7 ms·

> they should cooperate with the ICC. Have your day in court and show how absurd the accusations are There's a reason why the US does not recognize the ICC.

newspaper1 2y ago
Yes, because they want to operate outside the rule of international law.
- throwaway_fjmr 2y ago
  [flagged]
- Prbeek 2y ago
  It looks like ICC is not part of the fantastic rules based order.
  - ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
    [flagged]
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  For international law to "rule" over anything, it should start by having an enforcement arm that isn't 98% the US military.
  - busterarm 2y ago
    Or can't be overruled with the veto power of the 5 permanent member states. "International Law" is a joke if China, Russia, France, UK, and US can unilaterally decide not to enforce it.
- culi 2y ago
  Imagine the US having to face consequences for Iraq. One of the most fucked up collection of war crimes and violations of laws of war in the 21st century. The average American now thinks "we shouldn't have gone into Iraq" but has no idea the reputation the US has in the rest of the world because of this act
  - monocasa 2y ago
    There's jurisdiction questions there since neither Iraq nor the US are Rome Statute signatories, however Palestine is a signatory.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
    I think you are correct that the US service members committed some fucked up war crimes in Iraq. But many service members faced justice in the US for those crimes. And I'm not persuaded that those crimes were widespread, relative to the scale of the military engagement. Your statement seems to imply that the Iraq War was unusually bad in terms of war crimes. If so, you should be able to give several examples of 21st century conflicts which you're confident had fewer war crimes committed per capita. Can you do so? The way I see it, there are two rough hypotheses here: Hypothesis 1: The US is an unusually evil country which has a harmful effect on world affairs. Its actions in Iraq exemplify this. The recent trend towards US isolationism is good, since isolationism will diminish its pernicious effects on world affairs. Hypothesis 2: War crimes and violations of the laws of war are ubiquitous in conflict. The international treaties prohibiting them were well-intentioned but largely fruitless. The psychology of war drives soldiers to commit war crimes, and/or the incentives to commit war crimes are too strong. The US has a free press, and has systems in place to prosecute service members who commit war crimes, so you hear more about war crimes committed by the US than by other countries. But the per capita rate of the US committing war crimes may actually be lower than average. What evidence is available that lets us differentiate between these hypotheses?
    - anal_reactor 2y ago
      >But many service members faced justice in the US for those crimes. Never forget the CIA employee who killed a random guy in a car crash in the UK by driving on the wrong side of the road (who the fuck does this accidentally?), then got promptly evacuated back to the US, so that the family seeking justice could be told "get fucked, she's important, you are not". Anne Sacoolas. I really think this says a lot about how the US treats the idea of justice.
      - deleted 2y ago
- Cody-99 2y ago
  US citizens/nationals/residents have rights that would be violated by an international court. For example, you can't have due process (as required by US law), a speedy trial, or a jury trial at the ICC. This makes the idea of handing people over to the ICC not only forbidden but wrong for obvious reasons. Surely you don't expect people to give up these very fundamental rights so they could be tried in an international court?
- busterarm 2y ago
  The only law is what you have the capability to enforce.
rangestransform 2y ago
yeah, the accused has no right to a jury trial with the ICC with the 6th amendment, signing the rome statute into law would be both unconstitutional and effectively subjecting US soldiers to a kangaroo court (in the eyes of the US)
- hilbert42 2y ago
  True, and this more than highlights the great divide across the globe on the matter, it screams it out. One can only guess what the ramifications will be.
- milutinovici 2y ago
  Yet they insist that other countries should cooperate with the court
- favorited 2y ago
  If that were true, the US wouldn't be able to extradite anyone to Mexico, where they do not use jury trials. Constitutional restrictions on prosecution in the United States do not apply to foreign criminal justice systems.

newspaper1 2y ago

Yes, because they want to operate outside the rule of international law.

throwaway_fjmr 2y ago
[flagged]
Prbeek 2y ago
It looks like ICC is not part of the fantastic rules based order.
- ganeshkrishnan 2y ago
  [flagged]
bpodgursky 2y ago
For international law to "rule" over anything, it should start by having an enforcement arm that isn't 98% the US military.
- busterarm 2y ago
  Or can't be overruled with the veto power of the 5 permanent member states. "International Law" is a joke if China, Russia, France, UK, and US can unilaterally decide not to enforce it.
culi 2y ago
Imagine the US having to face consequences for Iraq. One of the most fucked up collection of war crimes and violations of laws of war in the 21st century. The average American now thinks "we shouldn't have gone into Iraq" but has no idea the reputation the US has in the rest of the world because of this act
- monocasa 2y ago
  There's jurisdiction questions there since neither Iraq nor the US are Rome Statute signatories, however Palestine is a signatory.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 2y ago
  I think you are correct that the US service members committed some fucked up war crimes in Iraq. But many service members faced justice in the US for those crimes. And I'm not persuaded that those crimes were widespread, relative to the scale of the military engagement. Your statement seems to imply that the Iraq War was unusually bad in terms of war crimes. If so, you should be able to give several examples of 21st century conflicts which you're confident had fewer war crimes committed per capita. Can you do so? The way I see it, there are two rough hypotheses here: Hypothesis 1: The US is an unusually evil country which has a harmful effect on world affairs. Its actions in Iraq exemplify this. The recent trend towards US isolationism is good, since isolationism will diminish its pernicious effects on world affairs. Hypothesis 2: War crimes and violations of the laws of war are ubiquitous in conflict. The international treaties prohibiting them were well-intentioned but largely fruitless. The psychology of war drives soldiers to commit war crimes, and/or the incentives to commit war crimes are too strong. The US has a free press, and has systems in place to prosecute service members who commit war crimes, so you hear more about war crimes committed by the US than by other countries. But the per capita rate of the US committing war crimes may actually be lower than average. What evidence is available that lets us differentiate between these hypotheses?
  - anal_reactor 2y ago
    >But many service members faced justice in the US for those crimes. Never forget the CIA employee who killed a random guy in a car crash in the UK by driving on the wrong side of the road (who the fuck does this accidentally?), then got promptly evacuated back to the US, so that the family seeking justice could be told "get fucked, she's important, you are not". Anne Sacoolas. I really think this says a lot about how the US treats the idea of justice.
    - deleted 2y ago
Cody-99 2y ago
US citizens/nationals/residents have rights that would be violated by an international court. For example, you can't have due process (as required by US law), a speedy trial, or a jury trial at the ICC. This makes the idea of handing people over to the ICC not only forbidden but wrong for obvious reasons. Surely you don't expect people to give up these very fundamental rights so they could be tried in an international court?
busterarm 2y ago
The only law is what you have the capability to enforce.

rangestransform 2y ago

yeah, the accused has no right to a jury trial with the ICC with the 6th amendment, signing the rome statute into law would be both unconstitutional and effectively subjecting US soldiers to a kangaroo court (in the eyes of the US)

hilbert42 2y ago
True, and this more than highlights the great divide across the globe on the matter, it screams it out. One can only guess what the ramifications will be.
milutinovici 2y ago
Yet they insist that other countries should cooperate with the court
favorited 2y ago
If that were true, the US wouldn't be able to extradite anyone to Mexico, where they do not use jury trials. Constitutional restrictions on prosecution in the United States do not apply to foreign criminal justice systems.