Guess we might as well have the next Trumperialism thread.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c07j40dyx53o
QuoteMillions without electricity as Cuba's power grid collapses
Millions in Cuba have been left without power after the national electricity grid collapsed on Monday, the country's power operator says.
Much of the island including the capital, Havana, was plunged into darkness, with streets only illuminated by headlamps and battery-powered lights on Monday.
UNE, Cuba's grid operator, said early on Tuesday morning that it was gradually restoring electricity to provinces and cities around the country.
It is the latest in a series of widespread blackouts to hit the Caribbean island, where aging electricity infrastructure and chronic fuel shortages have been exacerbated by a US blockade on oil shipments to the communist-run nation.
Coupled with shortages of food and medicine, the situation has triggered rare public dissent in the form of street protests, which continued with people banging pots and pans in central Havana on Monday.
Unauthorised demonstrations are illegal in Cuba and those who defy the ban risk being jailed.
"It is not just the blackout," 26-year-old Havana resident Lázaro Hernández told news agency Reuters.
"There is no water because there is no electricity to run the pumps. There is no electricity, no food, no oil, no fuel, and private businesses have high prices because everything is going up now, since they have to move their goods by truck and transport. All of this is really very bad."
Meanwhile, Dayana Machin, also 26 and from Havana, was unsurprised by the blackout. "We're already used to living with this," she said.
Cuba, an island of around 10 million people, relies heavily on fuel imports.
Its regional ally Venezuela was believed to have sent around 35,000 barrels of oil a day - about half Cuba's oil needs - until its supplies were cut off following the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by the US in early January.
US President Donald Trump has also threatened tariffs on any country supplying oil to Cuba.
It has been three months since the nation has received an oil shipment, Cuba's president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, said on Friday.
With the government in Venezuela now appearing to co-operate with the US, the Trump administration has turned its attention to the Latin American nation the US has shared the most animosity with since its revolution in 1959.
Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday that he believed he would have the "honour of taking Cuba".
"Whether I free it, take it, I could do anything I want with it, you want to know the truth," he said. "They're a very weakened nation right now."
He previously threatened a "friendly takeover" of Cuba and has urged it to "make a deal" or face unspecified consequences.
Díaz-Canel confirmed last week that his government was in the initial stages of talks with the Trump administration to resolve their differences.
At the same time, the Cuban government released 51 prisoners in what it described as a demonstration of "goodwill".
To mitigate the impact of the severe fuel shortage - that has also affected air travel and, with it, tourism to the island - Cuba has increased production of domestic crude and gas, as well as solar generation.
But its actions have yet to quell protests among Cubans, for whom power cuts have been a persistent source of public discontent.
A protest in the central city of Morón on Saturday devolved into a small group ransacking a local Communist Party office.
QuoteAt the same time, the Cuban government released 51 prisoners in what it described as a demonstration of "goodwill"
The Cubans haven't learned the lesson the rest of us now know. Showing goodwill to the Americans at this point in history marks your nation as the next victim.
This has to be a crime against humanity. Basically the US is starving an entire nation of the resources to sustain itself. An embargo is one thing, but prohibiting other nations from supplying it is another.
Say what you want about Cuba, the nation's people do not deserve this.
Will the Trump administration ever face justice for their crimes. I know Trump pre-empted prosecution for anything he does while in office; but what about everyone else?
Quote from: Josephus on March 17, 2026, 09:29:23 AMThis has to be a crime against humanity. Basically the US is starving an entire nation of the resources to sustain itself. An embargo is one thing, but prohibiting other nations from supplying it is another.
Say what you want about Cuba, the nation's people do not deserve this.
Will the Trump administration ever face justice for their crimes. I know Trump pre-empted prosecution for anything he does while in office; but what about everyone else?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ghvd2WwWUAAtEJ5.jpg)
Quote from: Josephus on March 17, 2026, 09:29:23 AMThis has to be a crime against humanity. Basically the US is starving an entire nation of the resources to sustain itself. An embargo is one thing, but prohibiting other nations from supplying it is another.
Say what you want about Cuba, the nation's people do not deserve this.
Will the Trump administration ever face justice for their crimes. I know Trump pre-empted prosecution for anything he does while in office; but what about everyone else?
Nobody worries that Trump took the US into a war in support of a PM charged with war crimes. I am not sure anyone will worry too much about this further violation.
To quote Nemik from Andor S1:
"The pace of oppression outstrips our ability to understand it, and that is the real trick of the Imperial Thought Machine. It's easier to hide behind 40 atrocities than a single incident."
Presidential pardons do not immunize the recipient from prosecution for violations of the laws of war where the venue is outside the United States. Nor does it prevent extradition.
