> People seem to think there’s some clever little gap between war crime law, US domestic law, and human rights law that mean a government can just kill people who pose no immediate threat and without any establishment of guilt
International human rights law is back to being an aspirational ideal. Every one of the world's great powers have explicitly rejected it. (So have most of regional powers.)
I'd love it if Trump, Xi and Putin could be hauled in front of an international tribunal for the atrocities they've committed. But it isn't happening. Not to them. Nor to Netanyahu, Kim, Khamenei, Modi, Lukashenko or MBS.
At the end of the day, the only thing that can hold Trump and the U.S. military accountable is U.S. law. Bickering over what crime is committed under that law might be teidous. But it is a legitimate activity that could bring real consequences in a way bringing up what a former ICC prosecutor thinks does not.
> All of it is nonsense
This is lazy. Top of the thread. Real debate happening around whether war crimes were committed. Dismissing that as "nonsense" enables and implicitly supports the illegal behaviour.
No argument about the enforceability of it. US law actually isn't even sufficient. The US body politic has to do it.
> Real debate happening around whether war crimes were committed
But the debate isn't about whether war crimes were committed. The debate is whether war crime law is relevant. And that debate is endless for the reason I just explained: the Trump admin will play the shell game of defining the relevant legal framework as X when it suits them, then Y when it suits them, then Z when it suits them, despite the fact that X Y and Z are mutually exclusive of each other.
Are they a stateless vessel? Are they narco-terrorists? Are they drug smugglers? Are they foreign invaders? Are they agents of the Venezuelan government?
Well, all and none of the above, depending on who is asking for what reason.
This is legal nihilism and Schmittian Decisionism. The administration has declared itself unbound by law altogether. All that matters is calling it a violation, collecting evidence, and when political powers shift, holding the relevant parties to account. Under a non-nihilistic/decisionist legal framework, there will be no shortage of chargeable offenses.
That body politic remains, for now, grounded in voters. The number of calls Congressmen receive in the coming days about this issue will determine whether it's taken seriously.
> the debate isn't about whether war crimes were committed. The debate is whether war crime law is relevant
First step in any court opinion is the establishment of juridiction. That's important here.
Even in this thread, we have folks arguing war crime statute doesn't apply. That appears to be false. It's an example of why debating and establishing that this law is relevant in the popular discourse is important.
> Are they a stateless vessel? Are they narco-terrorists? Are they drug smugglers? Are they foreign invaders? Are they agents of the Venezuelan government?
Another reason to focus on U.S. law. I don't believe these distinctions matter under it.
International human rights law is back to being an aspirational ideal. Every one of the world's great powers have explicitly rejected it. (So have most of regional powers.)
I'd love it if Trump, Xi and Putin could be hauled in front of an international tribunal for the atrocities they've committed. But it isn't happening. Not to them. Nor to Netanyahu, Kim, Khamenei, Modi, Lukashenko or MBS.
At the end of the day, the only thing that can hold Trump and the U.S. military accountable is U.S. law. Bickering over what crime is committed under that law might be teidous. But it is a legitimate activity that could bring real consequences in a way bringing up what a former ICC prosecutor thinks does not.
> All of it is nonsense
This is lazy. Top of the thread. Real debate happening around whether war crimes were committed. Dismissing that as "nonsense" enables and implicitly supports the illegal behaviour.