Silver linings? eg: holding genocide-Joe accountable

Operation Hope
1

So I’ve been thinking about how we can make the best of a bad situation, referring to the upcoming likely reelection of former US President Tiny Hands. I expect there are aspects of issues for which our political left wing could in fact strategically ally with our right wing neighbors. Particularly, I’m thinking about how to destabilize the capital-capture of our political status-quo, to eventually enable greater room for actual democratic left wing politics, (if only after Trumpish turmoil).

For example, one idea recently came to my mind: Trumpism will want to imprison Biden. And, Biden should in fact face justice for his crimes of genocide. Perhaps we could help shape a meaningful precedent of holding our criminal national leaders accountable, by conditioning our support for prosecuting Biden on defining his crimes as following from campaign bribes which essentially made Biden an (even unwitting) Israeli foreign asset.

2 Likes
2

For some reference:

3

I agree that our government’s actions are disgusting. However, I believe this needs to play out in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). While I find it hard to be patient and wait for the wheels of the ICJ to move, I believe that is who must hold to account those guilty in this matter.

1 Like
4

Please correct me if I’m wrong, @drea_m_r_76 ; it sounds to me as if, regarding this specific case, you would rather we patiently seek justice internationally, and maybe not nationally, and maybe not under the shadow of trumpism. (If so), I don’t feel much disagreement regarding how that is largely what should ideally happen. Indeed, the Biden administration’s crimes are mostly international violations; (however, since the crimes are also still a violation against our own US citizens, in this regard I maintain that we should also hold our president to account nationally, as well as internationally; to me those are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, I think it is important we move our national laws towards respect for international law).

…

2 Likes
5

…

That said, I am trying (in this thread) to focus on what generally will likely happen, and exploring what our strategic responses could be; (ie, focusing on what should ideally happen in this specific case was not my intent, which, respectfully, is where the focus of your comment seemed to be). Of course, I respect how the question of what should ideally happen does still matter to this specific topic (even despite such a question being not my intended focus). And, I also respect how you may (I suspect) seem to prioritize such a focus, (again, even despite such a focus being not exactly my intended focus).

That (hopefully) clarified, (if you wouldn’t mind my redirection back towards my intended focus), would you agree a Trumpish administration may likely attempt to imprison Biden? (I presume you would so agree). Then, based on your comments thus far, it sounds as if you might rather our response to such would then be to oppose that attempt. And if we did so oppose it, I would want to know: what do you wager the odds and overall outcome spaces could then be?; (for instance, I suspect such opposition could increase the odds for wider and more illegitimate authoritarian imprisonments, potentially even more likely targeted against the progressive left, which our careful support might otherwise inhibit).

Relative to my estimated answers for that question (not limited to the example I gave), I’m of the opinion that we could instead have better odds for better overall outcomes; specifically, again, by leveraging left-wing support for such a trumpish attempt, in order to improve both the rationale (to be limited more legitimately) and results (to favor the enabling of future progressive politics, potentially even during trumpism). Granted, I agree this is not how Biden should ideally be held to account; still, I’m open to and intending to explore such options before weighing it against that ideal. In summary, your focus seemed to imply you might already hold that ideal as a priority which implicitly outweighs those options I’m intending to explicitly explore.

And that said, hopefully I’m not misinterpreted as disregarding your point! :heart: Sincerely, since you seem skeptical of my perspective on this specific tactic, I value your opinion! :turtle: My clarifications of how I’m reading you and the differences I’m seeing between our foci are how I’m seeking your opinion on my focus. And, if you want me to engage more on (what I think) your focus is, then I would refer to my first reply preceding this comment, where I intentionally prioritized (my reading of) your focus.

1 Like
6

While I agree with what you are saying and advocating, I wonder if it would be easier to hold Biden and our government accountable here in the US after they have been legally held responsible by the ICJ. I also wonder if rushing to prosecute in the US before the ICJ rulings would not only potentially shatter an already fragile election but also lessen the chance of actual legal convictions. If people try to sue the government now, I don’t foresee rulings that are either just or wanted. Thus, this would close the door for future judgments even after the ICJ has released pertinent information. Jumping into things is often not the best course of action. Slow and steady wins the race–and it acquires necessary facts. Am I making any sense? :woman_facepalming::joy::woman_shrugging:

1 Like
7

Yeah, I think you make good points. I would say though, I don’t anticipate rushing anything; rather, if legal action against a former president Biden is where the political winds blow after Trump is reelected, then we may find said wind at our back, should we plan on taking advantage of the opportunity.

To clarify, regarding how we might “potentially shatter an already fragile election”, I actually don’t anticipate significant and/or trumpish US legal action against Biden until after Trump is already sworn into office. I’m not suggesting supporting legal action “now”, (though, there is current legal action, as one of my earlier references showed, if anyone is interested in that). Does this clarification affect your perspective of what I’m saying?

But I do like your points about seeing if and how there may be international legal action. I wouldn’t want to disrupt that with such trumpishness (if given the option).

And, side note, do you know of any international legal actions in the works? I know if genocide is internationally legally official, then it triggers legally binding international consequences against nations at fault, complicit, and/or enabling of said genocide (which is partially why the US is incapable of not opposing reality in international bodies on the matter, since of course the US would attempt to get away with the crimes our foreign policy grand strategy hitherto requires the US commits).

1 Like
8

I get what you are saying, and I am not trying to be combative. I apologize if my tone seems that way. My thinking of your timeline was off. I’d say we are of like minds in many ways with this. Your last paragraph is exactly what I think should get our government in some boiling hot water because I don’t think showing their compliance and enabling would be difficult.

9

Oh, no I didn’t read a combative sense :turtle: Thanks for your input. I’m glad I could clarify the timeline I was thinking.

1 Like