> 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!
This mentality is exactly why the US is doing this. You've already condemned people without access to any good evidence. Besides, US defense requires the ability to do everything Israel did against Gaza.
What are you trying to say? Are you implying there is no good evidence that Netenyahu is committing war crimes in Gaza? Whether or not their actions are justified, war crimes are not.
> You've already condemned people without access to any good evidence.
And the live-streamed genocide that the world has watched over the past 3 years doesn't qualify as evidence? That's odd because I could have sworn the United Nations, The International Association of Genocide Scholars, B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, and Human Rights Watch had all labeled Israel's actions against Palestinians as genocide.
This is exactly what I mean: you take what the news reports as evidence, when the news is hearsay. Courts don't run off of hearsay. I know quite a bit of what actually happened, and it doesn't match what you're saying. You've bypassed epistemology and gone to condemnation.
People in the comments here would be held to more account than these babyblood drinking child genociders currently occupying this government. The West has set up a system where these baby killers are actually rewarded for harvesting the blood of tens of thousands of babies.
I was going to say you're probably not going to like the Chinese take on the surveillance state. Then I remembered Flock exists. Can't have shit in this era :(
The Flock that's currently the subject of massive public scrutiny and vandalism campaigns?
How many of the cameras operated by the state security apparatus of the CCP do you reckon are shot, cut down, spray painted, stolen, or otherwise made ineffective on a weekly basis?
If faced with two genocidal villains who see a nearby sovereign territory as theirs really even if the locals need to be reminded of this with guns, I'd rather have the competent one who sees the interest of the people collectively as important.
I don't have to think either isn't "abusing its power to force deals".
> I'd rather have the competent one who sees the interest of the people collectively as important.
If this is meant to be in reference to China, the problem is, you cannot truly ascertain competence given the current regime. It's totalitarian. Everything within the state, nothing without it. The flow of information in and out of the country, and within it, is heavily controlled with a hope of increasing positive perception of the nation abroad. Otherwise, totalitarian control cannot be maintained, as this introduces something outside of the state.
This contrasts with the United States, where the flow of information is relatively uncontrolled and people will regularly bring up the ways that things are handled incompetently in the national dialog. Sometimes, they even do this when no such incompetence exists.
However, I can look at broad indicators, many of which are easy to investigate from the outside.
When e.g. people suggest that China is having "economic problems" and growth is "slowing", over the last 30 years the Chinese idea of "normal" (5-8%) is the USA's idea of "extraordinary".
(I'd describe them as heavily authoritarian, but not quite as far as "totalitarian", though I accept the exact boundary is a somewhat fuzzy and subjective one and that it is not unreasonable to paint the line on either side of where China is today).
> When e.g. people suggest that China is having "economic problems" and growth is "slowing", over the last 30 years the Chinese idea of "normal" (5-8%) is the USA's idea of "extraordinary".
It's all relative. It's easier to make five cents out of one dollar than it is five dollars out of one hundred dollars.
Furthermore, you might wish to enquire why, exactly, you see the growth rates you do in China, and whether that makes it a good broad indicator from the outside.
What made the PRC so attractive to development over the last 30-40 years? India also has a large workforce and a low cost of labor, and Eastern Europe instituted market reforms similar to those that China undertook at around the same time, yet neither were the darlings of those who wanted to export manufacturing jobs from the West to cheaper markets.
The answer likely involves, at least in part, the fact that China doesn't allow for people to exercise their innate human right to organize. India is a democratic republic, and most Eastern European countries were transitioning to democratic republicanism around the time that their market reforms were enacted, same time as China did their market reforms. People in a democratic republic can do things like form labor unions, petition to block the construction of factories in sensitive areas, and do other things that reduce capital's ability to transfer value as profit.
These things regularly happen to some extent in Eastern Europe, India, and the US. We saw what happened when people in China wanted more say in their government in 1989, as did business leaders. If cutting manufacturing costs meant some student got crushed by a main battle tank for wanting the right to cast a ballot or run contrary to the Party's platform, so it was.
