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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.