US announces new sanctions on top ICC figures

willio58 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> 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 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

Kim_Bruning 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

ICC has jurisdiction in the signatory countries themselves.

▲

bigcat12345678 8 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Since when US requires "jurisdiction" for it's actions?

	▲	busterarm 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

bhouston 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There 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 Afghanistan was closed without charges.

So why is the US doing this with such intensity right now?

	▲	verytrivial a minute ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[delayed]
	▲	apercu a minute ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Because Russia likes a de-stabilized world and the current admin is almost a Russian puppet?

▲

scoofy 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The 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, Russia, India, 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 5 minutes ago | parent [-]

>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 a minute ago \| parent [-]
		I'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 sovereign states existing is the point. The second a state wants to leave the agreement, they just stop cooperating. There is no sovereign with which you can enforce these rules, and if there is -- say, a bigger country invading a smaller country -- you're once again in a state of war, and none of the rules mattered in the first place.

▲

sschueller 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well the rest of the world will dismantle the US hegemony "brick by brick". It may take decades but trust has been lost.

Research, investments and talents are all avoidingtä the US. AI won't save the US economy either as there is no moat as we can all see.

	▲	smashah 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		D.C is controlled by enemies to humanity and freedom. They openly plan on enslaving the rest of the world to secure their hegemony.

▲

layla5alive 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"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.

▲

layla5alive 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://archive.ph/kYj3F

▲

atoav 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As 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.

▲

java-man 13 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The criminals are running the show.

▲

ratelimitsteve 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No 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 a minute ago \| parent [-]
		Everybody 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).

▲

NDlurker 18 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Disgusting