14 ms·

US sanctions International Criminal Court officials

182 points by echaozh 6y ago

mola 6y ago
Disgusting. This administration is shattering any form of international cooperation not based on power and submission. This brings humanity back to a pre WWs mentality.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  To be fair this is not a new thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands. To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd. The only bad thing about this is that the US is not willing to punish their own war criminals. > This administration is shattering any form of international cooperation not based on power and submission The only other two things that I can think of are the withdrawal from UNESCO and from WHO (this one was justified IMO), do you have anything else in mind?
  - kergonath 6y ago
    > They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands. > To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd. What? This is the definition of absurdity.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      ...if they arrest a service member I am not saying that it is not absurd, just that it is not that absurd.
      - kergonath 6y ago
        Well, the US government can call this any way they want, good luck finding countries to agree that it is a valid one. So, sorry, still absurd sabre rattling. And oddly specific wording, which only applies to this particular court. The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before, but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump.
        dependenttypes 6y ago
        > Well, the US government can call this any way they want "this"? > The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before So it is useless. > but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump. It is certainly not the first time that the US has made such threats. Whether it is likely to act on it I do not know - in the same spirit though, isn't the work of the ICC bonkers? It is not like the US going to just send their service member there out of their goodwill.
  - mola 6y ago
    Trade wars with Europe China Mexico
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      The Chinese trade war was going on for a while now. In addition it seems that issues regarding china are one of the things that both parties seem to agree on. Although you are right that there wasn't such an issue with Europe and Mexico before the current administration.
      - philjohn 6y ago
        And yet the US pulled out of the deal that would have curtailed Chinese influence in the region ...
        dependenttypes 6y ago
        I would not expect competence from politicians.
      - kergonath 6y ago
        Trade wars across the Atlantic are not new to Trump. See this, for example: https://econlife.com/2018/06/banana-trade-war-2/ https://econlife.com/2018/06/banana-trade-war-2/
        dependenttypes 6y ago
        This does not contain the article text. Just an image of bananas, some words about the supposed author, some tags, "leave a reply", and a bunch of useless "latest news".
        kergonath 6y ago
        Might be an issue with an ad blocker or something like that. It’s archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20190323103101if_/https://econlife.com/2018/06/banana-trade-war-2 https://web.archive.org/web/20190323103101if_/https://econli... To be fair, the article is not necessarily fantastic, it was just to show that there indeed were trade wars between the US and the EU before Trump.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    Also the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Exactly to a WWs mentality. Before those wars[1] the mentality (at least for continental europe) was balance-of-power (with a brief interlude during which Napoleon tried to export revolution[2]). ... δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.[3] [1] In another few centuries they'll probably be lumped together as the 31 years war or something. [2] not all of which was bad. Afterwards, unlike the Bourbons, my country kept the best changes (e.g. the law code) and got rid of the worst (e.g. the french running things). [3] If JFK were alive today, I bet he'd have half a mind to call these sanctions a dick move.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    >[1] In another few centuries they'll probably be lumped together as the 31 years war or something. A large majority of people consider that in fact it is WORLD WAR THREE that was started by the US and its allies in 2003. It just hasn't hit Western shores yet.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  For better or worse, this isn't specific to the current administration. There's a long-standing law (passed with a bipartisan majority) instructing the President not to allow ICC prosecutions of Americans and authorizing these kinds of measures if they try.
