Squiddlioni

deleted by creator

Alright, you’ve convinced me that you’re either a disingenuous troll or a genuine fool. Either way, I think this conversation isn’t going to be productive. Have a good one.

Since you duplicated your link I’ll duplicate my response.

You’re linking to a statute of the ICC, The Rome Statute, which provides that inciting or committing genocide is against the ICC’s definition of International Law and the ICC will attempt to prosecute accordingly. That statute was not ratified by the United States, so the United States is not bound to uphold that statute. Israel also did not ratify, so is also not bound. That doesn’t mean that the ICC can’t prosecute Israel or the US under the statute, but it does mean that they are explicitly not responsible for upholding it. Your argument is that the United States is bound by whether the ICC determines genocide has occurred, and that is explicitly not the case according to the statute you linked.

Edit to add: The Rome Statute is the document which established the ICC. As a nation that did not ratify the document, not only is the United States not limited by the ICC determining if genocide occurred or not, the US explicitly rejects the ICC’s authority to do so. It means the exact opposite of what you’re saying.

You’re linking to a statute of the ICC, The Rome Statute, which provides that inciting or committing genocide is against the ICC’s definition of International Law and the ICC will attempt to prosecute accordingly. That statute was not ratified by the United States, so the United States is not bound to uphold that statute. Israel also did not ratify, so is also not bound. That doesn’t mean that the ICC can’t prosecute Israel or the US under the statute, but it does mean that they are explicitly not responsible for upholding it. Your argument is that the United States is bound by whether the ICC determines genocide has occurred, and that is explicitly not the case according to the statute you linked.

Edit to add: The Rome Statute is the document which established the ICC. As a nation that did not ratify the document, not only is the United States not limited by the ICC determining if genocide occurred or not, the US explicitly rejects the ICC’s authority to do so. It means the exact opposite of what you’re saying.

Which law? Laws have names and titles. They are published publicly and they can be linked to. Please provide a link to the law you are referring to.

I’m not sure where you’re getting this idea that the ICC is the sole arbiter of whether something is genocide or not. Can you cite a source or precedent?

No, the ICC does not dictate if the United States formally recognizes a genocide. In fact, there is no singular domestic source for recognition of a genocide. See the Armenian Genocide for an example. US recognition of the Armenian Genocide was codified by US House and Senate resolutions in 2019, but even then the White House under the first Trump administration rejected the resolutions and declined to recognize it as a genocide.

This article in particular relates to Rep Tlaib hoping that the Amnesty International report will lead to her colleagues accepting this as a genocide, resulting in a change of policy and an arms embargo. I’m sure she would also like for there to be a formal recognition through a House resolution, but that is not necessary for arms supply policy to change.

ETA: The ICC was established to prosecute war crimes, including genocide, but is not the arbiter of whether the United States and its Congressional representatives recognize actions as genocide or not, which is the subject of this article.

Even proper TED talks can have some big issues. I’m thinking specifically about Kary Mullis getting up on stage and saying anthropogenic climate change isn’t real because he found a study that says there’s a current that fluctuates and absorbs anything we do–or something to that effect. If you didn’t know anything about Kary Mullis and just heard “Nobel prize winner” you might assume he’s credible. In actuality he was a pariah for talking out his ass about things he doesn’t have expertise in and doesn’t understand, specifically his climate and HIV/AIDS denialism.

It’s always a good idea to approach any lecture with a critical view, but I can see why TED talks might warrant extra scrutiny. They project expertise and authority which may or may not actually be credible. The organization has a mottled record of vetting their speakers for actual expertise. (ETA: actual expertise in the content of their talk. Obviously Kary Mullis had actual expertise, just not in the things he said on stage)