4 ms·

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.

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
        SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
        The Secretary of State imposed well-understood restrictions on two well-identified people, so there's no vagueness. The underlying executive order authorizing these sanctions was based on specific concerns about the actions of the ICC, including specific arrest warrants against government officials of a country the president believes is a close American ally. So it's not arbitrary and capricious. Again, I emphasize that whether US law authorizes doing this does not at all answer the question of whether it's a good idea. In a healthy country, Trump would be impeached on the spot for trying to pick this fight, because even people who don't like the ICC would fear discrediting their ideology. But there's no question under US law that these sanctions are valid.
  - etc-hosts 1mo ago
    Since the US for now controls the non BRICS financial system, any individual we Sanction loses all access to any money they have stored with entities that use computers.

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
      - SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
        The Secretary of State imposed well-understood restrictions on two well-identified people, so there's no vagueness. The underlying executive order authorizing these sanctions was based on specific concerns about the actions of the ICC, including specific arrest warrants against government officials of a country the president believes is a close American ally. So it's not arbitrary and capricious. Again, I emphasize that whether US law authorizes doing this does not at all answer the question of whether it's a good idea. In a healthy country, Trump would be impeached on the spot for trying to pick this fight, because even people who don't like the ICC would fear discrediting their ideology. But there's no question under US law that these sanctions are valid.
- etc-hosts 1mo ago
  Since the US for now controls the non BRICS financial system, any individual we Sanction loses all access to any money they have stored with entities that use computers.