This IMO is a very live issue for Pete Hegseth, who is implicated in several war crimes already.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2026, 09:41:43 AMPresidential pardons do not immunize the recipient from prosecution for violations of the laws of war where the venue is outside the United States. Nor does it prevent extradition.
This IMO is a very live issue for Pete Hegseth, who is implicated in several war crimes already.
While you are technically correct, it would be near impossible to extradite someone like him from the United States. A US court would need to order that extradition. How much faith do you have such an order would actually be made?
I realize how tempting it is to fall back on the before times legal norms. But all evidence is to the contrary in your country.
I might start to think Trump did not deserve that FIFA Peace Prize. <_<
Prediction: the US makes a poo-poo and goes cap in hand to NATO for help.
Quote from: The Brain on March 17, 2026, 09:56:23 AMPrediction: the US makes a poo-poo and goes cap in hand to NATO for help.
FFS, what are you doing here, and not raising zombie Olof Palme? :hug:
Quote from: Norgy on March 17, 2026, 10:00:27 AMQuote from: The Brain on March 17, 2026, 09:56:23 AMPrediction: the US makes a poo-poo and goes cap in hand to NATO for help.
FFS, what are you doing here, and not raising zombie Olof Palme? :hug:
I'm not a fan of Cuba's regime.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2026, 09:47:28 AMWhile you are technically correct, it would be near impossible to extradite someone like him from the United States. A US court would need to order that extradition. How much faith do you have such an order would actually be made?
There is no way it would happen now, Trump would block it.
I could see it happen under some future administration, sure, assuming an investigation obtained sufficient evidence. If a proper request was made by a country with a US treaty and a functional legal system, and if DOJ approved, the courts would be unlikely to block it.
The functionality of the legal system of the foreign country making the request is not the problematic issue
The legal system is functioning OK. Except for the Supreme Court. And the Immigration Courts. And the District court in Palm Beach.
Oh and also the Department of Justice. But the staff at this point is already so incompetent they can't do too much damage. The US Attorneys' offices are still mostly OK.
Except for DC, New Jersey, Virginia, Minnesota, maybe a few others.
Otherwise, it's not too bad.
So an order is made by a still functioning part of the American Legal system. That order gets stayed pending appeal to the US Supreme Court. And then the US Supreme Court grants the appeal with much hand waving. I don't see a lot of nations wanting to waste the expense of going through that charade.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2026, 10:22:09 AMI could see it happen under some future administration, sure, assuming an investigation obtained sufficient evidence.
I don't see that happening ever. If the Trump regime is going to face legal consequences for what they have done, it's going to be in the US legal system. Even the most internationalist Democrats have had a "good for thee but not for me" attitude towards the ICC and similar institutions. I think it would take the US losing a war on the level of Germany in World War II for a senior American official to face an international tribunal.
No country ever did submit an extradition request for Kissinger.
It would be wonderful to see those Americans who've committed crimes against humanity be held accountable for their actions, but I think it is very unlikely to happen.
Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2026, 11:51:12 AMIt would be wonderful to see those Americans who've committed crimes against humanity be held accountable for their actions, but I think it is very unlikely to happen.
Have them fall out of windows or choke on veggies. Works well enough.
Quote from: Jacob on March 17, 2026, 11:51:12 AMIt would be wonderful to see those Americans who've committed crimes against humanity be held accountable for their actions, but I think it is very unlikely to happen.
And I'm sure there's a lot of bad actors around the world who are perking up to see if this becomes normalized now.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2026, 11:49:44 AMNo country ever did submit an extradition request for Kissinger.
And? The Americans do not and have never recognized the jurisdiction of the ICC. And the likelihood of an American court ever ordering the extradition of an American because of alleged war crimes or crimes against humanity is zero. So I ask again, why would any nation waste time and expense going through the motions when the result is inevitable?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 17, 2026, 11:20:25 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2026, 10:22:09 AMI could see it happen under some future administration, sure, assuming an investigation obtained sufficient evidence.
I don't see that happening ever. If the Trump regime is going to face legal consequences for what they have done, it's going to be in the US legal system. Even the most internationalist Democrats have had a "good for thee but not for me" attitude towards the ICC and similar institutions. I think it would take the US losing a war on the level of Germany in World War II for a senior American official to face an international tribunal.
Yeah, hardly anybody gets punished for war crimes, or crimes against humanity.
If anything ever happens to those currently serving in Trump's administration, it's got to happen in some future times, to charges brought by the US Justice Dept. I hope someday it happens, but I'm not so hopeful.
Like even his kids. Say what you want about Biden's son, but these guys are profiting quite handsomely from their Dad's administration. Will they ever get charged with corruption? We can only hope.
