"If you do what you love you'll never work a day in your life" - that most wanted cop, probably

Hamas rejected the new ceasefire proposal last night. Israel accepted it this morning. Disrupting the DNC will not change this formula.

Methinks the Meth dealer/Executive Director lives in Redmond Oregon?

Phil Donahue died. Blessings to Marlo and their family.

“Tensions were high back then. They're high now.”

No, there’s a small group of persons who vocally oppose US policy towards Israel. They’ve made their case to elected officials (Sen. Murray, VP Harris, etc.) and have been told no. So now they’re demonstrating outside the DNC. That’s all. (Nothing to see here folks; move along…)

1968 was peak death in Vietnam for American soldiers, so that also had something to do with those protests. As terrible as the Gaza War is, from a U.S. foreign policy standpoint, it does not compare to 1968.

Holy hamburgers, Phil Donahue was still alive!?! Was he 130 years old?

@4 I'd also add there's a permanent group of aggrieved organizations that protest at every DNC so even if the Israel-Gaza conflict wasn't an issue they would still be there with some other issue du jour.

Folks may demonstrate and make up cute little names like Killer Kamala, but they’ll still vote for her.
When all is said and done, they’ll have accomplished nothing.

Sorry, no disrepsct Phoebe! I just remember watching him as a kid and thinking he was old then. Maybe it was in that context where as a kid anyone over 40 looks ancient.

9: none taken - Phill had that bushy white hair for decades.

“Fuck Israel's slaughter of Palestinians and the Biden administration's role in it.”

The vast majority of protesters don’t give a damn about Palestine, Gaza, genocide, or anything else… beyond one-upping their SJW friends on social media.

‘Look at me shutting down a freeway…’

‘Look at me occupying a campus…’

‘Look at me interrupting a candidate’s speech…’

I’d bet anything they go with a ‘the whole world is watching’ meme, when in fact almost everyone is ignoring them.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. The pro-Palestinian protesters are working a 1968 rule book. Most of this country probably couldn't find either Israel or Gaza on a map, and have perhaps only a hazy knowledge of what this is all about.

But, as we saw in the Vietnam War protests (including the '68 Democratic Convention), the WTO in 1999, and the BLM protests in 2020 (to name a few) I'm worried about Agent Provocateurs and "Anarchists".

‘… Harris, who, as the presumptive nominee, will take the reins in the whole "supplying-arms-to-facilitate-genocide" thing.’

The Stranger really needs to learn US military aid to Israel is mandated by federal law, and no President can simply impose an arms embargo against Israel by executive action. (https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts#:~:text=Since%20the%20start%20of%20Israel's,appropriations%20act%20in%20April%202024.)

@2 I think you know as well as I do that if Hamas accepted, Netanyahu would immediately find a reason to change his mind. He has no choice if he wants to stay in power and out of prison. "Israel accepts U.S. peace proposal" is not even a newsworthy development.

@11- you forgot “look at me campaigning for Trump!”

Not sure why the McNeil island story was spun as not effective.

“In all, the program has a 15% recidivism rate for "serious or violent" crimes, which compares to 82% on the national level and north of 30% in Washington”

That recidivism rate is half that of WA at large, fraction of the national rate.

And Nat, why do you continue to support Elon Musk and his shitty platform (local news sites, Insta, YouTube, etc. all had easy to share lightning photos and videos). Can TS please stop supporting / trying to profit off of the cesspool that is zombie twitter?

So arrogant that Pro-Palestinian protestors assume by default that the Lesbian, Gay, and Trans populations support them.

The '68 Chicago convention is remembered as the beginning of a long season in the wilderness for the Democrats, as the most extreme elements of the student anti-war movement became an albatross they could not escape, helping to usher in two terms of the notoriously reactionary Nixon administration. The Nixon administration oversaw the creation of the modern GOP playbook, including greatest hits such as the Southern Strategy and the War on Drugs.

We give thanks for this day
Our daily bread
E pluribus
Unum
From many
One

@14: why doesn't Hamas try accepting a ceasefire proposal so we can find out?

They did last year, Israel agreed, and prisoner exchanges were held. Then Hamas killed Israelis at a bus stop, and that was that.

@13 How is it that every time you post that statement, you forget the Leahy Law that specifically allow the US government to stop arms exports to states that violate human rights. It's even mentioned as a block in the article you cited!

@22: Ooooh, about fifteen minutes later than I thought. You're slipping.

