https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGqNfaVWiis
|
The legal analysis below might be of some interest to those few who want to put into context Trump/Vance's, and others on the Right, call to Israel to "Finish Them Off." While supporting those who denounce Biden for any minuscule lack of support for Israeli genocide, and publish that in support of and/or in furtherance of Trump's election. That's not to draw any conclusion of "Complicity in Incitement to Genocide, only to share one possible interpretation of that, legally and/or morally. Judge for yourselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVzoZwoU_RYJ.D. Vance on a Foreign Policy for the Middle Class https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZmUSKHDfGM WATCH: Oct. 7 'terrible assault,' Vance says at 'Standing with Israel' event in Washington, DC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZmUSKHDfGMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-7LmiP_VnI&t=1063s Conversation with Former Presidential Candidate Vivek Ramaswamy |
Attachment:
TRANSCRIPT-5.23-QI-Conference.docx.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
Ramaswamy: "And I think what Israel deserves is the diplomatic latitude that they're not getting from the United States to be able to get the job done that they need to get done. It's not up to us to define their war objectives. It's up to Israel to define its own war objectives. "And it's up to the United States as an ally to give them the diplomatic latitude to do it, which is what they're missing today. And I think for a lot of reasons, you know, Trump did not follow the standard party line of what you're supposed to say on every item of Israel. But when it came, when push came to shove, in terms of the results he delivered, from the move of the embassy to standing with Israel when it counts, I think he was actually a stronger ally of Israel than anyone else who recites the pieties has been." Here is the relevant legal analysis of "Complicity in Incitement of Genocide," which can be a collective complicity in promoting the genocidal leaders as politicians: Begin here: Ultimately, this Comment concludes that individual employees at social media companies may be complicit in incitement to genocide where certain legal requirements are satisfied. This conclusion compels a broader discussion about reforming international criminal law to stem the global propagation of disinformation, where such propagation constitutes incitement to genocide. . . . C. Complicity in Incitement Incitement’s status as a crime raises the question of whether it permits secondary liability. As scholars and commentators have acknowledged, incitement is often considered an “inchoate crime,” a punishable step toward the commission of another substantive offense (for example, the crime of attempted murder).129 As complicity does not generally attach to inchoate crimes, some contend a person cannot be complicit in inciting genocide. . . . The Court provided that a defendant can be complicit in direct and public incitement to commit genocide, notwithstanding its character as an inchoate crime.132 The Appeals Chamber’s reasoning is consistent with the view that the effective prevention of genocide requires curbing its earliest stages. . . . Nyiramasuhuko therefore clarifies that an aider and abettor can be complicit in the direct and public incitement to commit genocide, notwithstanding incitement’s status as an inchoate crime. The extension of complicity to incitement is undoubtedly controversial, as it dramatically expands the scope of criminal conduct associated with a speech act. But there are two points that ought to curb this controversy to some extent. First, genocide is the only substantive offense in all of ICL for which incitement is also criminalized.139 Article 25 of the Rome Statute makes this clear.140 While the knowing contributor to direct and public incitement to genocide may be implicated in an international crime, the same cannot be said for he who knowingly or purposefully contributes to the vast array of expressive conduct that falls short of incitement to genocide (for example, incitement to non-genocidal violence). This unique criminalization of complicity reflects the distinctive place that genocide holds in ICL. It also provides the ICC prosecutor with a powerful tool to punish those who knowingly contribute to inciting genocide, where the inciters are coordinating as a group. Second, the ICC prosecutor has constrained resources and thus selects cases according to limiting principles, including the gravity of the crimes, the degree of responsibility of the alleged perpetrators, and the potential charges.141 Accordingly, consistent with the degree of culpability, those complicit in incitement may be less of a prosecutorial priority than those who incite genocide, who may be less of a priority than those who commit genocide. This may not be the case, however, with respect to social media companies, given their profound influence over the dissemination of information today.142 |