World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Are you saying Biden simply isn't aware of the genocide, or that he's completely powerless to have stopped the military aid?
I’m saying the inconclusive State Department report has his hands tied. Congress has already voted in favor of military aid. If Biden acts against the advisement of both branches, he’ll be exposed to an impeachment hearing for acting in bad faith. He needs the State Department to provide an accurate and conclusive report, or be at the table for negotiations for first-hand accountability, to justify amendment of existing support agreements without repercussion.
You don’t have to like it, but this is how the government is structured.
Do really you think the report would have been inconclusive if they didn't want it to be?
Who are “they?” Blinken or Biden? Biden’s proposal for ceasefire takes the State Department out of the equation and allows him to assess the conflict with direct oversight.
He’d be acting in bad faith without support of either the State Department or Congress.
Biden has three options:
Mandate reassessment from the State Department, hoping the report will be conclusive of crime justifying amendment of support
Investigate suppressed intelligence in the State Department, eventually leading to a reassessment of intelligence
Amend existing agreements against advisement from the State Department and Congress and face the impending impeachment hearing
Ah yes, the famously anti-Israel congress that would definitely be against Biden's administration saying that they couldn't find conclusive evidence of something that lots of other parties have found very conclusive evidence for.
I don’t understand the point you’re making. Congress does not report to the State Department.
Congress is the Legislative Branch.
The State Department is part of the Executive Branch.
Deviating from advisement of both branches will find Biden in an impeachment hearing for acting in bad faith.
It's really adorable that you don't think the U.S. government, which has given Israel billions of dollars worth of weapons over the years and is sending them more and more as they bomb Gaza to ruin isn't behind Israel 100% no matter what they do.
I'm not sure why that isn't totally obvious to you like it is almost the entire rest of the world, but...
It’s cool if you want to paint the entire problem with broad strokes, but don’t minimize the understanding of those who want the details. Accuracy is important to some of us.
In the general sense of right vs. wrong, we’re in absolute agreement that it’s wrong. I’m just discussing how the government can do something about it.
Details like these?
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976
Weird that the US missed those really obvious fucking details.
I don’t need you to send me news of atrocities I’ve already seen. I need the State Department to determine them to be in violation of international law so our President can do something about it without facing a trial.
If you’ve been reading my comments with intent to understand, rather than looking for points to combat with general opinions, you’d already know that.
It was a 25-page UN report on genocide which, in fact, says that they are violating international law, and not a news article.
So, again, how did the U.S. miss those really obvious details?
Like I said, it's a 25 page report so take your time reading it and tell me why the U.S. missed those details since you seem convinced that the U.S. assessment is correct.
Again, you’re missing the point. It’s not about the UN report, or even the impending trial of Israel for genocide by the ICJ.
POTUS does not listed to news, protesters, the UN, the ICC, or the ICJ. They listen to US intelligence reports provided by the State Department. They can deviate from following advisement if backed by the support of Congress. Without either, they would be challenged by Congress in the form of an impeachment hearing.
Like it or not, this is how the US government is structured. Knowing how it works allows us to find the problem.
In this case, the problem is suppressed intelligence in the State Department. That doesn’t mean Biden is free to amend legislation without repercussion. He can mandate reassessment, investigate the suppression, or take action against advisement and inevitably face impeachment from Republicans.
Yet again, I am asking why the state department claims it is inconclusive and Biden accepts that claim if it is conclusive without any suppressed intelligence?
@Flying: Something is getting lost in the sauce. This guy is in agreement with you. They're simply pointing out how the executive branch executes their decisions and who they are beholden to. The US president can read UN reports, but ultimately they are beholden to the state department and the intelligence reports they get which clearly should be reevaluated. That's it.
They are not saying there isn't validity in news articles or UN reports. Is that making sense?
The state department is not some magically neutral apolitical arbiter, time and time again we see that the president’s political appointees at the top direct the department to act in a way he wants. That means biasing reports; burying reports that say what the president doesn’t want public and commissioning reports to say what the president ultimately wants.
Didn’t we all see how the president leaned on the CIA to play up WMD claims in Iraq?
The Iraq war case is an example of the executive branch going against intelligence reports and stretching the truth extensively to make the case for war.
The evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaeda or any production of WMD was very flimsy at the time and there was no strong consensus among state agencies. This was a failure of the executive branch to make a correct assessment based on the reports it received. In fact, there were multiple agencies that came out against some of the statements by Bush and Cheney. The 170 page Senate Intelligence Committee report details all this and includes how CIA and FBI reports dismissed the claims of the president. In fact, multiple articles of impeachment were brought forward during Bush's presidency because of this gross misuse of truth. Also, the feelings of Americans post 9/11 was ripe for driving another war so Cheney and Co had the perfect mix. They could go off the flimsiest excuse at the time.
