4 ms·

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

by 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
      If I, living in, say, the UK, criticize China's handling of Hong Kong, I am also a suspected criminal in their eyes. Do I have to care about that if I don't recognize their court's jurisdiction over me?
  - Nitrolo 6y ago
    Wouldn't a US citizen still have those obligations if they, for example, had committed crimes in Germany but just happened to fly back to the US before being arrested?
    - kelnos 6y ago
      Yes, but only because the US and Germany have an extradition treaty[0]. And even then, I assume the US government could still refuse to extradite for various reasons. The US has no such treaty with Afghanistan, and is not a party to the ICC. Whether or not the US should cooperate with the ICC is another matter, but the US has no legal or diplomatic obligation to do so. And in fact the US executive branch is required by US law to actively thwart ICC action against US servicemembers[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court#American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    I will disagree. Jurisdiction is in the eye of the beholder. Truth is that nobody has any obligations or anyone or anything, all the courts get their authority by the guns that back them up.
  - fit2rule 6y ago
    Criminals abrogate themselves from that responsibility by committing the crime. Their obligations are no longer relevant until the use of force is applied to make them fulfil that obligation - i.e. they are arrested and prosecuted. It is innocent civilians (i.e. non-criminals) who are fulfilling their responsibility to NOT commit crime - criminals are beyond that point. America is getting away with its war crimes and crimes against humanity, simply because there isn't a system by which it can have its obligations not to murder millions of people enforced by external force. Yet. That day may change, one can only hope ..
nsajko 6y ago
You are equating right with might and dressing this up in pseudo-legalism.
- kelnos 6y ago
  I think that's an uncharitable interpretation of what the parent said (they did not pass any judgment for or against the current state of affairs), and there's nothing "pseudo" about it; the US has no legal obligation toward the ICC whatsoever. For the record, I think the US should be a member of the ICC, but we're not, and the US Congress passed a law many years ago instructing the executive branch to protect US servicemembers from the ICC. That's just the legal reality.
  - nsajko 6y ago
    I am not any kind of lawyer, but here's my interpretation: The usage of "legal" in this thread is highly misleading: partly erroneous and partly just a red herring. You are right about the USA national law, but that's the red herring part, because it is irrelevant in this international context with sovereign states and the ICC as parties. As far as the ICC is concerned (or rather international law and the treaty, the Rome Statute, which established the ICC) the suspected crimes were committed on party territory (Afghanistan; but also Poland, Romania and Lithuania; the latter three hosted the CIA black sites where prisoners were taken) and the USA government is not willing to prosecute themselves; so the ICC's purpose is to prosecute them. That's why I called Llimos' position pseudo-legalist. (And also because the ICC is not a "private court" any more than the SCOTUS is a "private court".) On the other hand, the USA is a sovereign state and its government is presumably in a position to ignore the international tribunal. This is the might part, which some are equating with a legally nonexistent right. I don't know what exactly makes the USA different in this regard to some other relatively democratic state that finds its military and government under investigation by an international tribunal. It's surely got to do something with USA's might (power the US government is able to project across the world, e.g. sanctions) and worldwide reputation; but I think public opinion within the (democratic) country in conflict with the ICC is also hugely relevant in such cases, thus I'd say the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this, or pass the relevant laws). For a comparison, I doubt there is currently an European internationally recognized state besides Russia and, maybe, Belarus whose governing politicians would dare defy something like the ICC; and sanctions by any state other than the USA would also carry much less weight. Taking another look at the top-level comment, another thing that is visible in it apart from fake legalism is the "if it is legal, it is right", or, alternatively, "if it is within my might, it is right" point of view. That, too, is horrible; I guess I just didn't notice it consciously before.
CaptainZapp 6y ago
> They don't have any obligations to the Court. While this is true they certainly also don't have an obligation to attack individuals, who happen to work for the court. That's just a totally underhanded shit move of a bully and, I strongly suspect, it's red meat for a certain segment of voters. No matter how you look at it. This move is fucking disgusting.

