4 ms·

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

by nsajko 6y ago

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.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    That's fair; "legality" doesn't really matter much on the international stage. A country can do whatever it wants up to the point where it gets crippled by sanctions, or loses a war. But I think it's still correct to say that the US is not legally beholden to the ICC, just as any other country not party to the Rome Statute is not. It's a voluntary thing, and there are plenty of countries in the world with less might than the US that are non ICC members. If Rome Statute signatories could just flat-out decide what and what is not legal for everyone, that wouldn't be a great outcome for the concept of sovereignty. > 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). I think that's an uncharitable view that paints with a way-too-broad brush. Mine is that US citizens do generally care about these things, but don't trust the idea of a foreign body having oversight in criminal matters. Sure, there almost certainly is some subset that believes that "those terrorists deserve what they get", and believe that due process should go out the window whenever someone utters the magic phrase "national security", and that's shameful. > 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) This is also interesting, though: has the ICC been investigating, and potentially prosecuting individuals in, Poland, Romania, and Lithuania for their part in allowing this stuff to happen on their soil? If not, why not? Seems like it would make sense for them to concentrate where the targets of potential prosecution are actually within their jurisdiction, no? I agree that "if it is within my might, it is right" is reprehensible, but I don't think that explains the situation fully. I think it's reasonable to disagree with the ICC's implementation, and to want nothing to do with it, even if its intended mission is an honorable one.
JeremyNT 6y ago
Exactly. The dominant global superpower has no interest in international tribunals, since it has the power to enforce its will directly. They are above the law because they don't need the law as leverage against anybody else. Joining the ICC has no upside for this country since it simply enforces its will upon the world directly. Why would the empire limit its own ability to commit war crimes for nothing in return? The US government can label any action it disagrees with as terrorism and act unilaterally.

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

by nsajko 6y ago

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

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.
- kelnos 6y ago
  That's fair; "legality" doesn't really matter much on the international stage. A country can do whatever it wants up to the point where it gets crippled by sanctions, or loses a war. But I think it's still correct to say that the US is not legally beholden to the ICC, just as any other country not party to the Rome Statute is not. It's a voluntary thing, and there are plenty of countries in the world with less might than the US that are non ICC members. If Rome Statute signatories could just flat-out decide what and what is not legal for everyone, that wouldn't be a great outcome for the concept of sovereignty. > 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). I think that's an uncharitable view that paints with a way-too-broad brush. Mine is that US citizens do generally care about these things, but don't trust the idea of a foreign body having oversight in criminal matters. Sure, there almost certainly is some subset that believes that "those terrorists deserve what they get", and believe that due process should go out the window whenever someone utters the magic phrase "national security", and that's shameful. > 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) This is also interesting, though: has the ICC been investigating, and potentially prosecuting individuals in, Poland, Romania, and Lithuania for their part in allowing this stuff to happen on their soil? If not, why not? Seems like it would make sense for them to concentrate where the targets of potential prosecution are actually within their jurisdiction, no? I agree that "if it is within my might, it is right" is reprehensible, but I don't think that explains the situation fully. I think it's reasonable to disagree with the ICC's implementation, and to want nothing to do with it, even if its intended mission is an honorable one.

JeremyNT 6y ago

Exactly. The dominant global superpower has no interest in international tribunals, since it has the power to enforce its will directly. They are above the law because they don't need the law as leverage against anybody else. Joining the ICC has no upside for this country since it simply enforces its will upon the world directly. Why would the empire limit its own ability to commit war crimes for nothing in return? The US government can label any action it disagrees with as terrorism and act unilaterally.