9 ms·

Hard to see how the US can claim a moral high ground on anything when it continues to not be a member of the ICC and is even occasionally actively hostile towar

Hard to see how the US can claim a moral high ground on anything when it continues to not be a member of the ICC and is even occasionally actively hostile towards individual judges and member countries by threatening sanctions.

teakettle42 5y ago
I’m glad that my US constitutional rights cannot be abrogated by a supranational judicial system.
- pydry 5y ago
  I'm not especially thrilled with the idea that this can grant you a license to murder me in my sleep with impunity simply because Im not a US citizen. The alternative of supernational courts dispensing justice at an international level is essentially loose federations of gangs doing the same thing. And, when a kid in a crips neighborhood tries to join the bloods...
  - ericmay 5y ago
    > I'm not especially thrilled with the idea that this can grant you a license to murder me in my sleep with impunity simply because Im not a US citizen. Doesn't seem to stop other countries from doing this internationally and to their own citizens anyway. Something like the ICC in how you're envisioning things can only work when it's backed by military force. So long story short, it is mainly just the U.S. enforcing things, which doesn't really change anything.
    - pydry 5y ago
      The idea that America enforces international law is almost as comical as the idea Russia or China enforces it. America is an international gang not an international cop.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        That's fine, but then I'm not sure why you would think something like the ICC would exist in an enforceable or meaningful way. You have a mismatch of expectations. You shouldn't be thrilled that any country has a license to kill you in your sleep. That would include Norway, Australia, Thailand, Russia, Brazil, you name it.
        pydry 5y ago
        Oh, I dont think its impossible for a supranational entity backed by national militaries to act as a policeman rather than a mafia don. I just think that America is uniquely incapable of that. An EU led super power emerging after an American collapse might successfully step into that role. Probably not, but still possible.
        ericmay 5y ago
        > Oh, I dont think its impossible for a supranational entity backed by national militaries to act as a policeman rather than a mafia don. One person's policeman is another's mafia don. The international system as it exists, exists how you're describing it (supranational entity backed by national militaries) - it's just that the absence of the premier and effective military (America) makes that infeasible. So railing against America, calling the country a gang and mafia don, and advocating for it to withdraw from international organizations that it basically maintains flies in the face of your stated ideas and goals. > An EU led super power emerging after an American collapse might successfully step into that role. I mean that's certainly a scenario of events that could happen, but recent events on the ground suggest the EU is far too weak and neutered to supplant the United States in a meaningful way. It's more likely that the EU would break down and give way to war and conflict than create a unified state - hence the reason for NATO and the EU being created to babysit Europeans who continue to start war after war. More likely is just that the collapse of America (whatever that means) would give rise to either new nation state actors, or China, or some yet unknown and interesting new nation state. One of the things that I think is interesting that has come out of the recent conflict in Ukraine that was started by Russia is that it is breaking the illusion of rules-based order on the international level and people are apparently very surprised about this. Unfortunately might does make right at this level of interaction. To the extent that "fair" international organizations can exist they only can exist in that they are enforced by might and power. Actual bombs, guns, tanks, money, resources, and taking the lives of others. All of these organizations: the UN, ICC, WTO, you name it only exist in a meaningful way because they're literally backed by the United States' willingness to bomb or take away someone's toys (Russian yachts), and that you'd advocate for distancing the US from these organizations is to lead to the collapse of them without clear, ready replacements. No country or group of countries has the apparent ability to do this. Even the EU cannot conjure up a single, unified military and impose its will on the world. Much of this anti-Americanism is geared toward sowing division where there is none and trying to convince Americans to be isolationist so that these international organizations do break down and then other countries can murder and pillage with impunity. I think it's safe to say we can reject this, in favor of a rules-based international order that is imperfect, but can be backed by America and supported by the EU and other participants such as Japan, Australia, Singapore, and others. For the most part I just view this stuff (being anti-America, destroy international organizations, etc.) as right-wing talking points supported by bad actors to break ties in democracies.
    - freeflight 5y ago
      > Doesn't seem to stop other countries from doing this internationally and to their own citizens anyway. What other countries are constantly drone assassinating people in other countries territories? The closest to that I can think of might be Turkey and Saudi Arabia with their drone operations in Syria and Yemen, but those campaigns accompany full blown open military campaigns, quite a bit different to US signature strike operations.
      - ericmay 5y ago
        > What other countries are constantly drone assassinating people in other countries territories? So you can only be murdered in your sleep by a drone? Nothing else counts? But yea sure whatever. Here's 5 seconds of Google search [1]. > but those campaigns accompany full blown open military campaigns, quite a bit different to US signature strike operations. I think that's a bizarre distinction to draw. Why would a military operation justify anything? U.S. drone strikes previously did accompany full-blown military campaign anyway. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/09/16/france-calls-killing-islamic-state-leader-big-victory/8362464002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/09/16/france-...
        freeflight 5y ago