I think we are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about the future. In 2014, no one would have thought that America would be doing the things it has been doing in 2025. Trump has unmoored traditional assumptions and restraints and that can lead into many different directions. The US extraditing its own war criminals to get around a dubious pardon is within the Overton Window at this point, is as a full descent into fascism and many other possible outcomes.
Brutal crime against humanity. We have done far more destruction to Cuba's people than every excess of their governments going back to independence.
Just depressing.
Hegseth already has a long charge sheet and he's barely served a year.
His fingerprints are all over the Iranian school bombing which appears to be at least gross negligence or reckless indifference, given the full circumstances that are known and his own statements about eschewing "stupid rules of engagement" for maximum lethality.
There were also the murders of the individuals on boats in the Caribbean, which appear to have been directed under his orders and authorization. Deliberate violations of both domestic and international law resulting in the deaths of multiple people.
In the broader context of his openly expressed contempt of international law or indeed any legal or moral restraint on violence committed under the purported color of American military action, I believe a strong case could be made already and he is still busy adding to the outrages.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2026, 01:30:05 PMThe US extraditing its own war criminals to get around a dubious pardon is within the Overton Window at this point, is as a full descent into fascism and many other possible outcomes.
I think it's in the Overton Window, but only because I think a major international or civil war is within it as well. I think one of those is necessary for extradition to happen. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think the signs are encouraging.
Quote from: Valmy on March 17, 2026, 01:35:04 PMBrutal crime against humanity. We have done far more destruction to Cuba's people than every excess of their governments going back to independence.
Just depressing.
It is, depressing and unnecessary. However, tying back into my other point, this was also the long-time argument against the crippling sanctions imposed on Iraq between 1991 and 2003.
This is another reason I don't think any extradition request would be fulfilled without some sort of serious external impetus: too many still don't see actions like cutting of Cuba from oil as a crime (even if they disagree with it as a measure). We've had decades of other people protesting all the "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" the US as allegedly committed. Our governments have punished (or attempted to punish) those that we agree are actually crimes, but there are many where our governments, and a significant number of our people, don't think the alleged actions constitute crimes. That's why there has been universal disdain for the idea of the ICC making judgement on Americans. Perhaps the Trump regime will drive a change whereby we start doing it for the clear cases where we agree with the ICC, but as I mentioned above I'm not encouraged.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2026, 01:30:05 PMI think we are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions about the future. In 2014, no one would have thought that America would be doing the things it has been doing in 2025. Trump has unmoored traditional assumptions and restraints and that can lead into many different directions. The US extraditing its own war criminals to get around a dubious pardon is within the Overton Window at this point, is as a full descent into fascism and many other possible outcomes.
No, those are not assumptions that need to be made in order to arrive at the conclusion that the United States will never extradite a US citizen to another country to face charges of committing atrocities against humanity or other war crimes.
All that we need to assume is that the United States will continue doing what it has always done.
On the other hand, your claim requires a great number of assumptions that are dubious. The biggest one is that for some reason the United States will change its historical approach. But assume that kind of significant change occurs. There is still a problem of finding a court that will extradite, and even if a lower court does order extradition that order needs to survive an appeal to the United States Supreme Court. You know the one that has already ruled that a president can commit no criminal offences well in office?
Your hope that the United States is going to return to some form of normality with strong liberal democratic institutions seems overly optimistic in the near future.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on March 17, 2026, 02:27:15 PMIt is, depressing and unnecessary. However, tying back into my other point, this was also the long-time argument against the crippling sanctions imposed on Iraq between 1991 and 2003.
Those sanctions? More justified than these.
We eased the sanctions and things were getting better in the 2010s. Cuba was starting to open. Then we clamped down...for no reason. Cuba had done nothing at all to justify this. This is just pure imperialism.
The minute the Soviet Union stopped existing all rational reason for sanctions disappeared.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2026, 08:50:10 AMAll that we need to assume is that the United States will continue doing what it has always done.
If we made that assumption in 2014, we'd never be where we are today.
QuoteYour hope that the United States is going to return to some form of normality with strong liberal democratic institutions seems overly optimistic in the near future.
????
I'm not expressing any hope at all. I'm simply observing that Trump has pushed the Overton Window sufficiently to open the door to all sorts of possibilities, from a Qanon nationalist-fascist dictatorship, to left wing show trials of Trumpian officials, to everything in between.
It seems that you are making the same mistake that some MAGA boosters, including Alito and Thomas are making, that the precedent shattering that Trump is accomplishing, and the immunity rulings of the Court, can only be exploited by him, and not repurposed by others. There are substantial numbers of people in America today that are OK with the idea that murdering insurance company executives is a viable, perhaps optimal route for health care reform. There is no telling how things may develop.
