5 ms·

The current prosecutor, Karim Khan, is the one that introduced the dependency on Microsoft platforms. He has not made any initiative to undo this, in fact as po

by spwa4 1y ago

The current prosecutor, Karim Khan, is the one that introduced the dependency on Microsoft platforms. He has not made any initiative to undo this, in fact as pointed out here, he's increasing that dependency further with internet services. So calling this lessons learnt makes no sense. He hasn't learnt his lesson and is not displaying any intention to start now (given that he comes from a British/Pakistani family of conservative party politicians, which is also a family of sex offenders, that seems about par for the course) It's weird how one needs to keep explaining to US and EU people: almost all governments do not take decisions based on how they'll affect people and/or the government involved. Different governments have different priorities. The decisions of the UN are targeted towards keeping their members happy and paying. The vast majority of governments worldwide are governments that were conquered by a group or even a family. These people see controlling government as a business and the business is to use control of the government to extract the maximum for that family. And joke all you want about Trump, it can be 1000x worse, and it generally is. The ICC isn't that bad, but it's pretty bad. If you want to know what the ICC is (and isn't) about, read about how they went about prosecuting a Dutch citizen (their host country). It reads like a Blackadder script. The guy was accused, the Dutch government threatened, suddenly the accusation got dropped, he got knighted by the Queen in a New Year ceremony, got a pay rise. The ICC got a new building. Google "DutchBat".

bramhaag 1y ago
You may dislike the ICC, but please don't spread misinformation about them. The ICC has never prosecuted a Dutch citizen (or anyone, for that matter) over war crimes committed during the Bosnian War. The events of Dutchbat happened in 1995, 3 years before the Rome Statue (the treaty that established the ICC) was accepted. The ICC has no retroactive jurisdiction as per the Rome Statue (Article 11(1)) [1]: The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute. The ICTY was established by the United Nations to prosecute crimes committed during the wars in Yugoslavia, but as the ICTY only focused on carried out atrocities (instead of failure to defend an area), no Dutchbat members were prosecuted there either. The ICTY did prosecute Krstić, the commander who led the Srebrenica massacre that Dutchbat failed to defend against. There were some civil cases against Dutchbat, the Dutch state and the United Nations. Dutch courts held the state responsible to some degree in all cases. Unsurprisingly, the rest of your story is also false. There are no credible reports of the Dutch government threatening anyone to drop cases related to Dutchbat. Some Dutchbat officers were awarded military honors, but they were not knighted, nor did their pay increase as a result of their actions in Srebrenica. The ICC moved to a new building in 2016, this was again not a result of anything that happened in Yugoslavia. [1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Sta...
- spwa4 1y ago
  You're right that I dislike the ICC. It's fake. It gives the illusion to people that "international justice" exists, while enabling governments to point to the ICC and pay and do nothing (or next to nothing). And indeed, as Dutchbat and the entire Yugoslav conflict illustrates, they are HIGHLY selective in what justice they provide. Or the most recent Israel situation: every country in the world gets to decide WHO on their soil can get prosecuted for war crimes. That's part of the ICC charter. Except of course Israel doesn't. Palestine, however, does gets to dictate who doesn't get prosecuted, on the exact same territory. ICC doesn't enforce it's membership agreements against Mongolia, or South Africa where it comes to Putin. And so on. ICC shows everything wrong with the world, and the UN: they're powerless, but promise (I should say "sell") the world. They are an excuse for governments to do nothing. They are highly paid totally ineffective politicians. They are corrupt. They are racist. They let themselves be hired for shouting real loudly at ... whoever you want, really. Sometimes it's even someone who deserves it (like Putin), but mostly it's not. They're behind the times. They are not independent (e.g. not throwing out Mongolia for hosting Putin against the Rome statute or South Africa for very publicly violating the Rome statute and publicly promising to do it again (about Sudan and Putin). They're not independent in legal matters, often publicly cooperating with political maneuvering between countries. And to top it off, they fuck up security in email server. They are an offensive affront in so many ways. They are offensive to the idea of justice. They're offensive to good government. They're offensive to international agreements (or at least to the idea of actually following agreed international agreements). Hell, they're offensive to good computer security practices.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > It's fake. It’s not fake any more than any ither court is fake. > It gives the illusion to people that "international justice" exists, while enabling governments to point to the ICC and pay and do nothing (or next to nothing). It doesn't the opposite: it highlights failures in international justice and draws added attention to government inaction. It is a relic of the high point in international humanitarian interventionism, created specifically so that created so that the drag of creating and winding down ad hoc international institutions for accountability in each conflict wouldn't be needed. > And indeed, as Dutchbat and the entire Yugoslav conflict illustrates, they are HIGHLY selective in what justice they provide The ICC didn't exist in the Yugoalav conflcit. > They are an excuse for governments to do nothing They aren't; governments who preferred to do nothing did nothing with less friction before the ICC existed.

