I saw that at The Washington Post, at "Biden calls Putin a ‘war criminal’/The comment seemed off the cuff and came on a day driven by a forceful speech to Congress by Volodymyr Zelensky."
The headline doesn't mention that he first said "no," then seems to have thought better of it and came back to change his answer. If anything was "off the cuff," it was the "no." Coming back to say, strongly, "I think he is a war criminal" does not deserve to be called "off the cuff." "Off the cuff" seems like an effort after the fact to minimize the statement.
Squirreled away near the bottom of the WaPo article:
As for Biden’s unexpected comment that Putin is a war criminal, Psaki depicted it as a heartfelt remark. “The president’s remarks speak for themselves,” she said. “He was speaking from his heart and speaking from what we’ve seen on television, which is barbaric actions by a brutal dictator through his invasion of a foreign country.”...
So... somehow not a legal or official position. Just being a human being there for a brief fleeting moment.
[N]either the international court nor the U.S. government has formally concluded that Russia’s actions constitute war crimes, making Biden’s seemingly spontaneous assertion Wednesday all the more striking.
ADDED: What is the origin of the phrase "off the cuff"? The OED says the idea was that a person was speaking "as if from notes made on the shirt-cuff," which actually sounds more deliberate than what Biden was doing — either with his original "no" or his more thoughtful "I think he is."
In "Modern Times," Chaplin's tramp has written song lyrics on his cuffs, then gestures so wildly he loses his cuffs, and must get by without them:
पोस्ट्स
११३ टिप्पण्या:
Well Biden is just a criminal... so that makes Putin a 'badder' person...
A war criminal we are going to enrich with our Iran deal.
Traditionally, winners determine who is a war criminal. However, the definition has changed since WWII without the connotations changing, so it just amounts to name-calling now.
"Yes, he is a war criminal"
"No, he's not"
"Who are you?"
"Where's my slippers!?"
"Hunter's coming to visit me today!"
"The goddamn president is a demycrat!"
"I don't want to play backgammon in the activity room!!!"
If Putin is a war criminal, then what is Dick Cheney or George Bush? What about the US war in Afghanistan, isn't that a "War crime"? We got away with calling the Germans "war criminals" in WW2 while giving Stalin a pass, because it was victors justice. But we haven't defeated Putin in a war, and never will.
Amazing how the MSM goes by alinsky's rules. Choose a target, personalize it, freeze it, attack it. They've made this whole geo-political struggle about Putin. Russia, not just Putin, doesn't want NATO in Ukraine. And they want Ukraine in Russia's orbit. But the MSM makes it ALL about crazy, Hilter-Putin.
This war isn't just about Putin. It didn't get started because he had "issues" and it won't end because he gets shamed into it.
If you're part of the party that calls George W Bush a war criminal for his authorization of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, it's kinda awkward to say that Putin isn't for his invasion of Ukraine.
"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."
Poor Jen Psaki. You know, I never felt sorry for Sarah Huckabee Sanders; sure, she had to respond to dumb questions about whether what Trump tweeted constituted official policy, but somehow it never seemed to me that she was, as Psaki does, making a sh*t sandwich and eating it with gusto.
Maybe because Sanders didn't care if people liked her boss - she knew a whole bunch of people didn't and could never be talked around - whereas Psaki is absolutely invested in making Biden look likeable. And smart, and aware of his surroundings.
Neo over at neoneocon had been watching Biden for decades and has been calling BS on the whole "Good Old Uncle Joe" persona ever since it came up. He is not, she says, nor has ever been, a nice man. That 1974 interview he gave - was that here we were talking about it, or on neoneocon? - soon after his first wife died, where he was reminiscing, on the record, about how she was his "sensuous lover" - eek. The man is a psychopath.
Biden is his usual, moronic self. He should be more circumspect and not verbalize every thought that runs thru his head or repeat what that fat-ass, twatwaffle Ron Klain whispers in his ear.
She psircled back pretty quickly to clean up that Kinsley Gaffe, but not before the damage was done. Putin and Zelensky had both indicated negotiations to end hostilities were proceeding towards consensus but Biden threw a spanner in the works by closing off a negotiated agreement. But perhaps Putin will ignore Biden like most people do.
Just off the cuff I’d say it takes one to know one. Hint: Afghanistan
We are going a bit far afield here. The winners get to decide who is a war criminal. Will this be a win, loss, or draw for the US? For Putin? For Europe?
I don't think this comment by Biden adds anything useful to the situation. He should shut up about this if he wants the shooting to stop. In any case, the most that he should say is that Putin certainly has been the aggressor.
Reminder, it was the US that missile attacked a family car of refugees trying to flee the Taliban after the US hastily withdrew from Afghanistan. Perhaps we are not in a good position at this time to declare who is or isn’t a war criminal. And then there is the incident the other day of Ukrainian media broadcasting the confession of a POW. Putin is an asshole, but I don’t think we gain anything from calling him a criminal. Also, the rush of governments to seize Russian property, or anything they think is Russian property, is alarming.
Yes, Putin is a war criminal, as are all U.S. presidents of the past half-century.
Joe Biden is trying to keep this war going.
The failing meat puppet is hiding his failures behind this war which he is just as vested in as Putin.
He should be offering off ramps and peaceful options but Ukrainian neutrality does not have as many opportunities for corrupt DC shitheads to make money selling weapons and influences.
No blood for Hunters board position.
By any reasonable definition that Biden and others can use to declare Putin a "war criminal" defines the entire US government "war criminals", including Joe "Shit for Brains" Biden and his entire administration. Indeed, the US government is the biggest war criminal gang of the last 40 years- it isn't even a close race- it is like winning the 100 meter dash by 10 seconds.
"If Putin is a war criminal, then what is Dick Cheney or George Bush? What about the US war in Afghanistan, isn't that a 'War crime'?"
Yes.
If Putin is a war criminal, then Biden is a war criminal too.
Every single point that applies to Putin applies to Biden.
"They've made this whole geo-political struggle about Putin. Russia, not just Putin, doesn't want NATO in Ukraine. And they want Ukraine in Russia's orbit. But the MSM makes it ALL about crazy, Hilter-Putin."