No, sanctions against Cuba are not justified at all. They're the product of rabid, irrational anti-Communism. My point, though, was about effect (and how some people labeled that effect), not justification.
There were (and are) many who consider the Iraq sanctions a crime against humanity as well. For those who believe that, justification is irrelevant because crimes against humanity are never justified. Several consecutive American administrations have believed this wasn't the case. This dovetails into my other point that no US administration is ever going to submit to non-US judgement on "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" without being forced to at gunpoint.
Personally, I think the Iraq sanctions were overly harsh, but not a crime. It was a difficult situation where there were limited options to deal with a recalcitrant government. This blockade (even if the Trump regime refuses to call it that), though, does rise to that level. I really hope some Democrats will grow a spine and call it that openly, but I'm not holding my breath. That said, I still don't think anybody is going to The Hague over this.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 18, 2026, 09:51:42 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2026, 08:50:10 AMAll that we need to assume is that the United States will continue doing what it has always done.
If we made that assumption in 2014, we'd never be where we are today.
QuoteYour hope that the United States is going to return to some form of normality with strong liberal democratic institutions seems overly optimistic in the near future.
????
I'm not expressing any hope at all. I'm simply observing that Trump has pushed the Overton Window sufficiently to open the door to all sorts of possibilities, from a Qanon nationalist-fascist dictatorship, to left wing show trials of Trumpian officials, to everything in between.
It seems that you are making the same mistake that some MAGA boosters, including Alito and Thomas are making, that the precedent shattering that Trump is accomplishing, and the immunity rulings of the Court, can only be exploited by him, and not repurposed by others. There are substantial numbers of people in America today that are OK with the idea that murdering insurance company executives is a viable, perhaps optimal route for health care reform. There is no telling how things may develop.
We are now talking at cross purposes.
The overton window does not need to shift at all for the United States to refuse to order the extradition of one of its citizens to face allegations of war crimes.
That is the status quo position of the United States. You are the one arguing that sometime has changed to make the US reconsider that position. I doubt that claim, and I think you are ignoring that any court order to extradite will almost certainly be set aside by the United States Supreme Court.
You seem to be making the mistake of sticking your head in the sand and wishing all the changes that have occurred in your country away.
The USA would never extradite its own officials carrying out long-standing national policy. Thus we wouldn't have extradited Kissinger for Vietnam because that would have implicated multiple presidents and Congressional leaders. For the same reason, we would never extradite anyone over Cuba.
But if hearings resulted in Hegseth being directly implicated for the Caribbean murders or other similar acts he may carry out? That only impacts him and Trump and it contradicts existing national policy. If hypothetically Trump gave him a last minute pardon in 29 to immunize him from prosecution in the US, could I see a hypothetical post-Trump president clearing an extradition? Yes that would present circumstances we've never seen before and I think that is within the realm of possible outcomes. And it doesn't require making any assumptions about the state of the domestic legal system at all. Just what will may exist to impose consequences after 3 more years of Trump and the past experience of the Merrick Garland fiasco.
Has a president ever reversed a previous pardon? Can a president even do legally?
No and no.
The Trump people have been working overtime to figure how to do it, but it seems their autopen theory was DOA.
Thanks.
How did the pardon even come about? For a country whose historical mythos revolves around the notion of a country created for the people by the people giving one guy power above the law seems weird.
I know that it seems Trump is respecting Biden's preemptive pardons (likely selfishly)...but if I am not mistaken, preemptive pardons haven't been tested by the courts, have they?
Quote from: HVC on March 18, 2026, 05:10:35 PMThanks.
How did the pardon even come about? For a country whose historical mythos revolves around the notion of a country created for the people by the people giving one guy power above the law seems weird.
It was intended to provide mercy not as the corrupt tool of patronage it has evolved into.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 18, 2026, 05:18:34 PMI know that it seems Trump is respecting Biden's preemptive pardons (likely selfishly)...but if I am not mistaken, preemptive pardons haven't been tested by the courts, have they?
I don't think Biden's pardon would count for anything done after the pardon.
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2026, 05:29:07 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on March 18, 2026, 05:18:34 PMI know that it seems Trump is respecting Biden's preemptive pardons (likely selfishly)...but if I am not mistaken, preemptive pardons haven't been tested by the courts, have they?
I don't think Biden's pardon would count for anything done after the pardon.
Sure...but that is not the point.
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 18, 2026, 05:31:39 PMPresumably, the founders/authors assumed that the President would typically be a wise and judicious person.
The Founders had some pretty significant failings and blind spots...which wouldn't be such a big deal if they weren't held up as practically super human wizards.
