• WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Something doesn’t have to be illegal to be criminal. Using such a narrow definition serves to privilege those who write laws for their own benefit and is a crime* against those who are brutalized under systems without legal protections.

    *This word is being used with the definition of “A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.” This is not referring to any laws nor is it suggesting there should be legal punishment for having bad takes.

    • ArcticLynx@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Something doesn’t have to be illegal to be criminal. […] This word is being used with the definition of “A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.”

      we’re talking about war crimes not crimes in general. a war criminal is someone who commits war crimes. according to britannica a war crime is a “serious violation of the laws or customs of war as defined by international customary law and international treaties.” this has nothing to do with morality it is pure jurisprudence.

    • Laticauda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They didn’t say the presidents were criminals, they said they were war criminals, which does have a specific legal definition based on specific laws. Ones that many world leaders, including us presidents, abuse on a regular basis sure, but whether someone qualifies as a war criminal specifically is very much a legal matter, not just a moral one. That said, you don’t have to be an expert to know laws or accuse people of breaking them, you just need to be an expert to navigate the legal system effectively, which in an ideal world is intended to ensure that the laws are upheld fairly. Unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world.