4 ms·

> Isn't that grounds for arrest? Maybe, but worth saying the ICC have issued a warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes. The reason he hasn't been arrested is: -

> Isn't that grounds for arrest? Maybe, but worth saying the ICC have issued a warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes. The reason he hasn't been arrested is: - The ICC is just a court, not a police department. Only countries have those, and while Netanyahu is in Israel, his own police probably won't arrest him. - Authoritarian governments like Trump, Orban, Putin are actively undermining the ICC, which makes enforcement even less likely.

birn559 1y ago
I believe no US administration ever acknowledged the ICC. By the way, the German chancellor just said he wouldn't arrest Netanyahu if he came to Germany. It's not just a Trump thing.
- mongol 1y ago
  Is this something the German chancellor can say? In countries with an independent judiciary, this is a matter for prosecutors, police and courts.
  - mr_toad 1y ago
    In most countries state prosecutors are directly controlled by the executive. The US is a bit of an anomaly in having semi-independent elected prosecutors. The government wouldn’t normally get directly involved - the optics are terrible - but in high profile political cases they will.
- throw310822 1y ago
  If there is a nation that cannot be expected to act with equanimity in regards to Israel, that's Germany. Nothing to do with the legitimacy of the ICC, that Germany has always recognised.
- vasco 1y ago
  Of course the US has acknowledged the ICC. In 2002 on the heels of 9/11 George W Bush signed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_... into law, also known as Hague Invasion Act, specifically acknowledging the ICC in the clearest of ways.
jahewson 1y ago
Why should anybody care what some upstarts with zero moral authority at the ICC think? Nobody voted for them.
- normie3000 1y ago
  > Nobody voted for them. How is that relevant? Is an elected judiciary demonstrably more objective at interpreting law?
- goatlover 1y ago
  Judges aren't representatives, they exist to interpret the law.

birn559 1y ago

I believe no US administration ever acknowledged the ICC. By the way, the German chancellor just said he wouldn't arrest Netanyahu if he came to Germany. It's not just a Trump thing.

mongol 1y ago
Is this something the German chancellor can say? In countries with an independent judiciary, this is a matter for prosecutors, police and courts.
- mr_toad 1y ago
  In most countries state prosecutors are directly controlled by the executive. The US is a bit of an anomaly in having semi-independent elected prosecutors. The government wouldn’t normally get directly involved - the optics are terrible - but in high profile political cases they will.
throw310822 1y ago
If there is a nation that cannot be expected to act with equanimity in regards to Israel, that's Germany. Nothing to do with the legitimacy of the ICC, that Germany has always recognised.
vasco 1y ago
Of course the US has acknowledged the ICC. In 2002 on the heels of 9/11 George W Bush signed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_... into law, also known as Hague Invasion Act, specifically acknowledging the ICC in the clearest of ways.

jahewson 1y ago

Why should anybody care what some upstarts with zero moral authority at the ICC think? Nobody voted for them.

normie3000 1y ago
> Nobody voted for them. How is that relevant? Is an elected judiciary demonstrably more objective at interpreting law?
goatlover 1y ago
Judges aren't representatives, they exist to interpret the law.