Quote from: HVC on March 18, 2026, 05:10:35 PMThanks.
How did the pardon even come about? For a country whose historical mythos revolves around the notion of a country created for the people by the people giving one guy power above the law seems weird.
An argument on it (from Alexander Hamilton) is in Federalist #74.
https://ballotpedia.org/Federalist_No._74_by_Alexander_Hamilton_(1788)
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2026, 05:36:24 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on March 18, 2026, 05:31:39 PMPresumably, the founders/authors assumed that the President would typically be a wise and judicious person.
The Founders had some pretty significant failings and blind spots...which wouldn't be such a big deal if they weren't held up as practically super human wizards.
Perhaps the biggest blind spot being that they thought the President would almost unfailingly be a wise and judicious person. :sleep:
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 18, 2026, 05:39:23 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 18, 2026, 05:36:24 PMQuote from: Tonitrus on March 18, 2026, 05:31:39 PMPresumably, the founders/authors assumed that the President would typically be a wise and judicious person.
The Founders had some pretty significant failings and blind spots...which wouldn't be such a big deal if they weren't held up as practically super human wizards.
Perhaps the biggest blind spot being that they thought the President would almost unfailingly be a wise and judicious person. :sleep:
The guy who would prove that wrong, Andrew Jackson, was already an adult when they made that assumption :lol:
Quote from: Tonitrus on March 18, 2026, 05:39:23 PMPerhaps the biggest blind spot being that they thought the President would almost unfailingly be a wise and judicious person. :sleep:
The blind spot was assuming the Senate could be counted on to remove a President who proved to be foolish and wicked.
Yeah, checks and balances only work if people want to check and balance. If the key actors in the system decide to collectively abdicate their responsibilities then what is there to do?
I believe the Midterms will be the ultimate test how far this will go and how much they can get away with. Yes, in terms of votes, but also in terms of trying to affect the outcome. If they are able to use the results in a way that empowers them and there is still no meaningful pushback from key actors then I'm not sure anything short of violence can break through this.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 18, 2026, 05:03:51 PMThe USA would never extradite its own officials carrying out long-standing national policy. Thus we wouldn't have extradited Kissinger for Vietnam because that would have implicated multiple presidents and Congressional leaders. For the same reason, we would never extradite anyone over Cuba.
But if hearings resulted in Hegseth being directly implicated for the Caribbean murders or other similar acts he may carry out? That only impacts him and Trump and it contradicts existing national policy. If hypothetically Trump gave him a last minute pardon in 29 to immunize him from prosecution in the US, could I see a hypothetical post-Trump president clearing an extradition? Yes that would present circumstances we've never seen before and I think that is within the realm of possible outcomes. And it doesn't require making any assumptions about the state of the domestic legal system at all. Just what will may exist to impose consequences after 3 more years of Trump and the past experience of the Merrick Garland fiasco.
Wishful thinking at best
This isn't the first time the United States has carried out atrocities. And this won't be the first time the United States doesn't protect its own.
I think we are completely talking past each other.
The question is whether there is any "it's own" anymore. Whether there is still a sense of a united America such that the "ruling elites" - Congress, Executive, the Courts will continue the past practice of covering backs regardless of partisanship, or whether the country has irrevocable devolved into Red and Blue teams in a zero sum political conflict.
My thinking is not wishful in slightest. I am not conceiving of a near future "balls of light" America that comes together to punish Hegseth to vindicate abstract principle. I am conceiving of a near future America on the cusp of civil strife where a vengeful Blue team comes in and extradites Hegseth as a way of nailing him to the wall without undercutting their own use of the pardon power.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 17, 2026, 09:47:28 AMQuote from: The Minsky Moment on March 17, 2026, 09:41:43 AMPresidential pardons do not immunize the recipient from prosecution for violations of the laws of war where the venue is outside the United States. Nor does it prevent extradition.
This IMO is a very live issue for Pete Hegseth, who is implicated in several war crimes already.
While you are technically correct, it would be near impossible to extradite someone like him from the United States. A US court would need to order that extradition. How much faith do you have such an order would actually be made?
I realize how tempting it is to fall back on the before times legal norms. But all evidence is to the contrary in your country.
He could be kidnapped. He could slipped from a boat on a cruise. Fall of a tarmac on a plane trip.
Trump let a tanker pass despite oil embargo. A sanctioned tanker from Russia, of course.
https://apnews.com/article/cuba-trump-russia-oil-shipment-9f6005bdfe7d20e07d290c7e23aeda69
Not even Benedict Arnold was this loathsome
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 31, 2026, 11:30:13 AMNot even Benedict Arnold was this loathsome
it's not even close. Before he betrayed the country, Arnold was a good general and a patriot wounded in battle. Trump's toughest battle for America was pushing his foot arches down in a 1968 doctor visit.
