Trump has a lot of domestic enemies, and not just in politics. Unless he goes all-in and refuses to leave office, it must concern him that some future US president might decide to Milošević him to the ICC - either as score-settling or to simply get him out of the way.

Personally I'd love to see Trump on trial at the ICC. Along with Putin and Netanyahu. And Blair (the former prime minister of my country) and George Bush.

▲

ericmay an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It'll never happen. He is not losing any sleep over this. It's just a fantasy about retribution.

The United States doesn't recognize the ICC. So there's nothing for him to be referred to. If the ICC wants to create a legal case against him, all the US has to do is point at Xi Jingping and is ethnic cleansing programs and ask why they haven't brought a legal case against him and tried to extradite him.

Everyday Americans would not tolerate it. Remember that while many don't like Trump and for good reason - me included - it would be viewed as a violation of American sovereignty which would not be tolerated. I would oppose it myself even though I think he belongs in jail over January 6th. But he'd belong in American jail, tried in our courts, under our legal system.

I also have to add it is always interesting to hear the things people proclaim to care about. I don't think everyday Americans even if they know about this alleged[1] double-tap, really care much or even think about it at all. I know I don't. Has anyone brought a case to the ICC? I know that South American countries referred Maduro to the ICC. :)

[1] It seems clear that it happened, and I'm not disputing that. But I say alleged simply because there has been no prosecution that I'm aware of. If there's a better word choice than alleged I'd be happy to use it, it was just the one that I thought fit the sentence best.

▲

andyjohnson0 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

> The United States doesn't recognize the ICC.

Clearly. And I'm sure you're right about US public sentiment.

I was perhaps trying to make the point that powerful authoritarians like Trump always have to consider future threats because, unless they can stay in power forever, the future is where they are most vulnerable. Eventually they no longer have the energy to keep it going, and someone else is in charge - someone who then has more power than they do, and may not owe them any loyalty.

The usual work-around is dynastic power, but I don't see any signs of that this Trump's case.

> But he'd belong in American jail, tried in our courts, under our legal system.

For January 6th, sure. But the war with Iran, the Venezuela thing - they're international crimes the like of which a non-trivial proportion of the world considers the ICC to have jurisdiction over.

But anyway... if he doesn't die in office he'll realistically be too old to face justice in any court.

	▲	ericmay 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> I was perhaps trying to make the point that powerful authoritarians like Trump He's authoritarian in many respects but he is still constrained by the rule of law. Where he loses legal cases he is forced to follow the law. He may have workarounds or gotchas or try again, but by and large I have yet to see any clear law-breaking violations. There is corruption which I see plain as day, but that's separate from this view of Authoritarianism since you can be corrupt without being an authoritarian. > But the war with Iran, the Venezuela thing - they're international crimes the like of which a non-trivial proportion of the world considers the ICC to have jurisdiction over. This is why the US doesn't recognize the ICC. Neither of these are international crimes. Maduro himself was referred to the ICC by other neighboring countries and there is an alleged sealed indictment by the ICC itself. Should the US have referred the Iranian government to the ICC for funding terrorists in the Middle East? What about violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? What would the ICC do? Did the ICC indict and try to arrest the members of Hamas who killed all those people in 2023? Maybe they did, but what were they going to do about it?

▲

SpicyLemonZest an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm one of Trump's domestic enemies, I think we should imprison him and his minions the instant he's thrown out of the White House, and I'm still not sure it's realistic to send him to the ICC. It would radicalize a lot of people who have wrong but principled objections to it.