9 ms·
US Bars Entry to International Criminal Court Investigators
- pizza 8y agoLook up what is nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act" (thanks, John Bolton). The US is extremely hostile to foreign accountability.
- tareqak 8y agoWikipedia redirects that page to another because it considers that name to be non-neutral [0][1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hague_Invasion_Act&redirect=no https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hague_Invasion_Ac...
- rfinney 8y agoICC has no jurisdiction in the United States. U.S. did not ratify the treaty. No point in letting them pretend they do. Imagine European idealists prosecuting Clinton, Bush and Obama for "war crimes"? No way.
- soperj 8y agoWhy not?
- dfee 8y agoWhy give up sovereignty?
- olefoo 8y agoIn the interests of a functional global order where everyone is held to the same standard? It's very hard to claim the moral high ground when you are not willing to be subject to the same rules as everyone else.
- justaguyhere 8y agoeveryone is held to the same standard When has this ever happened in the history of mankind? Never, it is just a pipe dream. Bigger, stronger countries set rules/standards for others and exceptions for themselves. That is how it works, whether we like it or not.
- fixermark 8y agoNever in the history of mankind have we had the ability to go halfway around the world in one day, or hold a conversation with someone halfway around the world with mere seconds of latency. Never in the history of mankind have we had weapons capable of annihilating a city with one shot. Never in the history of mankind have we accessed enough energy and matter to change the balance of the global atmospheric gas concentrations. This is a time in human history where "never in the history of mankind" things should be given serious consideration.
- justaguyhere 8y agoThe things that you listed are scientific achievements. What I pointed out was human behavior, power struggles etc. These are two different things. A Thousand years ago, various groups of humans were trying to control other groups of humans, with stronger groups setting rules and weaker groups following them. Today we're doing the same. A Thousand years from now, we'll likely be doing the same.
- fixermark 8y agoUnlikely. Because if we don't come up with an alternative strategy, there is insufficient incentive for the strong to refrain from using the things I just listed against the weaker groups---or the weaker groups to use them first, preemptively, on the assumption the strong cannot be trusted. We go that road, and in a thousand years, we won't be doing much of anything because we'll be an extinct species.
- 8y ago
- rumcajz 8y agoNeither did Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. Here's the map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#/media/File:ICC_member_states.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#/...
- candiodari 8y agoThe ICC is no better than the US. It's selective justice, to further political ends. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Crimes_against_humanity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#C... For example, I find it incredibly hard to believe there aren't more than a few Palestinian war criminals (regardless of any opinion of the justness -or not- of their "struggle", each side should admit there are more than a few immoral actions committed on both sides), for example, yet we see zero action. ALL the prosecuted individuals from former Yugoslavia are from one particular side of the conflict ... it is completely absurd. The same can be said for half the countries listed, no shortage of genocides committed by these people. Those are just the things that really jump out at me. Here's another thing: there are plenty of war criminals in the Netherlands. Even their home country, the Netherlands, has refused to persecute people involved in: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawagede_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawagede_massacre 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rengat#The_Rengat_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rengat#The_Rengat_massacre 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre The Dutch state has chosen to protect both individuals, commanders and the chain of command in military and government in each case. Do I really need to point out that this directly contradicts the rules of the UN and the statutes of the ICC as well as Dutch law ? It seems redundant at this point. And if you look to Dutch history, the role of the Dutch Royal family in hundreds of genocides ... this is not going to improve your opinion of the country (which the Royal family still more or less controls). Here's what the Dutch do to war criminals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutchbat#/media/File:Unifill_Dutchbat_III_-_Veteranendag_2014.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutchbat#/media/File:Unifill_D... Note the applause. So can we please stop pretending any kind of justice can be had from the ICC ? This is a joke in very bad taste.
- 8y ago
- dragonwriter 8y ago> ICC has no jurisdiction in the United States. ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes committed in Afghanistan after it's accession to the Rome Statute. > Imagine European idealists prosecuting Clinton, Bush and Obama for "war crimes"? The Prosecutor of the ICC is Gambian (the former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of Gambia), and the Deputy Prosecutor is Canadian, so you should have no fear of European idealists...
- refurb 8y agoEvery country should be hostile to foreign accountability. They are sovereign nations and only accountable to their own citizens. Do you really want powerful authoritarian countries to take over international organizations and hold democracies "accountable". Hell no.