        > But yea sure whatever. Here's 5 seconds of Google search [1]. That's neither a French citizen nor is it anything beyond an anecdote. If you can show me France's equivalent to Pakistan [0], then we might be getting somewhere. > I think that's a bizarre distinction to draw. Why would a military operation justify anything? It's not bizarre at all; Weapons of war being used in a conflict of war is something very different than dropping weapons of war on a civilian population you are not officially at war with. [0] https://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ https://drones.pitchinteractive.com/
        ericmay 5y ago
        > That's neither a French citizen nor is it anything beyond an anecdote. Well I don't know why it would matter that it's a French citizen. And I'm not sure how in the world you're claiming this is an anecdote as if France's drone strike were untrue. Do you have a direct source that contradicts the account of the French government? > If you can show me France's equivalent to Pakistan [0], then we might be getting somewhere. Why would I need to show you that? You asked for an example, not "show me an exact equivalent to this thing I haven't previously mentioned". > It's not bizarre at all; Weapons of war being used in a conflict of war is something very different than dropping weapons of war on a civilian population you are not officially at war with. Ok then we're at war with Pakistan (since that's the example you're using). Great now we're back to where we started and you got the "war" designation you wanted.
- nicholasnorris 5y ago
  What are the specifics of that? Without more detail, it kind of sounds like you're saying American's shouldn't be responsible for crimes committed abroad if the US doesn't prosecute on behalf of the foreign parties.
  - teakettle42 5y ago
    We still have extradition treaties — along with due process rights to challenge an international extradition request within the US judicial system. Additionally, sovereign states are already free to prosecute anyone within their borders. The ICC, however, would preempt US judicial authority — including the US Supreme Court.
    - nisa 5y ago
      "due process" - not really: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn#Diplomatic_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn#Diplomatic...
      - teakettle42 5y ago
        “Due process” is an individual US constitutional right to have access to our established legal procedures and rules prior to any deprivation of “life, liberty, or property”. I don’t see a due process violation in your link — just an example of how abdicating sovereign judicial authority can go wrong, as is the case with diplomatic immunity.
        xyzzyz 5y ago
        There was no "diplomatic immunity" issue relevant in that case. The perpetrator had no diplomatic immunity. She was only immune to prosecution because she ran away, and the US government denied extradition because it would be "troubling".
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- worik 5y ago
  Your constitutional rights are safe if you stay at home and are not a threat to the power structure. The subject of this article, that the United States government tortured was not so lucky. Do the constitutional rights of a USA citizen need torture to maintain?
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    How are terrorists(or, random people mistakenly identified as terrorists) a threat to the power structure? After 9/11, was anyone calling for diminishing US government powers? Maybe a few people, but for the most part - just the opposite - we wanted to hand even more power and money to the federal government.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  I used to hear this all the time in law school, something to the effect that the US should never relinquish its sovereignty by signing the Rome Statute and subject itself to the International Criminal Court. This was at the height of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the associated allegations of POW torture and abuse (e.g. Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, guantanamo bay, etc…). How ironic 20 years later the very same classmates that argued waterboarding wasn’t torture are the same ones that claim they can’t breathe wearing a cloth mask and mask mandates are a violation of their Constitutional Rights because of their often fabricated “medical conditions.” Back then I’d ask my classmates to look at the other UN member countries not signatories to the Rome Statute subject to the ICC: China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen. Not exactly a list of countries championing human rights or state Sovereignty, the US included. Absolute sovereignty is a very romantic notion, but the US gives up sovereignty regularly through other treaties, it is very telling the Rome Statute is where the US and others draw the line. If you are worried about violation of your US Constitutional Rights you should be significantly more concerned about the US government that in the last 20 years has created secret kills lists and conducted extra judicial killings of its own citizens including bombing citizens abroad in violation of the territorial integrity of other nations. When those charged with protecting and enforcing your Constitutional Rights are the ones violating them, I personally like the idea those bearing the most responsibility be subject to an International Court. I don’t want to say your concern about being subject to the ICC as a civilian otherwise in contravention to your US Constitutional Rights isn’t worthy of discussion or potential concern, but it is detached from reality. Moreover, the ICC has jurisdiction over things like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity it’s not exactly a “criminal court” the average citizen is likely to find themselves in violation of their Constitutional Rivhts (though perhaps you are not a civilian rather a high ranking military officer, in which case I understand your concern over an international court that prosecutes war crimes and human rights abuses).
  - MomoXenosaga 5y ago
    If the US joined the ICC they would have the right to send US judges to the Hague. It wouldn't be a "foreign court". But I think the real issue is that the CIA doesn't want oversight from anyone foreign or domestic.
- black_puppydog 5y ago
  And that's why the US is increasingly seen as nothing more than a bully on the international stage. And to the point of the root comment, this will fall back on everyone in the US, you included.
  - hguant 5y ago
    I think, while this might have been the perception up until a few weeks ago, the invasion of Ukraine has shown the world what a true "bully" on the international stage looks like. There will always be cloistered individuals who think that anyone who isn't "pure" (for an increasingly variable definition of pure) is evil. That opinion is absolutely fine to have until reality strikes. The bubble of people who post on HN have been living in that cloister for the last decade or so, not realizing what goes on in the world. At the end of the day, the US has made it a policy to defend and promote democracy across the world, and has actively done so, through it's support of international institutions and protection of democratic norms.