The Leahy Law (actually "Laws," as there are two of them) also does not simply allow the President to stop arms sales to a country. In fact, under the Leahy Law, no one can authorize stoppage of US assistance to an entire foreign country's military or police force in toto, because findings must be made per unit. Even if the entirety of a foreign military or police force was found to be in violation, the findings would still have to be made per unit, one after another, not in one action. (https://www.state.gov/key-topics-bureau-of-democracy-human-rights-and-labor/human-rights/leahy-law-fact-sheet/) Then there are steps in a corrective process which may be followed to bring the foreign military or police unit into compliance, prior to funds being disallowed. While the evidentiary requirements are not as strict as those in a court of law, the Leahy Law does not enable a few allegations in the media to immediately cause cessation of aid to an entire country -- or even to one unit of that country's military or police forces.

@19: Don't forget:

Ended the draft and moved the United States Military to an all-volunteer force.
Established the Environmental Protection Agency.
Opened diplomatic relations with China.
Dedicated a $100-million to begin the war on cancer.
Opened the doors for women in collegiate sports when he signed Title IX in 1972.
Signed a civil rights law preventing gender bias at colleges and universities receiving Federal aid.
Oversaw desegregation of southern schools.
Lowered the voting age from 21 to 18.
Gave Native Americans the right to tribal self-determination by ending the policy of forced assimilation and returning their sacred lands.

Nixon also campaigned on universal health care. He was a scoundrel but it really was a different time.

It speaks to the absolute moral rot of Reagan and the subsequent conservative movement that a bunch of mundane, common sense policies are completely alien to contemporary republicans. They’ve spent the 5 decades since trying their best to drag us back to the dark ages.

@26: The Leahy Law is not some kind of "Embargo Israel Free" card, which you'd know if you'd ever learned anything about it. You could have started by reading the link (note: singular) I provided.

"But your contention in @13 is that it's impossible for the executive branch to stop arms unilaterally."

Wrong. Here's what I actually wrote @13: "...US military aid to Israel is mandated by federal law, and no President can simply impose an arms embargo against Israel by executive action." (Note "embargo," which is what the Pro-Palestinian protestors demand.) The Leahy Law describes a process by which the Secretary of State and/or Defense may refuse to provide American assistance to the Israeli (or any other) military or security force on a per-unit basis. To do so, they require credible evidence of gross human rights violations by that unit. The protestors are demanding a President Harris simply stop all military aid to Israel, on the basis of absolutely no credible evidence of any kind whatsoever. You're confusing the precision-guided surgical instrument of the Leahy Law with the flailing sledgehammer the protestors want.

"Oh, and the link you provided decidedly did not say that media accounts can't be taken as evidence."

Which is why I decidedly did not write that, as you could know if you'd read what I did write, @23: "...the Leahy Law does not enable a few allegations in the media to immediately cause cessation of aid to an entire country -- or even to one unit of that country's military or police forces." (Note "a few allegations" vs. "media accounts." To your everlasting frustration, words continue to mean things.)

"...the Dept of State or Defense has the /option/ to consider corrective steps the unit is taking as a reason to resume aid deliveries, not that it's required."

Which is why I did not write that it's required: "Then there are steps in a corrective process which may be followed to bring the foreign military or police unit into compliance..." (Note "may," as in an /option/.)

Had you bothered to learn anything about the Leahy Law, beyond your obvious misinterpretations of what I carefully spoon-fed you, you might even have found the definition of "credible information," and the list of criteria for evaluating it. But I leave that up to you. (Hint: "YouTube videos produced by Hamas, for all I know or care," will /not/ be on it.)

@21 Because Hamas, although militarily decimated, is winning the PR war and will keep winning as long as Netanyahu keeps bombing and starving civilians for no reason other than staying in power (even his own generals concur there's no military benefit to it anymore). Nothing's going to change until Israelis find a way to push him out.

If he really wanted a ceasefire, he could just order it unilaterally and see what Hamas does in response. It wouldn't entail any real risk either way. But of course he won't do that, because he doesn't want it.

@28 I see you completely failed to acknowledge the unit size issue. No doubt that was an oversight. That is the kind of thing you do. Like when you say that pro-Palestinian protestors are asking for an arms embargo when they’re asking for an end to shipments of arms from the US. But what’s a little detail like that to someone as brilliant and well informed as yourself? A mere bagatelle.

But yes, the Leahy Law does allow the US to stop US arms aid and arms shipments. Unilaterally by the executive branch. How do we know? Because it’s been done. You may recall Biden stopping some arms shipments earlier this year. And sanctioning specific IDF units. Perhaps it slipped your mind. So what provisions of the Leahy Law would prevent that from being expanded to all in both cases? Do cite specific text of the law. And don’t forget that the law doesn’t specify how large or small a unit might be sanctioned.

