Fuck yeah we are
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
122 points (89.6% liked)
World News
39105 readers
2256 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So was South Africa aiding other war criminals and countries genociding a neighbor just like a total whoopsies that doesn’t apply to them too?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66238766.amp
I get this is only from one minister, and I’m not going to really pay attention to it, but come on.
Whataboutism?
No question.
Yes, but what does it mean if the USA is not a participant of the ICC? FAFO? Maybe it needs to happen.
It means as much as it does for Isreal who also doesn’t participate in the ICC.
Technically, any American who is convicted (I’d imagine it could be President Biden and Anthony Blinken who they would try to prosecute) cannot travel to ICC countries otherwise they’d be arrested.
Even if they were tried and convicted nobody would do anything about it.
Can you imagine the shit show that would ensue if someone tried to arrest the US President as he visits their country.
Do it.
The official position of the US is that they would retaliate, possibly by attacking the country holding their officials prisoner.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
This is because the US follows the ethical principle of "rules for thee, not for me".
Do it, be hilarious. An African country threatening to arrest a US president. Please please do this.
Setting aside (but stating) my stance that Israel's policy of collective punishment against innocent Palestinian civilians is completely wrong and thus unconditional support from the US government for Israeli actions is also wrong - South Africa isn't a good faith actor here.
What was South Africa's official position last summer, as a signatory to the Rome Statute that established the ICC and thus a nation obligated to arrest those with an ICC arrest warrant that step foot in their territory, about honoring their obligation to execute an arrest on the ICC warrant issued for Putin for war crimes should he step foot in their territory? It almost seems like they're trying to distract from something or are maybe working towards mutual goals with some other entity (or entities) behind the scenes... Hmm.
July 19, 2023 - South Africa says Putin will skip a Johannesburg summit next month because of his ICC arrest warrant
It ended months of speculation over whether Putin would travel to South Africa, which is a signatory to the Rome treaty that formed the International Criminal Court and therefore has the obligation to arrest the Russian leader if he sets foot on South African territory.
I'm aware of how it turned out, but, for the sake of clarity, I was speaking about a month prior to that outcome where the President of South Africa made it clear that he would now allow Putin to be arrested in the event that Putin chose to attend in person. Assuming his statements were straight forward, I even get the logical underpinnings of what he was saying here - it just seems an odd contrast for the SA government to turn around and champion the ICC months later. It's hard to take a country that recently publicly pragmatized away the need to uphold the legitimacy of ICC authority seriously when they're now using the ICC as a threat. Another country would be better to lead the charge here on behalf of the ICC.
South Africa also failed to arrest Omar Al Bashir, who is charged with genocide by the ICC.
It was very clear from the beginning that South Africa would not only be breaking international law by allowing Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to fly out of a military base but would be going against its own courts.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
South African International Relations and Cooperation Minister Naledi Pandor affirmed US House Speaker Mike Johnson’s prediction that the United States would be next if the International Criminal Court (ICC) is allowed to prosecute Israeli leadership, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) reported on Friday.
Pandor’s comments were addressed to an audience at a mosque in Cape Town, South Africa, MEMRI noted.
In the MEMRI video, the South African minister donned a black and white checkered keffiyeh and stood in front of a Palestinian flag.
During a news conference last month, Johnson told reporters that “if the ICC is allowed to threaten Israel’s leader, we know that America will be next.”
Speaking to the press in Tel Aviv, US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) echoed Johnson's warning.
Pandor noted that a group of 140 international lawyers are currently working on a class action suit against non-Israelis, including South Africans, who have been serving in Israel’s military.
The original article contains 336 words, the summary contains 156 words. Saved 54%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
You and what army?
I guess I need to explain this for the down voters.
For the same reason the security council includes the most powerful nations on Earth, as permanent security members, who can veto anything... At the global level military capability is the main factor. ICC is a fun rule of law experiment, and it's a great way for the powerful to punish those falling out of favor, but the ICC cannot be used to punish the powerful.
Nobody is going to start a world war, to enforce ICC rule of law. That's exactly why nuclear power's have veto power on the security council.
There is no military attached to ICC decisions, only signatories, who will enforce it as its convenient.
This is a big reason countries don't sign the ICC, they're not willing to commit themselves to the jurisdiction of a third party. Unwilling to let someone else commit them to military action, which arresting a head of state would be a de facto cause belli for war.
Look at how much fun Canada had when they arrested a Huawei executive on behalf of the United States.... They sure as shit won't be doing that again any time soon.
Well she did declare jihad in the article. So presumably some will come.
Sanctions against America are enforced by the only country that can defeat America: itself. And if that doesn’t work, maybe like a unified Taliban and Viet Cong coalition? I’m not sure. We’ll cross that bridge when we get there.