6 ms·

Well 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 obligation

by SllX 1y ago

Well 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.

Quarrelsome 1y ago
Returning to the OP for a second, we're talking about the ICC issuing a warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes he has clearly overseen in Gaza. I appreciate that you've slippery sloped this into a "they're coming for us next" and I cannot prove or disprove such a notion. But putting that aside for a second; how is not acceptable for the ICC to have an opinion on the events that have unfolded in the Gaza strip and accordingly issue a warrant? Surely given Israel is a sovereign nation, that is separate from the US and the EU, isn't that entirely acceptable? I feel like your position continues to double-dip. The US can do whatever it wants at home and abroad and the EU is not afforded the same agency, because if it does have strong opinions then that's evidence that it will ultimately interfere with US internal policy.
- SllX 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - Quarrelsome 1y ago
    The purpose of the ICC is that the crimes of: Genocide, Crimes against humanity, War crimes and the crime of aggression should be prosecuted among its signatories. You are correct that its jurisdiction does not contain Israel or the US, given they withdrew. However signatories are expected to respect the warrants should individuals travel to states that are signatories. Therefore it is not exceeding the bounds of its jurisdiction in issuing these warrants, otherwise one could simply withdraw, do a little war crime and rejoin, thereby creating a loophole. The whole point of the court is that it is international and looks at these crimes happening throughout the world, so its signatories play their part in encouraging them to not happen and prosecuting them when they do, when they can (i.e. when someone guilty of them travels to these nations). In that respect is it like interpol, where a nation can arrest someone who has committed a crime in a different country, if they flee to a country signed up to interpol, despite them not theoretically not having the juristdiction to do so (given the crime wasn't committed where the arrest was made). You don't even have to talk about genocide given that Israel (as you also state) has clearly committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in its war against Hamas. Its entirely in keeping with the ICC aims that an arrest warrant has been issued for both Yahya Siwar (now deceased) and Benjamin Netanyahu. Given Donald Trump's bizarre demand that the Europe re-arm itself (which imho is terribly short-sighted and might make US foreign policy more tricky in the future), I imagine in the future we will see more instances where Europe tries to gain a ROI on its military spending and becomes more assertive in the future. Right now, it can be politically difficult for European countries to respect the warrants (as seen most recently with Netanyahu's trip to Poland) but in the future that could change.
    - SllX 1y ago
      Let me get this correction out at the top: I conceded that some IDF service members are probably guilty of some war crimes. I said absolutely nothing about crimes against humanity, which in reviewing the list of what the ICC considers a crime against humanity, I do not feel comfortable at all making any assertion one way or the other. It is important to get this right because the Rome Statute does make this distinction. You also called out crimes of aggression: most of what is listed as crimes of aggression amount to just war. You can probably debate about this with regards to the settlements, but don’t forget this current offensive doesn’t happen without Hamas attacking Israeli civilians on October 7th 2023. Israel was and is fully within their rights to prosecute a war against Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and even Iran for which all of these groups are proxies for until they achieve their war aims. Another correction, the United States has never been party to the Rome Statute. We were part of the negotiations, we did sign but we ultimately decided against ratification therefore it never held