Greg Sargent is always worth reading, and this piece in particular, because it’s a building block in an argument that needs to be made, and made into a foundation for change. Politicians who pursue policies they know will result in widespread death and destruction, especially but not exclusively in the service of partisan political advantage, are guilty. Not a day goes by without Trump or one of his associates explicitly acknowledging that their polices will kill large numbers of people, and that they’re doing it for electoral advantage. Put simply, they’re killing to win elections. The fact that their victims haven’t all been rounded up into camps is immaterial. If we don’t have laws on the books that define this kind of guilt, we need to make new ones. We do that all the time, and the 20th C saw entire new national and international legal regimes created to hold officials and even governments accountable. They mainly related to the conduct of war, but not all — nuclear proliferation, racketeering, and communications, for example. But the new round of laws will need to move beyond a nostalgic attachment to time and, most of all, to place (like a “camp”). Instead, it needs to addresses distributed destruction: mass fraud, stochastic genocide, diffuse ecocide, to name a few areas. The crimes exploit networks and their effects; the laws need to as well.