this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
441 points (88.3% liked)

World News

38600 readers
2845 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No it isn't. Courts have forced the government to follow the law many times.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They have also declined to do so many times on the grounds I've pointed out.

Not every law-related complaint is justiciable, not just anyone can have standing, and there are some things that are the exclusive powers of the other two branches. The court can no more force the President to declare Israel a terrorist state than it can force Congress to declare war.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

That's not out of the blue though. They need a basis for doing that. And this is pretty clear law. A ruling that leahy is unenforceable except by the executive themselves would be huge. And ridiculous.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

A ruling that the court could dictate foreign policy would be bigger and more ridiculous.

The law is not being violated; it's being followed. The law delegates the power to declare foreign states terrorist supporters to the executive branch. The executive branch has declined to do so, and now Congress has declined to force the issue. The courts must defer to the executive's judgement here--even if that judgement is wrong.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

This isn't foreign policy. Congress absolutely has the right to tell the President they can't give stuff to war criminals because it's our stuff. They have to sign off on treaties and arms sales. The Leahy law doesn't say if the executive feels like they're war criminals. It says, if there's credible accusations.

You think we have a king. We do not.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 8 months ago

This isn’t foreign policy.

It's a policy that pertains to how the US relates to a foreign government. If that's not foreign policy, nothing is. Plus, have you read the lawsuit? It wants the court to order the president to "influence" Israel. Influencing a foreign government is smack dab in the middle of the president's authority.

Congress absolutely has the right to tell the President they can’t give stuff to war criminals because it’s our stuff.

Yes. And they have declined to do so.

The Leahy law doesn’t say if the executive feels like they’re war criminals

It says the Secretary of State shall make that determination. Secretary of State is part of the executive branch.

You think we have a king. We do not.

That's obviously not what I think.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

sigh I don't know what else to say and I'm done wasting my time. Your political belief is that Israel ought to be declared a terrorist state? Fine. But that doesn't change my legal analysis that this lawsuit is DOA.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Hilarious. We passed a law to stop exactly this and you think we're not allowed to use it. So it's your legal analysis that the President is allowed to just do whatever they want?

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Congress has weighed in.

https://theintercept.com/2024/01/16/senate-israel-human-rights-condition-aid/

So this lawsuit is even deader now than it was yesterday.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Lmao. Those are different issues. This is still about respecting an existing law. A law that the DOD and State Department abide by for every other country we give aid to.

Trying to force a report to Congress ain't it.

By the way, it seems old Senator Leahy himself wonders why Israel has always gotten a pass. If the executive doesn't have to follow this law why have they set up such a drawn out and ineffective process just for Israel, while other countries don't get such protections?