3 ms·

Why 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 sho

Why 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 ago
Why 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 ago
  The recourse is for the country of those citizens to declare war against the US.
MangoToupe 11mo ago
Well they also don't want their own citizens to have any say. So whose interests in the end does our military actually answer to?
dragonwriter 11mo ago
> If the US wishes to discipline its service members, they still can and do. Its not “service members” that are the usual defendants at the ICC.

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 ago

Why 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 ago
The recourse is for the country of those citizens to declare war against the US.

MangoToupe 11mo ago

Well they also don't want their own citizens to have any say. So whose interests in the end does our military actually answer to?

dragonwriter 11mo ago

> If the US wishes to discipline its service members, they still can and do. Its not “service members” that are the usual defendants at the ICC.