3 ms·

> To USA not recognizing the court has always shown that they don't care about the crimes they commit. I'd nitpick the "don't care" part. To me, it's that they

> To USA not recognizing the court has always shown that they don't care about the crimes they commit. I'd nitpick the "don't care" part. To me, it's that they do care precisely because they know they are guilty. I think Trump is guilty for the boats being shot. Obama guilty for the drone strikes. W guilty for well, the whole shit show. Didn't really pay attention to Biden, but I'd assume drone strikes continued there too. From Clinton on back, I admit I just wasn't paying attention to those kinds of issues.

aidenn0 1y ago
My understanding is that most of the post-cold-war targeted killings of dubious legality happened after 9/11; wikipedia claims that there were US norms against "targeted killings" from '76 to '01. Certainly the CIA did some shady stuff post 1976, but the President at least maintained the appearance of not knowing about them.
ebbi 1y ago
[flagged]
- lmm 1y ago
  I'm all for calling him out for that, but none of that sounds like a clear-cut ICC crime.
  - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 1y ago
    He continuously armed the direct perpetrators of the genocide; supported them financially, with logistics, and intelligence; threatened their adversaries from getting involved; vetoed multiple UN security council resolutions that attempted to impose a ceasefire. He was a direct participant in the genocide. If you're murdering someone on the street and I am standing next to you watching your back, fighting off anyone who tries to stop you, I am an accomplice in that murder, and an active participant, even if it's not my hands that are around the victim's neck, but yours. I am what enables your hands to be on their neck instead of being used to defend you from others trying to help the victim. All ensuing crimes of Israel are thus also crimes of Joe Biden, and that's A LOT of war crimes; a clear-cut for ICC.
    - davkan 1y ago
      Is there any precedent for the ICC prosecuting accessory to genocide? Have they prosecuted any of the actual state parties to the Rome statute who are still providing arms to Israel? I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you say it is.
      - vidarh 1y ago
        Before making a case for accessory to genocide, they'd first need a binding judgement that it is a genocide, presumably. I agree it probably isn't as clear cut, or at least not as simple.
        ta20240528 1y ago
        The ICJ ruled that its plausibly genocide. Based on work done by other UN agencies.
        vidarh 1y ago
        The problem is a decision it is plausible it is one isn't a ruling that it is one. There is no legal basis for deciding someone is an accessory just because it is plausible. Personally I consider it a genocide, and wish there was a legal basis for going after people as accessories, but there just isn't yet.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
davkan 1y ago
Pragmatically what does the US gain from joining? From a US perspective it would just be ceding power no? Only a year after Clinton signed the statute 9/11 was perpetrated. I can’t imagine any of the most powerful countries would have ratified it if they were in the midst of prosecuting a war. Since then the US has softened on the ICC as it benefits them to maintain a relationship but, at this point why sign other than for ideological reasons. And even if there was an intent to join there would likely be stipulations from the US. And it would have to pass the divided senate, after which it would likely go to the Supreme Court who with the current bench would certainly strike it down, meaning a constitutional amendment would be needed. It’s less feasible to join now than it ever has been unfortunately.
- ulfw 1y ago
  > Pragmatically what does the US gain from joining? From a US perspective it would just be ceding power no? Then why bother with anything? Why does France join? From a French perspective it would just be ceding power no? Why does South Korea join? From a Korean perspective it would just be ceding power no? Why...
  - davkan 1y ago
    None of those countries are the preeminent military and political power in the world. Most stand to lose significantly less as signatories. The US does not need to be a member of the ICC to influence it, and they can largely operate with impunity as a non-party state that has permanent UNSC veto powers. Is South Korea in similar circumstances?
    - ulfw 1y ago
      Laws for thee but not for me
- realityking 1y ago
  > Pragmatically what does the US gain from joining? From a US perspective it would just be ceding power no? It could have created momentum for other major powers to join (e.g. Russia) and given the ICC broad authority to prosecute the crimes it has jurisdiction over. That might have created a world where leaders act differently. What, for example, would have happened in if Syria and Russia had both been members? It’s easy to be cynical about ideas like the ICC - the logic of power is hard to avoid - but the US working against it is definitely a major reason for its weakness.

