3 ms·

The American people need to start prosecuting their war criminals, plain and simple - and this has to begin with a willingness to comply with the mandates of th

by aa-jv 1y ago

The American people need to start prosecuting their war criminals, plain and simple - and this has to begin with a willingness to comply with the mandates of the International Criminal Court. The notion that American exceptionalism inoculates America's war criminals from facing justice at the hand of International bodies set up specifically for that purpose, is incorrect and anti-human. It is time for justice. You can't maintain this culture of warrior narcissism, Americans. It will end in tragedy - as it has already brought chaos and calamity to millions of innocent people across the globe, this century. The USA and its allies are, by a huge margin, the #1 cause of terror and war on the planet at this time. Nobody even comes close to the level of criminal war-mongering that occurs at the behest of the US' political establishment. No, not Russia. Not China. The USA and Five/Nine Eyes states are #1 at illegal war and murder of innocent human beings, bar none. Come to grips with the crimes of your state. It is the #1 most important thing for Americans to do, for the rest of the world. The American people are the only force on the planet which can reign in their monsters. It has to be done by the people, for the people.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> this has to begin with a willingness to comply with the mandates of the International Criminal Court Totally disagree. The ICJ makes sense within the scope of geopolitics. The ICC is, best case, a mechanism by which a country can cleanse itself of a bad former leader. More realistically, it is a relic of the unipolar world of the 1990s. America needs to deal with itself through its own laws. (Same as Russia, China and India will.) > USA and Five/Nine Eyes states are #1 at illegal war and murder of innocent human beings, bar none Ah, got it.
- aa-jv 1y ago
  Your position amounts to "but ma' America Special". If the ICC is good enough for Laurent Gbagbo, its good enough for Obama, Bush, Biden, Trump and Clinton. The ICC delivers one thing Americans refuse to deliver: justice for victims of war crimes. That this is not obvious, or prioritised, clearly belies the situation vis a vis American Exceptionalism.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Your position amounts to "but ma' America Special" Literally listed three other countries, none of which accept the ICC’s jurisdiction [1]. (A majority of the world’s population lives in non-ICC member states.) > Obama, Bush, Biden, Trump and Clinton Sure. This is why it doesn’t work. If you’re going to ignore Putin, Xi and Modi, it just turns into another tool of geopolitics. Not law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute
    - aa-jv 1y ago
      I am not Russian, Chinese, nor Indian - I am a citizen of the 5-eyes criminal military junta, however. The notion that a citizen of a war-crime committing nation can only have justice if they also demand that other war-crime committing nations face justice, is a dire fallacy. You cannot, as an American citizen, do anything at all effective about Russia or China or India until you have prosecuted your own war criminals. You simply do not have the moral standing in the world, any more: the entire world sees the crimes of the American people, even if they don't. Only then will the appropriate precedent be set for others to face justice too. The whataboutism is why there is no justice. First, we citizens jail our own war criminals. Only then will we have the tools go go after theirs. There is no other appropriate order of events. All you do, otherwise, is justify your own states' war crimes without having the moral authority to go after any other states war crimes. Given the enormous magnitude of the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of human rights at massive scales that the 5-eyes nations have committed THIS CENTURY, there is no higher priority than for us to get on with it and start prosecuting our own war criminals first. The moral authority you think exists, simply does not exist. Ours are the worst-offending states. Other states cannot even come close to matching the magnitude of OUR states' crimes.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > The notion that a citizen of a war-crime committing nation can only have justice if they also demand that other war-crime committing nations face justice, is a dire fallacy I agree! I’m not saying we need to commit war crimes. I’m not saying they should go unpunished. I’m saying we have to deal with this within our own laws. Unilaterally punting to the ICC doesn’t make sense if it has limited global authority and thus questionable legitimacy. > Given the enormous magnitude of the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of human rights at massive scales that the 5-eyes nations have committed THIS CENTURY, there is no higher priority I think it’s a priority. Far from the priority. (If American goes right-wing imperial authoritarian, our past war crimes become something of a joke.) > justify your own states' war crimes without having the moral authority to go after any other states war crimes Nobody is justifying anything. But post-War international law was first based on a bipolar world, with one set of rules for America and the USSR, and another for everyone else, and then on a unipolar world, where America volunteered to subject itself to international rules and institutions. (We didn’t. But powerful elements within us tried.) Now that world has fallen. We’re in a multipolar world. Not only is international law falling back into spheres of influence, with every global and regional hegemon regularly committing war crimes, it’s an open question whether anyone with power actually wants to enforce those rules. (As for the ICC, has any ICC-member state has executed an arrest warrant against a third party’s leader? I return to my thesis that the ICC is a rent-a-Court for post-regime change reconciliation. Not a venue for trying cases and controversies.) > Ours are the worst-offending states. Other states cannot even come close to matching the magnitude of OUR states' crimes The facts are not with you on this one. To the point that you undermine your entire argument with the bias. I won’t argue America is better than Russia or China. But if you’re saying we’re in a different league from the USSR or China, you’re an unreliable narrator. And you can’t vest the ICC with legitimacy while ignoring that it actually issued an arrest warrant for Putin.

