Post

Katie Mack
@astrokatie.com

The fact that a second strike like that in an armed conflict is definitely a war crime should not completely negate the fact that *there is no war* and ALL the strikes are cold-blooded murder. The whole chain of command are murderers.

Katie Mack
@astrokatie.com

I’m not saying “don’t get distracted” because if there is a consensus to call it a war crime then there could be some accountability in the near term. But let’s not forget the whole truth of what this really is.

53 reposts937 likes

Noah
@ncallaway.bsky.social

Right, my hope is that we can use this as a wedge to get people on board with investigating *this* instance, and have that investigation hopefully also then dig into the question of was the first strike legal

Noah
@ncallaway.bsky.social

I don’t think it’s legal, but I think this can be a hook that allows Republicans to force people under oath and to testify, and at some point the weight of evidence and legal analysis might push them to deal with the former fact as well as the latter fact

Noah
@ncallaway.bsky.social

It’s not that *I* think more information is required, but each new piece of information that comes out will undermine the possible defenses for the Republicans that want to avoid addressing the former question.

Fed THX1138
@fedthx1138.bsky.social

One reason for calling it a war crime, is the fact that the United States will not accept rulings from the ICC. But we ARE bound by the Geneva Convention which applies to any armed conflict. (To include these murderous acts.)

Viz the Bogeymart @ Howloween 🎃
@bogeymanviz.bsky.social

Aye, the first strike was 100% illegal in every metric, but the US likes to see itself as above inconvenient international laws like that, so that argument is harder to make land. The second strike was just cold-blooded and an invocation of no quarter. And that's easier to convince folks on.