  - mola 6y ago
    There's a huge difference between refusing to cooperate and sanctioning indviduals. The latter is a fear tactic move. Mafia style.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      I'm not sure I agree. Sanctioning individuals is a pretty common tactic on the international stage.
      - mola 6y ago
        These people are not head of states, they are not war criminals, they do no oppress their citizens, they are not building weapons of mass destruction. These are the causes for the sanctions you are talking about. Come on. That's bird logic.
        lazyjones 6y ago
        This is just nonsense with an offensive remark on top. The EU and USA regularly sanction people who do none of the things you mentioned, just to punish their respective governments. For example: https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/33/lists?search=%7B%22value%22:%22%22,%22searchType%22:%7B%7D%7D https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/33/lists?search=%... https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/member?search=%7B%22value%22:%22%22,%22searchType%22:%7B%7D%7D&member=%7B%22order_by%22:0,%22type%22:%22P%22,%22FSD_ID%22:6082,%22name%22:%22Farid%20Ben%20Haj%20Hamda%20Ben%20Haj%20Hassen%20BEN%20ALI%22,%22id_code%22:null,%22reason%22:null,%22creation_date%22:null,%22programme%22:%22TUN%22%7D https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/member?search=%7B... "press photographer in Germany"
- tomp 6y ago
  You have it the wrong way round. International cooperation is based on US power, in particular US nukes, US air and naval superiority, US protection of Europe and US financing of European defence (NATO), US protection of international trade routes ...
  - mola 6y ago
    Let's say there's a bully, and he just takes and steal stuff. And then there's a big guy seeing that and telling the bully to fuck off and let the kids play without fear. Both are power moves. Do you think they're the same thing though? Yes, power is good way to bootstrap cooperation based on trust. This is a much more effective form of cooperation as you waste less energy on paranoia and watching over your back. You can also base cooperation on submission but then you have to constantly be at an all out war to protect your regime. Much less efficient or reasonable.
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      As JFK alluded to in his Inaugural Speech, 騎虎難下. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kennedy.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kennedy.asp > "We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside." https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mad.jpg https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mad.jpg Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i4dJaYMebI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i4dJaYMebI
  - boudin 6y ago
    No a lot of the current mess is due to US imperialism and bullying, the same way it had been messed up by British, French and Spanish imperialism before. And this based on USD being at the core of finance. US protection is not needed other than in places destroyed by the US in the first place. Now more than ever, I'm quite certain that almost all countries in the world would jump on any opportunity to get rid of this currency influence.
  - 6y ago
- jchb 6y ago
  To me, a non-US citizen, it seems that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is being quite reasonable here. ICC wants to investigate US military personnel that, allegedly, committed war crimes on Afghanistan soil after 2003. They can do that because Afghanistan ratified the ICC that year. Clearly, if the US wants to commit war crimes, they should only do that inside their own borders, where they are actually perfectly safe from the ICC. That being said, I don't like when this kind of issues are politicized ("Obama destroyed America", "Trump sucks on all issues", ...). So I looked up the numbers. The US congress and senate passed a law, in 2002, that gave the president authority to "with all means necessary, prohibit the International Criminal Court from seeking to exercise jurisdiction over United States persons, and allied persons" https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2002328 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2002328 Votes by party Republican YEAS: 201 NAYS: 18 Democratic YEAS: 195 NAYS: 13 Doesn't seem to be a "current administration" issue only. Clearly the US was caught up in the post-9/11 panic at the time of passing this law. But it seems a good idea to repeal it - if there is no longer a majority in support of it.