You Amy also want to broaden your reading. There are all sorts of sources, mass media and otherwise, documenting extensive Israeli war crimes in Gaza. You’re just choosing not to read them and hand waving them off as Hamas YouTube.

@12 Catalina Vel-DuRay and @15 dvs99 +2 for the WIN!!!

Rest in peace, Phil Donahue. Bless you for making it to 88.
Heartfelt condolences to Marlo Thomas and family.

I'd SO love to see lightning strike the Orange Turd and all its loyalists.
Mal-a-Tardo* is in Florida, the thunderstorm capital of the world.
Now THAT would truly be a shit show I'd sit through.
I'd bring the popcorn, red wine, and dark chocolate.
DJT would light up like Bishop Bickering in Caddyshack.
"Ohhh, Ramparts!"

*Thank you, kristofarian!

Followup to @29 I had missed the call for an arms embargo in the other piece on Slog's front page. Apologies. The rest of it stands.

@29, @31: "I see you completely failed to acknowledge the unit size issue."

Yes, I ignored it because it's totally irrelevant. Unless the entire country's military is in one unit, the Leahy Law can't stop arms shipments to that country's entire military in one action, because a per-unit evaluation is required.

"But yes, the Leahy Law does allow the US to stop US arms aid and arms shipments. Unilaterally by the executive branch."

Wow, I guess if your argument won't work with the words I actually used, then I guess you'll use the words you made up and attributed to me. Once again, here's what I actually wrote @13: "...US military aid to Israel is mandated by federal law, and no President can simply impose an arms embargo against Israel by executive action." Note again, the "President" is not the entire "executive branch," and the Leahy Law specifically references the Secretaries of State and Defense -- not the President.

"You may recall Biden stopping some arms shipments earlier this year."

Yes. I never claimed the President could not stop specific arms shipments. I said the President could not order the embargo the protestors want. So far, you've written absolutely nothing here to address that point.

"And sanctioning specific IDF units."

That would be in accordance with the Leahy Law. Thank you for supporting my point.

"So what provisions of the Leahy Law would prevent that from being expanded to all in both cases?"

It's literally the very first line of the fact sheet I linked: 'The term “Leahy law” refers to two statutory provisions prohibiting the U.S. Government from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights (GVHR).'

"Do cite specific text of the law."

Oh, OK, the problem is you don't know how our laws work. The law specifies per-unit application. That's all. Unless you can find text in the Leahy Law which allows expansion, then it cannot happen. (Please let us know if you find anything.)

"There are all sorts of sources, mass media and otherwise, documenting extensive Israeli war crimes in Gaza."

So many, apparently, that could not cite even a single one.

"...hand waving them off as Hamas YouTube."

(That really stung, didn't it? As well it should...) Yes, there are indeed "all sorts of sources." Hence the Leahy Law's definition of "credible information," and the list of criteria required when evaluating such credible information. Before you, especially, start citing what you believe to be credible sources, you might want to familiarize yourself with the Leahy Law's definition and list. Being I'm a good liberal and willing to help the less fortunate, I left a hint as to where you can find those. Good luck!

Oh my. So the President will be powerless in whatever decisions the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense make. Suuuuuure. That's how it works.

Let's try this one more time. In full compliance with the Leahy Law, Biden could instruct the Secretary of State to stop shipments of artillery shells to the IDF Artillery Corps (a unit) because of GVHR committed by that corps. And to stop shipments of bombs to the Israeli Air Force (a unit). Etc. Just because they are large units doesn't mean that they're not units. I'm not holding my breath, but it is certainly possible under the Leahy Law.

Oh, golly, are you unable to use Google now? Let's see if we can find some credible sources for GVHR in Israel.

Torture and arbitrary detention: Is Amensty International credible enough for you? https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/

Extrajudicial killings: Is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights credible? https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/israels-alleged-undercover-killings-occupied-west-bank-hospital-may-amount

Enforced disappearance: Amnesty International again: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/12/urgently-investigate-inhumane-treatment-and-enforced-disappearance-of-palestinians-detainees-from-gaza/

Rape: Golly, it's the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights again: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/middleeast/israel-hamas-un-investigation-sexual-abuse-intl/index.html

If those sources aren't sufficiently credible for you, do tell us which sources you'd accept. Only a press release from the IDF?

And of course, you can guess that maybe something is up on human rights issues when the ICJ prosecutor requests arrest warrants for national leadership on genocide charges.

