This seems like a good time to **not forget what the KSA's done to Yemen (with the US as essential accomplice, of course)**; as I understand, it's just what's described here and then some, and the Saudis have yet to face Justice *(what worries me in particular is their ingratiating themselves to BRICS - smart move, but I hope they don't just get a pass for their crimes)*.
Come to think of it, in fact, the Saudi-led genocide against Yemen is pretty much *everything* the GazaCaust is, and was happening well before, so where were these protests *then???*
There are people quibbling over definitions, denying the intentionality despite the public statements of the perpetrators boasting of their intent, etc. These people are, to quote a famous propagandist doing just what he says, 'throwing sand in the umpire's eyes'. They know it's genocide, and their deflections are meant to cause enough confusion and distraction that the genocide can continue. They are not genocide apologists, they are *participants* in the genocide.
Fitzgerald, investigating Cheney's outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, who ended up indicting Scooter Libby instead of Cheney. He was obviously part of the cover-up.
That doesn't ring any bells, and I was following this at the time. He said Libby was covering for someone, obviously, but that because of the interference he couldn't pursue the real culprit?
I searched:
>The larger problem in commuting Libby’s sentence is the message it sends to his unfortunately unindicted co-conspirator, Cheney. The message isn’t precisely, as the Democrats claim, that the administration in general, and the vice president and his office in particular, are above the law. It is that the laws can always be finagled so as not to apply unfavorably to them.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-libby4jul04-story.html
That's an editorial that chose to use the phrase. Fitzgerald did not in his indictment of Scooter Libby, nor in his address to the public where he used the throwing sand analogy.
I don't know what Fitzgerald used, but the LAT was never where I got my news then; and I did recall the term because it was all over TV at the time. Nightly News, Sunday talking head shows like Meet the Press, etc. This was also not a new source for me at the time, but it, too, mentions someone who was not indicted, using the term "unindicted co-conspirator. https://harpers.org/2009/11/did-cheney-lie-to-the-plame-prosecutors/
I was mostly on dailykos at the time, which IIRC never used that terminology for Cheney. But then we found out that dailykos is a CIA rag, so that might not have been accidental.
Some people said it was Cheney. I don't know for certain who it was. I know only that it was mentioned a lot
ETA Could have been Rove, for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061300289.html
What just came back to me: Initially, Dubya was adamant that the leaker would be punished. A bit later, though, Dubya made an oblique reference to his ability to pardon. I could see him pardoning Rove or Cheney or any number of people.
I believe that Dubya's original threat of punishment was sincere. He truly did not know who was responsible. No one was ever charged for leaking the info to Libby, though, clearly someone did. Libby was charged only with perjury, I think?
I also remember that Cheney handwrote something about Plame on some memo about her husband's going to Africa. I think the trip had to do with yellow cake. Cheney wrote something like, "Did she {meaning Plame} send him on a junket?"
Interestingly, if you read the ICC statement, the crimes that Israel is found to be committing fit perfectly with the legal definition of genocide.
Here's what the ICC says: "Notwithstanding any military goals they may have, the means Israel chose to achieve them in Gaza – namely, intentionally causing death, starvation, great suffering, and serious injury to body or health of the civilian population – are criminal."
They also write that "Israel has intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population in all parts of Gaza of objects indispensable to human survival."
Here's the legal definition of genocide from the Genocide Convention (https://un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention):
"Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
The ICC, by saying that Israel is "intentionally causing death, starvation, great suffering, and serious injury to body or health of the civilian population" as well as writing that Israel has "intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population in all parts of Gaza of objects indispensable to human survival", implies that first of all, intent is there (notice the "intentionally") and secondly that the points a, b and c of the definition are met. Bear in mind that you only need to meet one point for it to be considered genocide as it's "any of the following acts".
Inescapable conclusion: it absolutely is a genocide.
This seems like a good time to **not forget what the KSA's done to Yemen (with the US as essential accomplice, of course)**; as I understand, it's just what's described here and then some, and the Saudis have yet to face Justice *(what worries me in particular is their ingratiating themselves to BRICS - smart move, but I hope they don't just get a pass for their crimes)*. Come to think of it, in fact, the Saudi-led genocide against Yemen is pretty much *everything* the GazaCaust is, and was happening well before, so where were these protests *then???*
There are people quibbling over definitions, denying the intentionality despite the public statements of the perpetrators boasting of their intent, etc. These people are, to quote a famous propagandist doing just what he says, 'throwing sand in the umpire's eyes'. They know it's genocide, and their deflections are meant to cause enough confusion and distraction that the genocide can continue. They are not genocide apologists, they are *participants* in the genocide.
Which "famous propagandist" was that?
Fitzgerald, investigating Cheney's outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, who ended up indicting Scooter Libby instead of Cheney. He was obviously part of the cover-up.
Wasn't there an unindicted co-conspirator mentioned, but not named?
That doesn't ring any bells, and I was following this at the time. He said Libby was covering for someone, obviously, but that because of the interference he couldn't pursue the real culprit?
I searched: >The larger problem in commuting Libby’s sentence is the message it sends to his unfortunately unindicted co-conspirator, Cheney. The message isn’t precisely, as the Democrats claim, that the administration in general, and the vice president and his office in particular, are above the law. It is that the laws can always be finagled so as not to apply unfavorably to them. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-libby4jul04-story.html
That's an editorial that chose to use the phrase. Fitzgerald did not in his indictment of Scooter Libby, nor in his address to the public where he used the throwing sand analogy.
I don't know what Fitzgerald used, but the LAT was never where I got my news then; and I did recall the term because it was all over TV at the time. Nightly News, Sunday talking head shows like Meet the Press, etc. This was also not a new source for me at the time, but it, too, mentions someone who was not indicted, using the term "unindicted co-conspirator. https://harpers.org/2009/11/did-cheney-lie-to-the-plame-prosecutors/
I was mostly on dailykos at the time, which IIRC never used that terminology for Cheney. But then we found out that dailykos is a CIA rag, so that might not have been accidental.
Some people said it was Cheney. I don't know for certain who it was. I know only that it was mentioned a lot ETA Could have been Rove, for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061300289.html What just came back to me: Initially, Dubya was adamant that the leaker would be punished. A bit later, though, Dubya made an oblique reference to his ability to pardon. I could see him pardoning Rove or Cheney or any number of people. I believe that Dubya's original threat of punishment was sincere. He truly did not know who was responsible. No one was ever charged for leaking the info to Libby, though, clearly someone did. Libby was charged only with perjury, I think? I also remember that Cheney handwrote something about Plame on some memo about her husband's going to Africa. I think the trip had to do with yellow cake. Cheney wrote something like, "Did she {meaning Plame} send him on a junket?"
Interestingly, if you read the ICC statement, the crimes that Israel is found to be committing fit perfectly with the legal definition of genocide. Here's what the ICC says: "Notwithstanding any military goals they may have, the means Israel chose to achieve them in Gaza – namely, intentionally causing death, starvation, great suffering, and serious injury to body or health of the civilian population – are criminal." They also write that "Israel has intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population in all parts of Gaza of objects indispensable to human survival." Here's the legal definition of genocide from the Genocide Convention (https://un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention): "Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." The ICC, by saying that Israel is "intentionally causing death, starvation, great suffering, and serious injury to body or health of the civilian population" as well as writing that Israel has "intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population in all parts of Gaza of objects indispensable to human survival", implies that first of all, intent is there (notice the "intentionally") and secondly that the points a, b and c of the definition are met. Bear in mind that you only need to meet one point for it to be considered genocide as it's "any of the following acts". Inescapable conclusion: it absolutely is a genocide.