7 ms·

'It's surreal': How US sanctions lock ICC judges out of daily life

69 points by rendx 10mo ago

CrzyLngPwd 10mo ago
What did she do wrong?
- sc68cal 10mo ago
  They are on a international body that is investigating allegations of war crimes and genocide that the United States and Israel have committed in Gaza
  - jameshilliard 10mo ago
    > They are on a international body that is investigating allegations of war crimes and genocide that the United States and Israel have committed in Gaza She was apparently sanctioned for the Afghanistan investigation, while others at the ICC were sanctioned for going after Israel.[0] [0] https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/08/imposing-further-sanctions-in-response-to-the-iccs-ongoing-threat-to-americans-and-israelis/ https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...
- SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
  The US argues that the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over the cases in question, and considers the ICC's attempts to investigate them a violation of sovereignty.
  - rendx 10mo ago
    So? How is that the fault of the people working there? Would you want that to happen to you if you were working for a McDonalds, and McDonalds was deemed unhealthy in Europe and banned?
    - SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
      The subject of the article, Kimberly Prost, is one of the specific decisionmakers at the ICC who ruled that the Afghanistan investigation could proceed over American objections. I agree with what I think is your implication, that it wouldn't make much sense to sanction random ICC employees. What I'd want in some hypothetical situation, though, doesn't have much to do with it. If it were up to me, I'd rather the US ratify the Rome Statute so there's no jurisdictional issue in the first place.
      - rendx 10mo ago
        Luz Ibanez: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/life-icc-judge-sanctioned-trump-luz-ibanez https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/life-icc-judge-sanctioned... I have few words to argue against what I consider to be 'midieval practices' that should not even exist as a thought in 'modern' Western 'democracies' on how to deal with international relations and law. Can you point me at the legal basis for this decision apart from "because we say so"? What crime did they commit? What they did as part of their job is not illegal. The US is not required to join and help actively enforce the court's decisions. I don't mind differences of opinion. I do mind authoritarian, purely escalatory behavior not fit for a modern society with no rational basis behind it other than rage. There is no educational, pedagogical message behind this. The thought process behind actions like this seems to purely be "We happen to not agree with you, so we are in the right to hurt you" territory. Law enforcement is not meant for punishment for punishment's sake, it is meant to aim for correction. Anything else just creates more polarization and leads to more violence. I thought we had figured that out as civilization. It makes no sense.
        SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
        Luz Ibanez was another of the judges who made that same ruling. > I have no words to even argue against what I consider to be 'midieval practices' that should not even exist as a thought in 'modern' Western 'democracies' on how to deal with international relations and law. Can you point me at the legal basis for this decision apart from "because we say so"? What they did as part of their job is not illegal anywhere. The US is not required to join and help actively enforce the court's decisions. What they did as part of their job is illegal in the US. US law specifies (22 USC 7421, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/7421 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/7421) that the ICC may not prosecute Americans and the US government should do whatever it can to ensure that doesn't happen. A US court, of course, would not have jurisdiction over the actions of foreign nationals in foreign countries. But the executive, as in most if not all countries, has broad authority to impose sanctions on foreign individuals and organizations who are threatening to unlawfully injure US citizens. Imagine that Putin set up a Transnational Criminal Court in Moscow, and judges in that court issued an arrest warrant, instructing anyone who can get their hands on Emmanuel Macron to kidnap him and bring him to Moscow to face trial for his government's actions in Mali. That would be a big problem, right? Of course the French government would try to punish the judges for doing that, and it would be more than a little silly to say they shouldn't face any consequences because Russian law authorized the warrant. This is what the US argues the ICC is doing here.
- TacticalCoder 10mo ago