To summarize: Bush and Cheney exploited American sentiment in the wake of 9/11 and grossly exaggerated reports by state agencies which were later confirmed to be misconstrued or outright false.
Close. All the postwar analysis including mentions in the Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence and independent reporting (Slow Burn podcast did a good summary) discussed how analysts were pressured to write reports backing up claims of WMDs or pre-assuming WMDs existed and that anyone who wrote reports otherwise was reprimanded from above and their career impacted negatively in a way that others saw and tried not to repeat. Some Bush supporters tried to make the case that the CIA came up with WMD claims on their own and Bush was unwittingly dragged into a war reluctantly because of the bad intelligence and that’s a laughable claim; it was the White House pressuring reports to say what they wanted to hear. Cheney personally set up an office in Langley to drive that point home.
My point still stands; the top levels of the Executive Branch can influence pretty far down into the bureaucrat levels. The White House can pressure the CIA to issue reports that favor the existing policy and bury papers that contradict it. The State Department can issue reports that favor the administration’s foreign policy objectives and bury reports that contradict it. The Trump (and Biden) administrations wielded control over the CDC and issued guidelines that sometimes went against what independent public health experts and the medical community were recommending; promoting ideas with weak evidence and burying other ideas with strong evidence because they contradicted the political policies at the time (see also needle exchange policies vs evidence based public health community recommendations).
I don't know. It's hard to have a discussion in broad strokes like this, especially without receipts. The CDC clashed with Trump continuously over protocols and mandates. For example: I'm not sure which specific CDC recommendations you take umbrage with that went against medical community. There were definitely a lot of fuck-ups in that administration-from both the CDC and the executive branch.
I think if I recall correctly -because it was a while ago- you are correct: Bush and his administration did indeed pressure certain agencies in their reporting. But that wasn't equal for all agencies. So even though it's likely you are correct that Bush was a bad actor, it doesn't default to calling all subsequent administrations as equally guilty. Also I can't emphasize enough how much 9/11 skewed the American public at the time. It was a long time ago -relatively speaking - so my memory on this isnt the best.
Look at it this way, did the CDC ever openly contradict Trump? They had private disagreements behind closed doors according to a lot of anonymous media reporting, but since the CDC falls under the jurisdiction of HHS the civil service employees fall under the management of political appointees. In contrast, the Fed are a more independent agency designed to be more insulated from politicians and they had no trouble publicly saying no to a president.
I feel like people didn’t learn about this in school or remember it, so let me give a brief summary. Government agencies are staffed from the bottom up by civil service employees. They are hired and promoted based on their technical competence and expertise and can offer expert opinion and manage regulations. They are apolitical and keep their jobs in between presidential administrations. The very top and highest level jobs are politically appointed jobs by the White House and they change when administrations change. Their job is to set the policies for their respective departments and carry them out in accordance with the president’s wishes. If you’d like another example, the civil servants at the department of labor compile statistics on employment and unemployment rates and the president’s Secretary of Labor manages the department at the top and helps set departmental agenda.
My point is that the departments and agencies are not purely independent bodies and by design they are under the control of politicians. We have accountability by both electing a president who controls the staffing and high level decisions and Congress who oversees the functioning and results of each agency. I never said all presidents were equal on this but each one has a lot of control over what each agency PUBLICLY says. Biden essentially controls what ICE or CIA says to the press even if they privately warn him about changes in migrant numbers or WMD programs abroad.
I think you articulated your position really well. Not much I can disagree with here. I'm just wary of ultimate skepticism and having that conversation in the details is what matters imo. If we can bring receipts, all the better. Thanks
It appears you’ve arrived at the source of the problem. This is exactly what I was saying at the start of our conversation. He’s not allowed to dismiss the findings without a reassessment. So what do you think he should do?
I don't know, how about ask for a reassessment?
Or how about acting on that red line he said Israel couldn't cross and then crossed...
The red line is not actionable, and Netanyahu knows it.
I agree. Reassessment is the best of the three options. The most immediate option would have been the ceasefire, because it takes the State Department out of the equation and allows Biden to oversee negotiations and agreements directly, but I just read that Netanyahu declined. So now he needs to mandate a reassessment immediately.
I am close to certain that he will not do so.
I absolutely hope you’re wrong, or that Congress challenges his inaction.
What in the last 7 months gives you so much faith in the politically-controlled State Department that they’d publicly reach a conclusion Biden doesn’t want?
Now that Israel and Hamas agreed to the ceasefire, we’ll find out the truth. Biden now has direct oversight of negotiations, circumventing the State Department. His sanctions on Israel settlements on Palestinian territory take expansion off the table. Netanyahu’s only valid requests are return of hostages and ceasing inbound attacks. If he fails negotiations for reasons of retribution or acting in bad faith, Biden will have justification for amendment of support against the advisement of Congress and State Department, without providing Congress with cause for impeachment.
