While I don't disagree with your criticism of the Trump Gaza recommendations, I would be remiss to let your comments about international law just go by. Neither the U.S. nor Israel is a signatory to the establishment of the International Court of Justice and that court has no jurisdiction over either of them. The reality is, of course, that there really is no such thing as intentional law apart from agreements and treaties. The Nuremberg tribunal was the law of the victors, not law in the formal sense.
Actually, the comment applies to both. The U.S. withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ in 1986. You are correct that I was referring to the ICC instead of the ICJ.
In either event, the point I'm making has nothing to do with whether or not the U.S. can or will be held accountable for crimes: we all know that when it comes to law, the U.S. position is "good for thee but not for me." The point is to document it, in the same way and for the same reasons that Trump's crimes should be documented despite his immunity from the law. I think with all my talk about Andrew Jackson's "you and what army" that I've been pretty clear about my low expectations that Trump can be held to account by the courts any more than the U.S. can.
The only real difference between Edward Big Balls and past Podestas is the way they old guard did things in the background, stealthily and slowly. These new guys are so full of themselves that they not only are doing too much too soon too openly, they want to be praised for it by the MAGA faithful. The old guard knew better than to overshoot the mark so early, and to do a better job of covering up their valorization of wealth with platitudes.
While I don't disagree with your criticism of the Trump Gaza recommendations, I would be remiss to let your comments about international law just go by. Neither the U.S. nor Israel is a signatory to the establishment of the International Court of Justice and that court has no jurisdiction over either of them. The reality is, of course, that there really is no such thing as intentional law apart from agreements and treaties. The Nuremberg tribunal was the law of the victors, not law in the formal sense.
s
I think you mean they're not signatories to the International Criminal Court. The ICJ is embedded in the UN charter.
Actually, the comment applies to both. The U.S. withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ in 1986. You are correct that I was referring to the ICC instead of the ICJ.
In either event, the point I'm making has nothing to do with whether or not the U.S. can or will be held accountable for crimes: we all know that when it comes to law, the U.S. position is "good for thee but not for me." The point is to document it, in the same way and for the same reasons that Trump's crimes should be documented despite his immunity from the law. I think with all my talk about Andrew Jackson's "you and what army" that I've been pretty clear about my low expectations that Trump can be held to account by the courts any more than the U.S. can.
The only real difference between Edward Big Balls and past Podestas is the way they old guard did things in the background, stealthily and slowly. These new guys are so full of themselves that they not only are doing too much too soon too openly, they want to be praised for it by the MAGA faithful. The old guard knew better than to overshoot the mark so early, and to do a better job of covering up their valorization of wealth with platitudes.