- derefr 8y agoI would point out that in the case of the ICC, there are no "powerful authoritarian countries" which are members. See the graphic on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute_of_the_Internatio.... It's basically just the Commonwealth, the EU, and the Nordic countries.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gabbygab 8y agoNo powerful authoritarian countries except for former authoritarian european colonial powers and their former slave colonies? You act like "just the commonwealth, the EU and nordic" is anything good. The history of the british empire ( aka the commonwealth ) is as horrible as any in human history. Not anything humanity should be aspiring to. And the ICC represents western european domination of the world. That's something I as an american abhor and reject. The US should be prosecuting our own war criminals. Unfortunately, we haven't been doing a good job of it. But lets not pretend the ICC or the EU is any better. How many EU war criminals have the EU or ICC prosecuted? None. Most of humanity ( 70% I think ) has rejected the ICC. The world has spoken regardless of what europeans think or want.
- fixermark 8y ago> The US should be prosecuting our own war criminals. Unfortunately, we haven't been doing a good job of it. That's reason enough to want ICC intervention. You can't just denounce the ICC and then declare in the same post that alternatives aren't going to work. "Nobody holds the US accountable" isn't really an acceptable scenario.
- diminish 8y agoDid Serbia issue any visas to any ICC members? That's the question. So no matter what ICC can track crimes committed by any party I suppose.
- pjc50 8y agoWell, the Serbia of Radovan Karadžić and Slobodan Milošević had been militarily defeated and collapsed by internal revolution. They could then be arrested. I dread to think what the equivalent process would look like in the US.
- onetimemanytime 8y agoRegarding Serbia, when you lose the war and are a sardine you have zero options. US, China and Russia on the other hand, can pretty much do what they want. (Plus, Serbia committed massive war crimes, pure and simple, with no other explanation.) Why would USA want some UN bureaucrats investigate them, when they can choose the other option? Would you want anyone investigating you if you had a choice? NOPE.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> Did Serbia issue any visas to any ICC members? The ICC didn't exist then; you might be confusing it with the ICTY [0], which was one of the two concurrent ad hoc special purpose tribunals that motivated the creation of the ICC as a permanent body intended to global focus. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yugoslavia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribu...
- dmix 8y agoI was just reading about this guy today who was a German citizen who was kidnapped from Macedonia and sent to a blacksite in Afghanistan and tortured for months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri Why? His name was one-letter away from another suspect: Khalid El-Masri Khalid Al-Masri [1] And the famous female CIA "queen of torture" decided on a hunch he could be the same guy, apparently against the wishes of her subordinates, and had him kidnapped. I'm not a fan of ICC as a solution to this problem. But it's interesting that the people behind very obvious torture/kidnapping are going unpunished. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_al-Masri https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_al-Masri
- Tomte 8y agoA really tragic case. The CIA dropped him, dirty and in ragged clothes, on some country road in Albania. Where he was detained again, because he looked like a terrorist. (!) He's obviously broken. After returning to Germany he committed violent crimes and was sentenced to prison. No idea why the court did not send him to a psychiatric clinic.
- selestify 8y agoThis is literally the plot to Brazil... Life imitates art
- benj111 8y ago"I'm not a fan of ICC as a solution to this problem" Why not, seems reasonable on the face of it. Genuine question, not American, so maybe unaware of nuances.
- mrnobody_67 8y agoHard for the US to condone the human rights violations of China against Ugur's when the US itself doesn't want to be held accountable to war international treaties and standards. Disgusting.
- alacombe 8y agoI think you meant "condemn", not "condone".
- mrnobody_67 8y agoYep, my mistake.
- jeffdavis 8y agoThe magnitude is important. We overlook the magnitude because it's hard to comprehend numbers like one million people, but it's often the most important. PS: I think you meant "condemn" not "condone".
- rgbrenner 8y agoYou say that like China accepts the ICC. They don't. They never signed the treaty either. I get really tired of this: I can't condemn more than one bad thing in the world at a time. No criticism of others unless your country has proven itself to be a saint first. That's terrible: you advocate letting some off for terrible acts. We (you included) should be condemning terrible things everywhere you see them.
- cletus 8y agoThis is a standard defense tactic, sometimes called "What-about-isms" and is a Trump favourite, as it happens. There are some topics for some people where they'll dig in and won't see reason whatsoever. China (for Chinese nationals) is a common one when you can bring up any number of subjects, the "re-educations camps" being just one. But, but, but... what about US internment of Japanese descendants in WW2? Or the genocide of Native Americans? Or slavery? That's how it goes. Sadly.