  - mola 6y ago
    Well that's still is politics. The US lost its marbles after 9/11. Obama was trying to stear the boat a different way, but he didn't have the support of the legislative bodies which made it their job to give him hell no matter what. Anyway, The bill didn't specify the means, so the means are a part of policy. Sanctioning these type of individuals is a bully move. This administration has picked a strategy of being a bully.
    - adventured 6y ago
      > Obama was trying to stear the boat a different way, but he didn't have the support of the legislative bodies which made it their job to give him hell no matter what. No he wasn't. He went after journalists in the most vicious way since Nixon. His intelligence services violated privacy in the US on a scale never seen before in the country. He attempted to invade Syria and de facto ended up doing exactly that, starting new wars across the Middle East. He didn't do a damn thing different, he was just another President in the White House committing new atrocities, like the guy before him. Then on the way out the door he sent the FBI after his replacement, in a pre-staged attempted coup. Dirty as can be. People try to pretty up the Obama Administration years, because he's a fan favorite. I get it, he's a lot more likable than Bush or Trump; he's more composed, smoother, and smarter. It's all a con, all the way down to the fraudulent Nobel Peace Prize he apparently got ahead of time for destroying Syria and Libya. His Presidency was a travesty filled with many acts of extraordinary evil. There should have been a Syria death counter every night on CNN, but the left didn't have the integrity to do it to one of their own.
- disown 6y ago
  > This brings humanity back to a pre WWs mentality. While I agree that ideally we shouldn't have international cooperation based on power and submission, I don't think your depiction of post and pre-WWs mentality is accurate. The post-WWs mentality is even greater form of power and submission than pre-WWs. Pax Americana is pretty much the US ( and by extension the anglo world ) dominating everyone else. For example, more nations today have foreign troops ( predominantly american/anglo/western ) than during the pre-wws colonial era. Trump is trying to preserve the post-wws world order, the ICC is trying to bring it back to pre-wws world order. Do you want america ruling the world ( post-wws ) or a collection of international powers ( pre--wws )? There are pros and cons to both.
MattGaiser 6y ago
The court is ridiculous. It has had 2 convictions in 13 years and has cost over a billion dollars. Have the UN set up a trial commission whenever there is need to prosecute someone internationally. No need to have it wander around on geopolitically volatile fishing expeditions when they have nothing to do.
- biolurker1 6y ago
  That's nihilism right there. There should be an international court and if you want to "judge" it you should have the credentials to divredit their work. Software developer is not one of them.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Who better to pass judgement on a court than its constituents/subjects? If the people that the court is meant to protect believe the court is illegitimate or lacks authority, then the court has failed.
    - biolurker1 6y ago
      It's subjects are the people of Bosnia, Rwanda etc. You are not from there and therefore you think it's just a money sink. You can't feel the value. But if you know how to better it please write an open letter to the court or UN
- sorokod 6y ago
  Which part of your comment refers to the verb "sanctions"?
biolurker1 6y ago
One more step towards dystopy.
llimos 6y ago
I'm going to give an unpopular view here because I think we need to look at actual facts and laws instead of emotions. Buried right at the bottom of the article: "the US is not a party to the international tribunal". Now, you can say they should be. But they're not. So if you look at it from a purely impartial and dispassionate standpoint, the court shouldn't get any special treatment - and the US would be entitled to take such actions against any other foreign group that set itself up and issued threats. It's like me setting up my own private court and then coming to arrest you. The fact that most other countries are part of it may make a moral case for the US to join but not a legal one, which means that, again looking dispassionately, the US is entitled to do this.