    - mywacaday 5y ago
      I would add that the US does the above without being willing to be accountable to the 123 other ICC member states along with China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen while demanding the rest of the the world to obey it's sanctions. Do as I say and not as I do is hardly a shining example of democracy. If the planet is is ever to be a globally equitable and safe place for all accountability for all is needed.
    - the_af 5y ago
      > The bubble of people who post on HN have been living in that cloister for the last decade or so, not realizing what goes on in the world. Maybe some, but some of us in Latin America live in countries that at times have been subjected to US "influence" which resulted in subverting governments, abductions and torture. All in the name of freedom and fighting communism, which I guess makes it alright!
      - hguant 5y ago
- mywacaday 5y ago
  What about the US abrogating the legal rights of people, terrorist or not, taking them to a black site to avoid their own domestic laws and using them as a training test doll for torture techniques to the point of causing brain damage. At some point every country should be accountable to someone.
  - CWuestefeld 5y ago
    Yes, you're right about that. I think teakettle42's objection was to you trying to turn the question around to make climate change the issue that trumps everything else. At least, that's my objection to your original reply.
    - buran77 5y ago
      > I think teakettle42's objection I'm convinced they know what the ICC is as it's even spelled out above, they just ignore the uncomfortable arguments. > make climate change the issue The ICC is the International Criminal Court [0], which is "Trying individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression". The US is not a part of it after formerly withdrawing about 20 years ago. It shares this position with other countries with strong human rights values like China, Sudan, Indonesia, or Israel. Moreover the US has passed the infamous "American Service-Members' Protection Act" [1] (also known as the "Hague Invasion Act") which authorizes the President of the US to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court" and also prohibits the United States from providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the court. This has exceptions if the countries in question already have bilateral agreements with the US to the same effect. The US went as far as to criminalize anyone who works for the ICC [2]. None of this can possibly be in the interest of justice but only to protect the ones who violate human rights as long as they advance US interests. Since the US does not itself punish or even acknowledge any war crimes commuted by them you can see how this is not a matter of "we can't have others punish our people" it's just "we can't have anyone punish our people". There's only one reason for the situation to look like this and that's quite literally to be able to commit war crimes with impunity. If you were looking at things that put countries like Russia, China, Israel, and others at the exact same level, it's the ease with which they commit such atrocious crimes and go unpunished. But with "due process". That should tell you everything you need to know about their actual values, not the ones claimed on a forum by people who selectively ignore whatever doesn't fit their world view. [0] https://www.icc-cpi.int/ https://www.icc-cpi.int/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... [2] https://theconversation.com/us-punishes-international-criminal-court-for-investigating-potential-war-crimes-in-afghanistan-143886 https://theconversation.com/us-punishes-international-crimin...
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  But they can still torture according to Scalia. It wouldn't violate the 8th Amendment unless you have been found guilty. Then it would be cruel punishment.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    That guy's hot takes are too spicy for reddit
- freeflight 5y ago
  They can and have been, you only need to end up with a label like "terrorist" [0] and many of these rights will suddenly make way for national security interests. [0] https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-old-american-in-yemen-trump-just-killed-his-8-year-old-sister/ https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o...
consumer451 5y ago
Reminder that since 2002, on the books is a law authorizing the US to attack the ICC in the Hague, with the US military! > ASPA authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act". > The act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the International Criminal Court (ICC). For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the U.S. to the ICC; it also prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the ICC. > The act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the ICC. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the ICC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be... edit after 7 upvotes, sorry: I just want to make clear that I still largely support Pax Americana, because the alternatives are worse. But this law is cowardly and actually works against US interests, just like torture.
itsoktocry 5y ago
>Hard to see how the US can claim a moral high ground on anything People now counter any claim like this with "that's whataboutism!". It's free reign to be be hypocritical I guess.
- PoignardAzur 5y ago
  No. I'm no fan at all of the US regime and the atrocities it committed, but these atrocities aren't a free pass for other countries to commit war crimes and remain criticism-free. The fact that Blackwater exists doesn't make Wagner any less evil. Whataboutism is using one to shut down conversations about the other.
Glyptodon 5y ago
Is the ICC subject to the US bill of rights?
freeflight 5y ago
Not just threatening sanctions but actually sanctioning ICC officials [0], and denying ICC investigators visa to hamper their investigations [1]. Which is nowadays commonly handwaved away as the "Embarrassing Trump episode of the US", like it was unprecedented and will never happen again. But it wasn't Trump who put the responsible ASPA in place, that happened under Bush, and Obama never brought that up as something he disagreed with. Which is the same dynamic with most of these laws that give more power to the US executive; Both parties keep expanding and enjoying them, it's not seen as a problem because each of them gets their turn to then make use of them. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527 [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-icc-idUSKCN1QW1ZH https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-icc-idUSKCN1QW1ZH