Yes, but Putin gave the order for the preemptive war, hence, he is a war criminal.
Shouldn't biden keep the name calling, "killer", "war criminal" (however well deserved) to himself. I doubt biden will be called on to broker any peace treaty or reconciliation between Russia and Ukraine but shooting off at the mouth practically disqualifies himself for that role.
Schrodinger's War Criminal.
@Robert Cook
"as are all U.S. presidents of the past half-century."
Not Obama though. Hidden clause - Peace Prize winners are exempt from responsibility for bombings and drone strikes, even of other Peace Prize winners. True story. He gets a pass.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/doctors-without-borders-bombing_n_5615690ce4b021e856d33d51
It's harder to get him to stop if you call him a war criminal. Isn't the priority to get him to stop? Save the criminal charges for later.
"Indeed, the US government is the biggest war criminal gang of the last 40 years...."
Longer than that.
The Obama/Biden/Clinton/McCain/Biden wars in the Spring series. Trump cut off one leg of Obama's world war in Central America. Trump/Putin cut off another leg in the Middle East. After 32 trimesters, Putin has a chance to end Biden/Zelensky's war in the Slavic Spring that has been a progressive risk to the Ukrainian people, and preemptively expose Wuhan 2.0, and, perhaps, other illicit enterprises that fuel corruption in the land at the edge of civilization. Biden could have taken the Clinton plea to plausible denial: what difference, at this point, does it make. Instead, he spoke truth through projection, confused himself, and destroyed his credibility. Will no one relieve his "burden" h/t Obama.
Amadeus 48 said...
We are going a bit far afield here. The winners get to decide who is a war criminal. Will this be a win, loss, or draw for the US? For Putin? For Europe?
Everyone has lost. There are no winners in this conflict.
Putin is fucked. We should be deescalating this so that his inevitable demise as a leader can commence.
The people of the world have had their food prices doubled. This means people in the US are poorer and people around the world starve.
The people of Ukraine are obviously getting crushed.
The three groups of people making money on this war are DC warmongers and corrupt Ukrainians and anyone selling oil. That includes Putin who is making money hand over fist while the Russian people get F'd.
Funny how the Biden Regime finds a way to smash the little people while keeping the war going as long as possible.
Oh and it looks like Biden has managed to funnel billions of dollars to Putin through Iran in a secret deal. It is almost as if Biden is a traitor trying to destroy the US.
The media is also having a field day with warmongering propaganda. Don't forget those shitheads.
Ann Althouse said...
It's harder to get him to stop if you call him a war criminal. Isn't the priority to get him to stop? Save the criminal charges for later.
Ann stumbles on the truth.
Biden needs this war to prop up his failing regime and to paint his political opponents as traitors.
Leader of the Free World.
Putin doesn't give an owl shit in a tornado about what Biden calls him (or anything else Biden says). The only impact this will have on Putin's thinking is to further confirm what he already knows: Biden is a fool, not to be taken seriously. Even if he did consider one statement or the other as indicative of US policy, he realizes that there are no teeth whatsoever in that claim. Nobody's hauling Putin to the Hague. The only risks to Putin's wellbeing will come from his inner circle, if they ever come at all.
No one has mentioned that before he changed his answer to yes, he went back and pretended that he didn't hear the question the first time.
This guy is a potted plant.
Our host used the term "squirreled away" in her comments.
Could be a Freudian slip. There are a lot of squirrely things about Joseph Robinette Biden.
He's easily distracted, "Look, there's a squirrel!" He's almost always wrong, but it's a truism that even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. (Hummh, brings to mind his choice of Kamala Harris.) One could go on in this vein, but the sad truth is that the folks, and the deceased, who voted early and often for Slow Joe and gave him his 81 million votes were barking up the wrong tree.
What possible good does it do to call Putin names?
I suppose it lets Biden look tough, though.
You generally want to leave your enemy a plausible way out of his position. Trump would have done that by barreling weapons into the Ukraine all the while flattering Putin in public. This administration can’t think ahead.
It's harder to get him to stop if you call him a war criminal. Isn't the priority to get him to stop? Save the criminal charges for later.
We are finally seeing a potential compromise to end the war and Biden does this. I suspect the Democrats want the war as an issue to hide their incompetence at economics, at least until close to the election. The GOP war hawks like Romney are just idiots.
Robert Cook said...
"Indeed, the US government is the biggest war criminal gang of the last 40 years...."
Longer than that.
Every single person in the world is the descendant of the people who won a war. On that level every single human being is the same.
The only reason you want to focus on the US culpability is because you are an enemy of freedom in general.
Cook longs for the day when he is in charge and he can take everything people build and distribute it as he sees fit.
This wont be as bad as war though. He really just wants everything to be fair.
Because the people are responsible for their leadership, we are all war criminals. So what. Putin has demonstrate his inability to be in control of nuclear weapons and must be replaced.
Not Obama though. Hidden clause - Peace Prize winners are exempt from responsibility for bombings and drone strikes
Bush ended the first Iraq war by bring Hussein to trial. Obama revisited the Iraq war and expanded it to a world war, where social justice was serviced (sic) through Sadam-y and abortion in the streets, with a SEAL team, one of our own ambassadors, diverse Americans, Hispanics/LatinaX/PeopleOfBrown, People of Africa, People of Asia, and People of Europe thrown in for good measure. Biden experienced his own premature evacuation with collateral damage and billions of dollars in state of the art military housewarming "benefits". Here's to climate change and a summer long delayed.
He forgot that his handlers had declared it to be the new messaging and only remembered after he had walked away.
It's no wonder Russia and China are running roughshod over the world.
Anyone ever punished for killing the Afghani family with a drone strike Biden authorized?
Didn't think so...
Calling someone a war criminal , punishable by execution, is no way to attract that someone to the bargaining table.
Jesus, calling Putin a war criminal puts us on the hook to do something about him. Someone tell Joe to STFU. As one who has read and re-read The Guns Of August I don't put it past world leaders to stumble the planet into a full-on war.