Again, this is all out there if you care to look, along with plenty more. I can understand why you wouldn't--it would make it awfully hard for you as a good liberal to continue defending a hard right theocratic regime. But hey, why let ideological consistency get in the way.

And before you complain (a la Ahab) that these are only allegations and not proven, note that the Leahy Law specifically does not require convictions, only that State or Defense find that the allegations are credible.

@33: "So the President will be powerless in whatever decisions the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense make. Suuuuuure. That's how it works."

And however it works, it's not the President imposing an arms embargo (the protestors' demand, which I was addressing) without consulting anybody. So your point, if indeed you actually have one, is misplaced.

"In full compliance with the Leahy Law, Biden could instruct the Secretary of State to stop shipments of artillery shells to the IDF Artillery Corps (a unit) because of GVHR committed by that corps. And to stop shipments of bombs to the Israeli Air Force (a unit). Etc. Just because they are large units doesn't mean that they're not units. I'm not holding my breath, but it is certainly possible under the Leahy Law."

Yes, but again, that's different from the President imposing an arms embargo (the protestors' demand, which I was addressing) without consulting anybody, or requiring any information to do so. (I really don't see with whom you're arguing here. You seem to have gone from bashing your straw men, to flat-out shadowboxing with your image of me.)

"Let's see if we can find some credible sources for GVHR in Israel."

Your tedious questions about "credible information" are not for me, they are for the Secretary of State. (And I notice you don't seem to have availed yourself of the Leahy Law's definition of that term, or the criteria by which the State Department is to evaluate the information. Oh, golly, are you unable to use Google now?)

"And of course, you can guess that maybe something is up on human rights issues when the ICJ prosecutor requests arrest warrants for national leadership on genocide charges."

Accusations are not evidence, and the pre-trial process is not a trial. The presumption of innocence remains, whether you care to admit to it or not.

"....note that the Leahy Law specifically does not require convictions..."

Yes, which is why I wrote @23, that the Leahy Law's "evidentiary requirements are not as strict as those in a court of law..." That you're telling me to 'note' something I already mentioned shows just how far you remain from actually knowing what I've written here.

If you want to talk about the protestors' demands for an embargo, please go right ahead. Maybe someday you'll understand their demands cannot be met under current US law. Otherwise, I'm done correcting the obviously false claims you just keep on making about what I've written here. You and your false image of me need to go get a room, already.

@34 You're serious right? You can't make a logical leap from "We want the president to do X" to "We want the president to work with the members of his administration to take the necessary steps to do X?" Did the protestors say anything about Biden doing it all unilaterally with no input from members of his administration? You sound like my daughter when she was trying to get around rules at age 3. "But Daaaad, you just said that I couldn't jump off the furniture. You didn't say that the couch was furniture!" If it seems like I'm shadowboxing, it's because I'm assuming that you're a fully competent human being able to make logical connections without them all being spelled out for you. I apologize. I'll do my best never to make that mistake again.

OK, sure. If that's the game you want to play, you are right that the protestors are technically asking for the wrong thing. The signs should have said "Biden must formally request that the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense carefully review all information about Israeli units committing gross violations of human rights in accordance with the Leahy Law(s), request substantiating information from reliable non-governmental organizations, consider whether the gross violations of human rights were carried out under color of law, consider the required factors of whether the information is credible [preferably list all 7 factors in full], and take a broad view of whether this means that arms and economic assistance must be stopped per the Leahy Law. In addition, no exceptions for remediation may be given." I'm pretty sure they could have fit that on a protest sign in, oh, about 8 point font.

Onward. You keep complaining that I repeat stuff that you say, and then you complain that I don't repeat stuff you said. Of course the SecState would evaluate claims based on the listed criteria. You can go ahead and review those criteria yourself if you feel like it for any of the hundreds to thousands of GVHR complaints against Israel that are out there. SecState is able to do that as well, and to request the underlying evidence used by Amnesty, UNHCHR, or others as backup to their claims. Did you think that UNHCHR or Amnesty would accuse Israel of GVHR without any backup information? I also note your sudden unwillingness to assess credibility once actual names are given. Just a few posts ago, any evidence of war crimes was confined to Hamas YouTube. Now that Amnesty and the UN are involved, you couldn't possibly make any assessment of credibility. Funny that.

And the Leahy Law does not have a presumption of innocence. If you read your link (I know, it's haaard!), you'll see "...prohibiting the U.S. Government from using funds for assistance to units of foreign security forces where there is credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights (GVHR)." You'll note that credible information is all that's required. Not proof, credible information, backed up with corroborating information and in view of any contradictory information.