teakettle42 5y ago

I’m glad that my US constitutional rights cannot be abrogated by a supranational judicial system.

pydry 5y ago
I'm not especially thrilled with the idea that this can grant you a license to murder me in my sleep with impunity simply because Im not a US citizen. The alternative of supernational courts dispensing justice at an international level is essentially loose federations of gangs doing the same thing. And, when a kid in a crips neighborhood tries to join the bloods...
- ericmay 5y ago
  > I'm not especially thrilled with the idea that this can grant you a license to murder me in my sleep with impunity simply because Im not a US citizen. Doesn't seem to stop other countries from doing this internationally and to their own citizens anyway. Something like the ICC in how you're envisioning things can only work when it's backed by military force. So long story short, it is mainly just the U.S. enforcing things, which doesn't really change anything.
  - pydry 5y ago
    The idea that America enforces international law is almost as comical as the idea Russia or China enforces it. America is an international gang not an international cop.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      That's fine, but then I'm not sure why you would think something like the ICC would exist in an enforceable or meaningful way. You have a mismatch of expectations. You shouldn't be thrilled that any country has a license to kill you in your sleep. That would include Norway, Australia, Thailand, Russia, Brazil, you name it.
      - pydry 5y ago
        Oh, I dont think its impossible for a supranational entity backed by national militaries to act as a policeman rather than a mafia don. I just think that America is uniquely incapable of that. An EU led super power emerging after an American collapse might successfully step into that role. Probably not, but still possible.
        ericmay 5y ago
        > Oh, I dont think its impossible for a supranational entity backed by national militaries to act as a policeman rather than a mafia don. One person's policeman is another's mafia don. The international system as it exists, exists how you're describing it (supranational entity backed by national militaries) - it's just that the absence of the premier and effective military (America) makes that infeasible. So railing against America, calling the country a gang and mafia don, and advocating for it to withdraw from international organizations that it basically maintains flies in the face of your stated ideas and goals. > An EU led super power emerging after an American collapse might successfully step into that role. I mean that's certainly a scenario of events that could happen, but recent events on the ground suggest the EU is far too weak and neutered to supplant the United States in a meaningful way. It's more likely that the EU would break down and give way to war and conflict than create a unified state - hence the reason for NATO and the EU being created to babysit Europeans who continue to start war after war. More likely is just that the collapse of America (whatever that means) would give rise to either new nation state actors, or China, or some yet unknown and interesting new nation state. One of the things that I think is interesting that has come out of the recent conflict in Ukraine that was started by Russia is that it is breaking the illusion of rules-based order on the international level and people are apparently very surprised about this. Unfortunately might does make right at this level of interaction. To the extent that "fair" international organizations can exist they only can exist in that they are enforced by might and power. Actual bombs, guns, tanks, money, resources, and taking the lives of others. All of these organizations: the UN, ICC, WTO, you name it only exist in a meaningful way because they're literally backed by the United States' willingness to bomb or take away someone's toys (Russian yachts), and that you'd advocate for distancing the US from these organizations is to lead to the collapse of them without clear, ready replacements. No country or group of countries has the apparent ability to do this. Even the EU cannot conjure up a single, unified military and impose its will on the world. Much of this anti-Americanism is geared toward sowing division where there is none and trying to convince Americans to be isolationist so that these international organizations do break down and then other countries can murder and pillage with impunity. I think it's safe to say we can reject this, in favor of a rules-based international order that is imperfect, but can be backed by America and supported by the EU and other participants such as Japan, Australia, Singapore, and others. For the most part I just view this stuff (being anti-America, destroy international organizations, etc.) as right-wing talking points supported by bad actors to break ties in democracies.
  - freeflight 5y ago
    > Doesn't seem to stop other countries from doing this internationally and to their own citizens anyway. What other countries are constantly drone assassinating people in other countries territories? The closest to that I can think of might be Turkey and Saudi Arabia with their drone operations in Syria and Yemen, but those campaigns accompany full blown open military campaigns, quite a bit different to US signature strike operations.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      > What other countries are constantly drone assassinating people in other countries territories? So you can only be murdered in your sleep by a drone? Nothing else counts? But yea sure whatever. Here's 5 seconds of Google search [1]. > but those campaigns accompany full blown open military campaigns, quite a bit different to US signature strike operations. I think that's a bizarre distinction to draw. Why would a military operation justify anything? U.S. drone strikes previously did accompany full-blown military campaign anyway. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/09/16/france-calls-killing-islamic-state-leader-big-victory/8362464002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/09/16/france-...
