That’s the speech he gave at the White House, not the speech he gave in Israel, which is what the article is referencing. Here’s the transcript.
Edit: Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with the lawyers with the Center for Constitutional Rights. Here’s their legal brief. IANAL, but generally arguing semantics with a legal center doesn’t strengthen your case.
If so then the article is wrong, because “unwavering” does not appear in that speech. Neither does “unconditional”.
However, “unequivocally” does:
United States unequivocally stands for the protection of civilian life during conflict, and I grieve, I truly grieve for the families who are killed or wounded by this tragedy. And people of Gaza need food, water, medicine, shelter. Today, I asked the Israeli Cabinet I met with for some time this morning to agree to the delivery of lifesaving humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza …
What sets us apart from the terrorists as we believe in the fundamental dignity of every human life; Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, Jew, Muslim, Christian, everyone, you can’t give up what makes you who you are. If you give that up, then the terrorists win and we can never let them win…
that’s why as hard as it is, we must keep pursuing peace. Must keep pursuing a path so that Israel and the Palestinian people can both live safely in security, and dignity and in peace. For me, that means that two state solution. We must keep working for Israel’s greater integration with his neighbors, these attacks and only strengthen my commitment and determination and my will to get that done.
Again, it is irrelevant. Maybe wear a tie when you argue this case to the International Criminal Court. Prepare a PowerPoint presentation listing your arguments in this thread. Use graphics, but not too many. You don’t want it to distract from your cause. And be on time, you don’t want to make the court wait.
I’m not worried about the International Criminal Court. The ICC isn’t The Intercept, so the ICC doesn’t twist words or invent quotes to fit anti-American prejudices. The ICC judges people by what they actually said, and it’s clear that Biden didn’t say what you wish he said.
My wishes are immaterial. The lawyers have made their case to the world. Find their emails and tell them what you told me. I would say good luck, but to be honest, I don’t think your argument is strong.
You’re dreaming. There are no lawyers on this case. There isn’t even a case.
After all, the Dutch Prime Minister has expressed the same views as Biden. If holding that opinion was a war crime, The Hague could arrest Mark Rutte within 45 minutes.
@FlowVoid of course you’re not worried. The US doesn’t recognise the ICC, and would not submit to its judgement.
I don’t really get why you are arguing with @TokenBoomer about what Biden did or didn’t say, though. One person’s words are not really what this warning is about. It’s about the actions taken by the US government and military under the Biden administration:
Under international law, the crime of genocide implicates not only those carrying out the crime, but also those complicit in it, including by “aiding and abetting.”
I wouldn’t worry about US actions even if they did recognize the ICC.
“Aid and abet” has a specific legal definition. It means doing something in the hopes that a crime will succeed, or encouraging someone to commit a crime.
So for instance, if you sold your car to someone who used it to rob a bank then you wouldn’t necessarily have aided and abetted the robbery. A prosecutor would have to prove that you sold the car because you wanted the buyer to use it in a bank robbery.
I think it’s pretty clear, by word and action, that the US does not want to see a genocide in Gaza. To the extent that they are providing support to Israel, they are actively encouraging Israel to use it only for legal activities, i.e. destroying Hamas, not killing civilians unnecessarily.
I can see your point. I think time will tell, but the lawyers would probably right to give them a warning even if you turn out to be correct.
Genocide is comprised of thousands of actions. The US has many people involved on the one hand - and also a very efficient, secretive surveillance network on the other, so if they do provide material support to genocidaires there would be inevitable questions about who knew what when etc.
All moot because of the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (aka Hague Invasion Act) of course.
That’s the speech he gave at the White House, not the speech he gave in Israel, which is what the article is referencing. Here’s the transcript.
Edit: Your argument isn’t with me, it’s with the lawyers with the Center for Constitutional Rights. Here’s their legal brief. IANAL, but generally arguing semantics with a legal center doesn’t strengthen your case.
If so then the article is wrong, because “unwavering” does not appear in that speech. Neither does “unconditional”.
However, “unequivocally” does:
Again, it is irrelevant. Maybe wear a tie when you argue this case to the International Criminal Court. Prepare a PowerPoint presentation listing your arguments in this thread. Use graphics, but not too many. You don’t want it to distract from your cause. And be on time, you don’t want to make the court wait.
I’m not worried about the International Criminal Court. The ICC isn’t The Intercept, so the ICC doesn’t twist words or invent quotes to fit anti-American prejudices. The ICC judges people by what they actually said, and it’s clear that Biden didn’t say what you wish he said.
My wishes are immaterial. The lawyers have made their case to the world. Find their emails and tell them what you told me. I would say good luck, but to be honest, I don’t think your argument is strong.
You’re dreaming. There are no lawyers on this case. There isn’t even a case.
After all, the Dutch Prime Minister has expressed the same views as Biden. If holding that opinion was a war crime, The Hague could arrest Mark Rutte within 45 minutes.
@FlowVoid of course you’re not worried. The US doesn’t recognise the ICC, and would not submit to its judgement.
I don’t really get why you are arguing with @TokenBoomer about what Biden did or didn’t say, though. One person’s words are not really what this warning is about. It’s about the actions taken by the US government and military under the Biden administration:
I wouldn’t worry about US actions even if they did recognize the ICC.
“Aid and abet” has a specific legal definition. It means doing something in the hopes that a crime will succeed, or encouraging someone to commit a crime.
So for instance, if you sold your car to someone who used it to rob a bank then you wouldn’t necessarily have aided and abetted the robbery. A prosecutor would have to prove that you sold the car because you wanted the buyer to use it in a bank robbery.
I think it’s pretty clear, by word and action, that the US does not want to see a genocide in Gaza. To the extent that they are providing support to Israel, they are actively encouraging Israel to use it only for legal activities, i.e. destroying Hamas, not killing civilians unnecessarily.
Thanks, that’s a clear viewpoint.
I can see your point. I think time will tell, but the lawyers would probably right to give them a warning even if you turn out to be correct.
Genocide is comprised of thousands of actions. The US has many people involved on the one hand - and also a very efficient, secretive surveillance network on the other, so if they do provide material support to genocidaires there would be inevitable questions about who knew what when etc.
All moot because of the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (aka Hague Invasion Act) of course.