Not as such, no. When congress appropriates funds, the president is legally obligated to disburse those funds for the purpose that they were appropriated for. This is a law, and it’s not something that’s up for debate. That was part of the underlying crime that Trump was first impeached for; he attempted to withhold funds corruptly. Could he have vetoed that? Sure. It also would have vetoed funding for Ukraine though. (And, just pointing out here that Trump would have vetoed assistance for Ukraine, while helping Israel kill more Palestinians faster.)
You can–and should–condemn his rhetoric, because he has been supportive of Israel waging war in Gaza. But he’s also been working behind the scenes, trying to negotiate a peace that Hamas will accept, and that Israel will accept. Even when he’s supporting Israel in public, it’s been clear that he’s been working to negotiate a truce.
The US also has laws against providing arms to military units that have been credibly accused of war crimes, but in Israel (also Ukraine) they simply don’t investigate allegations in order to keep the arms flowing. If Biden wants a legal casus belli to deny Israel arms, he has many to choose from, but he is actively choosing not to employ them.
He would need some kind of finding of fact in the US to support that, and that hasn’t happened AFAIK yet. The ICC has made that finding, but it wouldn’t be legally supportable to use that finding to withhold appropriated funding.
In fact the US is so NOT a member of the ICC that it’s currently federal law that if a US soldier was being held at the Hague, the US military would be obligated to invade The Netherlands in order to recover them
Read up on that. There would need to be a finding of fact by the relevant US embassy and departments within the gov’t before this comes into play. Without that, that act is irrelevant to Biden attempting to withhold aid.
Could Biden direct the ambassador and relevant department heads to investigate so that he could legally withhold aid? Yes, he could. Should he? Also yes. But it’s not something the president can do unilaterally. Despite SCOTUS’ attempt to make it so, the president was never intended to be the sole sovereign of the country.
Oh? Then what authority did he have to withhold the plane bombs?
This is student loans all over again. You guys are going to shout that he can’t do that right up until he does it.
The Leahy Law in text -
No assistance shall be furnished under this Act or the Arms Export Control Act to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.
All he has to do is open a fucking newspaper. You’d have us believe he is deaf, dumb, and blind.
Not as such, no. When congress appropriates funds, the president is legally obligated to disburse those funds for the purpose that they were appropriated for. This is a law, and it’s not something that’s up for debate. That was part of the underlying crime that Trump was first impeached for; he attempted to withhold funds corruptly. Could he have vetoed that? Sure. It also would have vetoed funding for Ukraine though. (And, just pointing out here that Trump would have vetoed assistance for Ukraine, while helping Israel kill more Palestinians faster.)
You can–and should–condemn his rhetoric, because he has been supportive of Israel waging war in Gaza. But he’s also been working behind the scenes, trying to negotiate a peace that Hamas will accept, and that Israel will accept. Even when he’s supporting Israel in public, it’s been clear that he’s been working to negotiate a truce.
The US also has laws against providing arms to military units that have been credibly accused of war crimes, but in Israel (also Ukraine) they simply don’t investigate allegations in order to keep the arms flowing. If Biden wants a legal casus belli to deny Israel arms, he has many to choose from, but he is actively choosing not to employ them.
He would need some kind of finding of fact in the US to support that, and that hasn’t happened AFAIK yet. The ICC has made that finding, but it wouldn’t be legally supportable to use that finding to withhold appropriated funding.
You mean like our intelligence agencies finding Israel’s claims to be “low confidence”
The literal second he tells the CIA to hand him the unedited file it’s over.
Yeah the US isn’t even a member of the ICC.
In fact the US is so NOT a member of the ICC that it’s currently federal law that if a US soldier was being held at the Hague, the US military would be obligated to invade The Netherlands in order to recover them
“What part of rules for thee but not for me don’t you get?”
The Leahy Law and Foreign Assistance Act make sending that aid illegal, no matter how much Congress appropriates.
Read up on that. There would need to be a finding of fact by the relevant US embassy and departments within the gov’t before this comes into play. Without that, that act is irrelevant to Biden attempting to withhold aid.
Could Biden direct the ambassador and relevant department heads to investigate so that he could legally withhold aid? Yes, he could. Should he? Also yes. But it’s not something the president can do unilaterally. Despite SCOTUS’ attempt to make it so, the president was never intended to be the sole sovereign of the country.
Oh? Then what authority did he have to withhold the plane bombs?
This is student loans all over again. You guys are going to shout that he can’t do that right up until he does it.
The Leahy Law in text -
All he has to do is open a fucking newspaper. You’d have us believe he is deaf, dumb, and blind.