US sanctions International Criminal Court officials(edition.cnn.com)
edition.cnn.com
US sanctions International Criminal Court officials
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/02/politics/us-icc-sanctions/index.html
159 comments
On the other hand, Afghanistan, where the actions being investigated allegedly took place, is a party. I don't see anything illegitimate about Afghanistan investigating events that took place within its borders, or to delegate that to an international tribunal of which it is a member.
This is a good point and may well be the case, we'd have to look at the exact rules of jurisdiction.
But even if it's true, that's not something that obligates the US to play ball. They don't have any obligations to the Court.
But even if it's true, that's not something that obligates the US to play ball. They don't have any obligations to the Court.
You are equating right with might and dressing this up in pseudo-legalism.
Exactly. The dominant global superpower has no interest in international tribunals, since it has the power to enforce its will directly. They are above the law because they don't need the law as leverage against anybody else.
Joining the ICC has no upside for this country since it simply enforces its will upon the world directly. Why would the empire limit its own ability to commit war crimes for nothing in return? The US government can label any action it disagrees with as terrorism and act unilaterally.
Joining the ICC has no upside for this country since it simply enforces its will upon the world directly. Why would the empire limit its own ability to commit war crimes for nothing in return? The US government can label any action it disagrees with as terrorism and act unilaterally.
I think that's an uncharitable interpretation of what the parent said (they did not pass any judgment for or against the current state of affairs), and there's nothing "pseudo" about it; the US has no legal obligation toward the ICC whatsoever.
For the record, I think the US should be a member of the ICC, but we're not, and the US Congress passed a law many years ago instructing the executive branch to protect US servicemembers from the ICC. That's just the legal reality.
For the record, I think the US should be a member of the ICC, but we're not, and the US Congress passed a law many years ago instructing the executive branch to protect US servicemembers from the ICC. That's just the legal reality.
I am not any kind of lawyer, but here's my interpretation:
The usage of "legal" in this thread is highly misleading: partly erroneous and partly just a red herring. You are right about the USA national law, but that's the red herring part, because it is irrelevant in this international context with sovereign states and the ICC as parties. As far as the ICC is concerned (or rather international law and the treaty, the Rome Statute, which established the ICC) the suspected crimes were committed on party territory (Afghanistan; but also Poland, Romania and Lithuania; the latter three hosted the CIA black sites where prisoners were taken) and the USA government is not willing to prosecute themselves; so the ICC's purpose is to prosecute them.
That's why I called Llimos' position pseudo-legalist. (And also because the ICC is not a "private court" any more than the SCOTUS is a "private court".)
On the other hand, the USA is a sovereign state and its government is presumably in a position to ignore the international tribunal. This is the might part, which some are equating with a legally nonexistent right.
I don't know what exactly makes the USA different in this regard to some other relatively democratic state that finds its military and government under investigation by an international tribunal. It's surely got to do something with USA's might (power the US government is able to project across the world, e.g. sanctions) and worldwide reputation; but I think public opinion within the (democratic) country in conflict with the ICC is also hugely relevant in such cases, thus I'd say the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this, or pass the relevant laws).
For a comparison, I doubt there is currently an European internationally recognized state besides Russia and, maybe, Belarus whose governing politicians would dare defy something like the ICC; and sanctions by any state other than the USA would also carry much less weight.
Taking another look at the top-level comment, another thing that is visible in it apart from fake legalism is the "if it is legal, it is right", or, alternatively, "if it is within my might, it is right" point of view. That, too, is horrible; I guess I just didn't notice it consciously before.
The usage of "legal" in this thread is highly misleading: partly erroneous and partly just a red herring. You are right about the USA national law, but that's the red herring part, because it is irrelevant in this international context with sovereign states and the ICC as parties. As far as the ICC is concerned (or rather international law and the treaty, the Rome Statute, which established the ICC) the suspected crimes were committed on party territory (Afghanistan; but also Poland, Romania and Lithuania; the latter three hosted the CIA black sites where prisoners were taken) and the USA government is not willing to prosecute themselves; so the ICC's purpose is to prosecute them.
