Randahl FinkOne day this social media exchange will be presented as evidence in a court room, and I cannot wait.
Stoneface Vimes@randahl unfortunately for vance it's also what the international courts call it.
Andreas K@capnthommo @randahl Well, yes and no, or how we say Jein.
International courts call it so.
Other countries' courts (war crimes tend to fall into extraterritorial jurisdiction, especially if the primary home country refuses to prosecute) call it so.
And murder has not statute of limitation in the USA.
And Vance is relatively young.
But he is right, for the past century the US has got away with tons of war crimes, without Americans getting even a slap.
Actually Americans got away with war crimes even in WWII.
The prosecution was generally reserved for the losing side.
(Yes the overwhelming amount of war crimes were committed by the Axis, but they were not the only ones. And if you want to talk about the Holocaust? Who was the main seller of Jewish gold teeth? To finanze the Nazi machine? During WWII? RIght an American banker working for the Nazis. Who went on to a normal banking career in the USA.)
WesDym@yacc143 A LOT of Americans sided with the Axis, and actively helped them. That included some companies and titans of industry, at least until we joined the Allies. Here at home, our own federal police had their hands full with active Axis supporters throughout the entire war, right up to the end.
@yacc143 Not entirely true. A great many of us have been fiercely outraged by our country's many, many crimes. We're just not politically powerful enough for that outrage to matter as much as it should. The present regime is especially shameless and despicable. But again, so far, there just aren't enough who are outraged enough about it all (yet) to change that. We can hope, though. The world is watching, and hopefully documenting it all. One day, guys like Vance might finally be made to answer.
@wesdym That's why I mentioned that murder has no statute of limitation in US law.
And that legislation by court reinterpretation has the ugly drawback that SCOTUS can change interpretations (as the progressives are currently learning, aren't they), and if they are especially ugly, there is nothing that keeps them from changing the interpretation in such a way that it's effectively retroactive.
Joe Stewart
Okuna
MarjorieR@Okuna @capnthommo @randahl except, most recently, for sanctioning the ICC's judges and for trying to hold the USA and Israel to account for Israel's Genocide in Palestine.