We called various German and Japanese members of the military 'war criminals' after WII largely based on their conduct during the war, not simply on the fact that they executed their war plans which seems to be the basis for most people calling Putin a war criminal. That's leaving aside how much responsibility Putin bears for specific actions of his troops but that was another thing we were did parse out.
Whether calling Putin a war criminal impedes peace negotiations depends in part on how serious Putin is about such negotiations.
Yes, its counter-productive to call him a "war criminal". They keep doing everything possible to send a message to Putin: "we consider you HItler and won't stop till you're dead or in prison".
Which gives him ZERO incentive to moderate his demands. Might was well be hung for a sheep as hung for a lamb. But after we had Miss Lindsey and others calling for Putin to be assassinated, and others calling for a fly-zone and WW III, I guess "war criminal" is the least of it.
I thought yesterday's Gaffe Of The Day was when he announced that Kamala's husband Doug Emhoff had tested positive for Covid by announcing that the First Lady's husband had Covid.
There is a line in a great 3 episode series on PBS called "Worricker". Bill Nighy plays an old-school, honorable Brit intelligence analyst in the John Le Carre vein. He in involved in uncovering. large corruption scheme during a financial crisis similar to 2008. The line is delivered to a Davos-man type- "At every crisis like this a bunch of people like you get into a room to come up with a solution. Every time they do, the solution always seems to involve people like you getting richer. Why is that?"
The more crises, the more opportunities to get richer. Examples- Bill Gates et al.
The lack of self-awarness amoung Americans is breathtaking. If we bomb and invade, its OK because we're "The good guys". If others do it, its "a war crime". How many Afghan,Iraqi and Serbian children died because of USA airstrikes? But the American response is a tough-guy "That's war, baby!".
But when Putin does it, the tears flow. OMG, the children!
Biden's best 'off the cuff' comment yesterday came later in the day when he discussed a 'new civil rights cause of action", which is apparently, people getting naked photos of themselves, then seeing those photos used as blackmail. As Prez Joe remarked, off the cuff, "who hasn't known someone this has happened to?"
Nothing like Joe Biden talking naked photos. Joe's new civil right. One wonders if it's for him or the rest of the world.
Not so sure Ann "stumbled" on the truth (Jesus, people!), but she spoke it.
If the goal is to end the carnage, it's just so stupid. He shouldn't be allowed out without a teleprompter.
Sometimes it can be frustrating when they speak State-Department-ese (overly delicate, avoiding saying things that are obvious), like when the Clinton Admin wouldn't say whether what was going on in Rwanda was a genocide (because words have consequences), but as a very old SNL (I think) bit had it, sometimes the correct answer is "Please pass the sweet and sour shrimp."
The question was, “Mr. President, after everything we’ve seen, are you ready to call Putin a war criminal?” He answered no, which could just mean he wasn’t “ready”, but a little later in the event (how much later is unclear as there is a visible cut in the footage), he goes back to the same person and asks for a repeat of the question and says, “Oh, I think he is a war criminal.” It would be interesting to see what happened during the cut, did he consult with staff, did someone ask him why he answered the question that way. He did very deliberately come back to the question. I agree that it wasn’t off the cuff.
It’s weird that Althouse tries to accuse the Washing Post of trying to minimize Biden’s off the cuff statement but then makes the case of why it should be minimized, “It's harder to get him to stop if you call him a war criminal. Isn't the priority to get him to stop? Save the criminal charges for later.”
Without getting lost in the Thursday morning quarterbacking of negotiation strategy, communicating that our first offer is our best offer and if you don’t accept it now our offer is only going to get worse does require follow-up like this. Also, the priority is to get Russia to stop, and calling Putin a war criminal suggests an off ramp for Russia.
Now, to be sure, Putin may want to prove he is not a war criminal by nuking us.
Whether you believe Putin is a war criminal (the Ukrainians probably think so) or you think Biden is one (the family who got drone striked to cover up the fuck up withdrawal would probably vote yes), the point is Biden gave two contradictory answers to the same question with in moments of each other with equal conviction. He doesn't seem to know what he's being asked or what he's even saying.
And yes, a POTUS labeling another world leader (with nuclear weapons) as a war criminal is not helpful to the peace process. Since no one is going to invade Russia (a really bad idea even if they weren't a super power) to bring him to trial, it's just bullshit rhetoric. We need to give him a face saving way out of this shit show. Let history judge him afterward.
Howard said...
Because the people are responsible for their leadership, we are all war criminals. So what. Putin has demonstrate his inability to be in control of nuclear weapons and must be replaced.
Make no mistake this means all out war with a Nuclear power. Howard does not want the war to end and needs the world in crisis.
He wants WW3. He doesn't care how many Ukrainian or Russian peasants get killed. This war must never end.
The most important thing here are the needs of the Regime and that means all out war with Russia to cover up for the numerous and manifest failures at home. Biden is still feeding putin with Oil money and is trying to forge a deal allowing Iran to give Russia 10 billion dollars to build a nuclear reactor.
And note this is exactly the opposite thing he said about the Regime fiasco in Afghanistan. Almost every single person cheering for war with Russia congratulated Biden for turning Afghanistan into a complete shit box so he could end the war by his 9/11 photo op.
And Howard gets a special rush when he calls someone he disagrees with a Putin Puppet.
Is it possible for Howard to be more self serving and hypocritical and morally degenerate?
What about Jello(TM), Joe? Is Jello(TM) a war criminal?
""Off the cuff" seems like an effort after the fact to minimize the statement."
Sure. Then again, many Biden statements have to be minimized after the fact. But off the cuff is also correct: does Biden ever say anything in a well thought out manner? Can he?
Of course, if his statements were not minimized after the fact, he might not have become president. He lied about his first wife's death, he lied about his academic record, he plagiarized his own biography, and so on, and so forth. Unminimized, they would have disqualified a lesser hack.
But the war criminal comment raises the further question what our goal is. Besides enabling the mullahs with Russia's help, do we even have one?
""Off the cuff" seems like an effort after the fact to minimize the statement."
Sure. Then again, many Biden statements have to be minimized after the fact. But off the cuff is also correct: does Biden ever say anything in a well thought out manner? Can he?