Quote from: Syt on March 17, 2026, 12:08:18 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 17, 2026, 11:51:12 AMIt would be wonderful to see those Americans who've committed crimes against humanity be held accountable for their actions, but I think it is very unlikely to happen.
And I'm sure there's a lot of bad actors around the world who are perking up to see if this becomes normalized now.
I don't think it matters. Of all the people the ICC has charged, over half are African - I'm not sure that reflects the distribution of what we'd consider crimes against humanity. I'd argue it reflects the relative weakness of those states and their historic desire/need to accommodate the West (with all its hypocrisies). It's a slight aside but I think our image of international justice is Nuremberg - an utterly defeated and totally occupied state with victor's justice and buy in from all the (victorious) world powers. But I think it's worth bearing in mind even at that point there are the Tokyo trials which are far less satisfying. And in the system and the ideas we've built we've possibly learned from the successes of Nuremberg and not considered the challenges and inadequacies of Tokyo - Gary Bass's Judgement at Tokyo is really really good on that trial (and Julian Jackson's France on Trial on the Petain trial which is very different but has some similarities is also very good and thought provoking).
FWIW I think as China builds a world order of its own, it will be one safe for autocrats. It will be hugely focused on the importance of national sovereignty whatever is going on within that state - that's a consistent Chinese (and Russian) position. My suspicion is the high point of international "justice" has been and gone. I'm not entirely sure it'll be much mourned.
I don't necessarily agree with that worldview but there is a bit of me that wonders if actually the idea of the trial to punish for crimes against humanity is a mistake. On the one hand I don't think it delivers the justice we hope, or expect, or imagine that it might (and perhaps that's because it is simply impossible). But also I think there is actually evidence now that the risk of ending up in the Hague makes certain leaders cling on, they become more brutal because staying impugn becomes more important. It is a moral compromise but it might be worth sending the message that actually there is a route out. You don't need to fight to the bitter end, because you can - like Mubarak or Ben Ali or Assad or the Shah - end your days with some stolen wealth in a villa or a dacha.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2026, 12:12:21 PMAnd in the system and the ideas we've built we've possibly learned from the successes of Nuremberg and not considered the challenges and inadequacies of Tokyo - Gary Bass's Judgement at Tokyo is really really good on that trial (and Julian Jackson's France on Trial on the Petain trial which is very different but has some similarities is also very good and thought provoking).
Gary Bass' book was excellent, but IMO a bit harsh on the Tokyo tribunal. It's never going to look pretty when you get into deep into the sausage making process. Tokyo did have the problem that the USA was really the unquestionably dominant power there - in a way it wasn't at Nuremburg - and yet sent a weak judge and an even weaker prosecutor to Tokyo, as opposed to the stronger team sent to Europe for the IMT. The American defense lawyers in Tokyo were stronger than the US lead prosecutor, and although that should be a feather in the Tokyo cap as a legal proceeding, it also meant that the verdicts occurred against a backdrop of strong defense arguments vs. some less skilled prosecution advocates.
But the bottom line is that the key legal rulings IMO were justifiable. There were some unfair results, namely Shigenori Tōgo and Bass covers that. But the key thrust of Bass' book are the debates over defining and punishing the crime of waging aggressive war, including the importation of distinctively American concepts of criminal conspiracy. Those same issues were debated at Nuremberg and as with Tokyo ended with judgments of conviction of many defendants on those charges. The Nuremberg judges were somewhat more successful papering over the differences, and wrapped things up while the war was still very fresh in people's minds. But in a sense that strengthens the Tokyo judgments because they had the solid precedent of Nuremberg to rely on.
Bass tries to treat Radhabinod Pal and his dissent with even handed fairness, but to me it veered too much into devil's advocacy. I don't think Pal acted in good faith and his accusations against the other judges of acting on political motives was the height of hyprocrisy.
The world we grew up in was a world shaped by WW2 and its aftermath. For once, leaders and peoples did learn some hard lessons of history and really tried to build institutions that could contain conflict and prevent the more obvious mistakes of the past. It didn't work perfectly, not even close, but it worked better than if those efforts hadn't been made. Establishing the legal and moral norm that waging aggressive war is terrible crime was an important aspect of that effort. Even W Bush etc. understood that you had to make a case that the exceptions for waging pre-emptive war applied. It didn't stop all bad wars but it put a brake on things and forced some thought.