- zaarn 6y ago
  The US used to be part of the international tribunal until they lost a case on warcrime, instead of paying reparations they signed out and left chat.
  - rahimnathwani 6y ago
    As I understand it: The US signed the Rome Statute, but never ratified it. Once a country ratifies the statute, it's in until a year after it gives notice to quit. And, even then, quitting has no effect on investigations already in progress.
    - zaarn 6y ago
      You can get out even if you ratify the statue, membership is basically "as long as you want" and the US' way of handling the ICC has been nothing but a farce, threatening them everytime some US soldier is investigated for war crimes. And the US still refuses to pay those reparations.
- mola 6y ago
  You are using supposed "rationality" to just ignore facts and reality. US is entitled to not cooperate. But bullying individual prosecutors is disgusting.
082349872349872 6y ago
On historical sanctions: If france had not been able to bust the british blockade[1], the US would not have become independent[2] in 1783. [1] As a naval power, the british were also fond of economic sanctions. [2] which would not necessarily have been a bad thing: a british North America would have ended slavery sooner with much less bloodshed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZzDP-vQXao&t=3195 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZzDP-vQXao&t=3195
tdons 6y ago
Isn't there also a law on the books in the US that permits 'exfiltration' of a captured US citizen from The Hague if it were ever to come to that?
- Reelin 6y ago
  I'm not sure. I believe it depends on the precise wording of the bill linked below. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4775 https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4775) > Title II: American Servicemembers' Protection Act - American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 - Prohibits U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. ... > (Sec. 2008) Authorizes the President to use all means necessary (including the provision of legal assistance) to bring about the release of covered U.S. persons and covered allied persons held captive by, on behalf, or at the request of the Court.
- colechristensen 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot... prevents cooperation, extradition, etc and authorizes actions to protect citizens from the court
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  Imagine the shit show that would come from that...
- nsajko 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court#American_policies_towards_the_ICC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
Angeo34 6y ago
>tfw USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia are literally all the same
ngcc_hk 6y ago
If they also investigate china Great Leap Forward, ... up to rent Hong Kong or they try Russia ... just get everyone then I am all ears. For now, destroy USA credibility meant more than just touch the last remaining power sort of helping humanity.
- BoringAsian 6y ago
  They have all committed crimes so prosecuting either one isn't mutually exclusive. The great leap forward happened within the confines of a nation so its less clear cut then America invading another nation since thats a much more clear international interaction. Same with Russia since they had hidden their actions using "volunteers"
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > If they also investigate china Great Leap Forward China has not signed the ICC, and so the ICC has no jurisdiction with-in China (including HK). Afghanistan has signed the ICC treaty, so the ICC has jurisdiction with-in Afghanistan. The alleged crimes occurred with-in Afghanistan. If the alleged crimes occurred with-in Somalia, which is not an ICC member, the ICC could not investigate. When you go to another country, you are bound by the laws of that country while you are with-in that country.
trasz 6y ago
Nothing particularly surprising here. US - probably the only country in recent history where you get decorated after downing a civilian airliner killing everyone aboard - protects its war criminals, it makes them more effective.
auganov 6y ago
It's pretty normal that any organization trying to unlawfully assert its jurisdiction over another country will be met with a response. ICC has been trying to do the same thing to Israel which it also has no jurisdiction over.