Of course, if his statements were not minimized after the fact, he might not have become president. He lied about his first wife's death, he lied about his academic record, he plagiarized his own biography, and so on, and so forth. Unminimized, they would have disqualified a lesser hack.
But the war criminal comment raises the further question what our goal is. Besides enabling the mullahs with Russia's help, do we even have one? What are we trying to achieve?
I appreciate the Chaplin video. I was thinking along the lines of Jimmy Durante -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY-zmJ1VCQI
Guy in his ear didn't hear the question at first.
To be fair, "criminal" doesn't have the same heft to it in Biden, Inc.
Look at all these America First folks trashing the United States.
For the record, the Persian Gulf War, the Iraq War, and the Afghanistan operation were all authorized by the United Nations for the purpose of defense. They were not wars of aggression and conquest, which by their nature are criminal under international law.
The Russian War is itself criminal and the various operations to target civilian areas and individuals are themselves war crimes. By launching this war of aggression, Putin himself is a war criminal, as culpable as the German high command was at Nuremberg.
Too bad that speaking the truth is inconvenient for you folks and creates a pressure to do something about it.
Finally we have a clear headed, competent and transparent leader in the White House. It's so sad that the carefully expressed nuance of President Biden's statement has been misunderstood.
Which part of "no" and "yes" don't you rubes understand?
If Putin is a no-good, terrible, worse than Hitler, inhumane, causer of all destruction, mustn't he also be a war criminal?
A deplorable must always be the most deplorablest at all times, lest they become another person with faults.
Re: Christopher B:
We called various German and Japanese members of the military 'war criminals' after WII largely based on their conduct during the war, not simply on the fact that they executed their war plans which seems to be the basis for most people calling Putin a war criminal.
As I understand it, there were three categories -- Class A war criminals were convicted of "crimes against peace," which is the category that Putin would clearly fall into. It's kind of a BS category, though, compared to Class B (normal war crimes, like shooting prisoners after they have surrendered) or Class C (crimes against humanity, like the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanking). Of course, the reason I think it's BS is largely that the Soviet Union was like the number two crimes against peace offender before and during the war, with unprovoked territorial aggression against Poland, Finland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, China (Xinjiang), and Iran (joint surprise attack with the British Empire), and probably others. And you could make the same argument re Class B and Class C war crimes too.
All carping about the monstrous evil of Communism aside, though, I don't know whether the Nuremberg / Far East tribunal framework even applies today. Does it?
And re: civilian casualties, blowing up hospitals and refugee centres certainly feels the most like a war crime to me, but the US probably cannot agree to any rubric in which it would actually be a war crime, given that we blow up civilian targets like weddings and private residences all the time. We also apparently "double tap" some targets so that we can kill the first aid providers who rush to the scene after an initial strike. Unlike the Communists, I think we've generally tried to tailor our conception of war crimes so that our war methods don't count. The only exception I can think of is unrestricted submarine warfare (we practiced it to great effect in the Pacific, sinking convoys of civilian refugees as well as numerous "hell ships" ferrying our own POWs, but convicted Germans of practicing it in the Atlantic). That said, the Germans had signed onto a bunch of conventions that the Japanese had not, so there was probably a legal difference of some sort. At any rate, we can be a little hypocritical, but we don't generally try to claim Black is White.
If we bomb and invade, its OK because we're "The good guys"
War crimes are like hate speech.
They allow desperate consequences for the same behavior.
Iman said...
"Biden is his usual, moronic self. He should be more circumspect and not verbalize every thought that runs thru his head or repeat what that fat-ass, twatwaffle Ron Klain whispers in his ear."
You are assuming a level of self awareness that simply isn't there.
You'll notice the usual suspects aren't here defending him. In fact there are fewer every day admitting that they voted for him. Now I'm willing to cut people some slack if they apologize for foisting this senile pervert on the rest of the country.
C'mon man. A guy who authorizes drone killing an NGO worker and his family for delivering water to thirsty people should know a war criminal when he sees one. Maybe he meant it as a sign of respect, one mob boss to another: "he made his bones."
His security looks heavier than usual.
"But when Putin does it, the tears flow. OMG, the children!"
And, of course, this is the proper, sane response. We should have this same reaction anytime the USA inflicts war on other nations.
This is pretty typical Biden. He says whatever without putting much thought into it, not that thinking would help given he's a dunce; his beliefs are abandoned whenever they are inconvenient, including ones that he supposedly deeply held; and he's senile so he may not have even remembered what he said before. Our President, ladies and gentlemen!
We called various German and Japanese members of the military 'war criminals' after WII largely based on their conduct during the war, not simply on the fact that they executed their war plans
Maybe *largely* based on their conduct during the war, but planning aggressive war ("crimes against peace") was a separate offense, for which a defendant could be convicted, even if he wasn't found guilty of any other offense. (Rudolf Hess, for example, was convicted of crimes against peace and of participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace, but acquitted of war crimes and crimes against humanity.)
Biden’s war criminal accusation is just more evidence of dementia. Obviously his handlers told Biden to avoid the accusation because it would muck up the peace negotiations. But once again Biden acts like an unrestrained child.
If we had reporters and not stenographers in the media, perhaps someone would ask Biden why he’s using the war criminal to negotiate his deal with the largest state sponsor of terrorism? Doesn’t Iran qualify every bit as much as a war criminal?
"We called various German and Japanese members of the military 'war criminals' after WII largely based on their conduct during the war, not simply on the fact that they executed their war plans which seems to be the basis for most people calling Putin a war criminal. That's leaving aside how much responsibility Putin bears for specific actions of his troops but that was another thing we were did parse out."
When heads of state initiate wars against other nations they are responsible for all actions and tactics that follow. All who start wars are war criminals, as war is the greatest crime. Even those who fight in defense against aggressors can become war criminals if they resort to the kind of coarse, indiscriminate brutality against innocents and the helpless (including captives) that is typical of war.
"It's no wonder Russia and China are running roughshod over the world."
Are they? Really? How so?
"Bush ended the first Iraq war by bring Hussein to trial."