      - freeflight 5y ago
        > But yea sure whatever. Here's 5 seconds of Google search [1]. That's neither a French citizen nor is it anything beyond an anecdote. If you can show me France's equivalent to Pakistan [0], then we might be getting somewhere. > I think that's a bizarre distinction to draw. Why would a military operation justify anything? It's not bizarre at all; Weapons of war being used in a conflict of war is something very different than dropping weapons of war on a civilian population you are not officially at war with. [0] https://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ https://drones.pitchinteractive.com/
        ericmay 5y ago
        > That's neither a French citizen nor is it anything beyond an anecdote. Well I don't know why it would matter that it's a French citizen. And I'm not sure how in the world you're claiming this is an anecdote as if France's drone strike were untrue. Do you have a direct source that contradicts the account of the French government? > If you can show me France's equivalent to Pakistan [0], then we might be getting somewhere. Why would I need to show you that? You asked for an example, not "show me an exact equivalent to this thing I haven't previously mentioned". > It's not bizarre at all; Weapons of war being used in a conflict of war is something very different than dropping weapons of war on a civilian population you are not officially at war with. Ok then we're at war with Pakistan (since that's the example you're using). Great now we're back to where we started and you got the "war" designation you wanted.
nicholasnorris 5y ago
What are the specifics of that? Without more detail, it kind of sounds like you're saying American's shouldn't be responsible for crimes committed abroad if the US doesn't prosecute on behalf of the foreign parties.
- teakettle42 5y ago
  We still have extradition treaties — along with due process rights to challenge an international extradition request within the US judicial system. Additionally, sovereign states are already free to prosecute anyone within their borders. The ICC, however, would preempt US judicial authority — including the US Supreme Court.
  - nisa 5y ago
    "due process" - not really: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn#Diplomatic_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn#Diplomatic...
    - teakettle42 5y ago
      “Due process” is an individual US constitutional right to have access to our established legal procedures and rules prior to any deprivation of “life, liberty, or property”. I don’t see a due process violation in your link — just an example of how abdicating sovereign judicial authority can go wrong, as is the case with diplomatic immunity.
      - xyzzyz 5y ago
        There was no "diplomatic immunity" issue relevant in that case. The perpetrator had no diplomatic immunity. She was only immune to prosecution because she ran away, and the US government denied extradition because it would be "troubling".
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
worik 5y ago
Your constitutional rights are safe if you stay at home and are not a threat to the power structure. The subject of this article, that the United States government tortured was not so lucky. Do the constitutional rights of a USA citizen need torture to maintain?
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  How are terrorists(or, random people mistakenly identified as terrorists) a threat to the power structure? After 9/11, was anyone calling for diminishing US government powers? Maybe a few people, but for the most part - just the opposite - we wanted to hand even more power and money to the federal government.
throwawaycities 5y ago
I used to hear this all the time in law school, something to the effect that the US should never relinquish its sovereignty by signing the Rome Statute and subject itself to the International Criminal Court. This was at the height of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the associated allegations of POW torture and abuse (e.g. Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, guantanamo bay, etc…). How ironic 20 years later the very same classmates that argued waterboarding wasn’t torture are the same ones that claim they can’t breathe wearing a cloth mask and mask mandates are a violation of their Constitutional Rights because of their often fabricated “medical conditions.” Back then I’d ask my classmates to look at the other UN member countries not signatories to the Rome Statute subject to the ICC: China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen. Not exactly a list of countries championing human rights or state Sovereignty, the US included. Absolute sovereignty is a very romantic notion, but the US gives up sovereignty regularly through other treaties, it is very telling the Rome Statute is where the US and others draw the line. If you are worried about violation of your US Constitutional Rights you should be significantly more concerned about the US government that in the last 20 years has created secret kills lists and conducted extra judicial killings of its own citizens including bombing citizens abroad in violation of the territorial integrity of other nations. When those charged with protecting and enforcing your Constitutional Rights are the ones violating them, I personally like the idea those bearing the most responsibility be subject to an International Court. I don’t want to say your concern about being subject to the ICC as a civilian otherwise in contravention to your US Constitutional Rights isn’t worthy of discussion or potential concern, but it is detached from reality. Moreover, the ICC has jurisdiction over things like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity it’s not exactly a “criminal court” the average citizen is likely to find themselves in violation of their Constitutional Rivhts (though perhaps you are not a civilian rather a high ranking military officer, in which case I understand your concern over an international court that prosecutes war crimes and human rights abuses).
