This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Zohran Mamdani is threatening to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits the UN in September
18 USC 878 makes it a federal crime to threaten to imprison any foreign head of state, which suggests that the DOJ has grounds to take action against Mamdani here. This would, of course, cause absolutely nuclear levels of insanity to erupt, especially since I have very little faith in the media not to frame it as "Fascist Trump arrests political rival". But also, it's also extremely unlikely that there will be an actual attempt to arrest Netanyahu, since that would require the NYPD to tangle with the United States Secret Service. All of this seems obvious to me, which means it must be obvious to Mamdani, which raises the question, what is his play here? Even the suggestion that the city that hosts the UN would seriously consider arresting guests of the UN should be insanely problematic.
My reading of 18 USC 878 in connection with 18 USC 1201 is that it refers to illegal kidnappings only. The key operative word in 1201 is "unlawful".
Arrests by police are almost never so blatantly unlawful that we prosecute the police for kidnapping.
More generally, threatening to have someone arrested is not considered threatening a crime.
I think that the arrest of foreign officials wanted by entities outside the US is obviously a federal matter, and absent specific legislation from Congress entirely up to the executive. Obviously there are tradeoffs between diplomatic standards and enforcing international norms.
But if Trump did an 180 tomorrow and told Netanyahu that he is not welcome in the US and would be shipped to the Hague in he appeared on US soil, that would be entirely within his power.
And putting aside conflicting statutes, on what basis would it be a lawful arrest? Mamdani cites ICC. The ICC is not controlling in the U.S.; in fact the opposite (we have a provision to invade The Hague). So that dog doesn’t hunt. What is the NYC law he could enforce that isnt preempted by federal law?
And if there isn’t one, then what credible argument could Mamdani make re the arrest?
It's actually worse than that, since
(1) The so-called Hague invasion act prohibits all governments in the US from cooperating with the ICC;
(2) the UN Treaty (which has force of federal law) gives immunity to foreign diplomats traveling to the US on UN business;
(3) Absent the UN treaty, Netanyahu would presumably be entering the US with general diplomatic immunity; and
(4) AFAIK The Rome Statute itself recognizes (2) and (3).
So yeah, there's no legal basis whatsoever. That being said, smoke-blowing is a long tradition among politicians. And Mamdani is just playing to his base who don't know (or don't care about) the law and are driven by what could be politely referred to as "strong anti-Israel sentiment."
None whatsoever. As far as I know, Netanyahu could come to NYC and personally spit in Mamdani's face with full diplomatic immunity. In fact, I hope Netanyahu decides to rub it in a bit; sign up for a tour of Gracie Mansion; and plant an Israeli flag in the entry way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link