aidenn0 1y ago

My understanding is that most of the post-cold-war targeted killings of dubious legality happened after 9/11; wikipedia claims that there were US norms against "targeted killings" from '76 to '01. Certainly the CIA did some shady stuff post 1976, but the President at least maintained the appearance of not knowing about them.

ebbi 1y ago

[flagged]

lmm 1y ago
I'm all for calling him out for that, but none of that sounds like a clear-cut ICC crime.
- C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 1y ago
  He continuously armed the direct perpetrators of the genocide; supported them financially, with logistics, and intelligence; threatened their adversaries from getting involved; vetoed multiple UN security council resolutions that attempted to impose a ceasefire. He was a direct participant in the genocide. If you're murdering someone on the street and I am standing next to you watching your back, fighting off anyone who tries to stop you, I am an accomplice in that murder, and an active participant, even if it's not my hands that are around the victim's neck, but yours. I am what enables your hands to be on their neck instead of being used to defend you from others trying to help the victim. All ensuing crimes of Israel are thus also crimes of Joe Biden, and that's A LOT of war crimes; a clear-cut for ICC.
  - davkan 1y ago
    Is there any precedent for the ICC prosecuting accessory to genocide? Have they prosecuted any of the actual state parties to the Rome statute who are still providing arms to Israel? I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you say it is.
    - vidarh 1y ago
      Before making a case for accessory to genocide, they'd first need a binding judgement that it is a genocide, presumably. I agree it probably isn't as clear cut, or at least not as simple.
      - ta20240528 1y ago
        The ICJ ruled that its plausibly genocide. Based on work done by other UN agencies.
        vidarh 1y ago
        The problem is a decision it is plausible it is one isn't a ruling that it is one. There is no legal basis for deciding someone is an accessory just because it is plausible. Personally I consider it a genocide, and wish there was a legal basis for going after people as accessories, but there just isn't yet.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

davkan 1y ago

Pragmatically what does the US gain from joining? From a US perspective it would just be ceding power no? Only a year after Clinton signed the statute 9/11 was perpetrated. I can’t imagine any of the most powerful countries would have ratified it if they were in the midst of prosecuting a war. Since then the US has softened on the ICC as it benefits them to maintain a relationship but, at this point why sign other than for ideological reasons. And even if there was an intent to join there would likely be stipulations from the US. And it would have to pass the divided senate, after which it would likely go to the Supreme Court who with the current bench would certainly strike it down, meaning a constitutional amendment would be needed. It’s less feasible to join now than it ever has been unfortunately.

ulfw 1y ago
> Pragmatically what does the US gain from joining? From a US perspective it would just be ceding power no? Then why bother with anything? Why does France join? From a French perspective it would just be ceding power no? Why does South Korea join? From a Korean perspective it would just be ceding power no? Why...
- davkan 1y ago
  None of those countries are the preeminent military and political power in the world. Most stand to lose significantly less as signatories. The US does not need to be a member of the ICC to influence it, and they can largely operate with impunity as a non-party state that has permanent UNSC veto powers. Is South Korea in similar circumstances?
  - ulfw 1y ago
    Laws for thee but not for me
realityking 1y ago
> Pragmatically what does the US gain from joining? From a US perspective it would just be ceding power no? It could have created momentum for other major powers to join (e.g. Russia) and given the ICC broad authority to prosecute the crimes it has jurisdiction over. That might have created a world where leaders act differently. What, for example, would have happened in if Syria and Russia had both been members? It’s easy to be cynical about ideas like the ICC - the logic of power is hard to avoid - but the US working against it is definitely a major reason for its weakness.