by aa-jv 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> this has to begin with a willingness to comply with the mandates of the International Criminal Court Totally disagree. The ICJ makes sense within the scope of geopolitics. The ICC is, best case, a mechanism by which a country can cleanse itself of a bad former leader. More realistically, it is a relic of the unipolar world of the 1990s. America needs to deal with itself through its own laws. (Same as Russia, China and India will.) > USA and Five/Nine Eyes states are #1 at illegal war and murder of innocent human beings, bar none Ah, got it.

aa-jv 1y ago
Your position amounts to "but ma' America Special". If the ICC is good enough for Laurent Gbagbo, its good enough for Obama, Bush, Biden, Trump and Clinton. The ICC delivers one thing Americans refuse to deliver: justice for victims of war crimes. That this is not obvious, or prioritised, clearly belies the situation vis a vis American Exceptionalism.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Your position amounts to "but ma' America Special" Literally listed three other countries, none of which accept the ICC’s jurisdiction [1]. (A majority of the world’s population lives in non-ICC member states.) > Obama, Bush, Biden, Trump and Clinton Sure. This is why it doesn’t work. If you’re going to ignore Putin, Xi and Modi, it just turns into another tool of geopolitics. Not law. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute
  - aa-jv 1y ago
    I am not Russian, Chinese, nor Indian - I am a citizen of the 5-eyes criminal military junta, however. The notion that a citizen of a war-crime committing nation can only have justice if they also demand that other war-crime committing nations face justice, is a dire fallacy. You cannot, as an American citizen, do anything at all effective about Russia or China or India until you have prosecuted your own war criminals. You simply do not have the moral standing in the world, any more: the entire world sees the crimes of the American people, even if they don't. Only then will the appropriate precedent be set for others to face justice too. The whataboutism is why there is no justice. First, we citizens jail our own war criminals. Only then will we have the tools go go after theirs. There is no other appropriate order of events. All you do, otherwise, is justify your own states' war crimes without having the moral authority to go after any other states war crimes. Given the enormous magnitude of the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of human rights at massive scales that the 5-eyes nations have committed THIS CENTURY, there is no higher priority than for us to get on with it and start prosecuting our own war criminals first. The moral authority you think exists, simply does not exist. Ours are the worst-offending states. Other states cannot even come close to matching the magnitude of OUR states' crimes.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > The notion that a citizen of a war-crime committing nation can only have justice if they also demand that other war-crime committing nations face justice, is a dire fallacy I agree! I’m not saying we need to commit war crimes. I’m not saying they should go unpunished. I’m saying we have to deal with this within our own laws. Unilaterally punting to the ICC doesn’t make sense if it has limited global authority and thus questionable legitimacy. > Given the enormous magnitude of the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of human rights at massive scales that the 5-eyes nations have committed THIS CENTURY, there is no higher priority I think it’s a priority. Far from the priority. (If American goes right-wing imperial authoritarian, our past war crimes become something of a joke.) > justify your own states' war crimes without having the moral authority to go after any other states war crimes Nobody is justifying anything. But post-War international law was first based on a bipolar world, with one set of rules for America and the USSR, and another for everyone else, and then on a unipolar world, where America volunteered to subject itself to international rules and institutions. (We didn’t. But powerful elements within us tried.) Now that world has fallen. We’re in a multipolar world. Not only is international law falling back into spheres of influence, with every global and regional hegemon regularly committing war crimes, it’s an open question whether anyone with power actually wants to enforce those rules. (As for the ICC, has any ICC-member state has executed an arrest warrant against a third party’s leader? I return to my thesis that the ICC is a rent-a-Court for post-regime change reconciliation. Not a venue for trying cases and controversies.) > Ours are the worst-offending states. Other states cannot even come close to matching the magnitude of OUR states' crimes The facts are not with you on this one. To the point that you undermine your entire argument with the bias. I won’t argue America is better than Russia or China. But if you’re saying we’re in a different league from the USSR or China, you’re an unreliable narrator. And you can’t vest the ICC with legitimacy while ignoring that it actually issued an arrest warrant for Putin.