If this were so--it isn't, btw--why did our troops remain in Iraq afterward, continuing military operations? Obama continued the ongoing war crime Bush/Cheney initiated, even expanding the use of drones to fight the purposeless war.
That aside, simply by invading Iraq we committed a war crime, as we had no valid self-defense basis to to so.
As to the term "war criminal," it means very little in most applications. To be a "criminal" requires preforming a crime and a crime requires a law. The "war criminal" is typically guilty of violating international law. The problem is international law has no objective governing authority. If I commit a crime in the United States, depending on the crime my municipality, county, state, and/or federal government has the authority and the ability to punish me. If I violate international law, there is no equivalent supernational power, no matter what the International Court of Justice pretends it is, or what Interpol thinks it is, or what the United Nations claims to be. Oh, sure, the United States could arrest someone as a war criminal and then ship them off to The Hague, but that's only because the United States, as a sovereign nation, cares to so do voluntarily. They can also tell the World Court to sod off and the World Court and the UN can complain and denounce and whatever else they want to do, but there is nothing they can do about it. Now other countries could take objection to this act and then sanction the United States to try to get them to comply, but this is just standard diplomacy between countries, not the act of an international organization, no matter what the other country claims it is doing.
Now, international law does form a nice framework of what one country expects from another country and what actions could cause the ire of their fellow sovereign nations. But that's it. The law of the Earth is whatever sovereign nations are willing to enforce on each other. Anyone who pays attention knows that, like all diplomacy, this is a very flexible, inconsistent, negotiable exercise. But it makes for good propaganda.
Calling Putin a war criminal is meaningless because people like Cook think that anyone who fights a war is a criminal.
It's pretty much the same as calling someone a racist.
Democrats are big on verdict (and sentence) first, trial (much) later, as shown by the J6 prisoners.
Shit ... charging a man with war crimes in this place was like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. I took the mission. What the hell else was I gonna do? But, I really didn't know what I'd do when I found him.
Yes, Putin is a war criminal, as are all U.S. presidents of the past half-century.
Cookie isn't going to like this, but one President in the last half-century is not a war criminal. Can anyone guess which one??
How many Afghan,Iraqi and Serbian children died because of USA airstrikes? But the American response is a tough-guy "That's war, baby!".
... Syrian, Libyan, etc.
War, social justice, redistributive change, diversity [dogma]... All's fair in lust, abortion, and Mengele mandates.
To be fair, Biden probably didn't remember answering the question the first time. Or if he did, Biden probably thought he was giving the same answer.
“Just as every skell is a criminal and all the Democrats ‘taints”
Lots of yammering on about who is a war criminal when the term hasn't even been defined. War is hell, and there will always be collateral damage to property and human lives. I think where it crosses the line is when there is wanton terrorization of noncombatants, or purposely using noncombatants as human shields for military operations. There are probably a lot more things that would fir in the criminality category, like the My Lai massacre, or in older history in our area when a native American tribe tied a pre-teen kid to a post and set fire to the fuel around it, then made him run circles until he succumbed to the heat. Protecting your territory is one thing; intentional cruelty is unhuman.
"Calling someone a war criminal , punishable by execution, is no way to attract that someone to the bargaining table."
Or it could be a prison sentence. There is no compulsory death sentence.
It's moot anyway, as very few war criminals ever pay for their crimes, and most live very well once out of power.
Joe Biden at Annual Friends of Ireland Luncheon: “I May Be Irish, But I’m Not Stupid”
via Gateway
Incidentally, there is no War going on, strictly speaking.
Russia didn’t officially declare War on Ukraine, they call it ‘special military operation’.
What is more curious, Ukraine didn’t officially declare war on Russia either…
To those of you who voted for Biden while saying you hoped for a "return to normal", I tip my St. Paddy's Day cap to you and toast you with a glass of green beer, while I send curses in your general direction with hopes you may one day realize your contribution to the destruction of our nation.
You cannot believe a damn thing the democrat media says. Need video.
"Not only that," Dopey Joe went on, "but we have photographic evidence that he showers with his daughter! No, wait . . . that was me. Never mind."
rcocean said...
If Putin is a war criminal, then what is Dick Cheney or George Bush? What about the US war in Afghanistan, isn't that a "War crime"? We got away with calling the Germans "war criminals" in WW2 while giving Stalin a pass, because it was victors justice. But we haven't defeated Putin in a war, and never will.
The lack of self-awarness amoung Americans is breathtaking. If we bomb and invade, its OK because we're "The good guys". If others do it, its "a war crime". How many Afghan,Iraqi and Serbian children died because of USA airstrikes? But the American response is a tough-guy "That's war, baby!".
Your ignorance and lack of awareness of any sort is what's amazing.
Let's take these in chronological order, shall we?
Iraq:
Iraq invaded Kuwait, and attempted to annex the entire country. The US got together some other countries, and at the request of the government of the country invaded, went to war against the Iraqi invaders.
I'd ask if you believe that Ukraine is committing a "war crime" by fighting back against the Russian attackers, but I'm afraid of what your answer would be
The fight against Iraq ended with a truce, not a peace treaty. Part of that truce required Iraq to give up all WMD, and forswear staking more.
Saddam's claims that Iraq would use WMD against any "invaders" thus provided a casus belli for the second invasion, since refusing to follow the cease fire agreement gives the other side the right to terminate the cease fire
Serbia:
As part of the breakup of Yugoslavia, the Serbian government grabbed most of the heavy weapons, and then used them to wage war against the other former members of Yugoslavia.
If you're claiming it's a "war crime" to wage war against someone who's currently actively at war, then you're even more insane than I thought
Afghanistan:
Al Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan, committed an act of war against the US with the 9/11 attacks.
The US demanded that the Taliban give up al Qaeda.
The Taliban refused
A Neutral gives up its neutrality, and becomes a combatant, if it allows a belligerent to launch attacks from within the Neutral's territory, which Afghanistan arguably did
So, you're 0 for 3
Now, do tell us about all the mass casualty terrorist attacks Ukraine launched against Russia in Russian territory (no fighting within the 1994 borders of Ukraine qualifies for this). We'll wait
Until then, Russia has been the aggressor every step of the way, so it gets no benefit of the doubt.
