6 ms·
It's always been an odd choice to build infra on services owned by companies from a country which doesn't recognise the ICC and, even worse, has a special law t
by NietTim 11mo ago
It's always been an odd choice to build infra on services owned by companies from a country which doesn't recognise the ICC and, even worse, has a special law that if any of US service men were ever tried there, they will invade the Hague. (gotta love the good guys)
- ceejayoz 11mo agoDropping a cite for the last bit, as it's so goofy people tend to think it's made up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
- excalibur 11mo agoPassed in August 2002, how very Patriot Act of them.
- ceejayoz 11mo agoTo be fair, the Rome Statute entered into force in July 2002.
- embedding-shape 11mo agoIt's a great example from 2002 that demonstrates that while the US have ramped up its isolationism efforts lately, it has been moving in the same direction for a long time, so what's happening now shouldn't be so surprising.
- abandonliberty 11mo agoMany people raised the alarm back then, and were shouted down by promises that these laws would only be used when appropriate. In 2002, very few would've been okay with tearing apart American families, parents, and children based on the color of their skin, letting women miscarry through malnutrition while in custody, etc. Just wait 25 years, buy the media, and slowly brainwash the population. The Heritage Foundation was founded in 1973, and likely has roots that go much further back. Difficult for a democracy to defend against this type of long term attack.
- hersko 11mo agoI don't understand the whole concept. Why would any country recognize a law above their own?
- ceejayoz 11mo agoBecause borders aren't hermetically sealed? Same reason individuals tend to want to live in a society and the rules that come with it.
- wongarsu 11mo agoSame reason most people prefer living in a society with laws: you are subject to laws, but so is everyone else, and provided the laws are beneficial ("just") you are overall better off. On a national level I agree not to steal, and in return nobody else is allowed to steal from me. On the ICC level my country agrees not to genocide anyone, and in return others aren't allowed to genocide either
- kyboren 11mo agoThe fundamental problem with this logic is that there is no enforcement body here. In a just society, the law defines who is "allowed" to steal from you and the state's enforcement arm punishes those who violate the law. The law binds but also protects. Creating a global enforcement arm is an obvious non-starter: Which laws shall be enacted and enforced against whom, and how are fundamentally political questions. The answers to those questions necessarily change once you cross into another polity. States can coordinate and agree mutually to enforce a law... but if Poland says that despite their commitments to the contrary they simply aren't gonna extradite that suspected Nord Stream saboteur: Tough nuggets. Such situations expose international "laws" as mere window dressing on powers that emanate from and remain held by individual states. There is no global enforcement arm and plenty of evidence that if someone starts genociding you, nobody else is gonna do anything about it. You're on your own. Such "laws" bind but do not protect. Especially in the context of the US as world hegemon: The US fully expects to shoulder the entire burden of deterring or defeating threats to the homeland. Joining the ICC would bring precisely zero extra protection from genocide. Indeed, such a commitment may limit the US's freedom of action, discredit US deterrence, and actually make a devastating war more likely.
- honeycrispy 11mo ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 11mo agoThe US happily enforces its rules on other nations on a regular basis.
- bluGill 11mo agoEvery country tries that on a regular basis. The US might have more power on the world stage, but everyone tries it once in a while. If you look at history the US has been very restrained with using their power (which isn't a high bar)
- ceejayoz 11mo agoI don't disagree; the point is it's a little rich to go on about "her own country", "subject to her own laws", and "independence" given that context.
- lingrush4 11mo agoDo you also think it's hypocritical that the Dallas Cowboys try to sack the other team's quarterback even though they don't want their own quarterback sacked?
- MangoToupe 11mo agoThe Dallas Cowboys operates according to team rules that encourages such violence. The entire point of international cooperation is to prevent the sort if wonton violence our military engaged in the last 80 years. God willing, someone in this country or in another one will work up the nerve to erase such a malignant cancer out of existence eventually.
- ceejayoz 11mo agoThis is more like the Dallas Cowboys threatening to shoot up your locker room if you sack their quarterback.
- lingrush4 11mo agoWhy would the US choose to cede authority to the ICC here? If the US wishes to discipline its service members, they still can and do. Under no circumstances should any country allow a foreign entity to decide what its military can and cannot do.
- ceejayoz 11mo ago> Why would the US choose to cede authority to the ICC here? For the same reason as any other treaty - the corresponding benefits. > If the US wishes to discipline its service members, they still can and do. That's not what the ICC is for. The ICC is for when a country won't do so when they should be. > Under no circumstances should any country allow a foreign entity to decide what its military can and cannot do. The US has a very long history of telling other foreign entities what they can and cannot do.
- nielsbot 11mo agoWhy have an ICC at all then? If US soldiers are (once again) committing war crimes, will the US do anything? What’s the recourse for the victims of those crimes? Should there not be one?
- dragonwriter 11mo ago> What’s the recourse for the victims of those crimes? The war crimes (and some others) that are subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC are already crimes recognized explicitly in the treaties establishing them as crimes matters of universal jurisdiction. Yeah, its difficult to get your hands on them to exercise that jurisdiction, but... that hasn’t really been a problem the ICC has solved with regard to significant powers when their personnel are subject to its jurisdiction, either.
- polski-g 11mo agoThe recourse is for the country of those citizens to declare war against the US.
- MangoToupe 11mo agoWell they also don't want their own citizens to have any say. So whose interests in the end does our military actually answer to?