3 ms·
Why not? The US has several ways to acquire jurisdiction over foreign defendants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_international_defend
by eesmith 1y ago
Why 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.
- eesmith 1y agoGet rid of the ICC and the exact same sovereignty issues remain with individual national courts.
- eesmith 1y agoIf you don't want to be arrested, don't visit somewhere which will likely arrest you. It's as simple as that. I don't see your issue about the ICC. Pinochet was arrested after he was no longer president. He expected Chilean amnesty laws meant he was untouchable for his crimes. He was wrong. If I commit an international war crime and get the US President to issue a pardon, then I'm free from legal problems in the US, but why should I expect to be able to visit The Netherlands without being arrested? State visits are a different topic, with promises of safe passage/diplomatic immunity arranged before hand. Castro visited the US several times during his presidency, for example, and Hungary recently promised to ignore the ICC arrest warrant on Netanyahu before his visit. If guarantees cannot be made, the visit doesn't occur. It's as simple as that. Why should becoming the president of France give Macron the right to sell old GREs online to people in the US, without fear of lawsuit and being tried in abstentia? If such an exception exists, then Macron could make good money selling illegal drugs online to US citizens.