4 ms·
US announces new sanctions on top ICC figures
- java-man 2mo agoThe criminals are running the show.
- willio58 2mo ago> Those sanctions were issued in retaliation for ICC investigations into US personnel in Afghanistan and for warrants the court issued against top Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for alleged war crimes in Gaza. Oh no! An international body is taking action against some of the worst criminals on the planet? I'm glad the U.S. is taking actions to prevent those people from doing their job. America is doing great!
- busterarm 2mo agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1d097g2/which_countries_accept_the_international_criminal/#lightbox https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1d097g2/which_coun... The US withdrew its signature all the way back in 2002, the same year the ICC came into being. It's only "their job" where they have jurisdiction. This is like Ofcom trying to require overseas companies/providers to enforce the Online Safety Act. The ICC doesn't even automatically have jurisdiction of signatory nations either -- it's only when that nation fails to actively pursue prosecutions in their own courts.
- bigcat12345678 2mo agoSince when US requires "jurisdiction" for it's actions?
- busterarm 2mo agoNice whataboutism. All UN member states are de facto part of the ICJ. If you have a valid claim against a nation, the proper place to pursue that is the ICJ. Hate what the US and Israel are doing or not, what the ICC is doing here is entirely political posturing and theater.
- estearum 2mo agoThink the ICC is engaged in political posturing and theater all you want, sanctions are not an appropriate tool
- busterarm 2mo agoThey aren't? The US government has authority over its borders and assets within them. This is an action that is perfectly legal and enabled by acts of Congress. It actually has real teeth. I don't necessarily agree with it either but what do you expect to happen in response to the ICC's action. The ICC is trying to set a precedent that the US views as against its interests. Go ahead and poke the bear.
- estearum 2mo agoThe question isn't whether the US government has power to sanction people, it's whether the Executive has the authority to use that power for this purpose against these entities. "The bear" (rah rah, bro) is governed by laws. These sanctions are allegedly authorized under e.g. IEEPA and the National Emergencies Act. What's the emergency? Assume that's valid, then what powers are made available to the President in response to that emergency? It's absolutely not clear at all that this action is "perfectly legal and enabled by acts of Congress." This admin's last broad interpretation of IEEPA-originating powers was already struck down by SCOTUS.
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo agoThis admin's last broad interpretation involved doing things that had never before been done under IEEPA. Prohibiting Americans from doing business with designated people based on executive fiat has been an extremely common use of IEEPA for decades, and multiple such long-standing emergencies have nothing to do with a concrete threat to the United States. The status quo is very dumb, don't get me wrong, but I don't think there's a lack of clarity about what it is.
- 2mo ago
- Kim_Bruning 2mo agoICC has jurisdiction in the signatory countries themselves.
- atoav 2mo agoWell many of the countries where the war crimes happened are signatories to the ICC, so that isn't gonna be the problem you think it is. Also: the US acting as a rouge state is not a power move it is a sign of moral decay, corruption and a critical failure to uphold the principles laid out in its own (wonderfully written!) Declaration of Independence. It is just sad to see how hollowed out these great ideals have become.
- lovich 2mo agoPrefacing that I disagree heavily with the US actions under this admin and a lot with previous admins. These ideals were always hollow. There is no law between sovereign entities, only martial might and political game theory tactics. It’s why the EU struggles so heavily with tighter integration. None of those sovereign states who are members want to give up the ability to do what they want and be subordinate to another power.
- boomskats 2mo ago> The US withdrew its signature all the way back in 2002. Yeah, I guess international law was rather incompatible with their ambitions at the time. Fair play to them though, they certainly made the most of it.
- YZF 2mo ago[flagged]
- boomskats 2mo agoI'm really sorry but I've read this comment 3 times now and I still can't make sense of it
- solid_fuel 2mo agoThey're just mad that the ICC has called out Israel for their war crimes, and they're trying to twist logic in a way that makes that stance less reprehensible. It's motivated reasoning.
- dang 2mo agoOfftopic, but can you please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49364695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49364695? It's important and I don't want you to miss it.
- muvlon 2mo agoICC and ICJ have different roles. The ICJ's subjects are countries whereas the ICC deals with individuals. In this case, the ICC has jurisdiction because the alleged crimes were committed in the territory of a signatory (Palestine) and because Palestine indeed found itself unable to prosecute them.
- YZF 2mo ago[flagged]
- throw310822 2mo ago> It has no official borders. Neither does Israel, btw.
- bulbar 2mo agoPretty sure Israel maintains a stable and official border. Just try to enter by car, you will realize there's a border.
- ASalazarMX 2mo agoI think they meant Israel keeps changing their borders by taking other countries' territories by force.