182 points by echaozh 6y ago

mola 6y ago

Disgusting. This administration is shattering any form of international cooperation not based on power and submission. This brings humanity back to a pre WWs mentality.

dependenttypes 6y ago
To be fair this is not a new thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands. To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd. The only bad thing about this is that the US is not willing to punish their own war criminals. > This administration is shattering any form of international cooperation not based on power and submission The only other two things that I can think of are the withdrawal from UNESCO and from WHO (this one was justified IMO), do you have anything else in mind?
- kergonath 6y ago
  > They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands. > To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd. What? This is the definition of absurdity.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    ...if they arrest a service member I am not saying that it is not absurd, just that it is not that absurd.
    - kergonath 6y ago
      Well, the US government can call this any way they want, good luck finding countries to agree that it is a valid one. So, sorry, still absurd sabre rattling. And oddly specific wording, which only applies to this particular court. The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before, but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump.
      - dependenttypes 6y ago
        > Well, the US government can call this any way they want "this"? > The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before So it is useless. > but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump. It is certainly not the first time that the US has made such threats. Whether it is likely to act on it I do not know - in the same spirit though, isn't the work of the ICC bonkers? It is not like the US going to just send their service member there out of their goodwill.
- mola 6y ago
  Trade wars with Europe China Mexico
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    The Chinese trade war was going on for a while now. In addition it seems that issues regarding china are one of the things that both parties seem to agree on. Although you are right that there wasn't such an issue with Europe and Mexico before the current administration.
    - philjohn 6y ago
      And yet the US pulled out of the deal that would have curtailed Chinese influence in the region ...
      - dependenttypes 6y ago
        I would not expect competence from politicians.
    - kergonath 6y ago
      Trade wars across the Atlantic are not new to Trump. See this, for example: https://econlife.com/2018/06/banana-trade-war-2/ https://econlife.com/2018/06/banana-trade-war-2/
      - dependenttypes 6y ago
        This does not contain the article text. Just an image of bananas, some words about the supposed author, some tags, "leave a reply", and a bunch of useless "latest news".
        kergonath 6y ago
        Might be an issue with an ad blocker or something like that. It’s archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20190323103101if_/https://econlife.com/2018/06/banana-trade-war-2 https://web.archive.org/web/20190323103101if_/https://econli... To be fair, the article is not necessarily fantastic, it was just to show that there indeed were trade wars between the US and the EU before Trump.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  Also the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.
082349872349872 6y ago
Exactly to a WWs mentality. Before those wars[1] the mentality (at least for continental europe) was balance-of-power (with a brief interlude during which Napoleon tried to export revolution[2]). ... δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.[3] [1] In another few centuries they'll probably be lumped together as the 31 years war or something. [2] not all of which was bad. Afterwards, unlike the Bourbons, my country kept the best changes (e.g. the law code) and got rid of the worst (e.g. the french running things). [3] If JFK were alive today, I bet he'd have half a mind to call these sanctions a dick move.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  >[1] In another few centuries they'll probably be lumped together as the 31 years war or something. A large majority of people consider that in fact it is WORLD WAR THREE that was started by the US and its allies in 2003. It just hasn't hit Western shores yet.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
For better or worse, this isn't specific to the current administration. There's a long-standing law (passed with a bipartisan majority) instructing the President not to allow ICC prosecutions of Americans and authorizing these kinds of measures if they try.
- mola 6y ago
  There's a huge difference between refusing to cooperate and sanctioning indviduals. The latter is a fear tactic move. Mafia style.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I'm not sure I agree. Sanctioning individuals is a pretty common tactic on the international stage.
    - mola 6y ago
      These people are not head of states, they are not war criminals, they do no oppress their citizens, they are not building weapons of mass destruction. These are the causes for the sanctions you are talking about. Come on. That's bird logic.
      - lazyjones 6y ago
        This is just nonsense with an offensive remark on top. The EU and USA regularly sanction people who do none of the things you mentioned, just to punish their respective governments. For example: https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/33/lists?search=%7B%22value%22:%22%22,%22searchType%22:%7B%7D%7D https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/33/lists?search=%... https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/member?search=%7B%22value%22:%22%22,%22searchType%22:%7B%7D%7D&member=%7B%22order_by%22:0,%22type%22:%22P%22,%22FSD_ID%22:6082,%22name%22:%22Farid%20Ben%20Haj%20Hamda%20Ben%20Haj%20Hassen%20BEN%20ALI%22,%22id_code%22:null,%22reason%22:null,%22creation_date%22:null,%22programme%22:%22TUN%22%7D https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/member?search=%7B... "press photographer in Germany"
