I have been challenged on one—and only one—point in the Lex Fridman debate. Here is the relevant excerpt from the official transcript. I have filled in the legal term that I used and placed it in upper case: STEVEN BONNELL(03:17:58) I don’t know if you used the phrase dolus specialis, that the intentional part of genocide-
I wonder why the likes of Norman Finkelstein, John Mearsheimer, Mouin Rabbani and many other brilliant minds that know so much about this subject bother to engage with blithering idiots like Piers Morgan, Rabbi Shmuley and Mr. Vermicelli. Interestingly, Wikipedia defines "dolus specialis" as "special intent" or "specific intent," so it must've been his JD specialising in international law which led him to add "highly"
Because most of those blithering idiots are prominent media figures. And also because Mr. Cannoli is particularly insufferable and commands an annoying legion of terminally online imbeciles.
You are so farqing clueless mate, Funklestain doesn't have a a flipping idea of what hes talking about. Who gave him the authority to make such a determination? this man is not right in the head, and is no great intellect. He is more obsessed with be correct or right, that he is deaf to all around him . The arrogance. He was wrong, full stop, what a coward to back peddle then go online to do his hit and run. A very high threshold that was not met. defending yourself against murderous savages that committed such degenerate depravity is not genocide. When an animal commits such barbarism and then laughs and giggles over it promising to do it again. You take that seriously. Dolus Specialis is not up for debate or public interpretation by low resolution hacks that have hate in their souls. That will be decided in the courts, many years from now. Hamas and their supporters cold have ended this immediately. return hostages(a war crime) Hamas surrenders. They have lost all right to protection under the Geneva convention. They have used civilians as human shields(a war crime) they have funneled millions in international aid to terrorists , built infrastructure with aid monies, depriving those for which it was intended (war crime), they brutally and savagely butchered and raped young women and children without warning or provocation(a crime against humanity) oh and by the way, a Genocide , It meets the Dolus Specialis intents, they declared the intent on video and in their charter.. a state plan for the eradication of the Jews... Mens rea and Dolus Specialis.. you retard
bahhahahuahahha and you clearly are a retard, No in fact he did very well , Knucklstain is a moron, he did nothing but try and catch Morris in a GOTCHYA, i don't think he read any of the books he purports to have read.. the two of them are obscure jew hating nobodies
Borelli’s attempt to zero in on the Latin legalese for special intent was perhaps the lowest of his many lowlights during the debate.
The ICJ did indeed find that South Africa had stated a plausible genocide case in its application to the Court. A “dolus specialis” is a subspecies of mens rea. It is simply the terms for specific intent rather than general intent. Some crimes require only a general intent to commit a prohibited act. Other crimes require a specific intent as an element of the offense. Forgery, for example, requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant not only committed the act of creating a false document but that the defendant did so intentionally.
The key issue is not whether anyone is familiar with this specialized legal term, it is whether the facts of the case support the contention that Israel has the intent to commit genocide against the Gazans. The Court, by declining to dismiss South Africa’s application, found that South Africa had made a plausible showing of genocidal intent at the pleading stage. South Africa’s application contained numerous quotations from high-ranking Israeli officials which evinced genocidal intent. This is what is relevant and Borelli’s attempted word-games were designed to obfuscate and distract.
Message for Prof. Finkelstein: What do you get so triggered by Destiny? Is it because what Destiny says challenges your world view? You always despise ad-hominen, however, it was your only weapon to undermine Destiny’s points.
Destiny’s “points” ranged between the dishonest and the obfuscatory. Finklestein has debated countless other individuals who did not draw such averse reactions, so the contention that he cannot stand being challenged is incorrect.
it's more the fact that mr. mascarpone had no idea what he was talking about more than half the time, did not do or possess any actual historical or factual knowledge to add to the discussion whilst trying to appear as "right" by speaking fast and speaking over the other interlocuters. Essentially being a debate pervert.
Just yesterday I recommended this primer to an interlocutor here on Substack, a concise overview of the crime of genocide: "Introduction to International Criminal Law: Genocide" (djaguifoyle, July 21, 2014, YouTube)
At 18:40, the section on mens rea begins and notes specifically dolus specialis:
"For genocide, the mens rea for genocide is twofold. First, you have to intend to commit the relevant prohibited act or the underlying criminal offense that constitutes genocide. But, in addition, that offense must have been carried out with the special intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group as such. In addition, under the [ICC], you might also have to prove that a defendant intended or knew his conduct would form part of a manifest pattern of similar conduct constituting a genocide."
