US Court Sanctions Bank for Sudanese Atrocities, Ignores Its Own
The verdict establishes a clear precedent: financially backing brutal regimes can lead to consequences for Western institutions. One might wonder if this standard applies universally, or if it's reserved for regimes not currently receiving billions in US military aid and diplomatic cover. The US, with its extensive history of supporting dictatorships globally and selling weapons to active human
rights abusers—including the current Israeli government's campaign in Gaza—appears poised to dodge its own legal precedents for the sake of political expediency. No US bank, for instance, has ever been found liable for enabling Israel's ongoing actions, despite verifiable reports from human rights groups. This selective justice offers a stark reminder: accountability is often a geopolitical tool,
not a universal principle. How many times must a nation enable bloodshed before its own institutions face the music? (Spoiler: The answer often depends on who's doing the enabling, and who's getting enabled.)