9 ms·

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 articl

by 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.
- lazyjones 6y ago
  So where are the alternative "facts" he is ignoring? That, in your opinion, something is "disgusting", is an opinion and not a fact. Your moral position doesn't change, nor trump the simple facts he posted.
  - nsajko 6y ago
    The top-level commenter is ignoring the fact that the Rome Statute, which set up the ICC legally, gives the Court power to prosecute crimes that happened on Rome Statute party territory. The issue here is just that the US Government is powerful enough to ignore the ICC and retaliate/abuse the Court, and probably also that the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this).
fulafel 6y ago
It's not like you setting up your private court at all. It's more like the UN (the majority of UN member states are also ICC members). It has plenty of legitimacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
- colechristensen 6y ago
  To those parties who accepted the treaty, sure. We didn’t. The highest court in the US is the supreme court and every court any of us can be subjected to is under it. The ICC has no sovereignty over the US. Our foreign policy with regards to international law is to support it having sovereignty over others but not ourselves, the world peace enjoyed for the past eight decades or so is a direct result of American hegemony and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours. There is a power imbalance on purpose which results in a little injustice and a big lack of armed conflict.
  - boudin 6y ago
    World peace? Did you ever looked at all the wars that happened since? Many involving the US army ... And not in a nice way... If you speak of the western world, the main reason for peace is the construction of the european union, creating much more cooperation between countries that had always been fighting each other. US foreign policy is not driven by peace, freedom or whatever propanganda created to have people's support but by self-interest. It's the same for any country.
  - watwut 6y ago
    > the world peace enjoyed for the past eight decades or so is a direct result of American hegemony Have you had a look at American foreign policy last eight decades? > and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours. Yeah, that sounds totally like what peace and democracy loving entity would say.
  - fredophile 6y ago
    > The highest court in the US is the supreme court and every court any of us can be subjected to is under it. I'll buy that argument as long as Americans stay inside their own borders. When you choose to enter another country you are subject to their laws whether you agree with them or not. Afghanistan has signed on to the ICC and the activities being investigated took place in Afghanistan. Having said that I don't expect US policy to change on this issue regardless of who wins the next election. Letting US soldiers be tried for war crimes is bad politics.
caf 6y ago
On the other hand, Afghanistan, where the actions being investigated allegedly took place, is a party. I don't see anything illegitimate about Afghanistan investigating events that took place within its borders, or to delegate that to an international tribunal of which it is a member.
- llimos 6y ago
  This is a good point and may well be the case, we'd have to look at the exact rules of jurisdiction. But even if it's true, that's not something that obligates the US to play ball. They don't have any obligations to the Court.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    Criminals rarely have any obligation to the courts in which they are prosecuted. So what?
    - llimos 6y ago
      They do. If they live in a country where the court has jurisdiction, they have obligations. (To show up, to cooperate, etc.) They may choose not to fulfil those obligations, in which case they can be punished (legitimately). If there's no jurisdiction there's no obligation to start with. Case in point: China has made it illegal worldwide to criticize what they're doing in Hong Kong[1]. That doesn't mean you have to listen to them if you're in a country that doesn't care. [1]: https://www.axios.com/china-hong-kong-law-global-activism-ff1ea6d1-0589-4a71-a462-eda5bea3f78f.html https://www.axios.com/china-hong-kong-law-global-activism-ff...
      - nsajko 6y ago
        You misunderstood: the US government is the suspected "criminal" in this case.
        llimos 6y ago
nsajko 6y ago
Another perspective: if a US citizen, or a criminal organization that includes US citizens were suspected of committing a serious crime abroad, you would presumably have no problem with them being prosecuted (and not by the US). The main difference here is that those citizens were operating as part of the US Government.

by llimos 6y ago

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.

lazyjones 6y ago
So where are the alternative "facts" he is ignoring? That, in your opinion, something is "disgusting", is an opinion and not a fact. Your moral position doesn't change, nor trump the simple facts he posted.
- nsajko 6y ago
  The top-level commenter is ignoring the fact that the Rome Statute, which set up the ICC legally, gives the Court power to prosecute crimes that happened on Rome Statute party territory. The issue here is just that the US Government is powerful enough to ignore the ICC and retaliate/abuse the Court, and probably also that the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this).

fulafel 6y ago

It's not like you setting up your private court at all. It's more like the UN (the majority of UN member states are also ICC members). It has plenty of legitimacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

colechristensen 6y ago
To those parties who accepted the treaty, sure. We didn’t. The highest court in the US is the supreme court and every court any of us can be subjected to is under it. The ICC has no sovereignty over the US. Our foreign policy with regards to international law is to support it having sovereignty over others but not ourselves, the world peace enjoyed for the past eight decades or so is a direct result of American hegemony and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours. There is a power imbalance on purpose which results in a little injustice and a big lack of armed conflict.
- boudin 6y ago
  World peace? Did you ever looked at all the wars that happened since? Many involving the US army ... And not in a nice way... If you speak of the western world, the main reason for peace is the construction of the european union, creating much more cooperation between countries that had always been fighting each other. US foreign policy is not driven by peace, freedom or whatever propanganda created to have people's support but by self-interest. It's the same for any country.
- watwut 6y ago
  > the world peace enjoyed for the past eight decades or so is a direct result of American hegemony Have you had a look at American foreign policy last eight decades? > and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours. Yeah, that sounds totally like what peace and democracy loving entity would say.
- fredophile 6y ago
  > The highest court in the US is the supreme court and every court any of us can be subjected to is under it. I'll buy that argument as long as Americans stay inside their own borders. When you choose to enter another country you are subject to their laws whether you agree with them or not. Afghanistan has signed on to the ICC and the activities being investigated took place in Afghanistan. Having said that I don't expect US policy to change on this issue regardless of who wins the next election. Letting US soldiers be tried for war crimes is bad politics.

caf 6y ago

On the other hand, Afghanistan, where the actions being investigated allegedly took place, is a party. I don't see anything illegitimate about Afghanistan investigating events that took place within its borders, or to delegate that to an international tribunal of which it is a member.

llimos 6y ago
This is a good point and may well be the case, we'd have to look at the exact rules of jurisdiction. But even if it's true, that's not something that obligates the US to play ball. They don't have any obligations to the Court.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  Criminals rarely have any obligation to the courts in which they are prosecuted. So what?
  - llimos 6y ago
    They do. If they live in a country where the court has jurisdiction, they have obligations. (To show up, to cooperate, etc.) They may choose not to fulfil those obligations, in which case they can be punished (legitimately). If there's no jurisdiction there's no obligation to start with. Case in point: China has made it illegal worldwide to criticize what they're doing in Hong Kong[1]. That doesn't mean you have to listen to them if you're in a country that doesn't care. [1]: https://www.axios.com/china-hong-kong-law-global-activism-ff1ea6d1-0589-4a71-a462-eda5bea3f78f.html https://www.axios.com/china-hong-kong-law-global-activism-ff...
    - nsajko 6y ago
      You misunderstood: the US government is the suspected "criminal" in this case.
      - llimos 6y ago

nsajko 6y ago

Another perspective: if a US citizen, or a criminal organization that includes US citizens were suspected of committing a serious crime abroad, you would presumably have no problem with them being prosecuted (and not by the US). The main difference here is that those citizens were operating as part of the US Government.