Politics

1025 readers

1 users here now

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.

founded 2 years ago

The Biden Interview: The President Talks About the Supreme Court, Threats to Democracy and Trump’s Vow to Exact Retribution (www.propublica.org)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In a sit-down conversation with ProPublica, Biden discusses Kevin McCarthy’s “terrible bargain,” the fear of change that drives threats to democracy and the Supreme Court’s need for an ethics policy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I had no issue with clinton and obama. I still consider obama to be the best president of my lifetime. All the same he should really be the low bar for president. I often wish we had more of a parlimentary system. I think if we had the examples of today the founding fathers would have based congress more on modern parliments.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I will never label "best President of my lifetime" the guy who let war criminals walk and then legalized and codified some of the worst aspects of the War on Terror.

Why is Donald Trump walking free? Because we couldn't/wouldn't even begin to prosecute war criminals.

Milquetoast Obama letting war criminals walk literally set the stage for this. You don't get to be shocked about the kid-gloves treatment for Trump after knowing "the best President of your lifetime" chose to not prosecute war criminals because it "might appear partisan" or some dumb shit. It's literally the same dumb hand-wringing we get with Trump today. We are stuck with Trump because Obama didn't have the fucking balls to prosecute war criminals.

Why are they scared to prosecute a former President? Because we have refused to do it again and again when it matters.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Your are not taking into account who is competing against. Name a better president and be ready to list all their ills. Honestly the thing that is highest on my obama issues is the opposite of what you list which is his treatment of snowden.

[–] baronvonj 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

After the Trump and Biden administrations, it should be clear that the President is not who should decide what prosecutions the Dept. of Justice will pursue. That lies on the Attorney General. Also as another poster suggested in the other thread on the Biden interview, international war crimes should be pushed and protected by the ICC.

Edit: You may also be pleased to learn that Trump is, in fact, facing both state and federal criminal indictments of more than 90 felonies from financial fraud to election interference.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

international war crimes should be pushed and protected by the ICC.

Of which the US is not a signatory.

And they wrote a law basically admitting they would invade The Hague to prevent any US politicians or soldiers being prosecuted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act

The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Act authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the President to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of The Hague, where the ICC is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.

The bill was introduced by U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (Republican from North Carolina) and U.S. Representative Tom DeLay (Republican from Texas), as an amendment to the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States (H.R. 4775). The amendment (S.Amdt 3597) was passed 75–19 by the US Senate, with 30 Democrats and 45 Republicans voting in support. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 2, 2002.

The US sure sounds like a place full of lawless motherfuckers that only serve to protect themselves.

Laws like this, where they basically refuse any sort of accountability to the international community, are literally why the International Criminal Court exists. Because it's way too easy for governments to just write laws that say "What we did wasn't illegal, because we wrote this law that made it legal."

What a lawless hellhole.

[–] baronvonj 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Precisely why it should be the ICC prosecuting. If a US official or dignitary was apprehended abroad and taken to the ICC to face charges the US would be forced to show it's hand on the matter, then progress can happen in whatever manner is necessary from there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Agreed, my point was simply that the US isn't party to the ICC, and has no intent to be, precisely because they don't want it validly turned against them.