Contrast that with the present where an American President is openly and flagrantly engaging in the same conduct for which we executed people at Nuremberg and Tokyo, to the point of even publicly embracing the comparison to Pearl Harbor. Pal got the last laugh - we are back in the world of states acting according to their own unrestrained conceptions of raison d'etat, and with any reference to international norms greeted with derision. For all its faults, I think we would have been better to adhere to the vision of Webb or Bernard.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 02, 2026, 01:02:43 PMGary Bass' book was excellent, but IMO a bit harsh on the Tokyo tribunal. It's never going to look pretty when you get into deep into the sausage making process. Tokyo did have the problem that the USA was really the unquestionably dominant power there - in a way it wasn't at Nuremburg - and yet sent a weak judge and an even weaker prosecutor to Tokyo, as opposed to the stronger team sent to Europe for the IMT. The American defense lawyers in Tokyo were stronger than the US lead prosecutor, and although that should be a feather in the Tokyo cap as a legal proceeding, it also meant that the verdicts occurred against a backdrop of strong defense arguments vs. some less skilled prosecution advocates.
But the bottom line is that the key legal rulings IMO were justifiable. There were some unfair results, namely Shigenori Tōgo and Bass covers that. But the key thrust of Bass' book are the debates over defining and punishing the crime of waging aggressive war, including the importation of distinctively American concepts of criminal conspiracy. Those same issues were debated at Nuremberg and as with Tokyo ended with judgments of conviction of many defendants on those charges. The Nuremberg judges were somewhat more successful papering over the differences, and wrapped things up while the war was still very fresh in people's minds. But in a sense that strengthens the Tokyo judgments because they had the solid precedent of Nuremberg to rely on.
Bass tries to treat Radhabinod Pal and his dissent with even handed fairness, but to me it veered too much into devil's advocacy. I don't think Pal acted in good faith and his accusations against the other judges of acting on political motives was the height of hyprocrisy.
I agree. I can only assume it's a testament to British legal education that despite all the issues with the UK and the British empire that the book, rightly, raises - I fundamentally think Lord Patrick's judgemnt was right. As was his assessment of Pal. If you don't accept the legitimacy of a court, don't accept an appointment to it - and I think Nehru and Menon's slight despair over Pal's dissent is understandable.
I think Rolling's opinion seems more interesting but even there, from the description in the book, it strikes me as implausibly idealistic/theoretical.
QuoteThe world we grew up in was a world shaped by WW2 and its aftermath. For once, leaders and peoples did learn some hard lessons of history and really tried to build institutions that could contain conflict and prevent the more obvious mistakes of the past. It didn't work perfectly, not even close, but it worked better than if those efforts hadn't been made. Establishing the legal and moral norm that waging aggressive war is terrible crime was an important aspect of that effort. Even W Bush etc. understood that you had to make a case that the exceptions for waging pre-emptive war applied. It didn't stop all bad wars but it put a brake on things and forced some thought.
I think there's a lot to this. I'd add a couple of complications.
One is that the immediate post-war order was still a colonial order and there were aggressive wars fought to re-impose imperial power. Particularly in Indonesia and Vietnam (a former Vietnamese Foreign Minister famously noted that Vietnam did not put much trust in international institutions because, in the previous forty years, it had been attacked by four of the five members of the Security Council). What I think is remarkable is the relative stability of borders - despite some internal conflicts and challenges of multi-ethnic states with straight borders - of the post-decolonisation world. There has been awful conflict in Africa and in Asia but I think if you look at Europe's recent past, I think it's astonishing that so little blood has been spilled either making people match those borders or making those borders match people. I'm not sure the extent to which that reflects the post-war institutional architecture and the lessons from the world learned post-WW2 or the extent to which it reflects active choices by post-colonial leaders (learning perhaps slightly different lessons from, not just WW2 but European imperialism). I don't know how far I'd go or how I'd wait it but I think there is a post-war and then a post-imperial order from, say, the mid-sixties.
The other complication I'd add is Kosovo which is a war I think about a lot because I think it was absolutely justified, it was effective and it was the correct thing to do - but I also think it massively undermined any attempt at building genuine, meaningful international institutions. It was a war based on the principles of crimes against humanity and the need to prevent a genocide but without a UN mandate, in the face of Russian and Chinese opposition and on the assessment of Western powers alone that an international crime was taking place that justified Western powers alone intervening (I'd add that my understanding is the Chinese to this day do not believe the bombing of their Embassy in Belgrade was accidental). In the post-Cold War world I think it's really important because in many ways it pre-figures Iraq but it's good and right and works which makes it, I think, a more useful and challenging example to work through.