by spwa4 1y ago

bramhaag 1y ago

You may dislike the ICC, but please don't spread misinformation about them. The ICC has never prosecuted a Dutch citizen (or anyone, for that matter) over war crimes committed during the Bosnian War. The events of Dutchbat happened in 1995, 3 years before the Rome Statue (the treaty that established the ICC) was accepted. The ICC has no retroactive jurisdiction as per the Rome Statue (Article 11(1)) [1]: The Court has jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the entry into force of this Statute. The ICTY was established by the United Nations to prosecute crimes committed during the wars in Yugoslavia, but as the ICTY only focused on carried out atrocities (instead of failure to defend an area), no Dutchbat members were prosecuted there either. The ICTY did prosecute Krstić, the commander who led the Srebrenica massacre that Dutchbat failed to defend against. There were some civil cases against Dutchbat, the Dutch state and the United Nations. Dutch courts held the state responsible to some degree in all cases. Unsurprisingly, the rest of your story is also false. There are no credible reports of the Dutch government threatening anyone to drop cases related to Dutchbat. Some Dutchbat officers were awarded military honors, but they were not knighted, nor did their pay increase as a result of their actions in Srebrenica. The ICC moved to a new building in 2016, this was again not a result of anything that happened in Yugoslavia. [1] https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Sta...

spwa4 1y ago
You're right that I dislike the ICC. It's fake. It gives the illusion to people that "international justice" exists, while enabling governments to point to the ICC and pay and do nothing (or next to nothing). And indeed, as Dutchbat and the entire Yugoslav conflict illustrates, they are HIGHLY selective in what justice they provide. Or the most recent Israel situation: every country in the world gets to decide WHO on their soil can get prosecuted for war crimes. That's part of the ICC charter. Except of course Israel doesn't. Palestine, however, does gets to dictate who doesn't get prosecuted, on the exact same territory. ICC doesn't enforce it's membership agreements against Mongolia, or South Africa where it comes to Putin. And so on. ICC shows everything wrong with the world, and the UN: they're powerless, but promise (I should say "sell") the world. They are an excuse for governments to do nothing. They are highly paid totally ineffective politicians. They are corrupt. They are racist. They let themselves be hired for shouting real loudly at ... whoever you want, really. Sometimes it's even someone who deserves it (like Putin), but mostly it's not. They're behind the times. They are not independent (e.g. not throwing out Mongolia for hosting Putin against the Rome statute or South Africa for very publicly violating the Rome statute and publicly promising to do it again (about Sudan and Putin). They're not independent in legal matters, often publicly cooperating with political maneuvering between countries. And to top it off, they fuck up security in email server. They are an offensive affront in so many ways. They are offensive to the idea of justice. They're offensive to good government. They're offensive to international agreements (or at least to the idea of actually following agreed international agreements). Hell, they're offensive to good computer security practices.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > It's fake. It’s not fake any more than any ither court is fake. > It gives the illusion to people that "international justice" exists, while enabling governments to point to the ICC and pay and do nothing (or next to nothing). It doesn't the opposite: it highlights failures in international justice and draws added attention to government inaction. It is a relic of the high point in international humanitarian interventionism, created specifically so that created so that the drag of creating and winding down ad hoc international institutions for accountability in each conflict wouldn't be needed. > And indeed, as Dutchbat and the entire Yugoslav conflict illustrates, they are HIGHLY selective in what justice they provide The ICC didn't exist in the Yugoalav conflcit. > They are an excuse for governments to do nothing They aren't; governments who preferred to do nothing did nothing with less friction before the ICC existed.