Robert Cook said...
Yes, Putin is a war criminal, as are all U.S. presidents of the past half-century.
What were Trump's "war crimes"?
Achilles said...
He should be offering off ramps and peaceful options but Ukrainian neutrality does not have as many opportunities for corrupt DC shitheads to make money selling weapons and influences.
Fuck you.
What "Ukrainian neutrality" means is "Russia gets to carve off some of Ukraine now, and remove any possibility of Ukraine having allies, so it can carve off the rest later."
Now, is your defense that you're an utter moron, so you're not aware of that result?
Or is it that you're a Putin supporter, so you want that result?
Humperdink said...
Calling someone a war criminal , punishable by execution, is no way to attract that someone to the bargaining table.
The only acceptable solutions require a complete loss by Russia.
Any attempt to force Ukraine to be "neutral" is simply an attempt to strip away any possible allies, so that Russia can finish the conquest of Ukraine later.
You know, first you get the Sudetenland, then you get all the rest of Czechoslovakia later.
Russia agreed to respect Uraine's territorial integrity in 1994, and then violated the hell out of it 20 years later. So there's no reasonable way to trust any treaty signed with Russia that requires beneficial action by Russia.
Treaty: Ukraine gets all its territory back, including the Crimea and "independent regions", and gets to join NATO so Russia will never attack again.
That is a treaty that could lead to peace and a final result that doesn't include the complete destruction of Ukraine.
Anything else is a partial step to Ukraine's destruction, with no reason to believe there will be no more such steps
Since Putin isn't going to agree to that, there's no point to trying to get him to "come to the table"
Rusty @12:13… I get your point, lol.
Since everyone here has made such a great case for Putin being just like the rest of us, we can stop bitching, go back to our evil lives, and just give him a Nobel Peace Prize. He's a wonderful human, just like us.
“We are finally seeing a potential compromise to end the war and Biden does this. I suspect the Democrats want the war as an issue to hide their incompetence at economics, at least until close to the election. The GOP war hawks like Romney are just idiots.”
The thing to keep your mind is that the Ukrainians bought the sons of FJB, Palsi, and Lurch Kerry.
But the big thing, I think, is that calling Putin a war criminal is counterproductive. We are sanctioning him, and his country. Very quickly severing financial links that they have with the west. But Russia is still is a big net exporter of fossil, bigger now with FJB killing our energy independence, as well as selling other natural resources. They have the oil and gas, and the world needs it. So these other countries can’t buy in with dollars? Fine, they can buy it with Rubles or Yuán. And that is starting to happen. Why is that problematic? Because the American Dollar has been the world reserve currency for 3/4 of a century now, and that effectively hides mismanagement of our money supply. Gross mismanagement now. The Dems, in particular, have been spending money we didn’t have for the last decade like drunken sailors on shore leave. That should have blown up our money supply and spiked inflation years ago. It hasn’t been, because other countries have been buying our sovereign debt, because it is the world reserve currency, so the Fed didn’t have to. It’s when the Fed buys US debt that we get the expansion of our money supply, which is the primary driver of inflation. Essentially, Dem politicians and their constituencies, have been grabbing as much money as they could from the rest of us, esp since they stole the Presidency and the Senate in 2020, like there will be no tomorrow, funded, ultimately by Treasury sales of our debt - in the past bought by other countries, but more and more, by necessity, by the Federal Reserve. This is the time that the Dems decided to force some of the biggest countries in the world off the US Dollar standard, exacerbating our domestic inflation problem. And it’s just going to get worse, with Russia and China, in particular, selling their US debt, forcing the Fed to pick up the slack (increasing our money supply).
Which comes down to the question of whether FJB (and his handlers), Palsi, etc, are just brain dead, in terms of reality (Both FJB and Pelosi obviously are), or whether they are trying to crash our economy and much of the world’s (to trigger the Great Reset?)
If you put a million Uighurs in concentration camps, where they are raped and tortured and enslaved, and their organs are harvested and transplanted into foreigners, is that a war crime?
Maybe the people of Ukraine want to kick the Russian Army out then reclaim Crimean and dispute territory. Without no fly zone. With a billion dollars of tank killing stuff. And some realtime visual and comms Intel. Then they earned NATO status by their brave choice to stand up to a Third rate army with first rate nukes.
Aren't what Ukraine doing exactly what Trump always bragging that he would do to aggressive bully?
Haven't seen bago in a while. Hope you good.
That should have blown up our money supply and spiked inflation years ago. It hasn’t been, because other countries have been buying our sovereign debt, because it is the world reserve currency, so the Fed didn’t have to. It’s when the Fed buys US debt that we get the expansion of our money supply, which is the primary driver of inflation. Essentially, Dem politicians and their constituencies, have been grabbing as much money as they could from the rest of us, esp since they stole the Presidency and the Senate in 2020, like there will be no tomorrow, funded, ultimately by Treasury sales of our debt - in the past bought by other countries, but more and more, by necessity, by the Federal Reserve.
Now we're going to pay for their graft and corruption. The American sheep are going to get sheared. But they don't mind, all they do is baa, baa anyway.
Greg the class traitor: "Now, is your defense that you're an utter moron, so you're not aware of that result?
Or is it that you're a Putin supporter, so you want that result?"
Everyone who dares to disagree with me is a Putin supporter....or worse.
Re: bagoh20:
Since everyone here has made such a great case for Putin being just like the rest of us, we can stop bitching, go back to our evil lives, and just give him a Nobel Peace Prize. He's a wonderful human, just like us.
I don't think we (or most of us) are saying Putin is just like the rest of us. My point is America typically draws the lines on "war crimes" carefully so that we don't get caught. firebombing civilian population centres is a good example of this. If you asked Americans in, say, 1941, when the available examples were all from our enemies (Germany in the Blitz, and Japan over various Chinese cities, particularly Chungking), we'd probably have said yes. But then we employed the same tactic times ten in Germany, China (Wuhan), Taiwan (Taipei), and Japan (everywhere) and then detonated two nuclear devices killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. So that ended up not being a war crime at the time, as far as I'm aware.