But see also Helen Fein, "Defining Genocide as a Sociological Concept" (Current Sociology, 1990), pp. 19-20, where she quotes Hannum and Hawk, who had previously given guidance in 1986:
"The 'intent' required by the Convention as a necessary constituent element of the crime of genocide cannot be confused with, or interpreted to mean, 'motive.' ... The 'intent' clause of article II of the Genocide Convention requires only that the various destructive acts -- killings, causing mental and physical harm, deliberately inflicted conditions of life, etc. -- have a purposeful or deliberate character as opposed to an accidental or unintentional character (Hannum and Hawk 1986, 140-146)."
As I read it, dolus specialis means that the person accused of genocide, to be convicted, must demonstrate not only that they committed the act in question (i.e., murder) but also displayed the intent to do so with the aim toward destroying the group in whole or in part (i.e., "as such"). It cannot be a one-off; it can't be incidental; and it can't simply be that they committed the act with that act in mind. It has to be toward the goal of genocide.
However, as has been noted by several commentators with regards to South Africa's application to the ICJ, Israeli officials have provided many statements that on their face establish intent. Often, intent must be inferred by examining documents and piecing together information and testimony after the fact; in this case, we have high-ranking officials declaring their intent openly. Some speculate this unusual freedom in divulging intention may be due to a long string of impunity for past actions.
Dolus specialis dō´lūs spākē‐a´lēs . dō´lus spešâ´lus . n.
“Special deceit.”
(1) A harm resulting from an act specifically intended to cause that harm.
(2) The specific intent to cause a specific kind of harm. E.g., “Genocide is distinct from other crimes inasmuch as it embodies a special intent or dolus specialis. Special intent of a crime is the specific intention, required as a constitutive element of the crime, which requires that the perpetrator clearly seek to produce the act charged.” Prosecutor v. Akayesu, I.C.T.R. Case No. 96‐4‐T, Judgment of Sept. 2, 1998, ¶ 42, 37 I.L.M. 1399 (1998); “[T]here is no doubt that the conduct of an organ or a person furnishing aid or assistance to a perpetrator of the crime of genocide cannot be treated as complicity in genocide unless at the least that organ or person acted knowingly, that is to say, in particular, was aware of the specific intent (dolus specialis) of the principal perpetrator.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Serb. & Mont.), I.C.J. Case No. 91, Judgment of Feb. 26, 2007.
Mens rea is a general term denoting any criminal intent, not the specific intent required to commit genocide. The ICJ case presented by South Africa does not contain the word "mens rea", and contains the term "dolus specialis" four times. You can check the South African text here: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/01/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf
40: As far as genocide is concemed, the intent of the accomplice is thus to knowingly
aid or abet one or more persons to commit the crime of genocide. Therefore, the Chamber is of the opinion that an
accomplice to genocide need not necessarily possess the dotus specialis of genocide, namely the specific intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, facial or religious group, as such
Notice it mainly talks of mens rea and also denotes that dotus specialis is not even a requirement to be considered an accomplice in genocidal acts. Dotus specialis is just a specific sub-type of mens rea at any rate and trying to hone in on that term is moot to the actual substance of the discussion.
they could have included it 100 times it still does not prove the intent, does not prove that there was a plan to eradicate, no rather Israel waited, they took particular care in what they did , gave more consideration that the animals that flooded into Israel to commit heinous cemented violence. Hamas and the Palestinians that colluded were however guilty of genocide with their video explicit plan of intent to commit genocide, to exterminate as many as they could. The psychological gymnastics it must take to have such tunnel vision seeing Hamas as anything other than the the root and cause of this conflict is astonishing
There are few testimonies of survivors and released hostages who say that the Hamas guys who broke into their homes reassured them that they didn't want to hurt them, that they just wanted to take them for prisoner exchange. There are also released hostages who said that while they were in Gaza their Hamas captors were protecting them and they felt safer when their captors were around. There's also plenty of video of Hamas guys driving hostages back to Gaza, quite alive. So there's quite a lot of evidence that the Hamas guys who committed the Oct. 7 attacks weren't trying to exterminate as many as they could. There's also no evidence that the intent for the Oct. 7 attacks was to kill as many people as possible: the written plans found had a lot of military target and tactic information but no intent to kill civilians, and the Hamas leaders said the goal of this operation was to capture hostages, there are no testimonies that suggest the intent of the Oct. 7 was to destroy a group in part or in whole.
"[W]e have examined, through contrast and comparison, the claim that (a) Hamas perpetrated a genocide on October 7th and (b) Israel has not perpetrated genocide in its campaign since then. Both of these claims are unsupported and, indeed, are disproven by the understanding we have of genocide as a method:
⦁ It is a process;
⦁ it is usually not substantiated by a one-time event; and
⦁ it is through the pattern of attack that genocidal intent can be discerned."
