Originally published at: Barack Obama shares his annual summer playlist | Boing Boing
…
2 Likes
Every President* is a war criminal, I believe. It’s sorta kinda part of the job description.
*Every national leader, excluding Costa Rica, which has no standing army and has had no war since 1948 or so.
… do we have to “smash the state” now, or do we just want to see his birth certificate again 
3 Likes
You missed a few
Also:
Vanuatu, Vatican City, Iceland, Greenland, and San Marino
4 Likes
Costa Rica hasn’t fought a war since 1949 so none of its leaders since then can accurately be called a war criminal. Common criminals maybe. War criminals I think not.
I never wrote or implied that Costa Rica never fought any wars and wonder why you seem to think I did.
So… this post isn’t about music?
6 Likes
Those incidents of violence after 1949 in Costa Rica are usually characterized as “armed conflicts” instead of wars.
Costa Rica did get rid of their military in 1949 but I’m sure you’ll let me know if you disagree.
Guess not.
4 Likes
Good gawd, y’all!
4 Likes
Based
1 Like
Don’t worry- I got you covered.
Armed conflicts aren’t wars. That must be a comfort to the dead.
3 Likes
Yeah, my playlist is WAY better!!! It’s the Boing Boing “Your favorite cover song” thread
Y’all stay cool!!! I’ll see you on the thread.
1 Like
And executions aren’t murders.
In any state which has a death penalty, the head of that government is a murderer, by definition, but we see how far definition goes.
Aye-aye! Lexicographer in chief.
2 Likes
Wait, then are any living presidents war criminals? There have been lots of armed conflicts, but the last time the USA declared war on another country was in the 1940s. I’d also be curious about Russia, which has currently decided to invade and take over other countries by special operations rather than wars.
2 Likes
Extrajudicial executions sure are.
To quote Lucy Dacus again:
2 Likes
Ok not officially I guess
1 Like
I suppose there’s two arguments here. On one hand, every POTUS since WW2 has almost certainly broken (or been responsible for the breaking of) the Geneva Convention rules at some point, which would technically make them in violation of certain international laws. (Of course, the UN is not going to prosecute the US for such a thing, let alone slap them on the wrist for it.) On the other hand, I suppose any head of state arguably makes their own laws and so cannot by definition break their own laws.
The fun of any international armed conflict laws is that it really all depends on who’s already in power!