Having read up on it a little since the last time this issue came up, I have learned that as of 1977, Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions bans indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations. The United States has, of course, not ratified Protocol I (although we did sign it). Our rules of engagement probably limit our use of indiscriminate attacks under ordinary circumstances, although our nuclear deterrent would be significantly less credible if we had made it illegal to conduct indiscriminate attacks on civilians. Russia under the Soviets apparently did ratify it (their deterrent is intact because of course they would just flout any restrictions if they thought they could get away with it) but the ratification was revoked under Putin. In retrospect, eh, perhaps a sign?
Of course, all that said, war crimes can be whatever we want them to be if we ever have Putin within our power.
Since many here are making comparisons between Putin and US presidents, how many UN resolutions did Ukraine violate before Putin was forced to intervene? How many international inspection teams, for whatever, did Ukraine harass and stymie? How many Ukraine based terrorists flew airplanes, full of passengers, into Russian buildings? I'm too lazy to complete the list, but you get the idea. There's a big difference.
Biden voted for Bush's 2003 Iraq war and even argued before Bush took office that Saddam had to be taken down, so Biden isn't in any position to consider Bush and Cheney (or Putin?) war criminals.
Biden's comment about Putin: was it serious, or administration propaganda, or just Biden's unthinking assumption of the tough guy pose? With Biden who knows?
Biden's comment wasn't "off the cuff," but it was probably unscripted and "off script." The assumption may be that anything that Biden comes up with himself isn't to be taken seriously.
"It’s weird that Althouse tries to accuse the Washing Post of trying to minimize Biden’s off the cuff statement but then makes the case of why it should be minimized"
I don't think it's weird at all to say that the war crimes accusation should have been minimized, only not by the media. Their job is not damage control when Joe's mouth outpaces his brain (yeah, I know - someone should tell them that).
cfs said...
"To those of you who voted for Biden while saying you hoped for a "return to normal", I tip my St. Paddy's Day cap to you and toast you with a glass of green beer, while I send curses in your general direction with hopes you may one day realize your contribution to the destruction of our nation."
This would require a degree of honesty and self awareness that, alas, they don't possess. So the rest of us rational actors who choose not to equivocate our powers of reason are going to hear that ,"Trump was a Russian stooge." for quite awhile yet.
"What were Trump's 'war crimes'?"
For one, he ordered an airstrike on an airport in Baghdad that killed an Iranian general, (among others), an intentional assassination.
He also lifted restrictions on and increased the number of US airstrikes in Afghanistan that led to an increase in civilian casualties.
Heck, that he allowed our military to continue activities in Afghanistan for the whole of his administration makes him a war criminal, as he furthered a criminal war he could have ended it immediately upon gaining office.
From today's COUNTERPUNCH regarding an example of America's use of torture (of the non-waterboarding kind, for those who--incredibly!--believe waterboarding is the only torture technique employed by the US), and its lasting outcome for at least one victim, (if there's one, there are probably more than one):
+ From the Annals of the Free World:
"Amman al-Baluchi is a 44-year-old Kuwaiti man with brain damage, the result of being repeatedly slammed against a wall by CIA interrogators for more than 2 hours. Baluchi is a prisoner in Guantanamo, awaiting trial as a suspected 9/11 plotter. According to a newly declassified IG report, Baluchi was used as a living prop for the training of CIA torturers in an abusive technique called 'walling.' In 2003, Baluchi was illegally kidnapped by the CIA in Pakistan and renditioned to a black site north of Kabul. His interrogation was conducted by two CIA torturers going by the code names 'the Salt Pit' and Cobalt. Before bashing his head against the wall, the interrogators drenched Baluchi in ice water, then jammed a stick behind his knees and repeatedly forced him back into a kneeling position, a technique known to inflict excruciating pain. (Both of these methods were considered 'extra-legal.') But the worst was yet to come and it came with the full-approval of the Agency. Baluchi was stripped naked. His heels were placed against a plywood wall and a rolled-up towel was strapped behind his neck. Then, according to the IG report, 'the interrogators would … grab the ends of the towel in front of and below the detainees face and shove [Baluchi] backwards into the wall, never letting go of the towel.' The goal was to make Baluchi 'bounce.' The 'bouncing' of Baluchi went on for a couple of hours, as CIA interrogators lined up to take a crack at slamming his head against the wall, so that they could get 'certified' in 'their ability to use the technique.' Baluchi was left with permanent brain trauma. The CIA never learned a useful tidbit of information from him. But that, apparently, wasn’t the point of these torture sessions. They were meant to terrify the detainees into compliance."
Robert Cook said...
"What were Trump's 'war crimes'?"
For one, he ordered an airstrike on an airport in Baghdad that killed an Iranian general, (among others), an intentional assassination.
Go Fuck yourself.
Killing enemy leaders is an appropriate part of war.
He also lifted restrictions on and increased the number of US airstrikes in Afghanistan that led to an increase in civilian casualties.
Attacking the enemy is not a "war crime".
Neither is collateral damage, unless the collateral damage was the purpose of the strike.
Which isn't teh case here
Heck, that he allowed our military to continue activities in Afghanistan for the whole of his administration makes him a war criminal, as he furthered a criminal war he could have ended it immediately upon gaining office.
Yeah, go fuck yourself.
Afghanistan was an accessory after the fact, if not before, to the 9/11 attacks, which were an act of war against the US.
They started teh war, not us.
So, to sum up, Trump did not commit a single war crime in his four years in office
Thank you for making that clear
Drago said...
Greg the class traitor: "Now, is your defense that you're an utter moron, so you're not aware of that result?
Or is it that you're a Putin supporter, so you want that result?"
Everyone who dares to disagree with me is a Putin supporter....or worse.
Nope. People who argue that Putin should win are Putin supporters.
It's a rather definitional kind of thing.
I note you don't even try to challenge my point that what Achilles was arguing for was a Putin victory.
"Go Fuck yourself.
Killing enemy leaders is an appropriate part of war."
We're not at war with Iran.
"Attacking the enemy is not a 'war crime.'
