5 ms·

I don’t think the US is going to be allowed to act outside the ICC for too much longer. All of your former allies are going to insist on it before they will eve

by mdhb 9mo ago

I don’t think the US is going to be allowed to act outside the ICC for too much longer. All of your former allies are going to insist on it before they will even think about treating your normally again. The US previously never faced real pressure on this, a new administration would see it as an easy win.

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> don’t think the US is going to be allowed to act outside the ICC for too much longer The U.S. is not a signatory. (Most of the world's population isn't subject to ICC jurisdiction [1].) > All of your former allies are going to insist on it before they will even think about treating your normally again Nobody is treating the ICC seriously [2]. To be clear, this sucks. But it's America joining China and Russia (and Iran and Israel and India and every other regional power who have selectively rejected the rules-based international order). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/27/world/middleeast/france-netanyahu-arrest-icc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/27/world/middleeast/france-n...
- dragonwriter 9mo ago
  > The U.S. is not a signatory. Being a signatory is not required for being subject to ICC jurisdiction, though it is one route to being subject to it, and, in any case, not being a signatory is not an immutable condition. So the upthread suggestion that “All of your former allies are going to insist on it before they will even think about treating your normally again” is not rebutted by observing that the US is not currently a signatory of the Rome Statute. > But it's America joining China and Russia (and Iran and Israel and India and every other regional power who have selectively rejected the rules-based international order). No, the US despite rhetorically appealing to it when other countries are involved, has led, not followed, in rejecting the rules-based order when it comes to its own conduct.
babypuncher 9mo ago
I hope to god the next administration actually holds the criminals in the current administration accountable. Gerry Ford set a disgusting precedent when he loudly said that those who hold the office of the President should never be be held accountable for their actions.
- dnautics 9mo ago
  unlikely. trump didnt held obama accountable for all sorts of crazy things that happened during his administration (bombing libya, drone striking a us citizen minor, using USAID to mount a fake vaccination campaign for DNA surveillance in pakistan e.g.). why would the next administration hold trump accountable?
  - ModernMech 9mo ago
    The Biden administration was prosecuting Trump though. They didn’t complete the prosecutions because Trump’s strategy to avoid accountability was to be reelected and then shut down the investigations, and that worked. But the fact he was indicted by Jack Smith who very likely could have convicted him goes to show lack of accountability is not for lack of trying.
    - dnautics 9mo ago
      i would feel better about that if the biden administration also prosecuted obama. they didn't. besides trump I (nor biden) didnt do any new foreign adventures AFAICT. we had a blissful 8 years of waning US imperialism
      - qwytw 9mo ago
        It's unclear if most if not all of those things you were actually crimes legally (regardless of how morally and ethically reprehensive they might have been). Regardless there was an established precedent for what Obama was doing. Not so much for the crimes Trump was being accused..
OgsyedIE 9mo ago
The "allies" would have mass riots and six-digit death tolls (shortly after an initial 3-6 month period of adjustment) without the supplies of LNG, fertiliser and payment clearing services the U.S. exports. America has the rest of the west by the balls, with maybe the exception of Australia and Japan. Nobody will even give the C-levels responsible for Grok arrest warrants for the many serious crimes their product carries out.
29athrowaway 9mo ago
Europe is not the military power that once was at the beginning of the 20th century... aging populations, economic decline, trade deficits, their former colonies are now independent, they haven't waged war in a while.
- mdhb 9mo ago
  Seems extremely telling that you would phrase things that way.
  - 29athrowaway 9mo ago
    In the 19th and 20th centuries, a European power could prevail in India, China, Japan, etc. And in the 21st century? not so much. It is a different world now. Europe is powerful but the Royal Navy couldn't go today to Hong Kong and seize control of it for example. And military power influences diplomacy.
    - jonathanstrange 9mo ago
      > And military power influences diplomacy. Negatively. That has always been the problem of the US, it's the reason why they cannot act like the most of the rest of the world. The military has way too much influence on decision making.
      - kelipso 9mo ago
        That’s just the reality of it. The GDP of Russia and Canada is about the same but nobody cares about Canada from a geopolitical context because it has an irrelevant military.
      - 29athrowaway 9mo ago
        Just watch one of the sessions of the UN general assembly. There are many speeches about fixing all kinds of situations. If the best ideas were implemented we would be in a utopia with flying cars, free ponies for everyone and open bar. But we don't live in such world because if one motion somehow makes one of the countries with veto power uncomfortable, they will just veto the resolution and that's the end of it. And countries with veto power are backed by military power. That's the world we live in and it has always been like that. And things work like this at every level in every organization. For example people in your line of reporting at work can veto any decision you make unless you are protected by law, which is an entity that can shut down your company by force.
vintermann 9mo ago
No, they wouldn't. Not if they're the Democrats as we know them. They fight tooth and claw against the new normal, until it's the new normal, and then they fight tooth and claw to defend the new normal. There's very little principled opposition to Trump in the corridors of power. There's plenty of opposition, but it's more about which horses have been bet on.
pqtyw 9mo ago
ICC is a joke though. It can only accomplish anything if the home country of the perpetrator is cooperating. Those allies also have much politically important economic and geopolitical concerns than prosecuting war criminals (unfortunately only small minorities in western countries care about things like that at all)

by mdhb 9mo ago

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago

> don’t think the US is going to be allowed to act outside the ICC for too much longer The U.S. is not a signatory. (Most of the world's population isn't subject to ICC jurisdiction [1].) > All of your former allies are going to insist on it before they will even think about treating your normally again Nobody is treating the ICC seriously [2]. To be clear, this sucks. But it's America joining China and Russia (and Iran and Israel and India and every other regional power who have selectively rejected the rules-based international order). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/27/world/middleeast/france-netanyahu-arrest-icc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/27/world/middleeast/france-n...

