8 ms·
It’s not appropriate for an international court that we’re not even a part of to put our Presidents and their subordinates on trial, nor is it something we shou
by SllX 1y ago
It’s not appropriate for an international court that we’re not even a part of to put our Presidents and their subordinates on trial, nor is it something we should meekly concede to.
- jeremyjh 1y agoWas Germany a part of any such treaty? Or was it inappropriate for those Nazis to be held accountable for their crimes?
- Veen 1y agoThe Hague Conventions and the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Although, in reality, it was a matter of the winners deciding on a suitable punishment for the losers. They did, however, go to considerable lengths to find legal justification in international law for the prosecutions and punishments of Nazi leaders. They could have just shot them: Churchill and Stalin both supported summary execution, although Churchill later changed his mind.
- SllX 1y agoGermany also lost the war. Their highest ranking officials and military were not in a position to prevent it; moreover I’m pretty okay with having applied the winner’s justice over Nazi Germany. Put us in the position where we can’t say “no” before you apply your own justice, but we’re still going to do everything in our power to defend ourselves.
- jeremyjh 1y agoWhat does that have to do with what is appropriate?
- SllX 1y agoI thought I was clear on this, but I guess not: it was entirely appropriate. They lost so thoroughly and the Holocaust was so repulsive that it was arguably necessary. Germany itself was also in such a precarious position that the continued existence of the German State was in jeopardy, and probably the only way it could continue to exist in any form even after being divided was to go through the Nuremberg Trials first. Don’t forget Stalin and the USSR was out for blood and new additions to the Eastern Bloc.
- jeremyjh 1y agoThose are reasons it was feasible. It was appropriate for moral reasons, and the same is true of US leaders.
- SllX 1y agoI would have thought calling out the repulsiveness of the Holocaust and the health and wellbeing of a continued German-state would have been the moral justifications, but okay, sure. > and the same is true of US leaders. The thing is, there isn’t enough in the way of shared morality between nations of the world to make this claim. From our perspective, the POTUS is imbued with the power to deal with foreign nations, and this includes both diplomatic and war functions, and to do so in a way that is beneficial to America. That’s what he is elected for, so imposing the ICC’s international justice on our elected leaders is in essence the same as trying to impose a foreign justice on America. We have our own laws, and govern our military with our own code of justice passed by our Congress, therefore we cannot abide by the ICC’s infringement on our sovereignty, nor will we tolerate a threat from it against our elected leaders.
- freeopinion 1y agoYou are becoming incoherent. By your own argument, the Nuremberg trials were not necessary. Anybody lacking the military might to defy the U.S. can be summarily executed without a trial. Anybody enjoying the support of the U.S. military is exempt from any courtroom regardless of their actions. Then here you write that Nurenmberg was appropriate and necessary. You don't seem to be able to hold the thread of your own argument.
- SllX 1y agoIf the alternative was to leave Germany to the Soviet wolves, allow France to colonize it, or disregard the events of the Holocaust and not thoroughly document what occurred, how, and under whose orders, then it was necessary. If you don’t care about any of that, sure, you can make the argument the Nuremberg trials were unnecessary, but I’m not going to be the one to do it. Do note that the key difference between America in 2025 and Germany in 1945 is that we’re not a diminished State without really any sovereignty left to claim and haven’t recently invaded pretty much the entirety of Europe with the intention of subsuming it into a greater Empire and spent the last 4 years systematically destroying the entire Jewish population therein. That’s some important context and shouldn’t be overlooked in your zeal to put American Presidents on trial.
- 369548684892826 1y agoWhy not? Someone has to do it.
- SllX 1y agoWe have the Uniform Code of Military Justice for military personnel, and on paper, a Congress to hold the President accountable, although that obviously needs to be beefed up because the results lately have been unsatisfactory. It does not need to be the ICC, nor should we allow it.
- 369548684892826 1y agoI don't understand what you mean by "allow it". The ICC are free to do what they like, and the US are free to ignore it (outside any sanctions the international community impose).
- SllX 1y agoThe US electing to ignore the ICC’s activities with regards to ourselves or our allies is functionally the same actively allowing their activities.
- cyberax 1y agoAnd then we have presidents that almost uniformly pardon people convicted of the grossest war crimes. Trump pardoned Clint Lorance who ordered murder of civilians. Before that, William Calley convicted of multiple murders had his sentence commuted by Nixon to 3 years of house arrest.
- soulofmischief 1y agoWe decided to not be a part of it. Meanwhile, we systematically bully other nations and kill high ranking officials with impunity. We can't have our cake and eat it too.
