SllX

16 ms·

241.
by SllX 1y ago
Just to add to your point, Germany’s Chancellor Merz has also extended an invitation to Netanyahu: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/election-winner-merz-in... Hungary though technically still a party, is withd
242.
by SllX 1y ago
It won’t even come to that because the real truth is that no ICC member is ever going to arrest and extradite to the ICC a sitting or former POTUS putting us in a position where the Marine Corps. would have to roll into The Hague with a car
243.
by SllX 1y ago
My position is that the ICC should not even exist, but if it is going to exist, then America should safeguard itself and its allies from it. If you look at the real history of the ICC, it’s effectively toothless over any nation that can saf
244.
by SllX 1y ago
Well let me put it this way, I’m under no illusions that foreign nations will always attempt to exert their influence over American affairs. The only obligations we maintain with other nations are the ones we committed ourselves to, and yes
245.
by SllX 1y ago
We’re only talking about today, bruh. There’s no sense worrying about a tomorrow that may never come, but I’m willing to bet that 10 years from now we still have the strongest military in and around The Hague and even beyond, very very few
246.
by SllX 1y ago
All I’ll say is the President’s pardon power either needs to die, or be massively rethought. I’m not a fan lately.
247.
by SllX 1y ago
Given we’re not party to the ICC, we maintain a permanent seat on the UNSC, and nobody within striking distance of The Hague is willing to back you up on this, it is decidedly not appropriate.
248.
by SllX 1y ago
Frankly that is our problem to worry about.
249.
by SllX 1y ago
We also elect the leaders that make those decisions and form the parties that nominate leaders to choose from. The winners of those elections get to choose the direction to lead.
250.
by SllX 1y ago
I would have thought calling out the repulsiveness of the Holocaust and the health and wellbeing of a continued German-state would have been the moral justifications, but okay, sure. > and the same is true of US leaders. The thing is, th
251.
by SllX 1y ago
I’m sure you want to try and catch me in an act of hypocrisy but I think I’ve been clear throughout this thread. So let me put it to you this way, if the Chilean President had the power of the POTUS backed up by a military equivalent to or
252.
by SllX 1y ago
I thought I was clear on this, but I guess not: it was entirely appropriate. They lost so thoroughly and the Holocaust was so repulsive that it was arguably necessary . Germany itself was also in such a precarious position that the continu
253.
by SllX 1y ago
The US electing to ignore the ICC’s activities with regards to ourselves or our allies is functionally the same actively allowing their activities.
254.
by SllX 1y ago
Sure, but we’re going to interpret the arrest of a sitting or former POTUS, their direct subordinates or military personnel for the purposes of trying them in the ICC as a political act, not an act to maintain law and order in their home co
255.
by SllX 1y ago
Put another way, we defend American interests.
256.
by SllX 1y ago
Germany also lost the war. Their highest ranking officials and military were not in a position to prevent it; moreover I’m pretty okay with having applied the winner’s justice over Nazi Germany. Put us in the position where we can’t say “
257.
by SllX 1y ago
We have the Uniform Code of Military Justice for military personnel, and on paper, a Congress to hold the President accountable, although that obviously needs to be beefed up because the results lately have been unsatisfactory. It does not
258.
by SllX 1y ago
It’s not appropriate for an international court that we’re not even a part of to put our Presidents and their subordinates on trial, nor is it something we should meekly concede to.
259.
by SllX 1y ago
I’m a generally pro-Tree person but I do caution against this gung-ho sentiment because it tends to lead people down the path of 1) seeing a forest as just the trees and 2) seeing it as a single species of tree, because that’s how you get m
260.
by SllX 1y ago
No. I don’t care what their corporate structure is. I just don’t get attached.
261.
by SllX 1y ago
I mean I'm fine with them as they are now, corporate-structure-wise. What happens if Kagi starts to suck? I stop paying for it and move on with my life, so rather than worrying about what could happen, I'll just enjoy it for what
262.
by SllX 1y ago
Two things: 1) I did not say the ICC was illegitimate. 2) The difference between the ICC and a nation’s own court system is the Rome Statute which defines the ICC’s jurisdiction and competencies.
263.
by SllX 1y ago
> The ICC is best understood as a consortium of soverign states. More accurately, it’s a treaty organization that relies on the sovereignty of its signatory nations to assert its claim of legitimacy. > This is kind of an odd distincti
264.
by SllX 1y ago
> A foreign court holding a trial for an american citizen accused of commiting a crime in a foreign place is definitely not a valid excuse to invade someone under international law. This isn’t a Dutch district court in The Hague trying o
265.
by SllX 1y ago
There is always an argument for that from each country’s, treaty organization’s, and corporation’s perspective: what are we relying on and what laws is it subject to? That cuts across both sides of the Atlantic. All I’m doing though is poin
266.
by SllX 1y ago
I would actually pay money to see that happen, should the opportunity arise. Jokes aside though, remember that the prior commentator brought in the American Service-Members Protection Act as a weird form of whataboutism. Bringing that up do
267.
by SllX 1y ago
Call me when we’ve invaded The Hague or when someone else invades New York. An international institution that claims members from Asia, Africa and across the Americas doesn’t become a European institution just because America left the room.
268.
by SllX 1y ago
It does matter, even excluding America, Russia and the PRC, none of which are signatories, as well as the other non-members: the world is a big place. The ICC has many signatories across the Americas, Asia, Africa and the Pacific. An intern
269.
by SllX 1y ago
Well, I’m not a fan of analogies, but kind of, but in addition to asking them to sign up, all the biggest companies with the highest valuations got to sit it out, but retained powers to impose it on smaller companies that aren’t friends of
270.
by SllX 1y ago
> ally Keep the chocolate separate from the artificial sweeteners. Whatever our deal is with the EU and individual European countries, the ICC is emphatically not an EU nor even a European court. They’re hosted in The Hague, it is not

More ›