That's why I called Llimos' position pseudo-legalist. (And also because the ICC is not a "private court" any more than the SCOTUS is a "private court".)
On the other hand, the USA is a sovereign state and its government is presumably in a position to ignore the international tribunal. This is the might part, which some are equating with a legally nonexistent right.
I don't know what exactly makes the USA different in this regard to some other relatively democratic state that finds its military and government under investigation by an international tribunal. It's surely got to do something with USA's might (power the US government is able to project across the world, e.g. sanctions) and worldwide reputation; but I think public opinion within the (democratic) country in conflict with the ICC is also hugely relevant in such cases, thus I'd say the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this, or pass the relevant laws).
For a comparison, I doubt there is currently an European internationally recognized state besides Russia and, maybe, Belarus whose governing politicians would dare defy something like the ICC; and sanctions by any state other than the USA would also carry much less weight.
Taking another look at the top-level comment, another thing that is visible in it apart from fake legalism is the "if it is legal, it is right", or, alternatively, "if it is within my might, it is right" point of view. That, too, is horrible; I guess I just didn't notice it consciously before.
That's fair; "legality" doesn't really matter much on the international stage. A country can do whatever it wants up to the point where it gets crippled by sanctions, or loses a war.
But I think it's still correct to say that the US is not legally beholden to the ICC, just as any other country not party to the Rome Statute is not. It's a voluntary thing, and there are plenty of countries in the world with less might than the US that are non ICC members. If Rome Statute signatories could just flat-out decide what and what is not legal for everyone, that wouldn't be a great outcome for the concept of sovereignty.
> I'd say the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this, or pass the relevant laws).
I think that's an uncharitable view that paints with a way-too-broad brush. Mine is that US citizens do generally care about these things, but don't trust the idea of a foreign body having oversight in criminal matters. Sure, there almost certainly is some subset that believes that "those terrorists deserve what they get", and believe that due process should go out the window whenever someone utters the magic phrase "national security", and that's shameful.
> the suspected crimes were committed on party territory (Afghanistan; but also Poland, Romania and Lithuania; the latter three hosted the CIA black sites where prisoners were taken)
This is also interesting, though: has the ICC been investigating, and potentially prosecuting individuals in, Poland, Romania, and Lithuania for their part in allowing this stuff to happen on their soil? If not, why not? Seems like it would make sense for them to concentrate where the targets of potential prosecution are actually within their jurisdiction, no?
I agree that "if it is within my might, it is right" is reprehensible, but I don't think that explains the situation fully. I think it's reasonable to disagree with the ICC's implementation, and to want nothing to do with it, even if its intended mission is an honorable one.
But I think it's still correct to say that the US is not legally beholden to the ICC, just as any other country not party to the Rome Statute is not. It's a voluntary thing, and there are plenty of countries in the world with less might than the US that are non ICC members. If Rome Statute signatories could just flat-out decide what and what is not legal for everyone, that wouldn't be a great outcome for the concept of sovereignty.
> I'd say the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this, or pass the relevant laws).
I think that's an uncharitable view that paints with a way-too-broad brush. Mine is that US citizens do generally care about these things, but don't trust the idea of a foreign body having oversight in criminal matters. Sure, there almost certainly is some subset that believes that "those terrorists deserve what they get", and believe that due process should go out the window whenever someone utters the magic phrase "national security", and that's shameful.
> the suspected crimes were committed on party territory (Afghanistan; but also Poland, Romania and Lithuania; the latter three hosted the CIA black sites where prisoners were taken)
This is also interesting, though: has the ICC been investigating, and potentially prosecuting individuals in, Poland, Romania, and Lithuania for their part in allowing this stuff to happen on their soil? If not, why not? Seems like it would make sense for them to concentrate where the targets of potential prosecution are actually within their jurisdiction, no?
I agree that "if it is within my might, it is right" is reprehensible, but I don't think that explains the situation fully. I think it's reasonable to disagree with the ICC's implementation, and to want nothing to do with it, even if its intended mission is an honorable one.