- throw310822 2mo agoNo I meant exactly what I wrote, that Israel does not have official borders. In the example of the comment you replied to, if you try to cross any number of unofficial, illegal, and moveable borders in the vicinity of Israel, Israel might or might not shoot you, depending on who you are, who they think you are, and the mood of the day. Why? Because if they said what their border are, they would be already implicitly renouncing to anything outside them, or at least recognising that they don't have a right to it. Why set limits to your ambition?
- 762236 2mo agoThis mentality is exactly why the US is doing this. You've already condemned people without access to any good evidence. Besides, US defense requires the ability to do everything Israel did against Gaza.
- wyre 2mo agoWhat are you trying to say? Are you implying there is no good evidence that Netenyahu is committing war crimes in Gaza? Whether or not their actions are justified, war crimes are not.
- willio58 2mo ago> You've already condemned people without access to any good evidence. And the live-streamed genocide that the world has watched over the past 3 years doesn't qualify as evidence? That's odd because I could have sworn the United Nations, The International Association of Genocide Scholars, B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, and Human Rights Watch had all labeled Israel's actions against Palestinians as genocide. America's evidence against that? Israel says so. > US defense requires the ability to do everything Israel did against Gaza Since when does defence require killing innocent women and children indiscriminately? At what point does that sort of defence reach a level of inhumanity that you're willing to concede that it's genocidal? As a Jewish man following true Jewish morals, I will stand by the statements of these international bodies that find Israel and its leaders guilty of committing genocide. Never again cannot mean only for jews; it can only be morally just when applied to everyone.
- 762236 2mo agoThis is exactly what I mean: you take what the news reports as evidence, when the news is hearsay. Courts don't run off of hearsay. I know quite a bit of what actually happened, and it doesn't match what you're saying. You've bypassed epistemology and gone to condemnation.
- NDlurker 2mo agoDisgusting
- smashah 2mo ago[flagged]
- layla5alive 2mo agohttps://archive.ph/kYj3F https://archive.ph/kYj3F
- sschueller 2mo agoWell the rest of the world will dismantle the US hegemony "brick by brick". Not because they want to but because they have to. It may take decades but trust has been lost. The US can't be trusted at any level and investments will adjust to this level like any other unstable state. Research, investments and talents are all avoiding the US. AI won't save the US economy either as there is no moat as we can all see.
- smashah 2mo agoD.C is controlled by enemies to humanity and freedom. They openly plan on enslaving the rest of the world to secure their hegemony.
- lenerdenator 2mo agoThere will be another one. I hope you like the CCP's vision of the future.
- orwin 2mo agoI'd rather have no overlord, but between China and the US, the one abusing its power to force deals since the 80s us obviously the worst.
- throw-the-towel 2mo agoI was going to say you're probably not going to like the Chinese take on the surveillance state. Then I remembered Flock exists. Can't have shit in this era :(
- lenerdenator 2mo agoThe Flock that's currently the subject of massive public scrutiny and vandalism campaigns? How many of the cameras operated by the state security apparatus of the CCP do you reckon are shot, cut down, spray painted, stolen, or otherwise made ineffective on a weekly basis?
- 2mo ago
- layla5alive 2mo ago"US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced sanctions against the president and a senior lawyer of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The move is the Trump administration's latest escalation in its campaign to "dismantle" the court which is empowered by more than 120 member countries to investigate war crimes." The Trump administration is saying the quiet part out loud: they are pro war crimes.
- jacquesm 2mo agoThere was little doubt after the last 24 months. Even if it wasn't with words they did plenty of deeds that confirmed that.
- scoofy 2mo agoThe relationship between the ICC and the "great powers" is an interesting one. It sort of separates the normal alliances of "west" and "non-west" alliances, and reshapes them into powerful and non-powerful. And it seems this conflict is ongoing. Apart from Europe, the number large, powerful non-signatory countries is pretty significant: US, China, India, Russia, Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, and more. I've always thought it is interesting that the concept of international law is by definition in conflict with the de facto anarchy of international relations. I've always had mixed opinions on the topic, simply because you can look at an institution like the UN, and see that it functions much more successfully as a simple forum than a deliberative body. The idea that somehow we are going to implement something as difficult as a criminal court on an international basis seems... very idealistic. A court like this always seems sensible at first glance, but I'm not sure it can really exist effectively at all over any serious time horizon.
