• FlowVoid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    by falsely claiming that there’s no credible evidence that he’s failed to act on

    The law requires him to determine whether a report is credible, and then determine that the responsible parties are being brought to justice.

    There are a few reports that he determined were credible, and in each case he determined that the responsible parties were being brought to justice.

    So he is complying with the letter of the law, because the law gives no consideration to what anyone else finds credible. And unfortunately there is no mechanism to appeal what he determines, even if the entire rest of the world disagrees.

    Or is it that the government is deploying

    Leahy Laws give the president extra leverage in foreign policy when they want to use it. In practice, they don’t ever bind the president.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      So what you’re saying is that the Leahy Law is worthless as long as Blinkin or another dishonest Zionist is the Secretary of State?

      Talk about the fox guarding the fucking henhouse! 🤦

      • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        So what you’re saying is that the Leahy Law is worthless

        It’s worthless for the goal you intend.

        But imagine the President actually wanted to pressure another country, like maybe Hungary. In that case, it could be very useful.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s worthless for the goal you intend

          Which is the goal the law was supposed to have as well.

          But imagine the President actually wanted to pressure another country, like maybe Hungary. In that case, it could be very useful.

          Except the US isn’t sending weapons to Hungary and is almost exclusively sending weapons to countries that are amongst the worst human rights violators in the world.

          To be worth anything, the law would have to constrain the administration rather than empower it to make unilateral decisions that run counter to international law.

          • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Which is the goal the law was supposed to have as well.

            If so, it wouldn’t be the first time the spirit of a law was broken but not the letter.

            Except the US isn’t sending weapons to Hungary

            Of course they do, Hungary is a NATO power. In fact, those weapons were recently pressured by the Senate.