If for example Putin was overthrown and had to flee Russia, and happens to fly over an ICC signatory, he could rightfully be arrested and brought to justice. What is the alternative? CIA assassinations and kangaroo courts?
He could be arrested and brought to justice regardless, the ICC provides literally zero value-add here. Sovereign countries will do what they want regardless of the ICC's rambling, and they never needed the ICC to justify their actions to begin with.
I absolutely agree. If AI takes over, most of the jobs are gone. If jobs are gone, income for consumers is gone. If income for consumers is gone, companies will disappear next because customers don't have money to buy goods and in final stage states will go bankrupt because it has no income from taxes because consumers and companies are gone.
Unless... there will be nationalization of AI companies or their massive taxation.
They are not pussyfooting, if governments did what you say everything would be illegal and all borders closed, war soon to follow. Collaborating with foreign countries is what it means to find resolution to issues.
Oh please, give me a break. WW3 because Europe has European social media instead of being stuck on American properties? I can always count on HN for the most insane takes.
This social media shit obviously needs to be based in the country it operates, that's the only way these international moderation policy issues can ever be resolved.
That's non-compliant with GDPR. When shown to EU readers, they cannot block access based on accepting a privacy policy. Only essential cookies that really are needed for it to function are required.
I wish that were true, but mass murderers like Johnson & Johnson, DuPont, Philip Morris, the Sackler family, etc. are allowed to keep on killing people and face no meaningful consequences for the deaths they cause. With enough money you can be a serial killer for decades and get away with it.
If money is people (as per the Citizens United vs. FEC decision of 2010), meaning that companies can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections since restrictions "cannot" be imposed on individuals like humans and companies), then surely things like incarceration and the death penalty should also be an option for serious offenders.
It wasn't a targeted attack since they had no way of knowing where the pagers would end up in the second-hand market, as they were only activated years later.
> You’re telling me pagers used by a terrorist organization ending up in the second-hand market.
Four children were killed and dozens of _innocent_ bystanders were injured.
> What do you know about Lebanon and Hezbollah?
It's a conflict that's been going on for 30 years that I can remember and I don't think that more kinetic operations are going to accomplish anything other than fomenting an actual genocide.
Did you think gatekeeping was going to work? This conflict has spilled out into the broader world. If it were strictly contained to Lebanon and only implicated Hezbollah then you might have a point. We're well past that.
> How do people end up making such unfounded, unbiased claims so confidently??
>Four children were killed and dozens of _innocent_ bystanders were injured.
Compared to thousands of Hezbollah members. Literally one of the most targeted large-scale attacks of all time. There are effectively zero other military means that would have been even close to as selective and discriminant. Would you prefer they drop a 500lb bomb on each of their houses instead?
The pager detonations were weak enough to be effectively nonlethal unless you're especially vulnerable. That's how you end up with such a low death to injury ratio in the first place.
So per the KPI metric you've chosen, making it more lethal and more dangerous to bystanders would have been better.
Even among the injuries, you're still looking at an awful ratio, since Hezbollah had mostly migrated these devices out of their combatants in favor of newer models, and they were mainly in the hands of civilians.
And all of this is ignoring the blatant international law violation against booby trapping. This was very clearly a war crime.
Common Article 3; GC I Art. 12 & 18; GC III Art. 13; GC IV Arts. 27, 32 & 51; AP I Arts. 48, 51(2–5), 57 & 54; CCW Amended Protocol II Art. 7(2) of the Geneva Conventions.
The point is that such preposterously stupid military means are not preventing the continuation of blood-shed, and if you are saying that exploding pagers are a perfectly acceptable means of executing military goals, then .. whats next .. are Israeli citizens expected to live under the continuous threat of exploding vibrators and vaporizers, now, too?
The “War on Terror” has addled peoples minds so harshly that the notion that there is actually a legal way to wage war seems preposterous - however, there is a “legal means by which to wage war” which does in fact protect you, citizen, and you should learn about it - because when your representatives (and by proxy: you) violate those laws, you become personally liable for the repercussions that other victims will prosecute on you, and your nation state:
If ‘no bomb/missile ever is a war crime’, then .. there is no such thing as “terrorism”, either. (Although the argument could be made that there is no such thing as ‘terrorism’ at all, and that indeed, the word terrorism is merely a propaganda crutch used to justify atrocities against so-called ‘lesser cultures’ deemed inferior by the same institutions which used to use the ‘n-word’ to justify their atrocities in decades past, too, before that became difficult to do ..)
You can indeed commit war crimes with sticks too, though, incidentally.
You have to lose the war in order to be so prosecuted. So, the important thing about war crimes is not to lose once you've determined that you've committed them.
I'll start to believe this sort of fantasy when the people who win wars begin investigating and prosecuting themselves for the crimes that they committed or suborned.
The "legal way to wage war" is only relevant when you are waging war against an army. Hezbollah is not an army, it's a terrorist group. It attacks civilians. It doesn't wear uniforms. It ignores the laws of war.
“The IDF attacks civilians. It uses perfidy to indiscriminately attack the civilian population of its enemies. It, too, ignores the laws of war.”
There is no way to continue justifying acts of terror being committed by your in-group, without also become equivalent to the terrorist of your out-group.
Always this sad argument that X is a private company and they can do what they like.
Companies are not acts of God or nature. They are a private company operating on a society that allows it to exist because it is believed to be the for the public good. The public has very much the right to question it's practices, and if they are anti consumer, monopolistic, or a list of other things, to correct them. Shareholders be damned.
So what's your argument then? Companies can't release a product unless each and every feature works with their competitors products? By that logic most of the software and hardware you use today simply would not exist.
Like a lot of parts of the (especially earlier revisions of) Bluetooth spec the battery status took a slapdash approach to defining things. Look at anyone who's used Bluetooth on Windows to see what a nightmare interoperability still is. So Apple released ear buds that implement poorly defined parts of the spec but otherwise work with third party bluetooth devices, and that's bad?
Yikes.
Meanwhile, the Bluetooth SIG released an update at the end of 2022 that actually starts to require some sort of standardization. You know who's name was on that little update? Big bad awful anticompetitive Apple.
What an original comment, you must be very smart. I hope one day you can solve the mystery of this weirdness. Now back to ignoring both conflicts because if my attention is not well divided then it must not be given at all.
reply