- MomoXenosaga 5y ago
  If the US joined the ICC they would have the right to send US judges to the Hague. It wouldn't be a "foreign court". But I think the real issue is that the CIA doesn't want oversight from anyone foreign or domestic.
black_puppydog 5y ago
And that's why the US is increasingly seen as nothing more than a bully on the international stage. And to the point of the root comment, this will fall back on everyone in the US, you included.
- hguant 5y ago
  I think, while this might have been the perception up until a few weeks ago, the invasion of Ukraine has shown the world what a true "bully" on the international stage looks like. There will always be cloistered individuals who think that anyone who isn't "pure" (for an increasingly variable definition of pure) is evil. That opinion is absolutely fine to have until reality strikes. The bubble of people who post on HN have been living in that cloister for the last decade or so, not realizing what goes on in the world. At the end of the day, the US has made it a policy to defend and promote democracy across the world, and has actively done so, through it's support of international institutions and protection of democratic norms.
  - mywacaday 5y ago
    I would add that the US does the above without being willing to be accountable to the 123 other ICC member states along with China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen while demanding the rest of the the world to obey it's sanctions. Do as I say and not as I do is hardly a shining example of democracy. If the planet is is ever to be a globally equitable and safe place for all accountability for all is needed.
  - the_af 5y ago
    > The bubble of people who post on HN have been living in that cloister for the last decade or so, not realizing what goes on in the world. Maybe some, but some of us in Latin America live in countries that at times have been subjected to US "influence" which resulted in subverting governments, abductions and torture. All in the name of freedom and fighting communism, which I guess makes it alright!
    - hguant 5y ago
mywacaday 5y ago
What about the US abrogating the legal rights of people, terrorist or not, taking them to a black site to avoid their own domestic laws and using them as a training test doll for torture techniques to the point of causing brain damage. At some point every country should be accountable to someone.
- CWuestefeld 5y ago
  Yes, you're right about that. I think teakettle42's objection was to you trying to turn the question around to make climate change the issue that trumps everything else. At least, that's my objection to your original reply.
  - buran77 5y ago
    > I think teakettle42's objection I'm convinced they know what the ICC is as it's even spelled out above, they just ignore the uncomfortable arguments. > make climate change the issue The ICC is the International Criminal Court [0], which is "Trying individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression". The US is not a part of it after formerly withdrawing about 20 years ago. It shares this position with other countries with strong human rights values like China, Sudan, Indonesia, or Israel. Moreover the US has passed the infamous "American Service-Members' Protection Act" [1] (also known as the "Hague Invasion Act") which authorizes the President of the US to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court" and also prohibits the United States from providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the court. This has exceptions if the countries in question already have bilateral agreements with the US to the same effect. The US went as far as to criminalize anyone who works for the ICC [2]. None of this can possibly be in the interest of justice but only to protect the ones who violate human rights as long as they advance US interests. Since the US does not itself punish or even acknowledge any war crimes commuted by them you can see how this is not a matter of "we can't have others punish our people" it's just "we can't have anyone punish our people". There's only one reason for the situation to look like this and that's quite literally to be able to commit war crimes with impunity. If you were looking at things that put countries like Russia, China, Israel, and others at the exact same level, it's the ease with which they commit such atrocious crimes and go unpunished. But with "due process". That should tell you everything you need to know about their actual values, not the ones claimed on a forum by people who selectively ignore whatever doesn't fit their world view. [0] https://www.icc-cpi.int/ https://www.icc-cpi.int/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... [2] https://theconversation.com/us-punishes-international-criminal-court-for-investigating-potential-war-crimes-in-afghanistan-143886 https://theconversation.com/us-punishes-international-crimin...
hindsightbias 5y ago
But they can still torture according to Scalia. It wouldn't violate the 8th Amendment unless you have been found guilty. Then it would be cruel punishment.
- klyrs 5y ago
  That guy's hot takes are too spicy for reddit
freeflight 5y ago
They can and have been, you only need to end up with a label like "terrorist" [0] and many of these rights will suddenly make way for national security interests. [0] https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-old-american-in-yemen-trump-just-killed-his-8-year-old-sister/ https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o...