"Why what Israel is doing is genocide while October 7th was not"
I wonder why the likes of Norman Finkelstein, John Mearsheimer, Mouin Rabbani and many other brilliant minds that know so much about this subject bother to engage with blithering idiots like Piers Morgan, Rabbi Shmuley and Mr. Vermicelli. Interestingly, Wikipedia defines "dolus specialis" as "special intent" or "specific intent," so it must've been his JD specialising in international law which led him to add "highly"
Because most of those blithering idiots are prominent media figures. And also because Mr. Cannoli is particularly insufferable and commands an annoying legion of terminally online imbeciles.
You are so farqing clueless mate, Funklestain doesn't have a a flipping idea of what hes talking about. Who gave him the authority to make such a determination? this man is not right in the head, and is no great intellect. He is more obsessed with be correct or right, that he is deaf to all around him . The arrogance. He was wrong, full stop, what a coward to back peddle then go online to do his hit and run. A very high threshold that was not met. defending yourself against murderous savages that committed such degenerate depravity is not genocide. When an animal commits such barbarism and then laughs and giggles over it promising to do it again. You take that seriously. Dolus Specialis is not up for debate or public interpretation by low resolution hacks that have hate in their souls. That will be decided in the courts, many years from now. Hamas and their supporters cold have ended this immediately. return hostages(a war crime) Hamas surrenders. They have lost all right to protection under the Geneva convention. They have used civilians as human shields(a war crime) they have funneled millions in international aid to terrorists , built infrastructure with aid monies, depriving those for which it was intended (war crime), they brutally and savagely butchered and raped young women and children without warning or provocation(a crime against humanity) oh and by the way, a Genocide , It meets the Dolus Specialis intents, they declared the intent on video and in their charter.. a state plan for the eradication of the Jews... Mens rea and Dolus Specialis.. you retard
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
you ok man? I mean, just because your hero mr. macaroni had no clue he was going up against actual knowledgeable people, no reason to go nutty here.
Mister Bertinelli was clearly out of his depth.
bahhahahuahahha and you clearly are a retard, No in fact he did very well , Knucklstain is a moron, he did nothing but try and catch Morris in a GOTCHYA, i don't think he read any of the books he purports to have read.. the two of them are obscure jew hating nobodies
mr. cannoli dickrider detected.
Borelli’s attempt to zero in on the Latin legalese for special intent was perhaps the lowest of his many lowlights during the debate.
The ICJ did indeed find that South Africa had stated a plausible genocide case in its application to the Court. A “dolus specialis” is a subspecies of mens rea. It is simply the terms for specific intent rather than general intent. Some crimes require only a general intent to commit a prohibited act. Other crimes require a specific intent as an element of the offense. Forgery, for example, requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant not only committed the act of creating a false document but that the defendant did so intentionally.
The key issue is not whether anyone is familiar with this specialized legal term, it is whether the facts of the case support the contention that Israel has the intent to commit genocide against the Gazans. The Court, by declining to dismiss South Africa’s application, found that South Africa had made a plausible showing of genocidal intent at the pleading stage. South Africa’s application contained numerous quotations from high-ranking Israeli officials which evinced genocidal intent. This is what is relevant and Borelli’s attempted word-games were designed to obfuscate and distract.
Message for Prof. Finkelstein: What do you get so triggered by Destiny? Is it because what Destiny says challenges your world view? You always despise ad-hominen, however, it was your only weapon to undermine Destiny’s points.
Destiny’s “points” ranged between the dishonest and the obfuscatory. Finklestein has debated countless other individuals who did not draw such averse reactions, so the contention that he cannot stand being challenged is incorrect.
it's more the fact that mr. mascarpone had no idea what he was talking about more than half the time, did not do or possess any actual historical or factual knowledge to add to the discussion whilst trying to appear as "right" by speaking fast and speaking over the other interlocuters. Essentially being a debate pervert.
Just yesterday I recommended this primer to an interlocutor here on Substack, a concise overview of the crime of genocide: "Introduction to International Criminal Law: Genocide" (djaguifoyle, July 21, 2014, YouTube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTY9PyXhWhg
At 18:40, the section on mens rea begins and notes specifically dolus specialis:
"For genocide, the mens rea for genocide is twofold. First, you have to intend to commit the relevant prohibited act or the underlying criminal offense that constitutes genocide. But, in addition, that offense must have been carried out with the special intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group as such. In addition, under the [ICC], you might also have to prove that a defendant intended or knew his conduct would form part of a manifest pattern of similar conduct constituting a genocide."
But see also Helen Fein, "Defining Genocide as a Sociological Concept" (Current Sociology, 1990), pp. 19-20, where she quotes Hannum and Hawk, who had previously given guidance in 1986:
"The 'intent' required by the Convention as a necessary constituent element of the crime of genocide cannot be confused with, or interpreted to mean, 'motive.' ... The 'intent' clause of article II of the Genocide Convention requires only that the various destructive acts -- killings, causing mental and physical harm, deliberately inflicted conditions of life, etc. -- have a purposeful or deliberate character as opposed to an accidental or unintentional character (Hannum and Hawk 1986, 140-146)."
