OF THE
TIMES
[...] The most interesting part of the president's press conference [on al- Baghdadi's death] was his segue into a non sequitur about Iraq. Mid way through the press conference a reporter asked Trump about what "brilliant" people helped in his decision-making process for the operation. Trump's response was one of the most telling statements of his presidency. Indeed, it was an admission that he is perfectly willing to commit a war crime, an impeachable offense, as part of his personal ideology. Here's the exchange.Retired General Barry McCaffrey says Trump's neocons are turning US forces into 'pirates':
[...]
What Donald Trump is advocating here, in his very Donald Trump kind of way, is "pillaging." He is advocating taking Iraq's oil by force, ostensibly as payment for our "liberation" of that country. This is clearly and definitively a war crime.
International law has long protected property against pillage during armed conflict. The Lieber Code, a military law from the U.S. civil war, said, "All pillage or sacking, even after taking place by force, are prohibited under penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense." In The Hague Regulations of 1907, two provisions stipulate clearly that "the pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited," and that "pillage is formally forbidden." The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court have both formally reaffirmed that pillaging a country of its natural resources is illegal and is considered to be a war crime. It's as simple as that.
It matters not one whit if Lindsey Graham has a bill to take Iraq's oil. It doesn't matter if Trump thinks we should take the oil as reimbursement for U.S. aggression against that country. What matters here is the rule of law, and the law is clear. It's bad enough that the U.S. military is in Syria illegally. (There are only three ways to send troops to a foreign country legally: If the troops are invited by the country; if the country attacks the United States; or with the permission of the United Nations Security Council.) Let's not add more international crimes to the ones we've already committed.
[...]
On Monday Defense Secretary Mark Esper spelled out that a deployment of some few hundred US troops will deny Syrian government access to oilfields in the northeast, instead ensuring they stay in Kurdish-led SDF hands.
The immediate justification given by the Pentagon chief was the usual 'defeat ISIS' mantra (despite, ironically, their leader Baghdadi being taken out in Saturday's US raid into Idlib).
"We want to make sure that SDF does have access to the resources in order to guard the [IS] prisons, in order to arm their own troops, in order to assist us with the 'defeat ISIS' mission," Esper said.
One international legal expert, Anthony Cordesman, told The Guardian of the Pentagon plan that, "In international law, you can't take civilian goods or seize them. That would amount to a war crime."
"Although I've considered whether we should not carry [political] ads in the past, and I'll continue to do so, on balance so far I've thought we should continue."
"Ads can be an important part of voice — especially for candidates and advocacy groups the media might not otherwise cover so they can get their message into debates."
Dorsey admitted in a series of tweets that political advertising can skew the conversation away from organic discussion, though his declaration that "we believe this decision should not be compromised by money" belied years of taking money for exactly that skewing.
Facebook has been getting pummeled for its decision not to fact-check ads from candidates, and Dorsey may want to spare Twitter from being dragged through the same mud.
Dorsey emphasized "this isn't about free expression," and explained that trying to focus on controlling the spread of targeted messaging, disinfo, and deepfakes while also regulating advertising stopped the platform from doing either effectively. Presumably, that means Twitter will focus more on stemming the spread of "disinfo" going forward - an ominous prospect for users with political views outside of the mainstream, who have seen many of their number kicked off the major social media platforms or shadowbanned smeared as "disinfo."
Some speculated the intent was to pressure Facebook into changing its own political policies, which have been panned by several of the 2020 candidates even as they buy ads on the platform.
Others, smelling censorship but approving of the odor, called on Dorsey to ban other groups and individuals...
...or other advertisers.
Some saw the ban as a cynical political move, however, pointing out that ads are not the real driver of fake political conversations.
The demonstrators call on the government to resign and demand economic reforms and fighting against corruption. As the protests resumed last Friday, Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said that he would carry out a cabinet reshuffle and introduce changes to election laws. Mahdi said that the government's resignation, demanded by protesters, would throw the country in chaos.See also:
"We have a right to say to the Israeli government that the United States of America and our taxpayers and our people believe in human rights, we believe in democracy, we will not accept authoritarianism or racism."Speaking at a conference Monday hosted by the liberal-leaning Jewish organization J Street, Sen. Bernie Sanders expressed support for leveraging billions of dollars in annual U.S. military aid to stop Israel's horrific treatment and occupation of the Palestinian people.
"My solution is to say to Israel: You get $3.8 billion every single year. If you want military aid you're going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza. I think it is fair to say that some of that $3.8 billion should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza."
Comment: WhatsApp sues Israel's NSO for allegedly helping spies hack phones around the world