[I hasten to add, there are a number of other criteria to be assessed. I understand that. But I apparently need to add amplifying statements so you won't accuse me of ignoring the other criteria. So let it be known that I understand that there are other criteria, and I understand that they too would be taken into account in the SecState/SecDef review of the credibility of the information. The omission of those additional criteria in the prior sentence is not made in ignorance of those criteria, nor is it intended to imply that those criteria are less important.]

Ahem. The fact remains that the decision rests with SecState and SecDef, and what they consider to be credible information. Before you gripe that I'm proving your point, the president would also no doubt be involved in and approve of the decision to cut off military aid to an ally, even if the final signature is from SecState or SecDef. The president might even lean upon those officials to choose an answer that supports the president's political goals.

@35: "Did the protestors say anything about Biden doing it all unilaterally with no input from members of his administration?"

No, and to remind you, they are demanding VP Harris promise an embargo of arms shipments to Israel, well prior to her election as President. She currently has no administration of her own, and she has not stated whether she will keep the current Secretaries of State and Defense on in their current posts. Neither she, nor anyone else, can now possibly know whether, in January of next year, the persons occupying those offices will have "credible information," as the Leahy Law defines it, of GVHR by any unit of the IDF. The protestors want a promise she will act nonetheless, without credible information, without regard to the Leahy Law, or any other law. They want her to behave as a dictator, not as an elected official of a constitutional republic.

"If it seems like I'm shadowboxing, it's because I'm assuming that you're a fully competent human being able to make logical connections without them all being spelled out for you. I apologize. I'll do my best never to make that mistake again."

No, you'll just keep on stating as fact your opinion of what I have written, and castigate me for it, instead of simply quoting what I actually did write, and engaging me on that basis. Throughout this thread, you've chosen not to engage on the basis of what I have actually written, which suggests even you might understand you cannot possibly win an argument on that basis -- but I won't again make the mistake of assuming you actually can read and comprehend what I have written.

"...the protestors are technically asking for the wrong thing."

They're asking for the President to ignore at least two laws, and to act without consulting Congress. There's nothing 'technical' about it. They're demanding she act as a complete dictator. You, apparently, see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

"The signs should have said..."

Again, they are not asking Biden or Harris to operate within any laws. They are demanding Biden (and now Harris) simply ignore our laws.

"preferably list all 7 factors in full"

Oh, look! You actually went and found the list of requirements in the Leahy Law! All it took was repeated mockery of your obviously abject ignorance about the very topic on which you'd repeatedly claimed great expertise. I'll try to pass that tidbit along to anyone who might, in future, make the mistake of trying to educate you on a topic for which you're loudly trying to lecture them.

"Just a few posts ago, any evidence of war crimes was confined to Hamas YouTube."

Your foolish reliance on YouTube for your 'evidence' still stings, doesn't it? (Oh, no, wait -- it's your getting called upon your foolish reliance on YouTube for your 'evidence' which still stings, doesn't it? Yeah, that's right.) My point was that much of what you've called 'evidence' wouldn't pass the tests required by the Leahy Law. As to what would, well, you'll just have to ask the Secretary. (I am not the Secretary.)

"You keep complaining that I repeat stuff that you say, and then you complain that I don't repeat stuff you said."

No, I've repeatedly shown, above, that your opinion of what I wrote does not match what I actually wrote. Thanks for giving yet another example.

"...Amnesty and the UN are involved..."

Long ago, I quit my decades-long membership in Amnesty International, when it became clear they were no longer dedicated to freeing prisoners of conscience, but had become just yet another political advocacy group. (I have nothing against political advocacy groups, but Amnesty should have admitted to what they were doing.) If that's the same UN which would not condemn Hamas' rapes of Israeli women until after women's groups staged a protest outside of UNHQ in New York, then why should I care?

"And the Leahy Law does not have a presumption of innocence."

Cripes, please do try to keep your own non sequitors straight. I've already twice noted the evidentiary standards in the Leahy Law are not as exacting as those in a court of law. My note about "presumption of innocence" came from your treating the pre-trial procedural actions of the ICJ as if they were judicial decisions, which you threw in because you didn't have any actual evidence to support your claims.

"The president might even lean upon those officials to choose an answer that supports the president's political goals."

Which is just another version of what the protestors demand: placement of their political agenda ahead of the facts. That you seem more partial to this than to following the law says all we really need to know about your supposed dedication to proving war crimes.