Neither is collateral damage, unless the collateral damage was the purpose of the strike."
Who is our enemy in Afghanistan? How do we distinguish our "enemies" from non-enemies? If we remove restrictions on airstrikes that are intended to minimize deaths of innocents, and the rate of innocents killed by our airstrikes increase as a result, we have committed a crime. (And it's not as if we had not already been killing many innocents throughout our entire purposeless two decades in Afghanistan.)
Martin Luther King stated in his 1967 speech "Beyond Vietnam" that the USA was "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world." It was true then and is true now.
Oh,yes:
"Afghanistan was an accessory after the fact, if not before, to the 9/11 attacks, which were an act of war against the US.
"They started teh war, not us."
No, they were not and they did not. We could have worked out an agreement with the Taliban, but Bush refused any negotiations.
Whether the refusal to negotiate and, instead, to bomb and invade Afghanistan was a pretext to invade because they wanted to invade for other reasons--perhaps to soften up the American public so we would accept their transparent lies used as a basis to justify our criminal invasion of Iraq--or just typical US arrogance and stupidity, I can't say. It could have been both. But, the result was 20 years of pure waste: of human lives and of at least a trillion US dollars that could have been applied to more productive purposes. But then, the US government is not interested in using the people's treasure for the people, but only to aggrandize its military power and global geopolitical dominance. The result, in the end, will be our loss of that dominance.
Robert Cook said...
"Go Fuck yourself.
Killing enemy leaders is an appropriate part of war."
We're not at war with Iran.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards, which that General was part of, most certainly have engaged in acts of war against the US.
So we returned the favor.
And Robert, being a big terrorism supporter, is upset.
Wah
"Attacking the enemy is not a 'war crime.'
Neither is collateral damage, unless the collateral damage was the purpose of the strike."
Who is our enemy in Afghanistan?
The Taliban
Al Qaeda
Anyone else who was trying to kill US soldiers
Anyone supporting the Taliban, al Qaeda, or both
How do we distinguish our "enemies" from non-enemies? If we remove restrictions on airstrikes that are intended to minimize deaths of innocents, and the rate of innocents killed by our airstrikes increase as a result, we have committed a crime.
Bullshit
Fighting a war more effectively is not a crime, in any reasonable definition of the term.
There are all sorts of idiotic measures the US Military has taken to "save civilian lives" while crippling our military response
Nothing about the Laws of War require any of the vast majority of those measure, and nothing forbids getting rid of those measures
Martin Luther King stated in his 1967 speech "Beyond Vietnam" that the USA was "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world." It was true then and is true now.
It was pig ignorant then, and even more so now.
The Mongols
Tamerlane
The Romans
Mohamed
Islam
Germany
Imperial Japan
Russia
China
All immediately come to mind
If the US is even in the top 10, it's at #10
"Afghanistan was an accessory after the fact, if not before, to the 9/11 attacks, which were an act of war against the US.
"They started the war, not us."
No, they were not and they did not. We could have worked out an agreement with the Taliban, but Bush refused any negotiations.
You really like being wrong, don't you.
The Taliban carried out an act of war against the US. Yes, the US COULD have decided not to respond.
No, that doesn't make it any less an act of war
Are you just so mentally defective that you can't grasp the difference between "can" and "must"?
It's not a "war crime" if you just don't do all the things you CAN do to avoid a problem.
It's only a war crime while you violate a "must" or "must not".
None of the things you whined about qualify as "musts".
What crime did the Taliban commit against the USA?
Martin Luther King stated in his 1967 speech "Beyond Vietnam" that the USA was "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world." ”It was true then and is true now.
It was pig ignorant then, and even more so now.
The Mongols
Tamerlane
The Romans
Mohamed
Islam
Germany
Imperial Japan
Russia
China”
I guess you can try to win an argument by being dishonest, but it won’t work. You well know King wasn’t referring to all of history, but to the times in which he lived, to the time in which he spoke.
This fail shows you know you have no valid refutation.
Robert Cook said...
Martin Luther King stated in his 1967 speech "Beyond Vietnam" that the USA was "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world." ”It was true then and is true now.
It was pig ignorant then, and even more so now.
The Mongols
Tamerlane
The Romans
Mohamed
Islam
Germany
Imperial Japan
Russia
China”
I guess you can try to win an argument by being dishonest, but it won’t work. You well know King wasn’t referring to all of history, but to the times in which he lived, to the time in which he spoke.
This fail shows you know you have no valid refutation.
Bzzt.
1: The Chinese "Cultural Revolution" started in 1966.
It was a far greater slaughter than anything America was perpetuating at the time
2: The NVA and Viet Cong, backed by the USSR, were driving the violence in South Vietnam, not the US
3: The USSR was formenting violent revolution all over the world at that time. The next year they would bloodily suppress the Prague Spring.
It was an utterly pig ignorant statement by a parochial individual, and your defense of it was even more so
Robert Cook said...
Me: "Go Fuck yourself.
Killing enemy leaders is an appropriate part of war."
We're not at war with Iran.
So, just checking here:
You claim the US killing Soleimani. commander of the Quds Force, an IRGC division primarily responsible actions outside of Iran, like, oh, IEDs set to kill American soldiers, to be a "war crime"
When Soleimani's troops planted those IEDs, was that a "war crime"?
Or are you always good with someone trying to murder US troops?
Robert Cook said...
Martin Luther King stated in his 1967 speech "Beyond Vietnam" that the USA was "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world." ”It was true then and is true now.
There were between 21 and 22 million black in the US in 1967
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/pop6097.pdf
There were 17 million East Germans in 1967
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Germany#Population
Those 17 million East Germans suffered more degradation of spirit, and more violence to their bodies by the State or the State's enforcers, in total than did the < 22 million blacks in America (not all of whom were in the Jim Crow South).
Add up all the rest of the people in "Warsaw Pact" countries being crushed by the Communist secret police, plus the people in the USSR suffering the same?
America's not even in the same order of magnitude.
If MLK Junior had ever gone to Cuba like Eldridge Cleaver, he wouldn't have been spouting such stupidity
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा