Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
For US News, see the US News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
If the ICC has no jurisdiction, why are they all worried about the investigation? Let them do their thing, then just nod and say "OK" afterwards.
Also, I love how the US refuses to allow itself or certain close allies to be held responsible for war crimes. At least we can criticize our own government though, could be a lot worse I suppose. Still, maybe don't do those? That'd be great.
I don't understand who the US is trying to convince with their anti-genocide statements when all their actions indicate their full fledged and willing participation in it.
At this point, the US has a big role in so many post-wwii genocides that it's almost as if they enjoy killing off large populations like a psychopathic serial killer.
@mozz That in no way resembles the reaction of a guilty party </s>
Threatening the court is always what innocent people do. It's a totally normal way of standing up and being vigorous in defense of their innocence.
I was interested in a bit more context and read up on Wikipedia - International Criminal Court.
Both Israel and the US had signed but withdrew from the treaty. A treaty followed by 155 states.
Other states not part of it are Burundi, China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, Philippines, Russia, Yemen.
Potentially valid criticisms of the organ aside, when you’re in that kind of company… and under investigation…
As of February 2024, 124 states are parties to the Statute of the Court, including all the countries of South America, nearly all of Europe, most of Oceania and roughly half of Africa. […] A further 31 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.
The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the U.S., and Yemen.
Four signatory states—Israel in 2002, the United States on 6 May 2002, Sudan on 26 August 2008, and Russia on 30 November 2016—have informed the UN Secretary General that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the Statute.
I am also surprised the US had already put sanctions on individuals who are part of the ICC in 2020.
Which doesn't even seem useful, reasonable, or effective but only retaliatory to me. It's not like those individuals would abduct people on US soil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#United_States_government
On 11 June 2020, Mike Pompeo and U.S. President Donald Trump announced sanctions on officials and employees, as well as their families, involved in investigating alleged crimes against humanity committed by U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan. This move was widely criticized by human rights groups.
Yeah. The ICC and ICJ are very different.
The ICJ is basically just a fact-finding body, to inform actions that nations might want to take with their police or military or just to make things plain with proof in a hard-to-argue-with way. It's a good thing, but because it's mostly toothless on its own, people leave it alone.
The ICC has a lot more bite behind it. An ICC arrest warrant means any signatory country is obligated to take the subject into custody if they set foot in the country. It's well up far enough into the "might makes right" territory of world politics that it's not real clear what would happen if they issued a warrant for Netanyahu, but it's clearly enough of a big deal that people on the pro-war-criminal side are worried about it. And there's precedent; people as big as Henry Kissinger have been grabbed and hauled in front of a judge in the past so it's not like being a US friend is a get out of jail free card.
The US was taking steps towards agreeing to the ICC until Bush 2 got into office and killed the whole thing. If you want a fascinating story about the whole thing, watch "Prosecuting Evil" (mostly about Nuremberg but deals with the ICC at the end). In it, Robert McNamara (!) calls up Ben Ferencz and says he wants to throw his support behind the ICC.
Ferencz sort of gets shocked and says, I don't think that's a good idea for you. If this thing goes through you might be on the short list of people they go after for what you did in Vietnam.
McNamara says yeah. That's why I want to do it. All those things I did, I never would have done if I knew it was illegal. I think we should have laws for these things. So if I can make it happen I want to.
And there's a little bit of silence, and Ferencz says okay then. If you're sure, then I'd be glad of the help.
Since the US is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, what exactly do these clowns think they can accomplish? Make it difficult for international war crimes investigators to visit a country that they have no interest in visiting in the first place?
They want to loudly show their support for the master race and their leader.
Which Congress?