> They don't have any obligations to the Court.
While this is true they certainly also don't have an obligation to attack individuals, who happen to work for the court.
That's just a totally underhanded shit move of a bully and, I strongly suspect, it's red meat for a certain segment of voters.
No matter how you look at it. This move is fucking disgusting.
While this is true they certainly also don't have an obligation to attack individuals, who happen to work for the court.
That's just a totally underhanded shit move of a bully and, I strongly suspect, it's red meat for a certain segment of voters.
No matter how you look at it. This move is fucking disgusting.
Criminals rarely have any obligation to the courts in which they are prosecuted.
So what?
So what?
They do. If they live in a country where the court has jurisdiction, they have obligations. (To show up, to cooperate, etc.) They may choose not to fulfil those obligations, in which case they can be punished (legitimately).
If there's no jurisdiction there's no obligation to start with.
Case in point: China has made it illegal worldwide to criticize what they're doing in Hong Kong[1]. That doesn't mean you have to listen to them if you're in a country that doesn't care.
[1]: https://www.axios.com/china-hong-kong-law-global-activism-ff...
If there's no jurisdiction there's no obligation to start with.
Case in point: China has made it illegal worldwide to criticize what they're doing in Hong Kong[1]. That doesn't mean you have to listen to them if you're in a country that doesn't care.
[1]: https://www.axios.com/china-hong-kong-law-global-activism-ff...
I will disagree. Jurisdiction is in the eye of the beholder. Truth is that nobody has any obligations or anyone or anything, all the courts get their authority by the guns that back them up.
Wouldn't a US citizen still have those obligations if they, for example, had committed crimes in Germany but just happened to fly back to the US before being arrested?
Yes, but only because the US and Germany have an extradition treaty[0]. And even then, I assume the US government could still refuse to extradite for various reasons.
The US has no such treaty with Afghanistan, and is not a party to the ICC.
Whether or not the US should cooperate with the ICC is another matter, but the US has no legal or diplomatic obligation to do so. And in fact the US executive branch is required by US law to actively thwart ICC action against US servicemembers[1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
The US has no such treaty with Afghanistan, and is not a party to the ICC.
Whether or not the US should cooperate with the ICC is another matter, but the US has no legal or diplomatic obligation to do so. And in fact the US executive branch is required by US law to actively thwart ICC action against US servicemembers[1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
Criminals abrogate themselves from that responsibility by committing the crime. Their obligations are no longer relevant until the use of force is applied to make them fulfil that obligation - i.e. they are arrested and prosecuted. It is innocent civilians (i.e. non-criminals) who are fulfilling their responsibility to NOT commit crime - criminals are beyond that point.
America is getting away with its war crimes and crimes against humanity, simply because there isn't a system by which it can have its obligations not to murder millions of people enforced by external force. Yet. That day may change, one can only hope ..
America is getting away with its war crimes and crimes against humanity, simply because there isn't a system by which it can have its obligations not to murder millions of people enforced by external force. Yet. That day may change, one can only hope ..
Nations may of course enforce their own laws while foreign nationals are on in their jurisdiction, but once they are outside that jurisdiction, they are at the mercy of the foreigners' home country for extradition. If that country doesn't care to extradite, they're out of luck (barring extraordinary rendition). Delegating the investigation to an international body doesn't change that (not to mention that the US is not a part of and has been actively hostile toward the ICC).
The fact that the ICC counts many nations as members certainly makes it feel like the US should cooperate on moral/ethical grounds, but it has no legal requirement to do so.
The fact that the ICC counts many nations as members certainly makes it feel like the US should cooperate on moral/ethical grounds, but it has no legal requirement to do so.
At the end there is no real difference between moral and law. Laws are just something people have decided to judge each other by. Laws and jurisdiction are just the implementation, which might change, the specs seem well defined (when it comes to war crimes).
The US had the power to establish before committing war crimes, that it does not want to be investigated (acting lawfully but immorally), while any other criminal would not have the power to plan ahead and could only try to escape justice after having committed a crime (acting immorally and unlawfully).
