6 ms·

What did she do wrong?

sc68cal 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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.
  - nielsbot 11mo ago
    sending a warning to other ICC judges/employees.
    - rendx 11mo ago
      A warning about what? That the US thinks it rules the world and is terrified enough to go after individuals who just happen to work for the wrong employer? That other parts of the world are not allowed to have their own sense and modalities of justice?
      - jameshilliard 11mo ago
        > A warning about what? It's basically a warning against attempting to apply jurisdiction to countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute. > That the US thinks it rules the world and is terrified enough to go after individuals who just happen to work for the wrong employer? The sanctions are due to specific actions(i.e. rulings) taken by the individuals against US and their allies.[0] > That other parts of the world are not allowed to have their own sense and modalities of justice? The issue is mostly one of jurisdiction, the ICC is attempting to unilaterally impose jurisdiction on to states that never agreed to delegate authority whatsoever to the ICC. [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...
        rendx 11mo ago
        ICC claims jurisdiction in Palestine. Whether Israel or the US accept that is their business. Nobody is interfering with their national autonomy. I see no "imposition" of jurisdiction here by the ICC. The only country that is imposing their jurisdiction here, and enforcing it outside of their own jurisdiction, are the US. The ICC merely issues documents; everybody is free to agree or disagree with their documents. They have no power of enforcement. The ICC is only doing what they received as a task by the signatory countries of the Rome statute, which ultimately decide what actions to take or not. As such, you could say the ICC merely writes "policy recommendations". The US is the one taking action. Can you point me at any action that the ICC has taken in the United States or Israel? No, because it is a court. It publishes documents. Legal opinions. You're totally free to decide whether you accept it as a "court" or not. Can't you see that it is exactly this kind of US exceptionalism and international interfering that stirs hatred, and does not bring peace but breeds terrorism and war?
TacticalCoder 11mo 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 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- winterbloom 10mo ago
  You got down voted by haters lol, don't worry there are some of us who support you

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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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.
- nielsbot 11mo ago
  sending a warning to other ICC judges/employees.
  - rendx 11mo ago
    A warning about what? That the US thinks it rules the world and is terrified enough to go after individuals who just happen to work for the wrong employer? That other parts of the world are not allowed to have their own sense and modalities of justice?
    - jameshilliard 11mo ago
      > A warning about what? It's basically a warning against attempting to apply jurisdiction to countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute. > That the US thinks it rules the world and is terrified enough to go after individuals who just happen to work for the wrong employer? The sanctions are due to specific actions(i.e. rulings) taken by the individuals against US and their allies.[0] > That other parts of the world are not allowed to have their own sense and modalities of justice? The issue is mostly one of jurisdiction, the ICC is attempting to unilaterally impose jurisdiction on to states that never agreed to delegate authority whatsoever to the ICC. [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...
      - rendx 11mo ago
        ICC claims jurisdiction in Palestine. Whether Israel or the US accept that is their business. Nobody is interfering with their national autonomy. I see no "imposition" of jurisdiction here by the ICC. The only country that is imposing their jurisdiction here, and enforcing it outside of their own jurisdiction, are the US. The ICC merely issues documents; everybody is free to agree or disagree with their documents. They have no power of enforcement. The ICC is only doing what they received as a task by the signatory countries of the Rome statute, which ultimately decide what actions to take or not. As such, you could say the ICC merely writes "policy recommendations". The US is the one taking action. Can you point me at any action that the ICC has taken in the United States or Israel? No, because it is a court. It publishes documents. Legal opinions. You're totally free to decide whether you accept it as a "court" or not. Can't you see that it is exactly this kind of US exceptionalism and international interfering that stirs hatred, and does not bring peace but breeds terrorism and war?

TacticalCoder 11mo 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 11mo ago
[deleted]
winterbloom 10mo ago
You got down voted by haters lol, don't worry there are some of us who support you