law in the 1990s, said the inclusion of the language was likely intended to help Israel avoid scrutiny under the Leahy law, because it suggests as a matter of fact that Israel’s military justice system is independent enough to address any alleged human rights violations.

“The language added to the US-Israel agreement, without any consultation with Congress, is factually inaccurate and wrongly suggests that the [Leahy] Law doesn’t need to be applied,” Rieser said.

Few organizations have been as critical of Israel’s military justice system than B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights group.

“The military law enforcement system is used by Israel as a whitewash mechanism whose purpose is to block any criticism of Israel’s and the army’s policies in the territories. The percentage of convictions of soldiers is close to zero, even for the most serious violations,” said Dror Sadot, B’Tselem spokesperson.

Paul, the former state department official who resigned from his post in protest against the Biden administration’s “blind support for one side”, said he had long argued internally that the US ought not to consider Israel’s military justice system as a “responsible functional justice system” when it comes to abuses.

“I think the track record is really one of slaps on the wrist, temporary demotions, and short term suspensions even for really serious violations,” said Paul.

Paul told the Guardian “numerous people”, including himself, raised concerns over the years inside the state department that the Leahy process “is not working” and that gross violations of human rights were occurring “without accountability”. Indeed, no Israeli unit has ever gotten to the point of being sanctioned under the Leahy law even though credible allegations of gross human rights violations exist.

Paul declined to name former colleagues and did not want to discuss specific cases that were reviewed by the forum, but said that typically, staff concerns about Israeli human rights violations were ultimately “killed” at what he described as the front office level or bureau leadership-level within several of the bureaus involved in the forum, including the Bureau of Human Rights (DRL).

Other cases that were reviewed by the ILVF, but where US officials ultimately declined to reach consensus and take action include: the killing of Sanad Salem al-Harbad, a Bedouin man who was allegedly shot twice in the back by Israeli police in March 2022; the killing of Ahmad Jamil Fahd, who was allegedly shot by police and left to bleed to death by a unit of undercover Israeli agents; the alleged assault in Israeli police custody of journalist Givara Budeiri; the 2020 killing of a 32-year-old unarmed autistic man Eyad al-Hallaq by Israeli police in East Jerusalem; the killing of a 15-year-old boy named Mohammed Hamayel; and the shooting of 16-year-old Palestinian Jana Kiswani.

For advocates of the Leahy law, like Rieser, the lack of accountability for the killing of Abu Akleh, the prominent Al Jazeera journalist, is particularly galling, and has been the subject of criticism by senior Democrats on Capitol Hill.

“If the US had been willing to apply the Leahy law in Israel the IDF would presumably have been more inclined to hold their soldiers accountable, which would have helped deter killings of civilians like Shireen Abu Akleh and many others, and what we are seeing today,” Rieser said. “Or else they would have faced a cut-off of US aid, which would have been a real black mark and a thorn in US-Israel relations.”

Abu Akleh was killed by a bullet that hit the back of her head while covering an Israeli operation in the West Bank city of Jenin. A CNN investigation found that there was no active combat or Palestinian militants near Abu Akleh in the moments before she was killed, and footage obtained by the network corroborated witness testimony that suggested Israeli forces had taken aim at the journalist.

The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) apologized for the killing last year but the military advocate general’s office in Israel said in a statement that it did not intend to pursue criminal charges or prosecutions of any of the soldiers involved.

In a July 2023 letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken, four Democratic senators – Chris Van Hollen, Leahy (now retired), Chris Murphy and Dick Durbin – criticized the Biden administration for not following through on earlier calls for an “independent, credible investigation”. In questions to the administration, the senators asked what, if any, steps the United States Security Coordinator (USSC), who conducted an independent forensic analysis of the bullet that killed Abu Akleh, took to try to establish who specifically shot her and why.

Echoing statements by the IDF, the USCC released a short statement that there was “no reason to believe that this was intentional but rather the result of tragic circumstances”. The state department has declined to publicly release a report into Abu Akleh’s death by USSC coordinator Lt Gen Michael Fenzel. Citing a senior US official, Axios reported last year that Fenzel’s report did not include any new findings or conclusions.

