When you know you are harboring so many war criminals that outright refusal to cooperate in any way with the ICC is standard policy…
What about […]
I know, brain-rot is bad and you are trained to throw that buzzword at any fact giving context like a good little soldier…
But in this case the US generally refusing any cooperation with the ICC and now for the very first time making an exception even IS the exact topic here. And they do so because it would legitimate the ICC, which the US wants to avoid given their actual war crimes. That’s not even an opinion but an actual Pentagon statement.
I hope there will be a time when we talk about American, European, African and Asian war crimes. But the article is about the investigation of russian war crimes.
So let’s focus on this topic for now.
“The Pentagon had been resistant to the move and privately argued that any cooperation with the court could open the way for politicized prosecution of American troops deployed overseas.”
“Republican and Democratic lawmakers have accused the Pentagon of effectively undermining war crimes prosecution of Russia by blocking the sharing of U.S. military intelligence with the ICC.”
This article is literally (as in I quoted this directly from the article) about the US Pentagon refusing to cooperate with the ICC as any cooperation could be seen as legitimization when the ICC goes after US war criminals.
Would say it is fair to bring up the US refusal to recognize the ICC (we are on Ukraine community so slightly offtopic but no fuzz) but do you have anything to say about the investigation of Russian war crimes which this presumably will help with? Also your rhetoric is such that it sounds like you want to minimize them while trying to claim the US is “harboring so many”.
My “rhetoric” is mentioning facts. Russia commited hundreds of documented within weeks. Where are they now? 20k? Even more cases?
And yet here you are feeling so weak that someone daring to mention US war crimes in an article about US refusing to cooperate with the ICC for a long time because they are afraid of being persecuted for their war crimes, too, is perceived by you as spinning narratives and using rhetorics to minimize Russian war crimes? C’mon… in which way does any war crime get lessened by another one commited?
Oh, yeah I know. There is exactly one way to lessen a war crime: crying whataboutism every time it is mentioned. So good work there. This really helps so people that intentionally lied to their allies to get them to illegally invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands are staying untouched.
And surprise, it doesn’t actually change anything about Russian war crimes either way. In fact finally convictim US war criminals would help in bringing Russian war criminals to justice. As is would deprive Russia of the basically single one talking point in their propaganda and a legal precedence (Reminder: US and Russia are both in the same legal situation of having signed but never ratified the ICC agreements, to then later withdraw their signature, too).
Well, it is good to get some indication that you’re maybe not just trying to be an apologist for Russia after all.
I would suggest you think about how it comes across when you come in shouting about US war crimes on a Lemmy community about Ukraine in an article than concerns how USA is helping with the effort to investigate Russian war crimes though. Like I said it does warrant mention but when it is all you manage to talk about it looks pretty bad for you.
Thank you! Couldn’t have said it better.
deleted by creator
