157

US files war crime charges against Russians accused of torturing an American in the Ukraine invasion (apnews.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by LaFinlandia@sopuli.xyz to c/ukraine@sopuli.xyz

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] FluffyPotato@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Hasn't Russia tortured like every pow at this point? Why is this special?

[-] PRUSSIA_x86@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

They have more room to work legally, since he was an American

[-] FluffyPotato@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I guess the US has more luck running a case where they have access to one side at least but it's not like this does anything as the US has no power to charge Russian citizens not in the US. Like this would sound more meaningful if the US worked with international institutions for this like the International Criminal Court in Hague for example.

[-] Tosti@feddit.nl 2 points 1 year ago

Well the person does not have to be in the US merely in a country that has an extradition treaty, is willing to extradite for a price in the game of geopolitics, or the US thinks it can perform a rendition.

In any way it is also a signal to the world. Do t forget about Ukraine and the Russians are doing terrible things there.

It probably also helps pressure the GOP to put forward a vote for aid to Ukraine. If they don't they don't care about Russians torturing Americans. And that's not an easy thing to spin for the GOP spindoctors.

[-] galloog1@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

The US does not recognize their authority due to judgements against US citizens concerning war crimes that the US is not signatory to. It's an important legal distinction.

[-] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He's an American citizen

[-] sadreality@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

These are us national?

[-] perfect_brains@social.freetalklive.com 10 points 1 year ago

@LaFinlandia

funny that the US refused to ratify the ICC court in the Hague (the Rome Statute) so it's operatives could not be charged for war crimes

[-] LaFinlandia@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago

That's why they are being charged for violating US law.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 8 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Four Russian men accused of torturing an American during the invasion of Ukraine have been charged with war crimes in a case that’s the first of its kind, the Justice Department announced on Wednesday.

The American told federal agents who had traveled to Ukraine last year as part of an investigation that the Russian soldiers had abducted him, stripped him naked, pointed a gun at his head and badly beaten him, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said.

Garland has been outspoken on war crimes in Ukraine since Russia’s invasion began in February 2022, and the Justice Department assigned federal prosecutors to examine the potential of bringing criminal charges.

Independent human rights experts backed by the United Nations have said they’ve found continued evidence of war crimes committed by Russian forces, including torture that ended in death and rape of women aged up to 83 years old.

The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in March for war crimes, accusing him of personal responsibility for the abductions of children from Ukraine.

The U.S. and Russia do not have an extradition treaty, but the Justice Department has brought repeated criminal cases against Russian nationals, most notably for cyber crimes and including for interference in the 2016 presidential election.

The original article contains 792 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[+] gmtom@lemmy.world -26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Lmao the hypocrisy. How many US soldiers have been tried for the torture they committed.

e: so when Russia accuses Ukraine of war crimes, you guys take that very seriously right? Because to do otherwise would be whattaboutism, right.

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 25 points 1 year ago

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument. ... the tactic was "an old Soviet trick". ... "Kremlinologists of recent years call this 'whataboutism' because the Kremlin's various mouthpieces deployed the technique so exhaustively against the U.S." ... Russian whataboutism was "part of the national psyche". ... "Moscow's geopolitical whataboutism skills are unmatched"

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

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 7 points 1 year ago

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

More specifically whataboutism.

It's so prevalent in Russian propaganda, an almost Pavlovian response any time Russia's criticised, that anyone still using it when Russia comes up, is either an idiot or pro-Russian.

[+] gmtom@lemmy.world -13 points 1 year ago

It's not whataboutism. It's pointing out that since the US doesn't respect international criminal courts, then they don't really have a moral standing to try and hold Russians accountable in them.

There's a reason we have the word hypocrisy.

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

It’s not whataboutism ... There’s a reason we have the word hypocrisy.

It literally is. Wikipedia:

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument. ... The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, people can claim they are calling out hypocrisy to justify actually whattaboutism, but that doesn't automatically mean any claim of hypocrisy = whataboutism.

The key line from your own quote is.

which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified

[-] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

They aren't trying to hold those 4 Russians accountable in international courts, they're charging them in American courts

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Fair point but that just raises the obvious point that Americans would never recognise the authority of a foreign court, even of their allies (like the UK for example) so do they really expect Russia to respect their ruling?

