16 ms·
I'm wondering what power does the ICC have to carry out its sentencing if the US chooses to disagree with it? Same with The Hague court, where the US said its
by Cumpiler69 2y ago
I'm wondering what power does the ICC have to carry out its sentencing if the US chooses to disagree with it?
Same with The Hague court, where the US said its soldiers would be imune from standing trial for crimes.
So if these international courts are only allowed selective enforcement, what's the point of their existence? To only prosecute people the US doesn't choose to protect? Then what's the line between good guys and bad guys?
- aphantastic 2y agoIt’s really rather simple. Anyone on this planet only has as much authority as their guns provide them. The people who operate these courts have fewer guns than the US, so they don’t get authority over US interests.
- Cumpiler69 2y agoOf course. Isn't it obvious how in history books the "good guys" were always those with the most guns who ended up defeating the guys with less guns, who lost and were always the bad guys, 100% of the time? What a strange coincidence.
- mywittyname 2y agoHistory is full of "winners" that who are seen as "bad guys."
- School-Cotton 2y agoDo you have an example of someone who is widely regarded as "good guys" that you disagree with?
- s1artibartfast 2y agowhat exactly do you think would happen differently if you took the US out of the picture?
- aphantastic 2y agoIsrael wouldn’t exist.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoit wouldn't pop out of existence magically
- aphantastic 2y agoYes. And?
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI dont see the point of making the ICC judgement about the US.
- aphantastic 2y agoTrue. The court is immaterial, the guns are the only authority. As I said.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoyes, and in this case, the relevant guns are those of the ICC and Israel. The court has no army or power, while Israel does, so US guns are already irrelevant. Israel doesnt need US military protection form the ICC any more than it needs US protection from random critics.
- aphantastic 2y agoGuns don’t exist in a vacuum. They need constant financial support. US provides that support. Without US, they have no support. Without support, they have no guns. Don’t just take my word for it, look at all the published requests Israel has made for American gun money.
- Retric 2y agoUS interests is a very broad category, it frequently doesn’t get its way. There’s tit for tat involved where things might escalate to the point where the US kills some people via airstrikes, but it simply can’t escalate everything to a full on war.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago> it frequently doesn’t get its way Not for the lack of trying though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_in_the_Middle_East https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_i... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- aphantastic 2y agoDo we have many examples of cases where countries have held US soldiers or commanders of allied nations captive without repercussion?
- Retric 2y agoDoes Garry Powers count? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Gary_Powers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Gary_Powers “He served 21 months of his sentence before being released in a prisoner swap in 1962.” So no actual retaliation, and we gave up something they wanted for him.
- aphantastic 2y agoThat’s what we would call “the exception that proves the rule”.
- neom 2y agoThere are many signatories who are obliged to arrest anyone with an ICC warrant: https://asp.icc-cpi.int/states-parties https://asp.icc-cpi.int/states-parties
- Cumpiler69 2y agoObliged by who? The US can choose to wipe their ass with whatever they signed and arbitrarily say NO to a request they don't like. Who's gonna hold them accountable for breaking their signed agreement? Wasn't there the same pitfall with the League of Nations?
- neom 2y agoI was just answering your question my friend. Given the states are not party to the ICC, they have very little to do with it. But to your point: what teeth does the ICC have? In theory the 120ish other countries that WOULD arrest someone with a warrant, south korea, ausieland, canada etc. In theory.
- javagram 2y agoThe U.S. has never signed the treaty creating the ICC anyway.
- shkkmo 2y agoThe US is not a signatory to the ICC. The US legal position is that the bilateral immunity agreements it has with many (mostly non-european) countries that are signatories to the ICC prevent those countries from being required to arrest US citizens accused of war crimes. I'm not aware of any legal theory in or agreements that lets the US directly block the arrest of non-us citizens in a foreign country so it would have to be the result of backroom pressure.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- this_user 2y agoThere is pretty much no way to enforce so-called "international law" other than through sanctions or direct military action. Germany is not going to arrest Netanyahu if he visited the country. What would be the consequence of that? Nothing of substance, maybe a sternly worded letter from the ICC, but there are no effective and practical means of forcing them to act.
- voidfunc 2y agoThe point of these international courts is to do the US bidding. Every once and awhile they forget that and need a reminder.
- s1artibartfast 2y agowhat power does the ICC have to carry out its sentencing if the US chooses to agree with it? It is not if the US was on board it would lead an invasion of Israel.