So what I am saying is: Nobody cares about acting lawfully when it comes to war crimes. Especially not, when you base your dominance on your fantasy of a moral high ground.
The US had the power to establish before committing war crimes, that it does not want to be investigated (acting lawfully but immorally), while any other criminal would not have the power to plan ahead and could only try to escape justice after having committed a crime (acting immorally and unlawfully).
So what I am saying is: Nobody cares about acting lawfully when it comes to war crimes. Especially not, when you base your dominance on your fantasy of a moral high ground.
> At the end there is no real difference between moral and law.
That's demonstrably incorrect, and we're talking about this exact counterexample. You're saying that the US has acted immorally (which I agree with!) while simultaneously saying the US is legally responsible, which it is not. That right there suggests that morality and law are not aligned, and that there is sometimes quite a big difference between the two.
That's demonstrably incorrect, and we're talking about this exact counterexample. You're saying that the US has acted immorally (which I agree with!) while simultaneously saying the US is legally responsible, which it is not. That right there suggests that morality and law are not aligned, and that there is sometimes quite a big difference between the two.
Have you read the rest of my comment and what I wanted to say? Of course there is a difference. I am saying, the difference does not really matter, because "being lawful" does not really matter when it comes to war crimes.
The Nazis acted "lawfully" under their jurisdiction, but because the laws themself were unjust, it is widely recognized that they in fact did not act lawfully and so they have been trialed for it. It's called "legal positivism". The concept means, that there is in fact no difference between "law" and "moral", when it comes to war crimes. Ironically, it was the US, which established that concept.
The Nazis acted "lawfully" under their jurisdiction, but because the laws themself were unjust, it is widely recognized that they in fact did not act lawfully and so they have been trialed for it. It's called "legal positivism". The concept means, that there is in fact no difference between "law" and "moral", when it comes to war crimes. Ironically, it was the US, which established that concept.
I guess I'm just not understanding what the point is, then? Obviously morality and legality are not the same thing; the law can be immoral, and the law can also allow people to do immoral things.
And I absolutely agree that we can say that some countries do things that are entirely consistent with their own laws, that we will nevertheless judge to be immoral. The US is sadly no stranger to this phenomenon.
But again... what's the point? My original comment was simply addressing the legality of the situation. The US has no legal requirement to cooperate with the ICC, and has enough clout on the international stage to maintain that position. When it comes to international relations, "law" isn't the same thing as what it is between a government and its citizens. International "law" can only be enforced either through the consent of those who are party to it, or through economic or military might.
And I absolutely agree that we can say that some countries do things that are entirely consistent with their own laws, that we will nevertheless judge to be immoral. The US is sadly no stranger to this phenomenon.
But again... what's the point? My original comment was simply addressing the legality of the situation. The US has no legal requirement to cooperate with the ICC, and has enough clout on the international stage to maintain that position. When it comes to international relations, "law" isn't the same thing as what it is between a government and its citizens. International "law" can only be enforced either through the consent of those who are party to it, or through economic or military might.
I guess, we are not really disagreeing then. I just wanted to voice the thought that judging your own war crimes under your own jurisdiction and finding out they are legal is kind of a pointless mental excercise. So I am not saying you are wrong, it's more of a: "Yes, true. But so what?"
It's not like you setting up your private court at all. It's more like the UN (the majority of UN member states are also ICC members). It has plenty of legitimacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
Legally, it is like a private court. From the point of view of someone who is not a member, it's the same thing.
Let's take a hypothetical scenario. The majority of UN member states are not democracies. If all of these non-democracies would set up a court, with the legitimacy of 'the majority of UN members', would they automatically have the right to prosecute the other countries?
'Legitimacy' is a moral concept. The legal concept that matters is 'jurisdiction'.
Let's take a hypothetical scenario. The majority of UN member states are not democracies. If all of these non-democracies would set up a court, with the legitimacy of 'the majority of UN members', would they automatically have the right to prosecute the other countries?