by llimos 6y ago

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
    If I, living in, say, the UK, criticize China's handling of Hong Kong, I am also a suspected criminal in their eyes. Do I have to care about that if I don't recognize their court's jurisdiction over me?
- Nitrolo 6y ago
  Wouldn't a US citizen still have those obligations if they, for example, had committed crimes in Germany but just happened to fly back to the US before being arrested?
  - kelnos 6y ago
    Yes, but only because the US and Germany have an extradition treaty[0]. And even then, I assume the US government could still refuse to extradite for various reasons. The US has no such treaty with Afghanistan, and is not a party to the ICC. Whether or not the US should cooperate with the ICC is another matter, but the US has no legal or diplomatic obligation to do so. And in fact the US executive branch is required by US law to actively thwart ICC action against US servicemembers[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court#American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  I will disagree. Jurisdiction is in the eye of the beholder. Truth is that nobody has any obligations or anyone or anything, all the courts get their authority by the guns that back them up.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  Criminals abrogate themselves from that responsibility by committing the crime. Their obligations are no longer relevant until the use of force is applied to make them fulfil that obligation - i.e. they are arrested and prosecuted. It is innocent civilians (i.e. non-criminals) who are fulfilling their responsibility to NOT commit crime - criminals are beyond that point. America is getting away with its war crimes and crimes against humanity, simply because there isn't a system by which it can have its obligations not to murder millions of people enforced by external force. Yet. That day may change, one can only hope ..

nsajko 6y ago

You are equating right with might and dressing this up in pseudo-legalism.

kelnos 6y ago
I think that's an uncharitable interpretation of what the parent said (they did not pass any judgment for or against the current state of affairs), and there's nothing "pseudo" about it; the US has no legal obligation toward the ICC whatsoever. For the record, I think the US should be a member of the ICC, but we're not, and the US Congress passed a law many years ago instructing the executive branch to protect US servicemembers from the ICC. That's just the legal reality.
- nsajko 6y ago
  I am not any kind of lawyer, but here's my interpretation: The usage of "legal" in this thread is highly misleading: partly erroneous and partly just a red herring. You are right about the USA national law, but that's the red herring part, because it is irrelevant in this international context with sovereign states and the ICC as parties. As far as the ICC is concerned (or rather international law and the treaty, the Rome Statute, which established the ICC) the suspected crimes were committed on party territory (Afghanistan; but also Poland, Romania and Lithuania; the latter three hosted the CIA black sites where prisoners were taken) and the USA government is not willing to prosecute themselves; so the ICC's purpose is to prosecute them. That's why I called Llimos' position pseudo-legalist. (And also because the ICC is not a "private court" any more than the SCOTUS is a "private court".) On the other hand, the USA is a sovereign state and its government is presumably in a position to ignore the international tribunal. This is the might part, which some are equating with a legally nonexistent right. I don't know what exactly makes the USA different in this regard to some other relatively democratic state that finds its military and government under investigation by an international tribunal. It's surely got to do something with USA's might (power the US government is able to project across the world, e.g. sanctions) and worldwide reputation; but I think public opinion within the (democratic) country in conflict with the ICC is also hugely relevant in such cases, thus I'd say the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this, or pass the relevant laws). For a comparison, I doubt there is currently an European internationally recognized state besides Russia and, maybe, Belarus whose governing politicians would dare defy something like the ICC; and sanctions by any state other than the USA would also carry much less weight. Taking another look at the top-level comment, another thing that is visible in it apart from fake legalism is the "if it is legal, it is right", or, alternatively, "if it is within my might, it is right" point of view. That, too, is horrible; I guess I just didn't notice it consciously before.

CaptainZapp 6y ago

> They don't have any obligations to the Court. While this is true they certainly also don't have an obligation to attack individuals, who happen to work for the court. That's just a totally underhanded shit move of a bully and, I strongly suspect, it's red meat for a certain segment of voters. No matter how you look at it. This move is fucking disgusting.