• Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    And since it says the genocide gets to continue, you uncritically accept the comment’s interpretation of the law.

    The Leahy law is a thing, but that’s discretionary because it gets in the way of genocide.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            The idea was one excuse buried in several paragraphs about multiple subjects. The Leahy law prohibits selling weapons to governments that we know are committing war crimes. Pretending that Netanyahu isn’t committing war crimes and vaguely announcing that you support an investigation because that’s the only way you can proceed is slow-walking compliance with a law that centrists don’t want to follow and have no intention of ever following.

            Frankly, I doubt you will accept any explanation that involves anything that might curtail weapons sales to Netanyahu before his genocide is complete and it’s too little, too late.

              • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                That means Harris needs proof that it’s a genocide.

                The standard for the Leahy law is that the nation in question has to be credibly implicated in a serious abuse of human rights. The idea that any proof needs to be acceptable to genocide-happy MAGA is just an excuse to continue selling weapons. Any investigation would determine if we should resume arms sales, not a slow walk to delay ceasing arms sales.

                Seems to drag like Harris is doing the right thing.

                Seems to me like anything that keeps the genocide going is considered by you to be the right thing.

                  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    You’re making an ethical argument, and drag already 100% agrees with you ethically.

                    I doubt that.

                    If you want to disagree with drag, try making a legal argument.

                    I did. You ignored it more than once. It’s why I doubt your agreement with my ethical argument.