'Legitimacy' is a moral concept. The legal concept that matters is 'jurisdiction'.
> Legally, it is like a private court. From the point of view of someone who is not a member, it's the same thing.
The US is not part of the Italian legal system, and yet when CIA officials were in Italy, and committed crimes in Italy, and were convicted by an Italian court for those crimes in absentia, is anyone questioning that?
* https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/europe/05italy.html
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case
The crimes were committed in a country that gave jurisdiction to the court.
> The majority of UN member states are not democracies. If all of these non-democracies would set up a court, with the legitimacy of 'the majority of UN members', would they automatically have the right to prosecute the other countries?
If the prosecuted countries/people committed crimes in the jurisdictions of those non-democracies, yes it would have the right.
The crimes were allegedly occurred in Afghanistan, and the ICC has jurisdiction in Afghanistan because Afghanistan gave it.
> The ICC lacks universal territorial jurisdiction, and may only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
If the alleged crimes happened in Somalia, which is a non-member / non-signatory (AFAICT), then the ICC would have no jurisdiction.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta...
The US is not part of the Italian legal system, and yet when CIA officials were in Italy, and committed crimes in Italy, and were convicted by an Italian court for those crimes in absentia, is anyone questioning that?
* https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/europe/05italy.html
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case
The crimes were committed in a country that gave jurisdiction to the court.
> The majority of UN member states are not democracies. If all of these non-democracies would set up a court, with the legitimacy of 'the majority of UN members', would they automatically have the right to prosecute the other countries?
If the prosecuted countries/people committed crimes in the jurisdictions of those non-democracies, yes it would have the right.
The crimes were allegedly occurred in Afghanistan, and the ICC has jurisdiction in Afghanistan because Afghanistan gave it.
> The ICC lacks universal territorial jurisdiction, and may only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
If the alleged crimes happened in Somalia, which is a non-member / non-signatory (AFAICT), then the ICC would have no jurisdiction.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta...
They may not have the right, but they may have the power.
Also, more than 100 states out of 167 are democracies, so majority of states are democracies.
Also, more than 100 states out of 167 are democracies, so majority of states are democracies.
> more than 100 states out of 167 are democracies,
They're not.
The current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index lists 22 "full democracies", 64 "flawed democracies" and 24 "hybrid regimes".
They're not.
The current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index lists 22 "full democracies", 64 "flawed democracies" and 24 "hybrid regimes".
22+64 = 86
86/167 = 51.5%
86 < 100
less than 100 states are democracies
Whether they are a majority or not is irrelevant to what lazyjones said.
less than 100 states are democracies
Whether they are a majority or not is irrelevant to what lazyjones said.
Hybrid regimes are defined as "Hybrid regimes are nations with regular electoral frauds, preventing them from being fair and free democracies.", so they ARE democracies with regular electoral frauds.
86 + 24 = 110 > 100
More than 100 states are democracies.
86 + 24 = 110 > 100
More than 100 states are democracies.
Democracies like… for example Belarus?
I can't think of a single real democracy that isn't deeply flawed except for Switzerland.
I can't think of a single real democracy that isn't deeply flawed except for Switzerland.
What is so special about Switzerland then? How is it so much better than say NZ?
It's the only direct democracy in the world, where the people really vote on issues instead of on representatives. For example, we don't really have a president. Laws written by parliament are put to quarterly nation-wide ballots.
I get to vote on what I believe is right on every issue, instead of getting tricked by politicians who have positions that they later compromise on.
I get to vote on what I believe is right on every issue, instead of getting tricked by politicians who have positions that they later compromise on.
> For example, we don't really have a president.
This actually nothing to do with being a direct democracy. You still have an executive cabinet selected by (but not responsible to) parliament. It's just that every member of the executive is selected by the parliament, instead of the parliament selecting a leader who picks the rest.
> I get to vote on what I believe is right on every issue, instead of getting tricked by politicians
You can still get tricked by politicians. America has very many citizens-initiated referenda, but it cannot be said to have improved their democratic outcomes.
