Wednesday 3rd April 2024
Posted: Wed 03 Apr, 2024 6:36 am
Morning all.
Rather too much reading and watching so far, plus racking my brain how to fix a small practical problem ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001y28c" In 2016, amid the post-EU referendum chaos, one man had an idea. His name was Steve Baker, and he was a low-profile Tory MP. But his WhatsApp group - the home of the hard Brexiteers - soon became the most powerful force in British politics. Sam Coates of Sky News thinks that political WhatsApp groups like Baker’s helped bring down three Conservative prime ministers in a row.
The second of these, Boris Johnson, was a “WhatsApp addict”, according to his former chief of staff Dominic Cummings. And so, during Covid when Number 10 was still using fax machines to get NHS data, everyone turned to instant messaging instead. Forget “sofa government”, this was even more informal - as well as faster, more fluid and full of swearing.
But, Helen Lewis asks Cummings, is this really the best way to govern a country? What about the possibility of leaks, hacks - and conveniently lost messages when an inquiry rolls around? "
The Israeli military’s bombing campaign in Gaza used a previously undisclosed AI-powered database that at one stage identified 37,000 potential targets based on their apparent links to Hamas, according to intelligence sources involved in the war.
In addition to talking about their use of the AI system, called Lavender, the intelligence sources claim that Israeli military officials permitted large numbers of Palestinian civilians to be killed, particularly during the early weeks and months of the conflict.
Sky'sGoneOut wrote: ↑Wed 03 Apr, 2024 7:29 pm Ah so this is how the Israelis have managed to murder civilians with such speed and in such numbers that since WWII the only conflict to exceed their bloodthirsty efficiency is the Rwandan genocide.
What a truly sickening and terrifying read. How anyone could defend this inhuman barbarity is completely beyond me.
When it came to targeting low-ranking Hamas and PIJ suspects, they said, the preference was to attack when they were believed to be at home. “We were not interested in killing [Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged in a military activity,” one said. “It’s much easier to bomb a family’s home. The system is built to look for them in these situations.”
Such a strategy risked higher numbers of civilian casualties, and the sources said the IDF imposed pre-authorised limits on the number of civilians it deemed acceptable to kill in a strike aimed at a single Hamas militant. The ratio was said to have changed over time, and varied according to the seniority of the target.
According to +972 and Local Call, the IDF judged it permissible to kill more than 100 civilians in attacks on a top-ranking Hamas officials. “We had a calculation for how many [civilians could be killed] for the brigade commander, how many [civilians] for a battalion commander, and so on,” one source said.
Arendt objected to a specific nation-state conducting a trial of Eichmann exclusively in the name of its own population.
At this historical juncture, for Arendt, it became necessary to conceptualise and prepare for crimes against humanity, and this implied an obligation to devise new structures of international law. So if a crime against humanity had become in some sense "banal" it was precisely because it was committed in a daily way, systematically, without being adequately named and opposed. In a sense, by calling a crime against humanity "banal", she was trying to point to the way in which the crime had become for the criminals accepted, routinised, and implemented without moral revulsion and political indignation and resistance.