5 ms·

> Those sanctions were issued in retaliation for ICC investigations into US personnel in Afghanistan and for warrants the court issued against top Israeli offic

> 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 1mo ago
https://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 1mo ago
  Since when US requires "jurisdiction" for it's actions?
  - busterarm 1mo ago
    Nice 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 1mo ago
      Think the ICC is engaged in political posturing and theater all you want, sanctions are not an appropriate tool
      - busterarm 1mo ago
        They 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 1mo ago
        The 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 1mo ago
        This 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.
        estearum 1mo ago
        It's really not that clear. For example there are specific procedural requirements, enforcement cannot be capricious or arbitrary, they can't be vague, etc etc
- Kim_Bruning 1mo ago
  ICC has jurisdiction in the signatory countries themselves.
- atoav 1mo ago
  Well 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 1mo ago
    Prefacing 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 1mo 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 1mo ago
    [flagged]
    - boomskats 1mo ago
      I'm really sorry but I've read this comment 3 times now and I still can't make sense of it
      - solid_fuel 1mo ago
        They'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 1mo ago
        Offtopic, 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 1mo ago
  ICC 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 1mo ago
    [flagged]
    - throw310822 1mo ago
      > It has no official borders. Neither does Israel, btw.
      - bulbar 1mo ago
        Pretty sure Israel maintains a stable and official border. Just try to enter by car, you will realize there's a border.
        ASalazarMX 1mo ago
        I think they meant Israel keeps changing their borders by taking other countries' territories by force.
        throw310822 1mo ago
        No 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 1mo ago
This 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 1mo ago
  What 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 1mo 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 1mo ago
    This 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.

busterarm 1mo ago

https://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 1mo ago
Since when US requires "jurisdiction" for it's actions?
- busterarm 1mo ago
  Nice 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 1mo ago
    Think the ICC is engaged in political posturing and theater all you want, sanctions are not an appropriate tool
    - busterarm 1mo ago
      They 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 1mo ago
        The 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 1mo ago
        This 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.
        estearum 1mo ago
        It's really not that clear. For example there are specific procedural requirements, enforcement cannot be capricious or arbitrary, they can't be vague, etc etc
Kim_Bruning 1mo ago
ICC has jurisdiction in the signatory countries themselves.
atoav 1mo ago
Well 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 1mo ago
  Prefacing 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 1mo 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 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - boomskats 1mo ago
    I'm really sorry but I've read this comment 3 times now and I still can't make sense of it
    - solid_fuel 1mo ago
      They'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 1mo ago
        Offtopic, 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 1mo ago
ICC 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 1mo ago
  [flagged]
  - throw310822 1mo ago
    > It has no official borders. Neither does Israel, btw.
    - bulbar 1mo ago
      Pretty sure Israel maintains a stable and official border. Just try to enter by car, you will realize there's a border.
      - ASalazarMX 1mo ago
        I think they meant Israel keeps changing their borders by taking other countries' territories by force.
        throw310822 1mo ago
        No 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 1mo ago

This 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 1mo ago
What 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 1mo 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 1mo ago
  This 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.