  Let me first say I find it totally disgusting that she's getting debanked and it's not the first time: Canada did debank truckers and people organizing to send aid to truckers a few years ago. But to answer your question... What she did was zero condemnation of what even Amnesty International qualifies as a crime against humanity by legally elected Hamas (classified as a terror organization) but then overstepping her bound where she had no legislation and condemning the prime minister of a country that entered war. Entered war after said crimes against humanity, where 1200 civilians were raped, killed and taken hostages (to the great joy of Gaza's population who, back then, was welcoming Hamas like heroes for the crimes against humanity they just committed). Like way too many in the west who stayed completely silent on Oct 7th, she and others then went on a legal jihad against Israel for fighting back against people who, simply put, want to eradicate jews from the surface of the earth. The same kind of people who are staying silent on a father and his son killing 16 jews on Bondi beach two days ago but who'll be everywhere to cry "islamophobia" if anyone points out that they were fighting islamist jihad. I find it disgusting that she and others are getting debanked but don't get me wrong: to me she's a despicable tool of the muslim brotherhood (which is a terrorist organization) who wished Israel and jews were erased from the face of earth. Imagine you're australian and 75x Bondi beach happens by Hamas (I'm not saying Hamas did that attack, it's an example): 75x is the scale of Oct 7th compared to the death on Bondi beach. What should the answer of Australia be towards Gaza? And imagine 75x Bondi beach happen and then ICC judges stay eerily quiet on the subject but then, once Australia strikes back, the ICC, overstepping its jurisdiction, condemns australian officials for war crimes. That's what she did wrong. But this certainly doesn't mean she should get debanked. She, and the other Hamas-loving ICC judges, should just be exposed for what they are. Think of all the people who've been very vocal pro-Gaza, including here on HN, but who are totally quiet on the 16 jews who were just killed on a beach in australia in the name of islamist jihad. Things are way muddier and way darker than we think.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - winterbloom 10mo ago
    You got down voted by haters lol, don't worry there are some of us who support you
dctoedt 10mo ago
It's part of the Trump administration's support of crypto. </sarcasm>
helterskelter 10mo ago
The US wielding the sanctions banhammer the way they have been recently will only weaken its power over time and create opportunity for economic rivals like China. Every time they (mis)use it they create incentive for people to create alternatives to the US financial system. You won't see sanctions become completely completely toothless overnight, but I could see in maybe 15-20 years that getting around US sanctions will be a mere inconvenience.
- SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
  It might create opportunity for the EU. China routinely deploys similar sanctions against people who e.g. recognize the independence of Taiwan or refuse to buy cotton from Xinjiang.
  - drnick1 10mo ago
    The only problem is that the EU is kind of irrelevant when it comes to "financial systems."
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - croes 10mo ago
      It’s enough if they create an inter-EU system. The loss for a the US services would be big enough. Same way the Euro threatened the US Dollar
- jameshilliard 10mo ago
  > The US wielding the sanctions banhammer the way they have been recently will only weaken its power over time and create opportunity for economic rivals like China. China is not party to the Rome Statute, just like the US and Israel, I would expect they would retaliate against the ICC if the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Xi Jinping. > Every time they (mis)use it they create incentive for people to create alternatives to the US financial system. I think the ICC has much bigger credibility issues trying to impose jurisdiction over conflicts involving countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute.
AuthAuth 10mo ago
Has the US imposed these kinds of sanctions on the ICC before Trump?
- SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
  No, but do keep in mind that the ICC isn't very old. I think it's clear that the Bush administration at least would have imposed sanctions if the occasion arose; he signed the famous "Hague Invasion Act", authorizing military force to free any Americans who do end up in ICC custody.
scotty79 10mo ago
That's absolutely wonderful. Great illustration why Europe needs to oust any American based service from the market. If Americans want to have access to EU customers they should be doing it only through local company (they are allowed to own) that doesn't obey US law, but only European law instead.
Cameri 10mo ago
Ofcom should probably be added to the US Sanctioned list.