tomp 6y ago
You have it the wrong way round. International cooperation is based on US power, in particular US nukes, US air and naval superiority, US protection of Europe and US financing of European defence (NATO), US protection of international trade routes ...
- mola 6y ago
  Let's say there's a bully, and he just takes and steal stuff. And then there's a big guy seeing that and telling the bully to fuck off and let the kids play without fear. Both are power moves. Do you think they're the same thing though? Yes, power is good way to bootstrap cooperation based on trust. This is a much more effective form of cooperation as you waste less energy on paranoia and watching over your back. You can also base cooperation on submission but then you have to constantly be at an all out war to protect your regime. Much less efficient or reasonable.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    As JFK alluded to in his Inaugural Speech, 騎虎難下. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kennedy.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kennedy.asp > "We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside." https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mad.jpg https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mad.jpg Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i4dJaYMebI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i4dJaYMebI
- boudin 6y ago
  No a lot of the current mess is due to US imperialism and bullying, the same way it had been messed up by British, French and Spanish imperialism before. And this based on USD being at the core of finance. US protection is not needed other than in places destroyed by the US in the first place. Now more than ever, I'm quite certain that almost all countries in the world would jump on any opportunity to get rid of this currency influence.
- 6y ago
jchb 6y ago
To me, a non-US citizen, it seems that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is being quite reasonable here. ICC wants to investigate US military personnel that, allegedly, committed war crimes on Afghanistan soil after 2003. They can do that because Afghanistan ratified the ICC that year. Clearly, if the US wants to commit war crimes, they should only do that inside their own borders, where they are actually perfectly safe from the ICC. That being said, I don't like when this kind of issues are politicized ("Obama destroyed America", "Trump sucks on all issues", ...). So I looked up the numbers. The US congress and senate passed a law, in 2002, that gave the president authority to "with all means necessary, prohibit the International Criminal Court from seeking to exercise jurisdiction over United States persons, and allied persons" https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2002328 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2002328 Votes by party Republican YEAS: 201 NAYS: 18 Democratic YEAS: 195 NAYS: 13 Doesn't seem to be a "current administration" issue only. Clearly the US was caught up in the post-9/11 panic at the time of passing this law. But it seems a good idea to repeal it - if there is no longer a majority in support of it.
- mola 6y ago
  Well that's still is politics. The US lost its marbles after 9/11. Obama was trying to stear the boat a different way, but he didn't have the support of the legislative bodies which made it their job to give him hell no matter what. Anyway, The bill didn't specify the means, so the means are a part of policy. Sanctioning these type of individuals is a bully move. This administration has picked a strategy of being a bully.
  - adventured 6y ago
    > Obama was trying to stear the boat a different way, but he didn't have the support of the legislative bodies which made it their job to give him hell no matter what. No he wasn't. He went after journalists in the most vicious way since Nixon. His intelligence services violated privacy in the US on a scale never seen before in the country. He attempted to invade Syria and de facto ended up doing exactly that, starting new wars across the Middle East. He didn't do a damn thing different, he was just another President in the White House committing new atrocities, like the guy before him. Then on the way out the door he sent the FBI after his replacement, in a pre-staged attempted coup. Dirty as can be. People try to pretty up the Obama Administration years, because he's a fan favorite. I get it, he's a lot more likable than Bush or Trump; he's more composed, smoother, and smarter. It's all a con, all the way down to the fraudulent Nobel Peace Prize he apparently got ahead of time for destroying Syria and Libya. His Presidency was a travesty filled with many acts of extraordinary evil. There should have been a Syria death counter every night on CNN, but the left didn't have the integrity to do it to one of their own.
disown 6y ago
> This brings humanity back to a pre WWs mentality. While I agree that ideally we shouldn't have international cooperation based on power and submission, I don't think your depiction of post and pre-WWs mentality is accurate. The post-WWs mentality is even greater form of power and submission than pre-WWs. Pax Americana is pretty much the US ( and by extension the anglo world ) dominating everyone else. For example, more nations today have foreign troops ( predominantly american/anglo/western ) than during the pre-wws colonial era. Trump is trying to preserve the post-wws world order, the ICC is trying to bring it back to pre-wws world order. Do you want america ruling the world ( post-wws ) or a collection of international powers ( pre--wws )? There are pros and cons to both.

