You’d have said the same thing yesterday about a trans woman being elected to the Alabama state house.
A year ago you’d have said the same thing about a Democrat winning a Texas Senate seat and a progressive Muslim who’s unapologetically pro trans and M4A winning one in Michigan.
Two or three years ago, you’d have laughed in the face of anyone claiming that a huge majority would be against continuing to fund the West’s favorite fascist apartheid state, let alone a Democratic Socialist anti-zionist Muslim progressive being the Mayor of New York, the most zionist city outside of said apartheid ethnostate.
Guess what: sometimes,when your attitude ISN’T automatic defeatism, things CAN change for the better.
I agree with @Madison420@lemmy.world the likelihood of this policy changing anytime soon is nil.
I mean, it would be nice to change it, but count on it.
Fatalism is nice and all, and I fall into myself a good deal …
… but if ever there was a moment to believe that it at least might be possible to wrest control of the ship of state from these goddamned corrupt pedophile war mongers, it’d be now.
How many voted-in politicians regularly commit war crimes?
Not many, but they have been known to tell other people to, on their behalf.
Partially agree to it, the ICC, not full ICJ jurisdiction for every member of the US government.
Everybody in DoD is subject to it, and then define a mechanism where if a DoD official is asked or ordered to do something that could make them liable to be sent to the Hague, theres a mechanism for instantaneous security declassification and emergency presentation to Congress, that also permits the order to be stayed untill voted on by both chambers as a legitimate or illegitimate order, also simultaneously voting on impeaching and removing the offending politician(s).
Thus, it ain’t a politician directly voting to potentially fuck themselves, and it isn’t a total … relinquishing of US sovereign authority.
Something like that.
Some kind of mechanism like this would also augment what the War Powers Act tries to do but does not actually do well at all. Starting a war of aggression is a war crime.
Then change the goddamned policy.
Won’t happen. Politicians don’t want their feet to the flame so it’ll stay.
You’d have said the same thing yesterday about a trans woman being elected to the Alabama state house.
A year ago you’d have said the same thing about a Democrat winning a Texas Senate seat and a progressive Muslim who’s unapologetically pro trans and M4A winning one in Michigan.
Two or three years ago, you’d have laughed in the face of anyone claiming that a huge majority would be against continuing to fund the West’s favorite fascist apartheid state, let alone a Democratic Socialist anti-zionist Muslim progressive being the Mayor of New York, the most zionist city outside of said apartheid ethnostate.
Guess what: sometimes,when your attitude ISN’T automatic defeatism, things CAN change for the better.
I agree with @Madison420@lemmy.world the likelihood of this policy changing anytime soon is nil.
I mean, it would be nice to change it, but count on it.
No I wouldn’t. Don’t put words in my mouth especially if they’re wrong. Aside from that it’s a wildly different situation as no one risks prison time.
No again, I would not have.
Wrong yet again but fuck it you must know me better than me huh?
Sometimes your attitude is based solely on assuming someone’s position and then acting catty based on that flawed series of assumptions.
Not with that attitude it won’t.
Fatalism is nice and all, and I fall into myself a good deal …
… but if ever there was a moment to believe that it at least might be possible to wrest control of the ship of state from these goddamned corrupt pedophile war mongers, it’d be now.
You can probably get control but you are unlikely to find a politician to actively vote for something that directly sets them up for criminal charges.
How many voted-in politicians regularly commit war crimes?
Not many, but they have been known to tell other people to, on their behalf.
Partially agree to it, the ICC, not full ICJ jurisdiction for every member of the US government.
Everybody in DoD is subject to it, and then define a mechanism where if a DoD official is asked or ordered to do something that could make them liable to be sent to the Hague, theres a mechanism for instantaneous security declassification and emergency presentation to Congress, that also permits the order to be stayed untill voted on by both chambers as a legitimate or illegitimate order, also simultaneously voting on impeaching and removing the offending politician(s).
Thus, it ain’t a politician directly voting to potentially fuck themselves, and it isn’t a total … relinquishing of US sovereign authority.
Something like that.
Some kind of mechanism like this would also augment what the War Powers Act tries to do but does not actually do well at all. Starting a war of aggression is a war crime.
In the US most arguably. There is collective guilt to be had by the boatload around here.