> the one abusing its power to force deals since the 80s us obviously the worst.
Agreed. China's behavior towards its own people, its neighbors - Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and India - and the international community as a whole since Dengism took hold have been inexcusable, no matter how much cheap manufacturing they're able to pull off.
They've blatantly enabled the totalitarian DPRK in its quest to defy UN sanctions over its nuclear program, and have violated the sovereignty of their neighbors in the South China Sea. Now they're undercutting manufacturing around the world by producing goods without the consideration of environmental concerns that places like the EU and US try to take into account with their own industrial development. PLA hackers have attacked numerous international targets. PRC agents have worked to abduct Chinese citizens exercising their basic human rights to free thought abroad through a system of secret police stations.
All of this since they ran over protestors with main battle tanks in 1989.
What's truly frightening is that the powerful in the rest of the world seem to want to emulate this sort of behavior, particularly totalitarian control of their own populations.
"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.
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.
The concept of international law outside of its jurisdiction is just a rebranded form of imperialism. How’s it different to a US Federal court deciding it has jurisdiction in Canada?
Especially as ultimately the only way to actually enforce any law is with violence (without which a court is impotent and its laws meaningless).
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.
Who wouldn’t want to do this. Unfortunately the EU is dependent on US economy and defence. The EU doesn’t dare. For the same reasons they also swallow shaking hands with rogue states like China and Saudi Arabia.
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.
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?
It’s a preemptive attack to prevent accountability for Trump and Hegseth under the next presidency. All of those extrajudicial boat attacks that have been justified by claiming they were smuggling drugs (cocaine imports to the US haven’t dropped at all, BTW) are likely unjustified murders.
This administration attacks any body or authority that has the power to hold them accountable. See: attacks on the judiciary, attacks on the media, attacks on academia, etc.
I dont thimk they are that rational and planning ahead. It is reflection of their values and feelings.
It is ideological. Both of them and their close rich supporters feel ICC goals are abomination on itself, they put limits on power and they are therefore "bad" and "tyranny".
Hegseth dont plan. As evidenced by Iran war daily. Trump dont plan legal issues. They dont exist in his head at all.
I think Trump just wants to be able to play golf at his courses in Scotland without being arrested for his decisions to arbitrarily make war however he wants. I honestly think it's that simple. He is a simple man.
I mean, obviously it’s because of the Netanyahu thing plus Trump is probably gonna be on there once he is done plus and I think this is a big one, Putin doesn’t want it around.
NOw? Who knows. But it's never been signed or approved in the USA, because it's never been popular enough.
But look at it more simplistically - A European court has decided that it has jurisdiction over the United States, and the highest court in the United States, without the United States actually agreeing to it in a treaty.
About a year ago CBCs "About That" show did a 10min segment on the history of the US objections/support regarding the ICC, decent watch if you want a quick recap of the last 24 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBW6DOss67w
The current US administration really doesn't like accountability, and if the judges can't be bought they get mad at them. One day we will be back to normal. I hope I'll be around to see it, the degree to which we are sliding is more than a little bit worrisome.
> Rubio accused the court of being "a corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court that has maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate.
Interesting times indeed. The foreign affairs secretary of the most corrupt US administration cries foul of the ICC.
46 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 46.9 ms ] threadOh 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!
And the live-streamed genocide that the world has watched over the past 3 years doesn't qualify as evidence? That's odd because I could have sworn the United Nations, The International Association of Genocide Scholars, B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, and Human Rights Watch had all labeled Israel's actions against Palestinians as genocide.
America's evidence against that? Israel says so.
Sick sick sick world.
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.
How many of the cameras operated by the state security apparatus of the CCP do you reckon are shot, cut down, spray painted, stolen, or otherwise made ineffective on a weekly basis?
I don't have to think either isn't "abusing its power to force deals".