This actually nothing to do with being a direct democracy. You still have an executive cabinet selected by (but not responsible to) parliament. It's just that every member of the executive is selected by the parliament, instead of the parliament selecting a leader who picks the rest.
> I get to vote on what I believe is right on every issue, instead of getting tricked by politicians
You can still get tricked by politicians. America has very many citizens-initiated referenda, but it cannot be said to have improved their democratic outcomes.
How much legitimacy does the UN Human Rights Commission have? (Hint: Look at the members.)
Having members in common with the UN does not automatically give it legitimacy. The UN does some good things, and does some things that are to give tinpot third-world dictators a chance to look respectable. The efforts involving the second are fine for trying to nudge countries into being more like the normal world, but should not be given any real authority over anything.
The question is, which camp does the ICC fall into? That question tells how much legitimacy it has as a court. (And I don't know the answer, so I'm not going to give one. All I'm saying is "It's like the UN" doesn't make it legitimate, at all.)
Having members in common with the UN does not automatically give it legitimacy. The UN does some good things, and does some things that are to give tinpot third-world dictators a chance to look respectable. The efforts involving the second are fine for trying to nudge countries into being more like the normal world, but should not be given any real authority over anything.
The question is, which camp does the ICC fall into? That question tells how much legitimacy it has as a court. (And I don't know the answer, so I'm not going to give one. All I'm saying is "It's like the UN" doesn't make it legitimate, at all.)
The UN RHC has legitimacy, even with its flaws. Political organisations have flaws. Even though not all members are really democratic, the vast majority are. The UN has problems (arguable less so than the US government) but it's the best we have.
(Click saver for others, the members:
1. Ms. Tania María Abdo Rocholl Paraguay 2017–2020
2. Mr. Yadh Ben Achour Tunisia 2019-2022
3. Ms. Ilze Brands Kehris Latvia 2017–2020
4. Mr. Christopher Arif Bulkan Guyana 2019-2022
5. Mr. Ahmed Amin Fathalla Egypt 2017–2020
6. Mr. Shuichi Furuya Japan 2019–2022
7. Mr. Christof Heyns South Africa 2017–2020
8. Mr. Hernán Quezada Cabrera Chile 2019–2022
9. Mr. Bamariam Koita Mauritania 2017–2020
10. Ms. Marcia. V. J. Kran Canada 2017–2020
11. Mr. Duncan Laki Muhumuza Uganda 2019–2022
12. Ms. Photini Pazartzis Greece 2019–2022
13. Ms. Vasilka Sancin Slovenia 2019–2022
14. Mr. José Manuel Santos Pais Portugal 2017–2020
15. Mr. Yuval Shany Israel 2013–2020
16. Ms. Hélène Tigroudja France 2019–2022
17. Mr. Gentian Zyberi Albania 2019–2022
18. Mr. Andreas B. Zimmermann Germany 2018–2020 )
(Click saver for others, the members:
1. Ms. Tania María Abdo Rocholl Paraguay 2017–2020
2. Mr. Yadh Ben Achour Tunisia 2019-2022
3. Ms. Ilze Brands Kehris Latvia 2017–2020
4. Mr. Christopher Arif Bulkan Guyana 2019-2022
5. Mr. Ahmed Amin Fathalla Egypt 2017–2020
6. Mr. Shuichi Furuya Japan 2019–2022
7. Mr. Christof Heyns South Africa 2017–2020
8. Mr. Hernán Quezada Cabrera Chile 2019–2022
9. Mr. Bamariam Koita Mauritania 2017–2020
10. Ms. Marcia. V. J. Kran Canada 2017–2020
11. Mr. Duncan Laki Muhumuza Uganda 2019–2022
12. Ms. Photini Pazartzis Greece 2019–2022
13. Ms. Vasilka Sancin Slovenia 2019–2022
14. Mr. José Manuel Santos Pais Portugal 2017–2020
15. Mr. Yuval Shany Israel 2013–2020
16. Ms. Hélène Tigroudja France 2019–2022
17. Mr. Gentian Zyberi Albania 2019–2022
18. Mr. Andreas B. Zimmermann Germany 2018–2020 )
That's actually a pretty good list. China, Venezuela, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia aren't members any more.