dragonwriter 9mo ago
> The U.S. is not a signatory. Being a signatory is not required for being subject to ICC jurisdiction, though it is one route to being subject to it, and, in any case, not being a signatory is not an immutable condition. So the upthread suggestion that “All of your former allies are going to insist on it before they will even think about treating your normally again” is not rebutted by observing that the US is not currently a signatory of the Rome Statute. > But it's America joining China and Russia (and Iran and Israel and India and every other regional power who have selectively rejected the rules-based international order). No, the US despite rhetorically appealing to it when other countries are involved, has led, not followed, in rejecting the rules-based order when it comes to its own conduct.

babypuncher 9mo ago

I hope to god the next administration actually holds the criminals in the current administration accountable. Gerry Ford set a disgusting precedent when he loudly said that those who hold the office of the President should never be be held accountable for their actions.

dnautics 9mo ago
unlikely. trump didnt held obama accountable for all sorts of crazy things that happened during his administration (bombing libya, drone striking a us citizen minor, using USAID to mount a fake vaccination campaign for DNA surveillance in pakistan e.g.). why would the next administration hold trump accountable?
- ModernMech 9mo ago
  The Biden administration was prosecuting Trump though. They didn’t complete the prosecutions because Trump’s strategy to avoid accountability was to be reelected and then shut down the investigations, and that worked. But the fact he was indicted by Jack Smith who very likely could have convicted him goes to show lack of accountability is not for lack of trying.
  - dnautics 9mo ago
    i would feel better about that if the biden administration also prosecuted obama. they didn't. besides trump I (nor biden) didnt do any new foreign adventures AFAICT. we had a blissful 8 years of waning US imperialism
    - qwytw 9mo ago
      It's unclear if most if not all of those things you were actually crimes legally (regardless of how morally and ethically reprehensive they might have been). Regardless there was an established precedent for what Obama was doing. Not so much for the crimes Trump was being accused..

OgsyedIE 9mo ago

The "allies" would have mass riots and six-digit death tolls (shortly after an initial 3-6 month period of adjustment) without the supplies of LNG, fertiliser and payment clearing services the U.S. exports. America has the rest of the west by the balls, with maybe the exception of Australia and Japan. Nobody will even give the C-levels responsible for Grok arrest warrants for the many serious crimes their product carries out.

29athrowaway 9mo ago

Europe is not the military power that once was at the beginning of the 20th century... aging populations, economic decline, trade deficits, their former colonies are now independent, they haven't waged war in a while.

mdhb 9mo ago
Seems extremely telling that you would phrase things that way.
- 29athrowaway 9mo ago
  In the 19th and 20th centuries, a European power could prevail in India, China, Japan, etc. And in the 21st century? not so much. It is a different world now. Europe is powerful but the Royal Navy couldn't go today to Hong Kong and seize control of it for example. And military power influences diplomacy.
  - jonathanstrange 9mo ago
    > And military power influences diplomacy. Negatively. That has always been the problem of the US, it's the reason why they cannot act like the most of the rest of the world. The military has way too much influence on decision making.
    - kelipso 9mo ago
      That’s just the reality of it. The GDP of Russia and Canada is about the same but nobody cares about Canada from a geopolitical context because it has an irrelevant military.
    - 29athrowaway 9mo ago
      Just watch one of the sessions of the UN general assembly. There are many speeches about fixing all kinds of situations. If the best ideas were implemented we would be in a utopia with flying cars, free ponies for everyone and open bar. But we don't live in such world because if one motion somehow makes one of the countries with veto power uncomfortable, they will just veto the resolution and that's the end of it. And countries with veto power are backed by military power. That's the world we live in and it has always been like that. And things work like this at every level in every organization. For example people in your line of reporting at work can veto any decision you make unless you are protected by law, which is an entity that can shut down your company by force.

vintermann 9mo ago

No, they wouldn't. Not if they're the Democrats as we know them. They fight tooth and claw against the new normal, until it's the new normal, and then they fight tooth and claw to defend the new normal. There's very little principled opposition to Trump in the corridors of power. There's plenty of opposition, but it's more about which horses have been bet on.

pqtyw 9mo ago

ICC is a joke though. It can only accomplish anything if the home country of the perpetrator is cooperating. Those allies also have much politically important economic and geopolitical concerns than prosecuting war criminals (unfortunately only small minorities in western countries care about things like that at all)