No they haven’t. Israel has not agreed to the ceasefire and Netanyahu today threw up a bunch of objections to the offer.
And again, please list any sanctions Biden has done against any illegal Israeli settlements. There are none. I’ll wait for you to show me any that prove me wrong.
Netanyahu has said for the last 6 months that returning all hostages is not sufficient for a ceasefire, AND that even if Hamas surrendered tomorrow and gave up all the hostages he would not end the war. That’s one of the reasons for Biden’s Friday speech.
Biden is pretending that Israel is not acting in bad faith even though it’s obvious. Look at how Israel is sending literal tanks into Rafah and 60+ airstrikes a day but claiming this is minor, and Biden doesn’t have the courage to call them on their BS.
So you couldn’t show me any sanctions. Got it.
“The prime minister himself insisted there would be no permanent truce until Hamas's military and governing capabilities were destroyed and all hostages released.”
You are giving me links that quote advisors that say Netanyahu is privately agreeing to the plan, but has not done so publicly. The NYTimes and your BBC link is talking about how Netanyahu is struggling with cabinet divisions right now, and if he agrees his coalition may collapse as the extreme right under Ben-Gvir and others pull out of the cabinet.
So you’re giving me rumors and private conjecture, Israel has NOT publicly accepted the deal at this time despite Biden optimistically saying they will this time, like he said multiple times this year including on Jimmy Fallon that a ceasefire was only days away.
That’s untrue, Congress already passed the Lehy law and arms shipments are already bound by that. Biden could have followed the law and stopped weapons shipments based on that or the other law that block aid to countries that block humanitarian aid. Instead Biden bypassed Congress to give more weapons faster, when he didn’t do that for Ukraine.
Biden’s bypass was before he mandated a pause in munitions delivery pending a State Department investigation of breach of international law. I don’t believe he was interested in stopping the supply before that. Once the investigation returned inconclusive, he was limited in his actions without repercussion. Amending existing agreements against advisement of Congress and State Department intelligence would leave him exposed to impeachment by Congress for acting in bad faith.
Now that there’s reason to believe Blinken’s report was inconclusive due to suppression of intelligence, Biden can mandate a reassessment. Directly overseeing the ceasefire will stop causality sooner, allow for aid to Gaza more quickly, and allow him to deviate from Congress and the State Department if Israel negotiates in bad faith or breaches the agreement.
No. It’s more likely Biden leaned on the State Department to bury their findings. The organization is controlled by political appointees, remember. Typically their reports are a fait accompli. And no, there’s zero talk by Republicans on impeaching Biden over Israel, so you keep repeating this idea with no backing or evidence behind it. The president has broad discretionary powers in foreign policy and can restrict aid as he sees fit, and the courts including SCOTUS have consistently ruled in favor of the presidency on the issue.
Israel is absolutely working in bad faith, and Biden is enabling it. See Biden’s red line not being breached by airstrikes and literal tanks into Rafah according to Israeli government and with Biden rushing to agree after the fact, with excuses that tanks are merely on roads or that the airstrikes are limited under a new just-made up-threshold.
I don’t need evidence to assume the President is speaking truthfully. You should be providing evidence to the contrary. Innocent until proven guilty.
Your ignorance to checks and balances is the source of your confusion. Yes, the President can absolutely amend the aid without support of Congress or justification from US intelligence. Going against the advisement of both the Legislative and Executive Branches would absolutely have him checked by the Judiciary Branch in the form of an impeachment hearing.
lol, as a political scientist that’s ridiculous and false. The Judicial Branch does not have a role in impeachment aside from Chief Justice having a role in the Senate trial. Impeachment is a political process conducted by the Legislative Branch. And impeachment “for high crimes and misdemeanors” does not include wielding his congressionally-authorized power to condition aid or hold aid when the country in question violates the Leahy Laws (which require the US to hold military aid to a country that violates human rights without accountability.
Where did you even hear such a phony claim?
Political scientists don’t troll Lemmy for debates. I’m guessing you’re like me, and took some poli-sci classes in college. That makes you a graduate. Employment as a political science professor, researcher, author, or qualified pundit makes you a political scientist.
You’re right. The Senate holds the trial and votes on impeachment. That’s my mistake. Still, Biden does not have the support of Congress to go against the intelligence advisement of his own branch. You really think Republicans in Congress would let him amend existing contracts without any substantiated justification?
I think he needs to mandate a reassessment by the State Department while overseeing the negotiations between Israel and Hamas. Netanyahu negotiating in bad faith, or verification of war crime by intelligence, will give him a firm platform for amendment of support to Iron Dome munitions only.
This isn't some deep state conspiracy that has him trapped. He can go to the intelligence community at any time and get the no bullshit assessments to back up using the Leahy Law. The state department turns out these turd reports because he wants them to.