69 points by rendx 10mo ago

CrzyLngPwd 10mo ago

What did she do wrong?

sc68cal 10mo ago
They are on a international body that is investigating allegations of war crimes and genocide that the United States and Israel have committed in Gaza
- jameshilliard 10mo ago
  > They are on a international body that is investigating allegations of war crimes and genocide that the United States and Israel have committed in Gaza She was apparently sanctioned for the Afghanistan investigation, while others at the ICC were sanctioned for going after Israel.[0] [0] https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/08/imposing-further-sanctions-in-response-to-the-iccs-ongoing-threat-to-americans-and-israelis/ https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...
SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
The US argues that the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over the cases in question, and considers the ICC's attempts to investigate them a violation of sovereignty.
- rendx 10mo ago
  So? How is that the fault of the people working there? Would you want that to happen to you if you were working for a McDonalds, and McDonalds was deemed unhealthy in Europe and banned?
  - SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
    The subject of the article, Kimberly Prost, is one of the specific decisionmakers at the ICC who ruled that the Afghanistan investigation could proceed over American objections. I agree with what I think is your implication, that it wouldn't make much sense to sanction random ICC employees. What I'd want in some hypothetical situation, though, doesn't have much to do with it. If it were up to me, I'd rather the US ratify the Rome Statute so there's no jurisdictional issue in the first place.
    - rendx 10mo ago
      Luz Ibanez: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/life-icc-judge-sanctioned-trump-luz-ibanez https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/life-icc-judge-sanctioned... I have few words to argue against what I consider to be 'midieval practices' that should not even exist as a thought in 'modern' Western 'democracies' on how to deal with international relations and law. Can you point me at the legal basis for this decision apart from "because we say so"? What crime did they commit? What they did as part of their job is not illegal. The US is not required to join and help actively enforce the court's decisions. I don't mind differences of opinion. I do mind authoritarian, purely escalatory behavior not fit for a modern society with no rational basis behind it other than rage. There is no educational, pedagogical message behind this. The thought process behind actions like this seems to purely be "We happen to not agree with you, so we are in the right to hurt you" territory. Law enforcement is not meant for punishment for punishment's sake, it is meant to aim for correction. Anything else just creates more polarization and leads to more violence. I thought we had figured that out as civilization. It makes no sense.
      - SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
        Luz Ibanez was another of the judges who made that same ruling. > I have no words to even argue against what I consider to be 'midieval practices' that should not even exist as a thought in 'modern' Western 'democracies' on how to deal with international relations and law. Can you point me at the legal basis for this decision apart from "because we say so"? What they did as part of their job is not illegal anywhere. The US is not required to join and help actively enforce the court's decisions. What they did as part of their job is illegal in the US. US law specifies (22 USC 7421, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/7421 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/7421) that the ICC may not prosecute Americans and the US government should do whatever it can to ensure that doesn't happen. A US court, of course, would not have jurisdiction over the actions of foreign nationals in foreign countries. But the executive, as in most if not all countries, has broad authority to impose sanctions on foreign individuals and organizations who are threatening to unlawfully injure US citizens. Imagine that Putin set up a Transnational Criminal Court in Moscow, and judges in that court issued an arrest warrant, instructing anyone who can get their hands on Emmanuel Macron to kidnap him and bring him to Moscow to face trial for his government's actions in Mali. That would be a big problem, right? Of course the French government would try to punish the judges for doing that, and it would be more than a little silly to say they shouldn't face any consequences because Russian law authorized the warrant. This is what the US argues the ICC is doing here.
TacticalCoder 10mo ago
Let me first say I find it totally disgusting that she's getting debanked and it's not the first time: Canada did debank truckers and people organizing to send aid to truckers a few years ago. But to answer your question... What she did was zero condemnation of what even Amnesty International qualifies as a crime against humanity by legally elected Hamas (classified as a terror organization) but then overstepping her bound where she had no legislation and condemning the prime minister of a country that entered war. Entered war after said crimes against humanity, where 1200 civilians were raped, killed and taken hostages (to the great joy of Gaza's population who, back then, was welcoming Hamas like heroes for the crimes against humanity they just committed). Like way too many in the west who stayed completely silent on Oct 7th, she and others then went on a legal jihad against Israel for fighting back against people who, simply put, want to eradicate jews from the surface of the earth. The same kind of people who are staying silent on a father and his son killing 16 jews on Bondi beach two days ago but who'll be everywhere to cry "islamophobia" if anyone points out that they were fighting islamist jihad. I find it disgusting that she and others are getting debanked but don't get me wrong: to me she's a despicable tool of the muslim brotherhood (which is a terrorist organization) who wished Israel and jews were erased from the face of earth. Imagine you're australian and 75x Bondi beach happens by Hamas (I'm not saying Hamas did that attack, it's an example): 75x is the scale of Oct 7th compared to the death on Bondi beach. What should the answer of Australia be towards Gaza? And imagine 75x Bondi beach happen and then ICC judges stay eerily quiet on the subject but then, once Australia strikes back, the ICC, overstepping its jurisdiction, condemns australian officials for war crimes. That's what she did wrong. But this certainly doesn't mean she should get debanked. She, and the other Hamas-loving ICC judges, should just be exposed for what they are. Think of all the people who've been very vocal pro-Gaza, including here on HN, but who are totally quiet on the 16 jews who were just killed on a beach in australia in the name of islamist jihad. Things are way muddier and way darker than we think.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- winterbloom 10mo ago
  You got down voted by haters lol, don't worry there are some of us who support you

dctoedt 10mo ago

It's part of the Trump administration's support of crypto. </sarcasm>

helterskelter 10mo ago

The US wielding the sanctions banhammer the way they have been recently will only weaken its power over time and create opportunity for economic rivals like China. Every time they (mis)use it they create incentive for people to create alternatives to the US financial system. You won't see sanctions become completely completely toothless overnight, but I could see in maybe 15-20 years that getting around US sanctions will be a mere inconvenience.

SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
It might create opportunity for the EU. China routinely deploys similar sanctions against people who e.g. recognize the independence of Taiwan or refuse to buy cotton from Xinjiang.
- drnick1 10mo ago
  The only problem is that the EU is kind of irrelevant when it comes to "financial systems."
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - croes 10mo ago
    It’s enough if they create an inter-EU system. The loss for a the US services would be big enough. Same way the Euro threatened the US Dollar
jameshilliard 10mo ago
> The US wielding the sanctions banhammer the way they have been recently will only weaken its power over time and create opportunity for economic rivals like China. China is not party to the Rome Statute, just like the US and Israel, I would expect they would retaliate against the ICC if the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Xi Jinping. > Every time they (mis)use it they create incentive for people to create alternatives to the US financial system. I think the ICC has much bigger credibility issues trying to impose jurisdiction over conflicts involving countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute.

AuthAuth 10mo ago

Has the US imposed these kinds of sanctions on the ICC before Trump?

SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
No, but do keep in mind that the ICC isn't very old. I think it's clear that the Bush administration at least would have imposed sanctions if the occasion arose; he signed the famous "Hague Invasion Act", authorizing military force to free any Americans who do end up in ICC custody.

scotty79 10mo ago

That's absolutely wonderful. Great illustration why Europe needs to oust any American based service from the market. If Americans want to have access to EU customers they should be doing it only through local company (they are allowed to own) that doesn't obey US law, but only European law instead.

Cameri 10mo ago

Ofcom should probably be added to the US Sanctioned list.