When the Leahy law was first passed in 1997, it was designed with Central America and Colombia in mind. The US was providing hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to combat narco-traffickers and insurgents, but human rights groups were documenting serious human rights abuses by Colombian military and police units. While the state department does not publicly announce when it targets specific foreign units, experts say they believe it has been effective in Central America, Colombia, Nepal, and other countries.

Israel, they say, is the outlier.

‘A disturbing number of reports’
Rieser said there is a long history of correspondence – from the George W Bush administration through to the Biden administration – between Leahy and successive secretaries of state seeking answers to why the Leahy law was not being implemented in cases involving killings of Palestinians.

In a May 2002 letter to then secretary Colin Powell, who served in the Bush administration, Leahy raised concerns that the Leahy law was not being applied to the Middle East.

In a January 2009 letter to then secretary Condoleezza Rice, Leahy expressed incredulity that the state department was “unaware” of a single incident involving the IDF that would trigger the Leahy law.

A month later, Leahy sent a new letter to then secretary Hillary Clinton, who was serving under the Obama administration. He attached copies of correspondents he had sent her predecessor.

A February 2016 letter from Leahy to then secretary of state John Kerry cited a “disturbing number of reports of possible gross violations of human rights by security forces in Israel and Egypt”, including “extrajudicial killings by Israeli military and police”.

An October 2017 letter to Rex Tillerson, who served as secretary of state under Donald Trump, queried what steps the US embassy in Israel was taking to ensure the Leahy law was being applied to the IDF.

Later, in a May 2018 letter from Leahy to then secretary of state Mike Pompeo, who served in the Trump administration, Leahy sought a Leahy law review of the shooting deaths of about 100 Palestinian protesters from Gaza who had been killed since March of that year. “If credible information exists to trigger the Leahy law regarding any Israeli unit and the Government of Israel is not taking effective steps to bring the individuals responsible to justice, such a unit is no longer eligible for US assistance,” Leahy wrote.

In a follow up letter in September, Leahy pushed for a “clear answer”, including whether the administration had ever sought the identity of the IDF units who shot the Palestinians. In another letter, sent by Leahy in December, he questioned how many times the US embassy had presented Israel with evidence of gross violations of human rights, and how many times those individuals were barred from receiving US assistance.

Several other letters from Leahy refer to gross violations of human rights by the IDF. None of the cases ever led to a unit being punished.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/us-supply-weapons-israel-alleged-abuses-human-rights
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 06:22 am
@izzythepush,
You know that rich, famous men do have groupies & idol-worshippers: women who mail themselves to them, would do anything to get close to them, who break into their houses, who use a night with a famous ‘star’ of some sort to get pregnant for a very lucrative bargaining chip in a court case…

We cannot pretend this doesn’t happen. Books are written about it.

That is a very small subset of women (and I’m guessing some men are into this).
It’s transactional.

____________

So many rape charges since #metoo.

I tend to doubt the veracity of rape accusations that spring up decades after the alleged event — when the accused is suddenly in the public arena (notably due to politics) and the accuser hadn’t spoken up or attempted to bring charges at the time of the alleged event.

And wasn’t a law changed to enable Trump’s prosecution? This multiplies my doubts of legit prosecution.

I’d applaud these constant legal attacks on Trump if all crooked politicians were also dragged through the courts to face their crimes.

But they a r e n o t.

izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 06:23 am
@Lash,
Trump has been found guilty of rape.

It has happened.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 06:27 am
@Lash,
As someone who considers Biden complicit in war crimes I have to say you're way too critical of him, and way too forgiving of Trump.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 06:34 am
@izzythepush,
Let me put it like this, Socialist groups in the UK don't spend all their time attacking the Labour party and its leader, not with the Tories in power.

Kier Starmer has received criticism, and rightly so, but about 80% of vitriol is directed towards Sunak.

In the 80s they didn't spend all their time criticising Neil Kinnock, not with Thatcher in charge.

I don't get that vibe from Lash.

Sorry, but I just don't.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 18 Jan, 2024 06:35 am
Pakistan has been very busy growing their nuclear stockpile of warheads & delivery systems.

Hoping they don’t want to rattle that saber.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.89 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 07:43:01