- SllX 1y agoPut another way, we defend American interests.
- jeremyjh 1y agoWe defend some of America's interests, and harm some of its other interests. Mostly we defend the interests of the richest people in America and its military industrial complex.
- SllX 1y agoWe also elect the leaders that make those decisions and form the parties that nominate leaders to choose from. The winners of those elections get to choose the direction to lead.
- slt2021 1y agoyou don't elect the leaders in america. Two major party leaderships nominate their candidates, backed by hundreds of millions of corporate and special interest funding. Then some process called electoral college (that has some vague resemblance of the plebiscite) weights two candidates and picks a winner. The candidate then has to obtain approval for every cabinet position from the congress (which is also getting funding in hundreds of mils from major corporate and special interest lobbying groups), that ensure that people occupying cabinet positions have policies aligned with their financial donors
- SllX 1y ago> you don't elect the leaders in america. We do. > Two major party leaderships nominate their candidates, backed by hundreds of millions of corporate and special interest funding. Other Americans. You’re also discounting the impact small-dollar donors have had in American politics as of late and the public primary system. > Then some process called electoral college (that has some vague resemblance of the plebiscite) weights two candidates and picks a winner. 1) The Electors of the Electoral College are in turn elected by the people of the United States. 2) This only applies to the President and Vice President of the United States and no other public office. 3) Most States have laws against faithless electors, but the slate of electors appointed by each State’s elected legislature reflects the popular vote within that State. > The candidate then has to obtain approval for every cabinet position from the congress (which is also getting funding in hundreds of mils from major corporate and special interest lobbying groups), that ensure that people occupying cabinet positions have policies aligned with their financial donors Half of what you’re doing is just describing politics, but yes, the elected President makes appointments, and the elected Senate confirms or denies them.
- CamperBob2 1y agoYou know who else said that? If we don't want to keep our own house clean -- and the re-election of Trump makes it crystal-clear that we don't -- is it such a surprise that other people will?
- JimBlackwood 1y agoIt is however appropriate for a group of nations to agree that a person who has committed crimes (according to them) is to be arrested upon entering one of their nations. It’s not really something you can or cannot concede to, unless you are of the opinion America is the only sovereign state in the world.
- SllX 1y agoSure, but we’re going to interpret the arrest of a sitting or former POTUS, their direct subordinates or military personnel for the purposes of trying them in the ICC as a political act, not an act to maintain law and order in their home countries and its going to be much easier for us to justify invading and evacuating those people.
- JimBlackwood 1y agoThat is definitely true. I can imagine the ICC would fall shortly after (since I think enough member states will not execute the arrest order and so it’s existence does not do much)
- kragen 1y agoYou're imagining this happening in a world where the US has the political status it had ten years ago, not the political status it will have ten years in the future.
- SllX 1y agoWe’re only talking about today, bruh. There’s no sense worrying about a tomorrow that may never come, but I’m willing to bet that 10 years from now we still have the strongest military in and around The Hague and even beyond, very very few would ever be willing to threaten war with us to back up the ICC. Now, 20 years from now? 30 years from now? 50? Who knows.
- FpUser 1y ago
- eesmith 1y agoWhy not? The US has several ways to acquire jurisdiction over foreign defendants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_international_defendants_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_int... If Macron were to sell old GREs online then, as the Raju case determined, the US can try him, and if Macron fails to appear for the trial, he defaults on the case and is subject to arrest should he appear in the US, or any county which has the appropriate extradition treaty. If the US can legally do that for selling GREs, it can surely do it for far more serious crimes. If the US can do that to citizens of other countries, then other countries should be able to do that to US citizens, including the president. The solution for American presidents is simple - never visit any place subject to the ICC. Just like Pinochet should never have visited the UK where he was subject to European Union extradition law letting him be moved to Spain to be tried for his abuses in Chile on Spanish citizens. US presidents should also be concerned about their support of "extraordinary rendition."
- SllX 1y agoI’m sure you want to try and catch me in an act of hypocrisy but I think I’ve been clear throughout this thread. So let me put it to you this way, if the Chilean President had the power of the POTUS backed up by a military equivalent to or superior to the US Military, would the UK have arrested and extradited him on behalf of Spain? So the solution for American Presidents is even simpler than the one you propose: disregard the ICC in its entirety and continue to make state visits with impunity.
- GTP 1y agoSo, in the end, your point is not whether the ICC should have the right to put foreign presidents on trial. It's about who has got the strongest military power.