- rchaud 8y agoThe Secretary of State sees fit to make a public announcement about how ICC investigators won't be granted US visas, but when a Saudi national commits a fatal hit-and-run on US soil, he can be flown out by his government under the cover of night, no problem [1]. Here's what the attorney for the family of the victim said: "While we appreciate Secretary Pompeo's condolences, what we need is a commitment by this administration to act: to negotiate with the King of Saudi Arabia for the return of Mr Noorah. We understand that while 'the law enforcement options are limited', the Department of State options are not so limited." It is beyond parody that a government undertaking multiple military campaigns abroad, including helping Saudi Arabia foment a humanitarian crisis in Yemen, is claiming to be powerless to act because Saudi Arabia doesn't have a bilateral extradition treaty with the US. As if there aren't billions in arms deals and military aid that the US could use as leverage if they wanted to. Pompeo clearly has far bigger priorities. Like making sure ICC investigators looking into Israel's settlements also can't set foot in the US either. [1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47377888 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47377888
- mcv 8y agoI think the US makes its stance abundantly clear: it's fine with crimes committed by governments, government officials, or in the name of a government. It's not fine with persecuting those crimes. There's honestly no other way to read this as far as I can tell.
- Arubis 8y agoAs embarrassing as this is from the US side of things, it actually gives credibility to the ICC that the Department of State feels it necessary to push back against them.
- mindcrash 8y agoThis isn't news. At all. The United States does not, and never has, recognized the International Criminal Court. To the point that they will not bat an eye and declare war on the Netherlands in case a American soldier will be held in jail in The Hague for questioning and appearing before the Court. And this actually is nothing new and predates the Trump presidency FOR YEARS (17 to be exact): The "Hague Invasion Act" like Pizza mentioned below or "American Service-Members' Protection Act" which is its official name was signed into law by W on August 2, 2002 and upheld ever since -- yes, even throughout the Obama era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot... EDIT: -1 for facts? That's new.
- camelNotation 8y agoAs it should be. It's not appropriate to unilaterally exert power over people who have not consented to it through the establishment of a constitution, legislative controls, and shared ideals that hold that power as authoritative. The idea that anyone would just come into our country and demand that we consent to their understanding of justice, rights, etc. is absurd. Now, switching topics entirely, are you guys all on board with this American-led push for the opposition leader in Venezuela? Also, how are things in Syria and Yemen these days? Libya? Iraq? Afghanistan? Just curious.
- pram 8y agoCan people not simultaneously be against the ICC and US imperialism?
- mcv 8y ago> As it should be. It's not appropriate to unilaterally exert power over people who have not consented to it through the establishment of a constitution, legislative controls, and shared ideals that hold that power as authoritative. The US should not multilaterally accept the prosecution of war crimes because it's not appropriate to unilaterally exert power over people? That makes no sense. On top of that, the US doesn't even agree with your position, because the US was the primary driver behind the Nuremberg trials to prosecute German war criminals after WW2, despite Germany not having consented to it through the establishment of a constitution, legislative controls or shared ideals.
- xster 8y agoFor what it's worth, Chomsky has been saying "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged." since the 90s. https://chomsky.info/1990____-2/ https://chomsky.info/1990____-2/
- mfoy_ 8y agoVery interesting read! "it turns out a war crime is any war crime that you can condemn them for but they can’t condemn us for"
- benj111 8y agoTo be fair, I think a similar point was made about the Allies at the time. History, and laws are written by the victors it seems.
- soperj 8y agoAllies bombed the shit out of citizens(Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo, not to mention Hiroshima/Nagasaki). I don't think there's any debate that war crimes were committed there.
- xster 8y agoI mean forget the bombs, people actually know about them. More Germans died from starvation than victims of Nagasaki AFTER the 1918 armistice when UK insisted on keeping the blockade for almost another year after the Germans surrendered [1]. It's not like anyone involved are going to end up in court. Hell, we're even celebrating Madeleine Albright today as a strong feminist or something despite her saying it was worth starving more Iraqi children than Hiroshima+Nagasaki combined [2] during the first gulf war blockades. But ya, let's get all warm and tingly inside instead because W gave Michelle a candy or something. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany#After_armistice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany#After_armi... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9 https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7...
- jadell 8y agoFrom the ICC's standpoint, a simple counter to this would be to have member countries deny entry to any US citizen on the ICC's "needs investigation" list. That includes heads-of-state and their representatives. Not that I'm advocating for that, but it seems like a solution that would be pretty simple to implement.
- _bxg1 8y agoI donate monthly to the ACLU specifically because whenever something like this comes to light, they're always mentioned as having already begun taking action against it.