If this is meant to be in reference to China, the problem is, you cannot truly ascertain competence given the current regime. It's totalitarian. Everything within the state, nothing without it. The flow of information in and out of the country, and within it, is heavily controlled with a hope of increasing positive perception of the nation abroad. Otherwise, totalitarian control cannot be maintained, as this introduces something outside of the state.
This contrasts with the United States, where the flow of information is relatively uncontrolled and people will regularly bring up the ways that things are handled incompetently in the national dialog. Sometimes, they even do this when no such incompetence exists.
However, I can look at broad indicators, many of which are easy to investigate from the outside.
When e.g. people suggest that China is having "economic problems" and growth is "slowing", over the last 30 years the Chinese idea of "normal" (5-8%) is the USA's idea of "extraordinary".
(I'd describe them as heavily authoritarian, but not quite as far as "totalitarian", though I accept the exact boundary is a somewhat fuzzy and subjective one and that it is not unreasonable to paint the line on either side of where China is today).
It's all relative. It's easier to make five cents out of one dollar than it is five dollars out of one hundred dollars.
Furthermore, you might wish to enquire why, exactly, you see the growth rates you do in China, and whether that makes it a good broad indicator from the outside.
What made the PRC so attractive to development over the last 30-40 years? India also has a large workforce and a low cost of labor, and Eastern Europe instituted market reforms similar to those that China undertook at around the same time, yet neither were the darlings of those who wanted to export manufacturing jobs from the West to cheaper markets.
The answer likely involves, at least in part, the fact that China doesn't allow for people to exercise their innate human right to organize. India is a democratic republic, and most Eastern European countries were transitioning to democratic republicanism around the time that their market reforms were enacted, same time as China did their market reforms. People in a democratic republic can do things like form labor unions, petition to block the construction of factories in sensitive areas, and do other things that reduce capital's ability to transfer value as profit.
These things regularly happen to some extent in Eastern Europe, India, and the US. We saw what happened when people in China wanted more say in their government in 1989, as did business leaders. If cutting manufacturing costs meant some student got crushed by a main battle tank for wanting the right to cast a ballot or run contrary to the Party's platform, so it was.
You have to be careful with the broad indicators.
Unfortunately, that's not how humans work.
> the one abusing its power to force deals since the 80s us obviously the worst.
Agreed. China's behavior towards its own people, its neighbors - Tibet, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and India - and the international community as a whole since Dengism took hold have been inexcusable, no matter how much cheap manufacturing they're able to pull off.
They've blatantly enabled the totalitarian DPRK in its quest to defy UN sanctions over its nuclear program, and have violated the sovereignty of their neighbors in the South China Sea. Now they're undercutting manufacturing around the world by producing goods without the consideration of environmental concerns that places like the EU and US try to take into account with their own industrial development. PLA hackers have attacked numerous international targets. PRC agents have worked to abduct Chinese citizens exercising their basic human rights to free thought abroad through a system of secret police stations.
All of this since they ran over protestors with main battle tanks in 1989.
What's truly frightening is that the powerful in the rest of the world seem to want to emulate this sort of behavior, particularly totalitarian control of their own populations.
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.
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.
Especially as ultimately the only way to actually enforce any law is with violence (without which a court is impotent and its laws meaningless).
So why is the US doing this with such intensity right now?
This administration attacks any body or authority that has the power to hold them accountable. See: attacks on the judiciary, attacks on the media, attacks on academia, etc.
It is ideological. Both of them and their close rich supporters feel ICC goals are abomination on itself, they put limits on power and they are therefore "bad" and "tyranny".
Hegseth dont plan. As evidenced by Iran war daily. Trump dont plan legal issues. They dont exist in his head at all.
But look at it more simplistically - A European court has decided that it has jurisdiction over the United States, and the highest court in the United States, without the United States actually agreeing to it in a treaty.
Interesting times indeed. The foreign affairs secretary of the most corrupt US administration cries foul of the ICC.
"This court is for Africa and thugs like Putin. It is not for democracies like Israel and the United States of America."
It's like they heard of the ICC from a facebook meme and develop policy around that.