[Pants-of-dog]

The intentional confusion of deliberate and intentional violence by the state with the inadvertent and unintentional violence of non-state actors is noted. Because of this, the argument is dishonest and can be ignored.

Even according to the IHRA, it is difficult to argue that Brown’s actions are antisemitism.

[wat0n]

A “physical confrontation” broke out between Kessler and Alnaji, in which Alnaji allegedly bludgeoned Kessler with a megaphone, according to the district attorney. Kessler fell to the ground bleeding with severe head injuries.

He died the next day at a hospital.

Evidence presented in the preliminary hearing by Courtney Lewis, senior deputy district attorney, included DNA analysis of Kessler’s blood found on the rim of a megaphone that Alnaji is accused of using to hit the man.

Kessler’s cellphone video that shows the moments leading up to the attack was also submitted as evidence.

County medical examiner Dr. Othon Mena also testified about Kessler’s cause of death. Mena said Kessler died from blunt force trauma caused by the blow from the megaphone and the subsequent fall.

The district attorney’s office said that although antisemitic hate speech took place that day, it couldn’t link anything to Alnaji.

Paul Kessler got inadvertently and unintentionally bludgeoned on the head with a megaphone by a leftist pro-Palestine protester according to @Pants-of-dog.

This sounds as inadvertent and unintentional as Derek Chauvin's killing of George Floyd.

[wat0n]

The Nazis also followed international law at the time, by the way.

No, they did not. Why do you think many (not all) were charged and executed in the Nuremberg Trials?

[Pants-of-dog]

The laws for the Nuremberg trials did not exist until 1945.

German treatment of its own (Jewish and other) citizens did not fall under international law at all.

Law did not prevent genocide or protect anyone.

———————

Meanwhile, we have professors being reprimanded for telling the truth about how their university has ties to companies that are participating in and profiting from the current genocide.

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/09/cal-stat ... e-in-gaza/

[wat0n]

I will note @Pants-of-dog has yet to explain how bludgeoning someone in the head is done unintentionally and inadvertently. It seems he's okay with it if the victim is Jewish.

And it's not my fault is he's unaware of the provisions of international law in place by 1945, including the provisions protecting prisoners of war and the enemy civilian population.

[Pants-of-dog]

Again, the German genocide of Jews was not subject to laws concerning prisoners of war, since the victims were neither soldiers nor foreigners.

And by that time, no country had ever been held responsible for crimes against the civilian populations. The attempt to punsih Turkey for the Armenian genocide was unsuccessful.

The very idea of crimes against humanity did not exist until the International Military Tribunal put together for the Nuremberg trials.

The laws were retroactively applied.

[wat0n]

The laws were not "retroactively applied".

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 were written after the Nuremberg Trials. For those trials, they used the existing international law.

The issue was not so much whatever international law said, but that there was no effective enforcement mechanism (very much like nowadays).

Will you finally explain how can you inadvertently and unintentionally bludgeon someone's head, @Pants-of-dog?

[Pants-of-dog]

The IMT verdict followed the prosecution in declaring the crime of plotting and waging aggressive war "the supreme international crime" because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".[1] Most of the defendants were also charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the systematic murder of millions of Jews in the Holocaust was significant to the trial. Twelve further trials were conducted by the United States against lower-level perpetrators, which focused more on the Holocaust. Controversial at the time for their retroactive criminalization of aggression, the trials' innovation of holding individuals responsible for violations of international law is considered "the true beginning of international criminal law".[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials

[wat0n]

The Nazis at Nuremberg were tried for a lot more than just the crime of aggression, which in any event is not directly tied to civilian protection. Under that crime, an unjust war is criminal even if fought according to IHL.

A very short example of something that was a war crime by 1945

Regulations: Art. 25

The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.

Anyway, will you finally explain how can someone be unintentionally and inadvertently bludgeoned in the head?

[Pants-of-dog]

Note that the Hague convention says nothing about the genocide of part of your own population.

Consequently, the Nazis were not breaking international humanitarian law, or their own laws, when they committed genocide.

[wat0n]

You do realize the Nazis killed many non-German Jews in the Holocaust in the territories they occupied, right?

I wonder if you'll claim it's unintentional and inadvertent like you claimed with regards to the bludgeoning of Paul Kessler's head.

[Pants-of-dog]

While the Nazis also.killed Jews in places outside of Germany, the land at the time was under German rule.

And the only international law concerning warfare at the time were the two Hague Conventions, neither of which discuss genocide of a civilian population.

[wat0n]

But they do discuss operations in occupied territories, and they do offer some protections of the civilian population even if they do not discuss genocide as a specific offense.

I am still waiting for you to explain how Paul Kessler's head was "unintentionally and inadvertently" bludgeoned @Pants-of-dog

[Pants-of-dog]

Please show that the Nazi genocide of Jews was illegal at the time under international humanitarian law.

Or, concede that laws can be, and often are, unjust or unable to protect people from oppression.

[Deutschmania]

Look , @wat0n , and @Pants-of-dog , I myself was initially incredulous at the claim that international law in respects to individual human rights hadn't existed prior to the aftermath of World War II , and the Holocaust . So I looked it up , and found that Pants-of-dog is correct . Here are two sources to prove the point , the first from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum even , and the second from the National World War 2 Museum .

https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/Publication_OP_2003-10-28.pdf

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/crimes-against-humanity-international-law

[wat0n]

Please show that the Nazi genocide of Jews was illegal at the time under international humanitarian law.

Or, concede that laws can be, and often are, unjust or unable to protect people from oppression.

It was illegal to, for example, carry out mass executions of civilians in occupied territories even before WWII. So it was to attack undefended towns, cities, homes, etc.

Are you saying Nazi Germany did not do any of these in WWII during the Holocaust?

Genocide per se was not codified, and it was legal to do things like the above in your own territory, but that doesn't mean there were no protections of civilians at all or that the Holocaust did not feature violations of those protections. Do you understand the difference?

Look , @wat0n , and @Pants-of-dog , I myself was initially incredulous at the claim that international law in respects to individual human rights hadn't existed prior to the aftermath of World War II , and the Holocaust . So I looked it up , and found that Pants-of-dog is correct . Here are two sources to prove the point , the first from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum even , and the second from the National World War 2 Museum .

https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/Publication_OP_2003-10-28.pdf

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/crimes-against-humanity-international-law

As the both articles mention, there were still protections of civilians when they were under foreign occupation. This was not based on their individual rights, of course, but on the interest of states to regulate war at least somewhat.

Mass executions of civilians like those the Nazis committed in the USSR (for instance) were already war crimes even under the existing international law. That's the case regardless of whether this was part of genocide or not, the mass executions were illegal per se. Get it?

[Pants-of-dog]

The history of Nazi Germany is a clear example of how laws (both within a country and between countries) can not only fail.to provide justice but can also help bring about injustice.

[wat0n]

Do you understand why @Unthinking Majority was still correct, @Pants-of-dog?

By the way, will you finally explain how can you unintentionally and inadvertently bludgeon someone's head? Are the laws punishing this behavior unjust or they're only unjust when the victim is Jewish?

[Pants-of-dog]

I am still waiting for an explanation as to why consumer choice has been criminalized.

This is in reference to the possible upcoming lawsuit against Brown for divestment.

The letters from the AG and the arguments here do not support any claim of antisemitism.

However divestment from Israel is actually illegal in many US states.

So any universities that do divest can run into legal trouble.

In this case, the laws actually protect a system where crimes against humanity occur.

[wat0n]

I actually find it more concerning pro-Palestine leftists have, in fact, killed people on the streets. But that's me.