That was almost 40 years ago, it's doubtful the same people still work at the FBI. A lot of historically bad things happened at that organization under J. Edgar Hoover, but I wouldn't judge the modern FBI on that either.
Yes, it's clear you've made up your mind, good thing you're not a judge on the IJC misinterpreting the law.
I would say the most important thing Israel has to do is defeat Hamas, which means either destroying them or getting them to surrender, while not breaking the law. They have a responsibility to protect their own people and to honor their treaties. They're letting in 100 humanitarian aid trucks a day into Gaza on average, each one has to be searched, protesters are blocking many of them, and many humanitarian aid organizations have decided it is too dangerous to send trucks, if that is not legally sufficient they need to let in more.
Well, that was what Jon Stewart's plan was, to get the Arab League to enforce a demilitarized zone between Palestine and Israel and guarantee safety for both. That's what I was talking about.
Keep using the term genocide incorrectly and it will soon be meaningless. It doesn't mean a lot of civilians died from collateral damage, it means intentional extermination/destruction of a protected group, which is not happening.
It's more than "calling them out" when they helped create the situation. The Arab league invaded Israel with intent to destroy it and genocided and ethnically cleansed Jews from Jerusalem and the West Bank while they were at it, providing justification for the very annexations they claim is a major cause of all this violence and refusal of diplomacy. Or, how Egypt pretends to be concerned for Gazans while not letting them out.
I thought he presented a clever solution that could work if the political will were mustered. However, that's assuming all these concerned parties actually want a solution and not just to vilify Israel.
So much for upholding the constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment. What good is it if not applied to insurrectionists?
The Michigan Court of Claims judge who first got the case said state law doesn’t give election officials any leeway to police the eligibility of presidential primary candidates. He also said the case raised a political question that shouldn’t be decided in the courts.
His decision was upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which said: “At the moment, the only event about to occur is the presidential primary election. But as explained, whether Trump is disqualified is irrelevant to his placement on that particular ballot.”
The order from the Michigan Supreme Court was unsigned, and the court did not release a vote count.
Unlike in Colorado, the Michigan courts rejected the case wholly on procedural grounds. They never reached the questions of whether January 6 was an insurrection and whether Trump engaged in it.
Cowards, tacitly supporting anti-democratic fascism and not even signing their names to it.
If he is reelected it will be a Brexit-like self imposed wound on the US that I fear we will never recover from. If we lose Ukraine and weaken NATO, America loses. If he installs cronies willing to break the law for the supreme dictator, America loses. 2024 elections are existential.