18 December 2023

"Own-goal War Crime"?

We've all heard of an "own goal". What about an "own-goal war crime"?


Israel managed to, as a headline said, “While attempting to commit a war crime, instead committed a tragedy”. That might be a bit harsh, but only a bit. Three Israeli hostages managed, somehow, to approach the Israeli lines, shirtless and waving a makeshift white flag, should “help”. They were gunned down and killed.  

 

Yes, it is a tragedy. But this cannot be the only such case. The difference is that this suggests that there have been other events just like it, but happening to Palestinians, who seeking protection or surrender, were probably gunned down by Israeli soldiers bent on revenge against any and all Palestinians. Certainly, there were cases in Iraq and Afghanistan of “unarmed civilians” pretending to surrender while carrying explosives with the goal of reaching enemy lines and killing themselves and occupiers at the same time.


These killings do not happen in a void. This happens when the opponent has been dehumanised and when, through actions and/or words, leadership makes it perfectly clear that the committing of war crimes is acceptable.

 

But if we are to believe Israel’s own statements, these were shirtless individuals waving a white flag. If they were combatants, then it was a war crime to murder them in the act of surrendering. If they were civilians seeking protection, then murdering them was a war crime. If they were shirtless, then the “easy” thing to do would be to allow them to approach to a safe distance and have them lie down until it was safe enough to determine that they actually were unarmed and not carrying explosives or other weapons. That would also have given the three the chance to speak to their compatriots in Hebrew or in terms that would have been understood by the Israeli soldiers. 

 

What happened was a war crime, plain and simple. It will be “investigated” by the very criminals who have ordered or condoned such war crimes, and it will be found that a tragic mistake occurred, so sad.  

 

But none of the other cases will be investigated, not by the Israeli authorities or by any other authority that would be recognised. Israel doesn’t work that way, and it is not held to any international norms that other countries are held to. War crimes committed by instruments of the state of Israel are ignored, and the state suffers no consequences, such as the curtailment of visas, sanctions, or even the slightest reduction of “aid” money that will be used to bolster exactly those instruments of the state that are perpetrating the war crimes. 

 

The double standard is sickening. 

 

But again, to say so is to invite being labelled “antisemitic” and potentially to suffer other consequences. Authoritarian states, and in this I include the United States, are very good at not-so-subtle coercion and restriction of free thought or speech. The easiest way is to label someone and then ignore that you did. The label will stick with just enough people to become a stigma, a stain not easily washed off. 

 

Meanwhile, those in power, in fear of being labelled, continue to vote for money and protection to and for a state that flagrantly violates international norms, engaging in ethnic cleansing on a massive scale. And those in power need the stigma of “antisemitism” to be available to stick to any opponent as a way of negatively labelling those who would hold them to account for their support of war crimes and genocide. 

 

What happened in Gaza is made possible by proven absolute "immunity" and the ongoing demonstrations of active support for the instruments of the state of Israel by those who fund that state. 


The instruments of the state of Israel engage in war crimes because they know they can. This time they committed a war crime against themselves, and even that will go unpunished.


13 December 2023

Jack Smith & SCOTUS: Heads Trump loses, Tails Trump loses

Jack Smith has gone directly to the Supreme Court to test Trump's claims of immunity as President and after leaving office. This is a two-edged sword for Trump. If he succeeds and a bogus SCOTUS grants him immunity, then there are no legal boundaries to stop Biden from declaring Trump a danger to the nation and locking him up, denying him bail, and throwing away the key. After all, Biden will have absolute immunity under the Trumpian doctrine.


And there seems to be plenty of evidence to suggest that Trump has committed #TRE45ON on a massive scale, not least from his closed-door session with his handler in Helsinki, his attempt to overthrow the Consitution, and most recently with his "handling" of highly classified documents.


And if the SCOTUS upholds the idea that no person is above the law and that Presidents are not kings, then Trump is truly screwed.  The court cases in federal and state courts will go ahead, and he will effectively be out of delaying tactics in at least one or two of the cases against him. Owning a judge in the Mar a Lago case may help delay things, but not forever. The Georgia case will go ahead, and that is the most scary one for him, as even if he Is elected, he cannot pardon himself for a state-level conviction, and in Georgia, even the governor cannot pardon someone until they have served at least five years of their sentence.  


But imagine if the SCOTUS declares that Trump does have immunity? The gloves can then come off. Trump thinks that this will be his "get out of jail free" card. Instead, it is his "go directly to jail, do not collect $200" card.


So the SCOTUS finds that a sitting President is above the law and can never be tried. Sounds great. Biden declares Trump an “enemy combatant” as they did with José Padilla (also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir). Locks him up as a “material witness” to the events of January 6, 2021, and then basically throws away the key. And all of that done “legally”, and not able to be challenged because, well, because of Presidential Immunity. 


Now, the Pedilla case was probably one of the worst abuses of legal authority against an American citizen. He was arrested on American soil, deprived of any of his constitutional rights, and effectively locked up until he dies or serves out a 21-year sentence imposed as retribution for daring to assert his rights. Oh, and for being poor, Hispanic, and, worst of all, a convert to Islam. Seem that all of these factors make the mirroring of his fate on Trump all the more attractive.


The wording from the Padilla Wikipedia entry (accessed today) could be used with a few edits. 


--------------------------------------------


On June 9, 2002, two days before District Court Judge Michael Mukasey was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Padilla under the material witness warrant, President George Bush issued an order to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant." Padilla was transferred to a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina, without any notice to his attorney or family. The order "legally justified" the detention using the 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, (formally "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution" (Public Law 107-40)) and opined that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified as an enemy combatant. (This opinion is based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Ex parte Quirin, a case involving the detention of eight German spies operating in the United States while working for Nazi Germany during World War II.)[16] 

 

According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Padilla's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons: 

  

    1. Padilla was "closely associated with al Qaeda," a designation for loosely knit insurgent groups sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war"; 
    2. he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism"; 
    3. he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future terrorist attacks; and 
    4. he was a continuing threat to American security. 

--------------------------------------------


The potential Trump Wikipedia entry: 


On December 24, 2023, two days before District Court Judge Anyone was to issue a ruling on the validity of continuing to hold Trump under the material witness warrant (to the January 6, 2021 events), President Joe Biden issued an order to Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III to detain Trump as an "enemy combatant." Trump was transferred to a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina, without any notice to his attorney or family. The order "legally justified" the detention using the 2001 AUMF passed in the wake of September 11, 2001, (formally "The Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution" (Public Law 107-40)) and opined that a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil can be classified as an enemy combatant. (This opinion is based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Ex parte Quirin, a case involving the detention of eight German spies operating in the United States while working for Nazi Germany during World War II.)[16] 

  

According to the text of the ensuing decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Trump's detention as an "enemy combatant" (pursuant to the President's order) was based on the following reasons: 

  

    1. Trump was "closely associated with Vladimir Putin," a designation for the leader of a nation sharing common ideals and tactics, "with which the United States is at war"; 
    2. he had engaged in "war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism"; 
    3. he had intelligence that could assist the United States in warding off future attacks; and 
    4. he was a continuing threat to American security. 

 --------------------------------------------


There. See how easy that would be. And all that needs to happen to make that real is for the SCOTUS to agree with Trump that he has immunity for any acts while or after being president. 


Bring it on.