4 ms·

Not to mention finally becoming a signatory to the International Criminal Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Cour

Not to mention finally becoming a signatory to the International Criminal Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...

photonbeam 4y ago
Seems problematic for compatibility with US Constitution though
plandis 4y ago
I really hope the US doesn’t agree to give up full sovereignty of its judicial process.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > The seven countries that voted against the treaty were Iraq, Israel, Libya, China, Qatar, Yemen, and the United States. Not a great look.
  - dogma1138 4y ago
    “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      Which is all fine and good until you go committing war crimes on foreign soil in regions that may not have proper legal frameworks. Committing war crimes in Iraq for instance. Which is kind of where the whole ICC thing comes into play - it's not really for like, speeding tickets. The US had the opportunity during development of the framework to engage and ensure all the other terms could be fairly met. Note that the text you quoted was also an amendment to what was meant to be a living document, albeit long since ossified.
      - dogma1138 4y ago
        The US did tried to do that, it was overruled which is why the Clinton administration voted no. The US government is not allowed to participate or facilitate a criminal prosecution that would deny a US citizen their constitutional rights there has been a Supreme Court case about this already ironically in 1998 which was also one of the triggers for voting no. On a side note the ICC is terrible, any party can bring up a case, there is no separation of duties, no defined scope and no right of appeal. The ICC is nothing more than virtue signaling, and should never been established in its current form the world was just too high on its own supply of late 90’s hopium at that point to care.
        pyuser583 4y ago
        What was the court case?
        dogma1138 4y ago
        UNITED STATES v. BALSYS https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1711&context=law-review https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
        flangola7 4y ago
        Any argument that contains the phrase "virtue signaling" can be safely discarded.
  - neither_color 4y ago
    >As of March 2023, 123 states are members of the Court.[3] Other states that have not become parties to the Rome Statute include India, Indonesia, and China.[3] I looked into it more and while 7 voted against, 21 abstained so votes don't tell the whole picture. Between China, Indonesia, India and The US you're talking a major chunk of the world population.
    - nl 4y ago
      Not sure "a major chunk of the world population" is a good way of looking at this. Anything China does is "a major chunk of the world population". Same with India.
- stuckinhell 4y ago
  Never will happen. The US controls military power around the globe for now.
- xdennis 4y ago
  If the US never prosecutes its war criminals, someone has to.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    There are plenty of prosecutions and convictions of US soldiers for war crimes in the US.
dogma1138 4y ago
That cannot happen without a significant change to the constitution which will never happen.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Treaties have an effect similar to a constitutional amendment.
  - dogma1138 4y ago
    No they do not, treaties when ratified become federal law, they are still bound by the constitution.
    - Spooky23 4y ago
      My apologies, I phrased that inelegantly. It’s not that black and white. Treaties have and do grant the Federal government additional powers. They cannot diminish powers or add something that is taken away.
      - dogma1138 4y ago
        They do not, self executing treaties become domestic laws, if these laws are not constitutional then the treaty is pretty much void. And non self executing treaties are meaningless they pretty much mean that the US government promised something but it is not compelled to do anything about it and there is no mechanism that would require it to comply. The US constitution is supreme it takes precedence over anything the legislative branch might legislate and any action the executive branch might take. Alien tort is also not accepted when interpreting the constitution so you literally cannot interpret the constitution from the point of view of international or foreign laws.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Treaties have an effect similar to a constitutional amendment. They obviously do not. If they did, you could basically abolish the Constitution with one with only the presidency, a bare majority of the Senate, and the cooperation of a foreign power. An actual Constitutional amendment must meet a much, much higher bar.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Not to mention finally becoming a signatory to the International Criminal Court. We actually were a signatory (and one of the prime movers for regularizing the ad hoc processes which we had also been a prime mover for creating in Yugoslavia and Rwanda) of the Rome Statute under Clinton, though the signature was effectively withdrawn under Bush.

photonbeam 4y ago

Seems problematic for compatibility with US Constitution though

plandis 4y ago

I really hope the US doesn’t agree to give up full sovereignty of its judicial process.

arcticbull 4y ago
> The seven countries that voted against the treaty were Iraq, Israel, Libya, China, Qatar, Yemen, and the United States. Not a great look.
- dogma1138 4y ago
  “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    Which is all fine and good until you go committing war crimes on foreign soil in regions that may not have proper legal frameworks. Committing war crimes in Iraq for instance. Which is kind of where the whole ICC thing comes into play - it's not really for like, speeding tickets. The US had the opportunity during development of the framework to engage and ensure all the other terms could be fairly met. Note that the text you quoted was also an amendment to what was meant to be a living document, albeit long since ossified.
    - dogma1138 4y ago
      The US did tried to do that, it was overruled which is why the Clinton administration voted no. The US government is not allowed to participate or facilitate a criminal prosecution that would deny a US citizen their constitutional rights there has been a Supreme Court case about this already ironically in 1998 which was also one of the triggers for voting no. On a side note the ICC is terrible, any party can bring up a case, there is no separation of duties, no defined scope and no right of appeal. The ICC is nothing more than virtue signaling, and should never been established in its current form the world was just too high on its own supply of late 90’s hopium at that point to care.
      - pyuser583 4y ago
        What was the court case?
        dogma1138 4y ago
        UNITED STATES v. BALSYS https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1711&context=law-review https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
      - flangola7 4y ago
        Any argument that contains the phrase "virtue signaling" can be safely discarded.
- neither_color 4y ago
  >As of March 2023, 123 states are members of the Court.[3] Other states that have not become parties to the Rome Statute include India, Indonesia, and China.[3] I looked into it more and while 7 voted against, 21 abstained so votes don't tell the whole picture. Between China, Indonesia, India and The US you're talking a major chunk of the world population.
  - nl 4y ago
    Not sure "a major chunk of the world population" is a good way of looking at this. Anything China does is "a major chunk of the world population". Same with India.
stuckinhell 4y ago
Never will happen. The US controls military power around the globe for now.
xdennis 4y ago
If the US never prosecutes its war criminals, someone has to.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  There are plenty of prosecutions and convictions of US soldiers for war crimes in the US.

dogma1138 4y ago

That cannot happen without a significant change to the constitution which will never happen.

Spooky23 4y ago
Treaties have an effect similar to a constitutional amendment.
- dogma1138 4y ago
  No they do not, treaties when ratified become federal law, they are still bound by the constitution.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    My apologies, I phrased that inelegantly. It’s not that black and white. Treaties have and do grant the Federal government additional powers. They cannot diminish powers or add something that is taken away.
    - dogma1138 4y ago
      They do not, self executing treaties become domestic laws, if these laws are not constitutional then the treaty is pretty much void. And non self executing treaties are meaningless they pretty much mean that the US government promised something but it is not compelled to do anything about it and there is no mechanism that would require it to comply. The US constitution is supreme it takes precedence over anything the legislative branch might legislate and any action the executive branch might take. Alien tort is also not accepted when interpreting the constitution so you literally cannot interpret the constitution from the point of view of international or foreign laws.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Treaties have an effect similar to a constitutional amendment. They obviously do not. If they did, you could basically abolish the Constitution with one with only the presidency, a bare majority of the Senate, and the cooperation of a foreign power. An actual Constitutional amendment must meet a much, much higher bar.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Not to mention finally becoming a signatory to the International Criminal Court. We actually were a signatory (and one of the prime movers for regularizing the ad hoc processes which we had also been a prime mover for creating in Yugoslavia and Rwanda) of the Rome Statute under Clinton, though the signature was effectively withdrawn under Bush.