MattGaiser 6y ago

The court is ridiculous. It has had 2 convictions in 13 years and has cost over a billion dollars. Have the UN set up a trial commission whenever there is need to prosecute someone internationally. No need to have it wander around on geopolitically volatile fishing expeditions when they have nothing to do.

biolurker1 6y ago
That's nihilism right there. There should be an international court and if you want to "judge" it you should have the credentials to divredit their work. Software developer is not one of them.
- nickff 6y ago
  Who better to pass judgement on a court than its constituents/subjects? If the people that the court is meant to protect believe the court is illegitimate or lacks authority, then the court has failed.
  - biolurker1 6y ago
    It's subjects are the people of Bosnia, Rwanda etc. You are not from there and therefore you think it's just a money sink. You can't feel the value. But if you know how to better it please write an open letter to the court or UN
sorokod 6y ago
Which part of your comment refers to the verb "sanctions"?

biolurker1 6y ago

One more step towards dystopy.

llimos 6y ago

I'm going to give an unpopular view here because I think we need to look at actual facts and laws instead of emotions. Buried right at the bottom of the article: "the US is not a party to the international tribunal". Now, you can say they should be. But they're not. So if you look at it from a purely impartial and dispassionate standpoint, the court shouldn't get any special treatment - and the US would be entitled to take such actions against any other foreign group that set itself up and issued threats. It's like me setting up my own private court and then coming to arrest you. The fact that most other countries are part of it may make a moral case for the US to join but not a legal one, which means that, again looking dispassionately, the US is entitled to do this.

zaarn 6y ago
The US used to be part of the international tribunal until they lost a case on warcrime, instead of paying reparations they signed out and left chat.
- rahimnathwani 6y ago
  As I understand it: The US signed the Rome Statute, but never ratified it. Once a country ratifies the statute, it's in until a year after it gives notice to quit. And, even then, quitting has no effect on investigations already in progress.
  - zaarn 6y ago
    You can get out even if you ratify the statue, membership is basically "as long as you want" and the US' way of handling the ICC has been nothing but a farce, threatening them everytime some US soldier is investigated for war crimes. And the US still refuses to pay those reparations.
mola 6y ago
You are using supposed "rationality" to just ignore facts and reality. US is entitled to not cooperate. But bullying individual prosecutors is disgusting.

082349872349872 6y ago

On historical sanctions: If france had not been able to bust the british blockade[1], the US would not have become independent[2] in 1783. [1] As a naval power, the british were also fond of economic sanctions. [2] which would not necessarily have been a bad thing: a british North America would have ended slavery sooner with much less bloodshed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZzDP-vQXao&t=3195 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZzDP-vQXao&t=3195

tdons 6y ago

Isn't there also a law on the books in the US that permits 'exfiltration' of a captured US citizen from The Hague if it were ever to come to that?

Reelin 6y ago
I'm not sure. I believe it depends on the precise wording of the bill linked below. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4775 https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4775) > Title II: American Servicemembers' Protection Act - American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 - Prohibits U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. ... > (Sec. 2008) Authorizes the President to use all means necessary (including the provision of legal assistance) to bring about the release of covered U.S. persons and covered allied persons held captive by, on behalf, or at the request of the Court.
colechristensen 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot... prevents cooperation, extradition, etc and authorizes actions to protect citizens from the court
LatteLazy 6y ago
Imagine the shit show that would come from that...
nsajko 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court#American_policies_towards_the_ICC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...

Angeo34 6y ago

>tfw USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia are literally all the same

ngcc_hk 6y ago

If they also investigate china Great Leap Forward, ... up to rent Hong Kong or they try Russia ... just get everyone then I am all ears. For now, destroy USA credibility meant more than just touch the last remaining power sort of helping humanity.

BoringAsian 6y ago
They have all committed crimes so prosecuting either one isn't mutually exclusive. The great leap forward happened within the confines of a nation so its less clear cut then America invading another nation since thats a much more clear international interaction. Same with Russia since they had hidden their actions using "volunteers"
throw0101a 6y ago
> If they also investigate china Great Leap Forward China has not signed the ICC, and so the ICC has no jurisdiction with-in China (including HK). Afghanistan has signed the ICC treaty, so the ICC has jurisdiction with-in Afghanistan. The alleged crimes occurred with-in Afghanistan. If the alleged crimes occurred with-in Somalia, which is not an ICC member, the ICC could not investigate. When you go to another country, you are bound by the laws of that country while you are with-in that country.

trasz 6y ago

Nothing particularly surprising here. US - probably the only country in recent history where you get decorated after downing a civilian airliner killing everyone aboard - protects its war criminals, it makes them more effective.

auganov 6y ago

It's pretty normal that any organization trying to unlawfully assert its jurisdiction over another country will be met with a response. ICC has been trying to do the same thing to Israel which it also has no jurisdiction over.