US files war crime charges against Russians accused of torturing an American in the Ukraine invasion : ukraine

[–] FluffyPotato 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Hasn't Russia tortured like every pow at this point? Why is this special?

[–] PRUSSIA_x86 24 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They have more room to work legally, since he was an American

[–] FluffyPotato 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I guess the US has more luck running a case where they have access to one side at least but it's not like this does anything as the US has no power to charge Russian citizens not in the US. Like this would sound more meaningful if the US worked with international institutions for this like the International Criminal Court in Hague for example.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Well the person does not have to be in the US merely in a country that has an extradition treaty, is willing to extradite for a price in the game of geopolitics, or the US thinks it can perform a rendition.

In any way it is also a signal to the world. Do t forget about Ukraine and the Russians are doing terrible things there.

It probably also helps pressure the GOP to put forward a vote for aid to Ukraine. If they don't they don't care about Russians torturing Americans. And that's not an easy thing to spin for the GOP spindoctors.

[–] galloog1 1 points 7 months ago

The US does not recognize their authority due to judgements against US citizens concerning war crimes that the US is not signatory to. It's an important legal distinction.

[–] Zoboomafoo 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

He's an American citizen

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Four Russian men accused of torturing an American during the invasion of Ukraine have been charged with war crimes in a case that’s the first of its kind, the Justice Department announced on Wednesday.

The American told federal agents who had traveled to Ukraine last year as part of an investigation that the Russian soldiers had abducted him, stripped him naked, pointed a gun at his head and badly beaten him, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said.

Garland has been outspoken on war crimes in Ukraine since Russia’s invasion began in February 2022, and the Justice Department assigned federal prosecutors to examine the potential of bringing criminal charges.

Independent human rights experts backed by the United Nations have said they’ve found continued evidence of war crimes committed by Russian forces, including torture that ended in death and rape of women aged up to 83 years old.

The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in March for war crimes, accusing him of personal responsibility for the abductions of children from Ukraine.

The U.S. and Russia do not have an extradition treaty, but the Justice Department has brought repeated criminal cases against Russian nationals, most notably for cyber crimes and including for interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The original article contains 792 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[+] gmtom -27 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Lmao the hypocrisy. How many US soldiers have been tried for the torture they committed.

e: so when Russia accuses Ukraine of war crimes, you guys take that very seriously right? Because to do otherwise would be whattaboutism, right.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument. ... the tactic was "an old Soviet trick". ... "Kremlinologists of recent years call this 'whataboutism' because the Kremlin's various mouthpieces deployed the technique so exhaustively against the U.S." ... Russian whataboutism was "part of the national psyche". ... "Moscow's geopolitical whataboutism skills are unmatched"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (3 children)

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

More specifically whataboutism.

It's so prevalent in Russian propaganda, an almost Pavlovian response any time Russia's criticised, that anyone still using it when Russia comes up, is either an idiot or pro-Russian.

[+] gmtom -14 points 7 months ago (3 children)

It's not whataboutism. It's pointing out that since the US doesn't respect international criminal courts, then they don't really have a moral standing to try and hold Russians accountable in them.

There's a reason we have the word hypocrisy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It’s not whataboutism ... There’s a reason we have the word hypocrisy.

It literally is. Wikipedia:

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument. ... The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy

[–] gmtom 0 points 7 months ago

Yes, people can claim they are calling out hypocrisy to justify actually whattaboutism, but that doesn't automatically mean any claim of hypocrisy = whataboutism.

The key line from your own quote is.

which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified

[–] Stovetop 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Cool, so it's okay to just condone torture then.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The worst bit wasn't the Russian war crimes. It was the American hypocrisy! /s

[–] gmtom -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean I literally never said that, but go ahead and jerk each other off over it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You may not have expressively said that, but literally in every post or news article about Russian war crimes, there's always at least one person pointing at NATO and in particular US war crimes.

No doubt did that happen, yet you don't see Russian state attorneys trying the US in court. And they can, international criminal law can be ruled in in any country of the world. Now why don't they or the Chinese do it? For one, because they don't want to poke the US too much. But if that isn't the case, the only explanation left is that they don't want to be open to the possible repercussions of being held to whataboutism themselves.

No why does it happen in the US or NATO countries? Simply because the executive power holds very little sway on the legal proceedings of the attorney General offices, at least when compared to Authotarian countries such as Russia or China.

[–] gmtom 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Honestly my point isn't "but America war crimes too!!!!" Which would probably be fair to call whattaboutism, but pointing out that if americ adoesnt recognise other countries courts or international courts, then why should they expect Russia to care about what their courts say?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No one expects Russia to accept any foreign rulings. However as the Nuremberg trials proved, acceptance can be enforced by the stronger party. And in the likely case this doesn't happen, the court ruling can mean a lot less foreign diplomacy leeway for the US government when it comes to dealing with Russia. Also a US ruling would extend to every country that has extradition treaties with the US. So anyone proven guilty would effectively be a fugitive in a third and the most powerful and influential third of the world. Look at what the international criminal courts ruling already caused. Putin didn't attend the meeting of the BRICS+ countries in South-Africa. The same would go for Brazil who also accept den-Haag.

Even if the leadership of a country would like for any proven criminal to appear in their country and would like the justice department to not move, in any and every democratic country, they couldn't without causing a major breach of constitution.

Anyhow, trials like these must, without fault, be spotless examples of correct rulings, for there to be any resemblance of unpolitical justice

[–] gmtom 0 points 7 months ago

Fair point well made.

[–] gmtom -3 points 7 months ago

I literally never said that, but sure, put words in my mouth if that makes you feel better.

[–] Zoboomafoo 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They aren't trying to hold those 4 Russians accountable in international courts, they're charging them in American courts

[–] gmtom 0 points 7 months ago

Fair point but that just raises the obvious point that Americans would never recognise the authority of a foreign court, even of their allies (like the UK for example) so do they really expect Russia to respect their ruling?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

Don't feel too bad, though. Of all the logical fallacies possible, it's surely the most-fun to say.

[+] gmtom -14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I need you to understand that pointing out blatant hypocrisy isn't actually a logical fallacy, despite what reddit has told you.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Given how the first reaction of Russia apologists, is so often whataboutism, so much so that the wikipedia article on whataboutism literally mentions it being part of the Russian psyche, anyone who's first reaction to an article on Russian war crimes, is "what about America?" is pathetic.

Oh, and I notice you doubled down, edited your comment above and decided to add some "What About Ukraine?" and accused people here of being hypocrites too. Didn't work the first time? Try it again.

Please understand. I'm not saying you're a Russian troll. People who inadvertently propagandize without realizing it are often called useful idiots. But I'm not calling you a useful idiot either. I don't think anyone would conceivably think your comment was useful.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

idk if that counts: Former Commander of Naval Station Guantanamo Bay Sentenced to Prison US soldier jailed for seven years over murders of Afghan civilians American found guilty of torture in Iraq

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

It's important to self regulate and prosecute wrong doing of your own people, but justice requires accountability to your accusers, those wronged. Ideally, these work in concert.