- Barrin92 2mo ago>interesting that the concept of international law is by definition in conflict of the anarchy of real Realpolitik not 'by definition'. There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries. For one because you don't know when you'll cease to be powerful, which will happen given enough time and secondly because even smaller players can cause significant damage when acting without constraint, a lesson several great powers are currently learning for the umpteenth time. It's very meathead schoolyard bully coded to think that anarchy benefits you just because you happen to be the biggest dude around. It speaks more to the intellect of current leaders than it does to some fundamental contradiction.
- scoofy 2mo agoI've updated the language there a bit, but the meaning is the same. >There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term benefit of powerful countries. Yes, but it doesn't matter. The entire concept of truly sovereign states existing is the point. The second a state wants to leave the agreement, they just stop cooperating. There is no "greater sovereign" with which you can enforce these rules, and if there is -- say, a bigger country invading a smaller country to enforce the rules -- you're once again in a state of war, and none of the rules mattered in the first place.
- atoav 2mo agoAs a European I would want my goverent to summon the US embassador and declare them a persona non grata over this. Then as a next step to work on sanction the US on an EU level like the rouge state it is.
- vinni2 2mo agoWho wouldn’t want to do this. Unfortunately the EU is dependent on US economy and defence. The EU doesn’t dare. For the same reasons they also swallow shaking hands with rogue states like China and Saudi Arabia.
- ratelimitsteve 2mo agoNo one is gonna come out and say "we're fascists who commit war crimes" but they spend a lot of time, money and effort fighting against antifascists and people who try to prevent war crimes. The purpose of a thing is what it does.
- pavlov 2mo agoEverybody in the Trump administration has come out and said that. We’re just so jaded that it doesn’t even register. Hegseth tells his “warfighters” that they must ignore the Geneva convention. The president goes on social media and threatens the destruction of civilian populations (“an entire civilization will die tonight”) as well as civilian infrastructure (bridges, power plants).
- estearum 2mo agoHegseth himself literally committed a war crime already. Simply declaring no quarter is itself a war crime. On the other hand, it makes both the current SecDef and any 14 year old COD player feel REALLY badass. Giving your own personnel or enemy personnel the impression you are pursuing a policy of no quarter is itself a war crime.
- bhouston 2mo agoThere is currently not a SINGLE American citizen under indictment, investigation, or facing an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC). The one case tied to US soldiers in Afghanistan was ended. So why is the US doing this with such intensity right now? ( My question was rhetorical, you can see in the initial ICC sanctions from the Whitehouse it was all about Israel + Netanyahu: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/#:~:text=The%20ICC%20has,Defense%20Yoav%20Gallant https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/impo... )
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- apercu 2mo ago[flagged]
- mhurron 2mo agoThis is because of the US's unwavering support of Israel no matter what they do. You can not blame all of the worlds ills on Russia, seemingly the most powerful and least capable nation at the same time.
- blooalien 2mo ago> ... Russia, seemingly the most powerful and least capable nation at the same time. Trump and his cult are working very hard to wrest this title from Russia as quickly as possible.
- EdwardDiego 2mo agoWhy not both? Seriously. The USA's current leadership cabal certainly appears to be dancing to the tune of several corrupt world leaders. Even when they contradict each other. Trump is threatening to bomb Oman? Trump is talking smack on South Korea and cuddling up to North Korea again?
- elzbardico 2mo ago
- redsocksfan45 2mo ago[dead]
- neom 2mo agoAbout a year ago CBCs "About That" show did a 10min segment on the history of the US objections/support regarding the ICC, decent watch if you want a quick recap of the last 24 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBW6DOss67w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBW6DOss67w - Also, to a degree, the ICC is somewhat moot to the US directly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
- miohtama 2mo agoThis is not really US doing it, as they would not care less, but Israel by proxy. ICC has never accused the US of anything.
- jacquesm 2mo agoThe current US administration really doesn't like accountability, and if the judges can't be bought they get mad at them. One day we will be back to normal. I hope I'll be around to see it, the degree to which we are sliding is more than a little bit worrisome.
- petre 2mo ago> Rubio accused the court of being "a corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court that has maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate. Interesting times indeed. The foreign affairs secretary of the most corrupt US administration cries foul of the ICC. > Despite its significant global representation, dozens of governments are not parties to the ICC, including China, India, Israel, Russia, and the United States What a great club to be in, ripe with war crimes and human rights abuses.
- lossolo 2mo agoKhan (ICC prosecutor) said Lindsey Graham (US senator) told him during a May 2024 call: "This court is for Africa and thugs like Putin. It is not for democracies like Israel and the United States of America."
- duxup 2mo agoMy government is just dumb as a box of rocks. It's like they heard of the ICC from a facebook meme and develop policy around that.
- penguin_booze 2mo agoYou know, there could be a world where US sanctions are as priceless as toilet paper rolls. But that needs collective action.