6 ms·

Look up what is nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act" (thanks, John Bolton). The US is extremely hostile to foreign accountability.

• tareqak 8y ago
  Wikipedia 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 ago
  ICC 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 ago
    Why not?
    • dfee 8y ago
      Why give up sovereignty?
      • olefoo 8y ago
        In 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 ago
          everyone 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 ago
            Never 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 ago
              The 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 ago
                Unlikely. 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.
                • gotocake 8y ago
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
        • ufmace 8y ago
          Not only am I skeptical that this will ever happen, a look at how the ICC actually works shows that it has no relation to any ideal of holding everyone to some standard. Just because someone created an organization called the International Criminal Court doesn't mean that it has any connection to fairness or that any reasonable nation ought to subordinate itself to them.
  • rumcajz 8y ago
    Neither 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 ago
      The 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 ago
  Every 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      No 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.