4 ms·
It's an "interpretation" but an obviously rubbish one. One doesn't go to such extreme lengths as stalking the Chief Prosecutor, making thinly-veiled threats to
by racional 2y ago
It's an "interpretation" but an obviously rubbish one. One doesn't go to such extreme lengths as stalking the Chief Prosecutor, making thinly-veiled threats to their family's safety and so on unless one is perfectly aware of one's precarious fate in the hands of global public opinion -- and perfectly aware also (through knowledge of one's own actions) of the reasons why such scrutiny is legitimate and necessary.
- tome 2y agoYes, of course they're aware of their precarious situation vis-a-vis global public opinion. The question is whether that is warranted.
- racional 2y agoThey know perfectly well why it's warranted. That's why they're so desperate. As in literally every other case of prosecutor intimidation you will find.
- tome 2y agoThey were desperate because they believed (correctly) the court would target their officials. Whether or not it's warranted[1] is a quite independent consideration! For example, in principle a country could be confident that it would not be touched by the ICC, despite deserving to be. [1] No pun intended!