5 ms·

Certainly wouldn't want US or IDF soldiers to be held accountable. smh.

hirsin 2y ago
I don't think the US govt gives a hoot for the common soldier except where their warrant would provide precedence for a senator or president to also be arrested.
- NomDePlum 2y ago
  It's politically embarrassing as attempted prosecutions of soldiers in Northern Ireland have shown. It all gets swept under the carpet, on a pretence it's not good for national security. If you prosecute successfully an individual there is a reasonable chance all military personnel involved could be successfully prosecuted is perhaps another reason it won't happen. Using the military to prosecute aggressive military operations in an area the clear majority are unarmed, unprotected civilians again shows there is virtually no chance of prosecutions being taken. Add to that the severe limits added to press freedom, to the point it's obvious the plan is there is no independent reporting, the repeated and systematic targeting of hospitals, ambulances, medical and aid workers, treatment of people detained, never mind densely packed civilian areas which in similar ongoing conflicts (Ukraine/Russia) would be directly called out as war crimes without equivocation, but are ignored, then is there even any point attempting to prosecute individual soldiers? Seeking arrest warrants for those with most direct decision making powers is far more legitimate, necessary even. Demands for limitless, in all senses, military operations help no one longer term.
edanm 2y ago
It's not about being held accountable at all - it's about who is holding them accountable. The belief is that as sovereign nations, they can hold their own people accountable, and no one else should have the right to hold them accountable instead.
- bigbacaloa 2y ago
  A more undemocratic, anti human rights perspective is hard to imagine. Only I can hold myself accountable is the essence of authoritarian thinking.
- justinclift 2y ago
  > they can hold their own people accountable Except when they can't, as in the case of senior government figures.
  - edanm 2y ago
    > Except when they can't, as in the case of senior government figures. It is a principle of democracy that senior government figures can be held accountable. E.g. in the US, Trump, a former president and a potential future president, is currently in several trials. E.g. in Israel, where Netanyahu is under trial in several cases (unrelated to the ICJ) and where e.g. a former PM was convicted of several charges and served time in prison.
    - wffurr 2y ago
      Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush have yet to be held accountable for their war crimes after a conviction by the ICC. Obama deserves an investigation and trial at the ICC for much the same reasons, but was somehow seen as better by the ICC and signing countries. All of your examples are domestic crimes.
      - gengwyn 2y ago
        I could be missing something but I don’t think any of those three have ever been convicted by the ICC. The examples are domestic crimes because the argument is that the US doesn’t need to be party to the Rome Statute because it would enforce similar penalties on servicemen and leaders using domestic jurisdiction. Others countered that the US somehow can’t do that despite the former president literally being on trial as we speak and the above commenter provided examples to the contrary.
justinclift 2y ago
The US is still actively pursuing one of the well known people (Assange) who dared publishing evidence, further destroying their own reputation. :(

I don't think the US govt gives a hoot for the common soldier except where their warrant would provide precedence for a senator or president to also be arrested.

NomDePlum 2y ago
It's politically embarrassing as attempted prosecutions of soldiers in Northern Ireland have shown. It all gets swept under the carpet, on a pretence it's not good for national security. If you prosecute successfully an individual there is a reasonable chance all military personnel involved could be successfully prosecuted is perhaps another reason it won't happen. Using the military to prosecute aggressive military operations in an area the clear majority are unarmed, unprotected civilians again shows there is virtually no chance of prosecutions being taken. Add to that the severe limits added to press freedom, to the point it's obvious the plan is there is no independent reporting, the repeated and systematic targeting of hospitals, ambulances, medical and aid workers, treatment of people detained, never mind densely packed civilian areas which in similar ongoing conflicts (Ukraine/Russia) would be directly called out as war crimes without equivocation, but are ignored, then is there even any point attempting to prosecute individual soldiers? Seeking arrest warrants for those with most direct decision making powers is far more legitimate, necessary even. Demands for limitless, in all senses, military operations help no one longer term.

edanm 2y ago

It's not about being held accountable at all - it's about who is holding them accountable. The belief is that as sovereign nations, they can hold their own people accountable, and no one else should have the right to hold them accountable instead.

bigbacaloa 2y ago
A more undemocratic, anti human rights perspective is hard to imagine. Only I can hold myself accountable is the essence of authoritarian thinking.
justinclift 2y ago
> they can hold their own people accountable Except when they can't, as in the case of senior government figures.
- edanm 2y ago
  > Except when they can't, as in the case of senior government figures. It is a principle of democracy that senior government figures can be held accountable. E.g. in the US, Trump, a former president and a potential future president, is currently in several trials. E.g. in Israel, where Netanyahu is under trial in several cases (unrelated to the ICJ) and where e.g. a former PM was convicted of several charges and served time in prison.
  - wffurr 2y ago
    Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush have yet to be held accountable for their war crimes after a conviction by the ICC. Obama deserves an investigation and trial at the ICC for much the same reasons, but was somehow seen as better by the ICC and signing countries. All of your examples are domestic crimes.
    - gengwyn 2y ago
      I could be missing something but I don’t think any of those three have ever been convicted by the ICC. The examples are domestic crimes because the argument is that the US doesn’t need to be party to the Rome Statute because it would enforce similar penalties on servicemen and leaders using domestic jurisdiction. Others countered that the US somehow can’t do that despite the former president literally being on trial as we speak and the above commenter provided examples to the contrary.

justinclift 2y ago

The US is still actively pursuing one of the well known people (Assange) who dared publishing evidence, further destroying their own reputation. :(