[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Cool, so it's okay to just condone torture then.

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The worst bit wasn't the Russian war crimes. It was the American hypocrisy! /s

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

I mean I literally never said that, but go ahead and jerk each other off over it.

[-] RidderSport@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

You may not have expressively said that, but literally in every post or news article about Russian war crimes, there's always at least one person pointing at NATO and in particular US war crimes.

No doubt did that happen, yet you don't see Russian state attorneys trying the US in court. And they can, international criminal law can be ruled in in any country of the world. Now why don't they or the Chinese do it? For one, because they don't want to poke the US too much. But if that isn't the case, the only explanation left is that they don't want to be open to the possible repercussions of being held to whataboutism themselves.

No why does it happen in the US or NATO countries? Simply because the executive power holds very little sway on the legal proceedings of the attorney General offices, at least when compared to Authotarian countries such as Russia or China.

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Honestly my point isn't "but America war crimes too!!!!" Which would probably be fair to call whattaboutism, but pointing out that if americ adoesnt recognise other countries courts or international courts, then why should they expect Russia to care about what their courts say?

[-] RidderSport@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

No one expects Russia to accept any foreign rulings. However as the Nuremberg trials proved, acceptance can be enforced by the stronger party. And in the likely case this doesn't happen, the court ruling can mean a lot less foreign diplomacy leeway for the US government when it comes to dealing with Russia. Also a US ruling would extend to every country that has extradition treaties with the US. So anyone proven guilty would effectively be a fugitive in a third and the most powerful and influential third of the world. Look at what the international criminal courts ruling already caused. Putin didn't attend the meeting of the BRICS+ countries in South-Africa. The same would go for Brazil who also accept den-Haag.

Even if the leadership of a country would like for any proven criminal to appear in their country and would like the justice department to not move, in any and every democratic country, they couldn't without causing a major breach of constitution.

Anyhow, trials like these must, without fault, be spotless examples of correct rulings, for there to be any resemblance of unpolitical justice

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

I literally never said that, but sure, put words in my mouth if that makes you feel better.

[-] ivanafterall@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Don't feel too bad, though. Of all the logical fallacies possible, it's surely the most-fun to say.

[+] gmtom@lemmy.world -13 points 1 year ago

I need you to understand that pointing out blatant hypocrisy isn't actually a logical fallacy, despite what reddit has told you.

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Given how the first reaction of Russia apologists, is so often whataboutism, so much so that the wikipedia article on whataboutism literally mentions it being part of the Russian psyche, anyone who's first reaction to an article on Russian war crimes, is "what about America?" is pathetic.

Oh, and I notice you doubled down, edited your comment above and decided to add some "What About Ukraine?" and accused people here of being hypocrites too. Didn't work the first time? Try it again.

Please understand. I'm not saying you're a Russian troll. People who inadvertently propagandize without realizing it are often called useful idiots. But I'm not calling you a useful idiot either. I don't think anyone would conceivably think your comment was useful.

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago

Jesus christ dude I can practically smell the smugness through the screen. I get you you like to feel like you're oh so much smarter than other people, but maybe tone it down a bit?

Even though I fully expected this kind of knee-jerk reactionary given the community I'm posting on, I thought the responses wouldn't be full on redditor. But unfortunately I was wrong.

[-] Ulara@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

''... I fully expected this kind of knee-jerk reactionary given the community ...'' And you are talking about smugness ;-) Really, people mostly blame others for their own shortcomings and project them onto others. Talk about hipocrisy :-)

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Calling out blatant hypocrisy isn't a shortcoming.

Not being able to accept valid criticism of the US' actions because of how kuchen you (rightfully) is a shirt coming.

[-] lurch@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

idk if that counts: Former Commander of Naval Station Guantanamo Bay Sentenced to Prison US soldier jailed for seven years over murders of Afghan civilians American found guilty of torture in Iraq

[-] uphillbothways@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's important to self regulate and prosecute wrong doing of your own people, but justice requires accountability to your accusers, those wronged. Ideally, these work in concert.