consumer451 5y ago

Reminder that since 2002, on the books is a law authorizing the US to attack the ICC in the Hague, with the US military! > ASPA authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act". > The act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the International Criminal Court (ICC). For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the U.S. to the ICC; it also prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the ICC. > The act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the ICC. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the ICC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be... edit after 7 upvotes, sorry: I just want to make clear that I still largely support Pax Americana, because the alternatives are worse. But this law is cowardly and actually works against US interests, just like torture.

itsoktocry 5y ago

>Hard to see how the US can claim a moral high ground on anything People now counter any claim like this with "that's whataboutism!". It's free reign to be be hypocritical I guess.

PoignardAzur 5y ago
No. I'm no fan at all of the US regime and the atrocities it committed, but these atrocities aren't a free pass for other countries to commit war crimes and remain criticism-free. The fact that Blackwater exists doesn't make Wagner any less evil. Whataboutism is using one to shut down conversations about the other.

Glyptodon 5y ago

Is the ICC subject to the US bill of rights?

freeflight 5y ago

Not just threatening sanctions but actually sanctioning ICC officials [0], and denying ICC investigators visa to hamper their investigations [1]. Which is nowadays commonly handwaved away as the "Embarrassing Trump episode of the US", like it was unprecedented and will never happen again. But it wasn't Trump who put the responsible ASPA in place, that happened under Bush, and Obama never brought that up as something he disagreed with. Which is the same dynamic with most of these laws that give more power to the US executive; Both parties keep expanding and enjoying them, it's not seen as a problem because each of them gets their turn to then make use of them. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527 [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-icc-idUSKCN1QW1ZH https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-icc-idUSKCN1QW1ZH