I think the thing both of these and the examples of Nuremberg and Tokyo (in both their successful and unsuccessful aspects) raise are around legitimacy. I totally agree that the Tokyo judgements were legally justifiable - they were not metabolised by Japanese society as legitimate in the same way as Nuremberg was in Germany. They've not become cornerstones of the post-war understanding of the world in the same way. And I think the questions of why and the issues raised in that process are important parts of that. In part because I think one of the big problems for international law is that people speak of it and set expectations for it, I think infuenced by Nuremberg, that it is not capable of fulfilling - and it is then delegitimised when it fails at an impossible task (even aside from the fundamental questions of justice of how you prosecute these types of crimes). Not for nothing but the most cynical person I know on international law and its futility as a "criminal" law is someone who has made a career in it and worked for the prosecution in Bosnia and Cambodia. It doesn't mean it's not worth it but I think if we go in with expectations structured by power and politics and the coercive force to effectively enforce it, then we may have lower hopes for it but ones that can be achieved and built on.
QuoteContrast that with the present where an American President is openly and flagrantly engaging in the same conduct for which we executed people at Nuremberg and Tokyo, to the point of even publicly embracing the comparison to Pearl Harbor. Pal got the last laugh - we are back in the world of states acting according to their own unrestrained conceptions of raison d'etat, and with any reference to international norms greeted with derision. For all its faults, I think we would have been better to adhere to the vision of Webb or Bernard.
Yeah. I agree.
I would say I don't think Trump is actually where American or Western credibility has been seriously challenged in the world - or where Pal's vision clarified. I think there is a tendency to overcentre Trump or read everything through him. In my view that credibility lies under the ruins of Gaza.That's not to excuse Trump doing bad things but I think that is a common global perspective of what international law means for the West - something that applies to Ukrainians and not Palestinians (to which, as you say, we can add Cubans - or Iranians given bomb strikes on universities etc). I don't think there is anyone in the world who is not already in the West who has any interest in listening to the West about international law, institutions, values or order - I think to many Trump is not so much outrageous as that he's made subtext text (I disagree I think as you say previously leaders' behaviour was shaped by those institutions, but I think it's a challenging argument in recent years).
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2026, 02:30:22 PMI think there is a tendency to overcentre Trump or read everything through him. In my view that credibility lies under the ruins of Gaza.
And before that under the ruins of Mariupol, Bucha et al.
Still I think there is a rationalization that puts the Israelis in a separate box and even for an arguable major power like Russia, a "what do you expect from the Russians" exception. A legal norm can survive even when there are instances that go unpunished, and perhaps even when the constable turns a blind eye to certain perps, but when the constable himself is a leading perpetrator, it just can't be sustained.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 02, 2026, 04:18:30 PMAnd before that under the ruins of Mariupol, Bucha et al.
Still I think there is a rationalization that puts the Israelis in a separate box and even for an arguable major power like Russia, a "what do you expect from the Russians" exception. A legal norm can survive even when there are instances that go unpunished, and perhaps even when the constable turns a blind eye to certain perps, but when the constable himself is a leading perpetrator, it just can't be sustained.
Yeah. I agree. I suppose the difference is the West was very comfortable calling Mariupol and Bucha what it was.
In that framing I think there's two sides. The behaviour of the "constable" may still be shaped by a sense of legal norms even if they're turning a blind eye. But I'm not sure for the legitimacy of a legal system for all the other participants that legal norms can survive hypocrisy or the constable turning a blind eye. I think that's actually pretty profoundly corrosive. I think the sense one rule for some and another for others is one that's difficult to recover from - or takes a lot of rebuilding. And if a legal system doesn't have the consent or legitimacy it binds then I think it will come under huge pressure. I think this is partly where Kosovo is interesting.
But in the case of Gaza specifically I'm not sure it is simply just turning a blind eye v actively arming and in some countries repressing protests against that policy.
So I wonder if Trump is going to turn his attention to Cuba next
I have a love relationship with Cuba and its people spending lots of time there in my 30s and 40s, and not just at the resorts
Like with Iran, I have no love for Cuba's government, and I'm all for a transition to a democratic government. But I'm not sure if I want Trump anywhere near this.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on March 31, 2026, 12:09:10 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on March 31, 2026, 11:30:13 AMNot even Benedict Arnold was this loathsome
it's not even close. Before he betrayed the country, Arnold was a good general and a patriot wounded in battle. Trump's toughest battle for America was pushing his foot arches down in a 1968 doctor visit.
He once told Howard Stern in an interview that avoiding getting STDs was "his Vietnam". :sleep:
If he invades Cuba, I hope he goes to Dallas in November.
Quote from: Norgy on April 08, 2026, 11:23:53 AMIf he invades Cuba, I hope he goes to Dallas in November.
Would be hilarious if greeted by a cuban-iranian team
Alahlee Harvadi Oswaldi. :ph34r: