• Questy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s difficult to defend the idea that Biden has been trying to end the genocide. He’s had that power from day 1. If you give Israel a bullet, you have solid awareness that there is a good chance it will be used against a non-combatant. That’s hard reality. If Biden was not supportive of genocide he would place an embargo on the weapons being poured into the massacre. He also wouldn’t sanction the ICC when they attempted to call out the primary actors in the genocide. He has given enabling support to the campaign in multiple ways.

    Biden is not a good man as he is portrayed, he is complex obviously, but the reality is that Hitler still petted his dog and was nice to his friends and family. Biden should be joining Netanyahu at the Hague, not sabotaging democracy by being virtually un-electable while at the same time working to make it even more obvious that the international order is only there to punish certain war criminals.

    Anyway, I think the take is pretty on point.

    • Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Didn’t we have a whole impeachment about a president preventing arms that were allocated by Congress from going to their destination? Oh yeah that was Trump trying to get some election fuckery from Ukraine. Granted, the election aspect was another level on it but that is functionally the same thing you’re demanding Biden do which was already determined to not be ok. President doesn’t have that power so maybe instead of wondering why Biden isn’t fixing the thing all on his own, we can start (or continue if you were ever paying attention between presidential elections) pressuring and replacing the Congress critters that are actually approving the sale of arms to continue the genocide. Why does everyone keep getting big man deluded when we know for a fact that the president isn’t a king with total control?

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      He’s had that power from day 1

      Not as such, no. When congress appropriates funds, the president is legally obligated to disburse those funds for the purpose that they were appropriated for. This is a law, and it’s not something that’s up for debate. That was part of the underlying crime that Trump was first impeached for; he attempted to withhold funds corruptly. Could he have vetoed that? Sure. It also would have vetoed funding for Ukraine though. (And, just pointing out here that Trump would have vetoed assistance for Ukraine, while helping Israel kill more Palestinians faster.)

      You can–and should–condemn his rhetoric, because he has been supportive of Israel waging war in Gaza. But he’s also been working behind the scenes, trying to negotiate a peace that Hamas will accept, and that Israel will accept. Even when he’s supporting Israel in public, it’s been clear that he’s been working to negotiate a truce.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          He would need some kind of finding of fact in the US to support that, and that hasn’t happened AFAIK yet. The ICC has made that finding, but it wouldn’t be legally supportable to use that finding to withhold appropriated funding.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            You mean like our intelligence agencies finding Israel’s claims to be “low confidence”

            The literal second he tells the CIA to hand him the unedited file it’s over.

            • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              In fact the US is so NOT a member of the ICC that it’s currently federal law that if a US soldier was being held at the Hague, the US military would be obligated to invade The Netherlands in order to recover them

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        The Leahy Law and Foreign Assistance Act make sending that aid illegal, no matter how much Congress appropriates.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Leahy Law and Foreign Assistance Act

          Read up on that. There would need to be a finding of fact by the relevant US embassy and departments within the gov’t before this comes into play. Without that, that act is irrelevant to Biden attempting to withhold aid.

          Could Biden direct the ambassador and relevant department heads to investigate so that he could legally withhold aid? Yes, he could. Should he? Also yes. But it’s not something the president can do unilaterally. Despite SCOTUS’ attempt to make it so, the president was never intended to be the sole sovereign of the country.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Oh? Then what authority did he have to withhold the plane bombs?

            This is student loans all over again. You guys are going to shout that he can’t do that right up until he does it.

            The Leahy Law in text -

            No assistance shall be furnished under this Act or the Arms Export Control Act to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.

            All he has to do is open a fucking newspaper. You’d have us believe he is deaf, dumb, and blind.