the force of law and we withdrew our signature. From what I gathered, Israel is in the same boat, though I’m not clear what their ratification process looks like. > However signatories are expected to respect the warrants should individuals travel to states that are signatories. Therefore it is not exceeding the bounds of its jurisdiction in issuing these warrants, otherwise one could simply withdraw, do a little war crime and rejoin, thereby creating a loophole. The whole point of the court is that it is international and looks at these crimes happening throughout the world, so its signatories play their part in encouraging them to not happen and prosecuting them when they do, when they can (i.e. when someone guilty of them travels to these nations). The Court’s territorial jurisdiction is not “the world”, it is the territory and vessels of parties to the Rome Statute, nations which accept the ICC’s jurisdiction in a court filing, and others in situations that are referred to it by the United Nations Security Council. The personal jurisdiction is for all persons of nations over which the ICC has territorial jurisdiction, and likewise can be expanded with a referral of a situation by the UNSC. The argument for prosecuting a non-party here is that well, Palestine is a party. It’s the stronger argument, but I think it should be insufficient, and it is the position of America and Israel that this is insufficient. In any case, the actual allegations are themselves insufficient in any situation where the ICC would have an interest in investigating and prosecuting if they don’t have the jurisdiction to do it. > In that respect is it like interpol, where a nation can arrest someone who has committed a crime in a different country, if they flee to a country signed up to interpol, despite them not theoretically not having the juristdiction to do so (given the crime wasn't committed where the arrest was made). Interpol is an outgrowth of bilateral extradition treaties, not a replacement for them. You still need the requisite extradition treaty in place, and if the crime alleged is not a crime for which they can be extradited per the relevant extradition treaty, then the arresting nation is under no obliteration to turn them over. In that sense, Interpol is more like an informational and cooperation forum between nations, whereas the ICC is an organization operationally separate and distinct from its members. > Given Donald Trump's bizarre demand that the Europe re-arm itself (which imho is terribly short-sighted and might make US foreign policy more tricky in the future) So, I’m not against re-arming Europe. From a menu of options that looks something like this: 1) Continuing to prop up Europe against Russian aggression regardless of their minimal defense spending. 2) Re-arming Europe but under continued American leadership. 3) Pushing Europe to re-arm and reconsider that whole American leadership bit. 4) Just pulling out of Europe entirely and ripping up NATO. I favor number 2. I think even Trump favors number 2 but number 3 is what is actually happening. I would have been fine-ish but not happy about number 1 because there’s a real risk of the American public not being willing to defend say, the Baltics, against a Russian invasion regardless of what I think (I’m very pro keeping to our military commitments, even somewhat grudgingly if we must), and the risk of number 4 would have grown over time even in a world where Trump was never elected the first time, let alone the second, and actually getting to number 4 would be a worst of all worlds situation. I actually like Europe. I would like it to continue to be Europe, without getting obliterated again. > as seen most recently with Netanyahu's trip to Poland Did Netanyahu actually make the trek to Poland? I know he was went to Hungary, but Hungary has also decided to withdraw from the ICC. I heard reports he went to Greece, but haven’t actually seen that substantiated. I couldn’t find anything about a Polish visit earlier when I looked.
slt2021 1y ago
I dont get why Americans are willing to die on a hill of defending some third-world country's president who committed well documented crimes against humanity and genocide