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001139290038001004
As I read it, dolus specialis means that the person accused of genocide, to be convicted, must demonstrate not only that they committed the act in question (i.e., murder) but also displayed the intent to do so with the aim toward destroying the group in whole or in part (i.e., "as such"). It cannot be a one-off; it can't be incidental; and it can't simply be that they committed the act with that act in mind. It has to be toward the goal of genocide.
However, as has been noted by several commentators with regards to South Africa's application to the ICJ, Israeli officials have provided many statements that on their face establish intent. Often, intent must be inferred by examining documents and piecing together information and testimony after the fact; in this case, we have high-ranking officials declaring their intent openly. Some speculate this unusual freedom in divulging intention may be due to a long string of impunity for past actions.
From Oxford Dictionary:
Dolus specialis dō´lūs spākē‐a´lēs . dō´lus spešâ´lus . n.
“Special deceit.”
(1) A harm resulting from an act specifically intended to cause that harm.
(2) The specific intent to cause a specific kind of harm. E.g., “Genocide is distinct from other crimes inasmuch as it embodies a special intent or dolus specialis. Special intent of a crime is the specific intention, required as a constitutive element of the crime, which requires that the perpetrator clearly seek to produce the act charged.” Prosecutor v. Akayesu, I.C.T.R. Case No. 96‐4‐T, Judgment of Sept. 2, 1998, ¶ 42, 37 I.L.M. 1399 (1998); “[T]here is no doubt that the conduct of an organ or a person furnishing aid or assistance to a perpetrator of the crime of genocide cannot be treated as complicity in genocide unless at the least that organ or person acted knowingly, that is to say, in particular, was aware of the specific intent (dolus specialis) of the principal perpetrator.” Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Serb. & Mont.), I.C.J. Case No. 91, Judgment of Feb. 26, 2007.
Mens rea is a general term denoting any criminal intent, not the specific intent required to commit genocide. The ICJ case presented by South Africa does not contain the word "mens rea", and contains the term "dolus specialis" four times. You can check the South African text here: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/01/192-20231228-app-01-00-en.pdf
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
What's your point? My point is that Dolus Specialis appears 4 times. Mens rea none.
from the text in norm's source:
40: As far as genocide is concemed, the intent of the accomplice is thus to knowingly
aid or abet one or more persons to commit the crime of genocide. Therefore, the Chamber is of the opinion that an
accomplice to genocide need not necessarily possess the dotus specialis of genocide, namely the specific intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, facial or religious group, as such
Notice it mainly talks of mens rea and also denotes that dotus specialis is not even a requirement to be considered an accomplice in genocidal acts. Dotus specialis is just a specific sub-type of mens rea at any rate and trying to hone in on that term is moot to the actual substance of the discussion.
they could have included it 100 times it still does not prove the intent, does not prove that there was a plan to eradicate, no rather Israel waited, they took particular care in what they did , gave more consideration that the animals that flooded into Israel to commit heinous cemented violence. Hamas and the Palestinians that colluded were however guilty of genocide with their video explicit plan of intent to commit genocide, to exterminate as many as they could. The psychological gymnastics it must take to have such tunnel vision seeing Hamas as anything other than the the root and cause of this conflict is astonishing
oof. you really like genocide I guess.
There are few testimonies of survivors and released hostages who say that the Hamas guys who broke into their homes reassured them that they didn't want to hurt them, that they just wanted to take them for prisoner exchange. There are also released hostages who said that while they were in Gaza their Hamas captors were protecting them and they felt safer when their captors were around. There's also plenty of video of Hamas guys driving hostages back to Gaza, quite alive. So there's quite a lot of evidence that the Hamas guys who committed the Oct. 7 attacks weren't trying to exterminate as many as they could. There's also no evidence that the intent for the Oct. 7 attacks was to kill as many people as possible: the written plans found had a lot of military target and tactic information but no intent to kill civilians, and the Hamas leaders said the goal of this operation was to capture hostages, there are no testimonies that suggest the intent of the Oct. 7 was to destroy a group in part or in whole.
"[W]e have examined, through contrast and comparison, the claim that (a) Hamas perpetrated a genocide on October 7th and (b) Israel has not perpetrated genocide in its campaign since then. Both of these claims are unsupported and, indeed, are disproven by the understanding we have of genocide as a method:
⦁ It is a process;
⦁ it is usually not substantiated by a one-time event; and
⦁ it is through the pattern of attack that genocidal intent can be discerned."
"Why what Israel is doing is genocide while October 7th was not"
https://novapsyche.substack.com/p/why-what-israel-is-doing-is-genocide
historical illiterate has entered the chat