- SllX 1y agoMy position is that the ICC should not even exist, but if it is going to exist, then America should safeguard itself and its allies from it. If you look at the real history of the ICC, it’s effectively toothless over any nation that can safeguard its own sovereignty, and otherwise a fig leaf for the supposed lawfulness of foreign intervention into nations that cannot.
- Quarrelsome 1y agogiven a future where the US slides into despotism, who would hold it to account and be a champion for its people?
- SllX 1y agoFrankly that is our problem to worry about.
- Quarrelsome 1y agoUS interventionalism over the course of its existence would make that a form of hypocrisy. Also where would the US be without support of nations like France, Spain and the Dutch Republic in its revolutionary war? You can't have it both ways, we're intrinsically tied together. I think its important part of friendship to call one another to account.
- SllX 1y agoWell let me put it this way, I’m under no illusions that foreign nations will always attempt to exert their influence over American affairs. The only obligations we maintain with other nations are the ones we committed ourselves to, and yes, I know some of that is in question right now, but for what it’s worth I’m actually on the side of maintaining our commitments rather than pissing all over them or playing this silly “will they, won’t they” game. Our relationships with nations across the world, most of which did not exist or at least did not exist in anything like their current form including France, the Kingdom of the Netherlands née the Dutch Republic, and Spain (which we have actually and directly waged war with) have not remained static since the Revolutionary War. All of that said, our Government, our problem, and while weighing what kind of intervention you might hypothetically support, also weigh how that stands up to the power of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. So, really, we can have it both ways, even if that makes us hypocrites. Also for what it is worth: people can be hypocrites, organized entities led by different factions of people over the course of their history like nations cannot.
- 1y ago
- Muromec 1y agoYes it is. FAFO
- SllX 1y agoGiven we’re not party to the ICC, we maintain a permanent seat on the UNSC, and nobody within striking distance of The Hague is willing to back you up on this, it is decidedly not appropriate.
- GTP 1y agoDo you think the same about the Nuremberg trials? Why?
- freeopinion 1y agoI don't advocate for the U.S. to concede its sovereignty to an outside court. But I do think that having an outside court publicly try the guilt or innocence of somebody within the U.S. is much more palatable than having some non-court within the U.S. decide on whether non-U.S. citizens living outside the U.S. should live or die. The U.S. openly assassinates foreigners in foreign countries without even faking a trial. It's hard to complain that a court with very little power to enforce any ruling is giving U.S. citizens an open trial. Do you think it is inappropriate for a high school moot court team to put U.S. Presidents on trial? Or for speech and debate teams to argue the morality of the actions of U.S. politicians? How exactly do you judge what is appropriate and what is not?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- SllX 1y ago> But I do think that having an outside court publicly try the guilt or innocence of somebody within the U.S. is much more palatable than having some non-court within the U.S. decide on whether non-U.S. citizens living outside the U.S. should live or die. If I were neutral on America and if a neutral disposition, you might be correct. However, I’m not. The President of the United States is elected to be a civil and military leader, as the Head of the United States Government, as the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and to represent the United States abroad as our Head of State. All other things being equal, I would prefer the POTUS to also be moral and to generally be a good moral leader in his capacity as the POTUS, but that is not the same as being nice, and “nice” is not what the elected President is elected to be. So, would I for example, prefer to capture people like Qasem Soleimani and try them in an open court? Absolutely. Is that more practical than having killed him when the opportunity presented itself dealing a blow to an enemy nation, taking out one of the most important men in his nation which is openly hostile to America and our ally? Not really, but I’d rather see someone like that dead than in a position to threaten American assets and personnel in the region. You can even debate whether American assets or personnel should be in the region, but as long as they are, it is absolutely the President’s job to defend them, because it is under his orders that they are present at all and the American military is formed from the people of our country, and nowhere is it written in our Constitution that the President’s decisions should be second-guessed or tried in an International Court. Even our own courts shy away from this as it relates to foreign policy and the policy of the military. > It's hard to complain that a court with very little power to enforce any ruling is giving U.S. citizens an open trial. It would be pretty easy to complain if they pursued trying American citizens when we don’t recognize their jurisdiction over American citizens. The ICC, whatever else it is, is still a court with the backing of real sovereign nations. They’re not a high school debate club. > How exactly do you judge what is appropriate and what is not? A combination of morality, the law, diplomacy and hard power. You can even concoct scenarios if you wanted to where the United States may even been in the losing moral position but still win on all other fronts, but for starters, we’re not party to the Rome Statute, we do have our own laws on trying war crimes, and we also maintain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.