The #ICC said it can’t assert jurisdiction over China’s repression in #Xinjiang. https://t.co/kw2AQy9Qin
But facts are facts: China’s gov't has committed serious rights violations against the #Uyghurs on a 🚨massive 🚨scale.
A 🧵on @hrw findings so far & next steps.
💠forced political indoctrination
💠collective punishment
💠restrictions on movement and communications
💠heightened religious restrictions
💠mass surveillance
/3
Chinese authorities have kept countless children - whose parents are detained or in exile - in state-run child welfare institutions & boarding schools w/out parental consent or ⛔️access. More here: https://t.co/vVT6Xk4U7Y
/4
https://t.co/C8xouSEHD4
/5
https://t.co/OAZa8q2pjx
/6
https://t.co/ZEkhjCYP2g
/7
/8
https://t.co/6Owtq4fdmC
/9
A UN🇺🇳member state-backed investigation would make the Chinese govt's equivocation a lot harder.
👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇👇
Though the task is great, none of us are free to desist from it. As Nelson Mandela himself said: “It always seems impossible until it’s done.”
https://t.co/8BSNlG7Fre
More from World
1/10 With respect, multiple straw men here:
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...
2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see
3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result
4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...
5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...
A) If you mean by "legally questionable" either that Senate is barred by constitution from trying an official impeached while in office, or that there are even very strong arguments against it, I have to differ...
Some argue that if the Senate declines to hold a legally questionable, resource-sucking trial, Trump would be getting a free pass. That assumes criminal authorities do nothing and citizens can't be trusted to evaluate. Censure and focus important work?
— Ross Garber (@rossgarber) January 22, 2021
2/10 Constitutional structure, precedent & any fair reading of original intent dictate that argument for jurisdiction is far stronger than argument against. On original intent, see
3/10 If you mean argument against jurisdiction is plausible, sure, it's plausible. It's just weak. In practical fact, Senate can try Trump now, find him guilty & disqualify him from future office if there are sufficient votes. And no court would presume to overturn that result
4/10 b) The argument from resources is awfully hard to take seriously. Fewer than a dozen House members act as Managers for a few weeks. They are staffed, as are Senators hearing case, by folks whose job it is to do stuff like this...
5/10 Yes, Senate floor time will be taken up. But it's past time for us to stop thinking of members of either house as feeble, fluttering, occupants of a nationally-funded convalescent home. There are nearly 500 of these people with 1000s of staff and a bunch of big buildings...