by SllX 1y ago

Quarrelsome 1y ago

Returning to the OP for a second, we're talking about the ICC issuing a warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes he has clearly overseen in Gaza. I appreciate that you've slippery sloped this into a "they're coming for us next" and I cannot prove or disprove such a notion. But putting that aside for a second; how is not acceptable for the ICC to have an opinion on the events that have unfolded in the Gaza strip and accordingly issue a warrant? Surely given Israel is a sovereign nation, that is separate from the US and the EU, isn't that entirely acceptable? I feel like your position continues to double-dip. The US can do whatever it wants at home and abroad and the EU is not afforded the same agency, because if it does have strong opinions then that's evidence that it will ultimately interfere with US internal policy.

SllX 1y ago
[flagged]
- Quarrelsome 1y ago
  The purpose of the ICC is that the crimes of: Genocide, Crimes against humanity, War crimes and the crime of aggression should be prosecuted among its signatories. You are correct that its jurisdiction does not contain Israel or the US, given they withdrew. However signatories are expected to respect the warrants should individuals travel to states that are signatories. Therefore it is not exceeding the bounds of its jurisdiction in issuing these warrants, otherwise one could simply withdraw, do a little war crime and rejoin, thereby creating a loophole. The whole point of the court is that it is international and looks at these crimes happening throughout the world, so its signatories play their part in encouraging them to not happen and prosecuting them when they do, when they can (i.e. when someone guilty of them travels to these nations). In that respect is it like interpol, where a nation can arrest someone who has committed a crime in a different country, if they flee to a country signed up to interpol, despite them not theoretically not having the juristdiction to do so (given the crime wasn't committed where the arrest was made). You don't even have to talk about genocide given that Israel (as you also state) has clearly committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in its war against Hamas. Its entirely in keeping with the ICC aims that an arrest warrant has been issued for both Yahya Siwar (now deceased) and Benjamin Netanyahu. Given Donald Trump's bizarre demand that the Europe re-arm itself (which imho is terribly short-sighted and might make US foreign policy more tricky in the future), I imagine in the future we will see more instances where Europe tries to gain a ROI on its military spending and becomes more assertive in the future. Right now, it can be politically difficult for European countries to respect the warrants (as seen most recently with Netanyahu's trip to Poland) but in the future that could change.
  - SllX 1y ago
    Let me get this correction out at the top: I conceded that some IDF service members are probably guilty of some war crimes. I said absolutely nothing about crimes against humanity, which in reviewing the list of what the ICC considers a crime against humanity, I do not feel comfortable at all making any assertion one way or the other. It is important to get this right because the Rome Statute does make this distinction. You also called out crimes of aggression: most of what is listed as crimes of aggression amount to just war. You can probably debate about this with regards to the settlements, but don’t forget this current offensive doesn’t happen without Hamas attacking Israeli civilians on October 7th 2023. Israel was and is fully within their rights to prosecute a war against Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and even Iran for which all of these groups are proxies for until they achieve their war aims. Another correction, the United States has never been party to the Rome Statute. We were part of the negotiations, we did sign but we ultimately decided against ratification therefore it never held the force of law and we withdrew our signature. From what I gathered, Israel is in the same boat, though I’m not clear what their ratification process looks like. > However signatories are expected to respect the warrants should individuals travel to states that are signatories. Therefore it is not exceeding the bounds of its jurisdiction in issuing these warrants, otherwise one could simply withdraw, do a little war crime and rejoin, thereby creating a loophole. The whole point of the court is that it is international and looks at these crimes happening throughout the world, so its signatories play their part in encouraging them to not happen and prosecuting them when they do, when they can (i.e. when someone guilty of them travels to these nations). The Court’s territorial jurisdiction is not “the world”, it is the territory and vessels of parties to the Rome Statute, nations which accept the ICC’s jurisdiction in a court filing, and others in situations that are referred to it by the United Nations Security Council. The personal jurisdiction is for all persons of nations over which the ICC has territorial jurisdiction, and likewise can be expanded with a referral of a situation by the UNSC. The argument for prosecuting a non-party here is that well, Palestine is a party. It’s the stronger argument, but I think it should be insufficient, and it is the position of America and Israel that this is insufficient. In any case, the actual allegations are themselves insufficient in any situation where the ICC would have an interest in investigating and prosecuting if they don’t have the jurisdiction to do it. > In that respect is it like interpol, where a nation can arrest someone who has committed a crime in a different country, if they flee to a country signed up to interpol, despite them not theoretically not having the juristdiction to do so (given the crime wasn't committed where the arrest was made). Interpol is an outgrowth of bilateral extradition treaties, not a replacement for them. You still need the requisite extradition treaty in place, and if the crime alleged is not a crime for which they can be extradited per the relevant extradition treaty, then the arresting nation is under no obliteration to turn them over. In that sense, Interpol is more like an informational and cooperation forum between nations, whereas the ICC is an organization operationally separate and distinct from its members. > Given Donald Trump's bizarre demand that the Europe re-arm itself (which imho is terribly short-sighted and might make US foreign policy more tricky in the future) So, I’m not against re-arming Europe. From a menu of options that looks something like this: 1) Continuing to prop up Europe against Russian aggression regardless of their minimal defense spending. 2) Re-arming Europe but under continued American leadership. 3) Pushing Europe to re-arm and reconsider that whole American leadership bit. 4) Just pulling out of Europe entirely and ripping up NATO. I favor number 2. I think even Trump favors number 2 but number 3 is what is actually happening. I would have been fine-ish but not happy about number 1 because there’s a real risk of the American public not being willing to defend say, the Baltics, against a Russian invasion regardless of what I think (I’m very pro keeping to our military commitments, even somewhat grudgingly if we must), and the risk of number 4 would have grown over time even in a world where Trump was never elected the first time, let alone the second, and actually getting to number 4 would be a worst of all worlds situation. I actually like Europe. I would like it to continue to be Europe, without getting obliterated again. > as seen most recently with Netanyahu's trip to Poland Did Netanyahu actually make the trek to Poland? I know he was went to Hungary, but Hungary has also decided to withdraw from the ICC. I heard reports he went to Greece, but haven’t actually seen that substantiated. I couldn’t find anything about a Polish visit earlier when I looked.

slt2021 1y ago

I dont get why Americans are willing to die on a hill of defending some third-world country's president who committed well documented crimes against humanity and genocide