3 ms·

Allow me to introduce you to the Hague Invasion Act, signed into law 22 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act http

Allow me to introduce you to the Hague Invasion Act, signed into law 22 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr... > The Act gives the president power 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".[2] If you dig a little further, you'll notice that it also applies to "military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand." I wanna emphasize: This pre-dates Trump, Biden and Obama. This has been a law for over two decades. It passed both the House and the Senate with very little opposition. Both parties voted in favour of it.

CSMastermind 2y ago
[flagged]
- maeil 2y ago
  One of the most absurdist takes I've seen even on the context of this topic, which brings out the worst in all of us. It's called sovereignty. A set of sovereign nations should absolutely be able to decide that they want to form a court and arrest someone for war crimes if they set foot in their country. It's not like the court is sending agents to non-participating countries to arrest people. If the US govt decides they want to arrest e.g. Putin the second he sets foot on US soil, it's their right to do so. In fact it does so, just look at the FBI most wanted fugitives list, or Interpol red notices. Same goes here. The prosecuted are free not to set foot in participating countries.
  - CSMastermind 2y ago
    Okay, and the other country that person is a citizen of is allowed to take action in response.
    - maeil 2y ago
      Not by going to war over it.

CSMastermind 2y ago

[flagged]

maeil 2y ago
One of the most absurdist takes I've seen even on the context of this topic, which brings out the worst in all of us. It's called sovereignty. A set of sovereign nations should absolutely be able to decide that they want to form a court and arrest someone for war crimes if they set foot in their country. It's not like the court is sending agents to non-participating countries to arrest people. If the US govt decides they want to arrest e.g. Putin the second he sets foot on US soil, it's their right to do so. In fact it does so, just look at the FBI most wanted fugitives list, or Interpol red notices. Same goes here. The prosecuted are free not to set foot in participating countries.
- CSMastermind 2y ago
  Okay, and the other country that person is a citizen of is allowed to take action in response.
  - maeil 2y ago
    Not by going to war over it.