4 ms·

That 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 existe

That 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 ago
You'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 ago
  We’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
    >"...very few would ever be willing to threaten war with us to back up the ICC" They would not have to. It will be up to your military to come to allied country and shoot their way through. This might be physically possible but I would imagine that the consequences of it to the standing of the US would be cataclysmic. So unless it is a former president I suspect the US will rather use some severe sanctions and still risk a payback.
    - SllX 1y ago
      It won’t even come to that because the real truth is that no ICC member is ever going to arrest and extradite to the ICC a sitting or former POTUS putting us in a position where the Marine Corps. would have to roll into The Hague with a carrier group or two nearby and multiple submarine ICBMs aimed at every capital in Europe. Also you know, the American military personnel already situated nearby within Europe on American and NATO bases. Should the Marine Corps. actually be put into a position to roll in and say “hi” to the people of The Hague for less than peaceful purposes on their leisurely stroll to the ICC’s courthouse, who in their right minds is also going to stand in their way and exchange fire? Not to mention that whoever arrested the President has now effectively declared war on the United States.
      - FpUser 1y ago
        Taking president of course means war. I mostly meant someone who is not the president, sitting of former. Then it will be the US thinking of potential consequences.
        SllX 1y ago
        That’s also not going to happen. Even taking a former President is effectively an Act of War, especially with all the classified intel they were privy to during and still privy to after. Honestly you should consider it the same way all the way down to the rank of General, although I sure would hate to be a rank-and-file soldier caught by the ICC somehow. Even in that case they might not get a full on invasion on their behalf, you should still expect the State Department to intervene.
        FpUser 1y ago
        >"Even taking a former President is effectively an Act of War ..." I already said "...someone who is not the president, sitting of former....". You are just repeating.
        SllX 1y ago
        I’ll admit I overlooked you also included “or former”, but I did address you and say you should consider it practically the same down to the rank of at least General, which includes the Vice President and Cabinet Secretaries.
  - kragen 1y ago
    10 years from now either a non-state entity or the People's Republic of China will have the strongest military, and geography won't matter for military power.
    - SllX 1y ago
      Let’s say for the sake of argument, that’s true just to shortcut this: the PRC is also not party to the Rome Statute. Neither is Russia if you’re wondering. The largest military of a country party to the Rome Statute and the largest financial contributor to the ICC is Japan. Good luck.
      - kragen 1y ago
        Yeah, I don't think the ICC is going to be relevant in that environment.
        SllX 1y ago
        The ICC is only truly relevant today as a means of imposing justice on smaller countries without the rule of law or the power to protect themselves from larger nations. Not quite irrelevant, but certainly not a powerhouse in real political terms.
- JimBlackwood 1y ago
  No, it’s already happening today. There is an arrest warrant out for Netanyahu. Netanyahu visited Hungary, a party of the Rome Statue, and was not arrested. In a similar vein, Poland has said Netanyahu would have been welcome to visit the liberation of Auschwitz, without having to worry about out any arrest. Depending on how Hungary’s actions are resolved, the ICC will lose much of it’s use if member states just ignore the treaty.
  - SllX 1y ago
    Just to add to your point, Germany’s Chancellor Merz has also extended an invitation to Netanyahu: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/election-winner-merz-invites-netanyahu-germany-says-israelis-office-2025-02-24/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/election-winner-merz-in... Hungary though technically still a party, is withdrawing from the Rome Statute: https://www.reuters.com/world/hungarian-lawmakers-approve-bill-quit-international-criminal-court-2025-05-20/ https://www.reuters.com/world/hungarian-lawmakers-approve-bi...
  - kragen 1y ago
    Netanyahu isn't "a sitting or former POTUS, their direct subordinates or military personnel", the arrest of which is the event you said "the ICC would fall shortly after". That's what I disagreed with.
FpUser 1y ago
Then one should add K to ICC as for Kangaroo.

That 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 ago

You'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 ago
We’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
  >"...very few would ever be willing to threaten war with us to back up the ICC" They would not have to. It will be up to your military to come to allied country and shoot their way through. This might be physically possible but I would imagine that the consequences of it to the standing of the US would be cataclysmic. So unless it is a former president I suspect the US will rather use some severe sanctions and still risk a payback.
  - SllX 1y ago
    It won’t even come to that because the real truth is that no ICC member is ever going to arrest and extradite to the ICC a sitting or former POTUS putting us in a position where the Marine Corps. would have to roll into The Hague with a carrier group or two nearby and multiple submarine ICBMs aimed at every capital in Europe. Also you know, the American military personnel already situated nearby within Europe on American and NATO bases. Should the Marine Corps. actually be put into a position to roll in and say “hi” to the people of The Hague for less than peaceful purposes on their leisurely stroll to the ICC’s courthouse, who in their right minds is also going to stand in their way and exchange fire? Not to mention that whoever arrested the President has now effectively declared war on the United States.
    - FpUser 1y ago
      Taking president of course means war. I mostly meant someone who is not the president, sitting of former. Then it will be the US thinking of potential consequences.
      - SllX 1y ago
        That’s also not going to happen. Even taking a former President is effectively an Act of War, especially with all the classified intel they were privy to during and still privy to after. Honestly you should consider it the same way all the way down to the rank of General, although I sure would hate to be a rank-and-file soldier caught by the ICC somehow. Even in that case they might not get a full on invasion on their behalf, you should still expect the State Department to intervene.
        FpUser 1y ago
        >"Even taking a former President is effectively an Act of War ..." I already said "...someone who is not the president, sitting of former....". You are just repeating.
        SllX 1y ago
        I’ll admit I overlooked you also included “or former”, but I did address you and say you should consider it practically the same down to the rank of at least General, which includes the Vice President and Cabinet Secretaries.
- kragen 1y ago
  10 years from now either a non-state entity or the People's Republic of China will have the strongest military, and geography won't matter for military power.
  - SllX 1y ago
    Let’s say for the sake of argument, that’s true just to shortcut this: the PRC is also not party to the Rome Statute. Neither is Russia if you’re wondering. The largest military of a country party to the Rome Statute and the largest financial contributor to the ICC is Japan. Good luck.
    - kragen 1y ago
      Yeah, I don't think the ICC is going to be relevant in that environment.
      - SllX 1y ago
        The ICC is only truly relevant today as a means of imposing justice on smaller countries without the rule of law or the power to protect themselves from larger nations. Not quite irrelevant, but certainly not a powerhouse in real political terms.
JimBlackwood 1y ago
No, it’s already happening today. There is an arrest warrant out for Netanyahu. Netanyahu visited Hungary, a party of the Rome Statue, and was not arrested. In a similar vein, Poland has said Netanyahu would have been welcome to visit the liberation of Auschwitz, without having to worry about out any arrest. Depending on how Hungary’s actions are resolved, the ICC will lose much of it’s use if member states just ignore the treaty.
- SllX 1y ago
  Just to add to your point, Germany’s Chancellor Merz has also extended an invitation to Netanyahu: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/election-winner-merz-invites-netanyahu-germany-says-israelis-office-2025-02-24/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/election-winner-merz-in... Hungary though technically still a party, is withdrawing from the Rome Statute: https://www.reuters.com/world/hungarian-lawmakers-approve-bill-quit-international-criminal-court-2025-05-20/ https://www.reuters.com/world/hungarian-lawmakers-approve-bi...
- kragen 1y ago
  Netanyahu isn't "a sitting or former POTUS, their direct subordinates or military personnel", the arrest of which is the event you said "the ICC would fall shortly after". That's what I disagreed with.

FpUser 1y ago

Then one should add K to ICC as for Kangaroo.