To those parties who accepted the treaty, sure. We didn’t.
The highest court in the US is the supreme court and every court any of us can be subjected to is under it. The ICC has no sovereignty over the US. Our foreign policy with regards to international law is to support it having sovereignty over others but not ourselves, the world peace enjoyed for the past eight decades or so is a direct result of American hegemony and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours.
There is a power imbalance on purpose which results in a little injustice and a big lack of armed conflict.
The highest court in the US is the supreme court and every court any of us can be subjected to is under it. The ICC has no sovereignty over the US. Our foreign policy with regards to international law is to support it having sovereignty over others but not ourselves, the world peace enjoyed for the past eight decades or so is a direct result of American hegemony and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours.
There is a power imbalance on purpose which results in a little injustice and a big lack of armed conflict.
World peace? Did you ever looked at all the wars that happened since? Many involving the US army ... And not in a nice way...
If you speak of the western world, the main reason for peace is the construction of the european union, creating much more cooperation between countries that had always been fighting each other.
US foreign policy is not driven by peace, freedom or whatever propanganda created to have people's support but by self-interest. It's the same for any country.
If you speak of the western world, the main reason for peace is the construction of the european union, creating much more cooperation between countries that had always been fighting each other.
US foreign policy is not driven by peace, freedom or whatever propanganda created to have people's support but by self-interest. It's the same for any country.
> The highest court in the US is the supreme court and every court any of us can be subjected to is under it.
I'll buy that argument as long as Americans stay inside their own borders. When you choose to enter another country you are subject to their laws whether you agree with them or not. Afghanistan has signed on to the ICC and the activities being investigated took place in Afghanistan.
Having said that I don't expect US policy to change on this issue regardless of who wins the next election. Letting US soldiers be tried for war crimes is bad politics.
I'll buy that argument as long as Americans stay inside their own borders. When you choose to enter another country you are subject to their laws whether you agree with them or not. Afghanistan has signed on to the ICC and the activities being investigated took place in Afghanistan.
Having said that I don't expect US policy to change on this issue regardless of who wins the next election. Letting US soldiers be tried for war crimes is bad politics.
> The ICC has no sovereignty over the US.
When a US citizen is in another country, they are under the power of the courts of that other country. Why is this so hard to understand?
The US military members, when in Afghanistan, are subject to Afghanistan courts jurisdiction—one of those courts is the ICC because Afghanistan gave the ICC jurisdiction by signing the treaty.
When the CIA operatives were in Italy they were under the jurisdiction of the Italian courts and were thus so convicted:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case
If you do not want to be under the jurisdiction of non-US courts then do not leave the US. Once you step over the border you have to follow the rules of the other country.
When a US citizen is in another country, they are under the power of the courts of that other country. Why is this so hard to understand?
The US military members, when in Afghanistan, are subject to Afghanistan courts jurisdiction—one of those courts is the ICC because Afghanistan gave the ICC jurisdiction by signing the treaty.
When the CIA operatives were in Italy they were under the jurisdiction of the Italian courts and were thus so convicted:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case
If you do not want to be under the jurisdiction of non-US courts then do not leave the US. Once you step over the border you have to follow the rules of the other country.
> the world peace enjoyed for the past eight decades or so is a direct result of American hegemony
Have you had a look at American foreign policy last eight decades?
> and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours.
Yeah, that sounds totally like what peace and democracy loving entity would say.
Have you had a look at American foreign policy last eight decades?
> and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours.
Yeah, that sounds totally like what peace and democracy loving entity would say.
The US used to be part of the international tribunal until they lost a case on warcrime, instead of paying reparations they signed out and left chat.
As I understand it:
The US signed the Rome Statute, but never ratified it.
Once a country ratifies the statute, it's in until a year after it gives notice to quit. And, even then, quitting has no effect on investigations already in progress.
The US signed the Rome Statute, but never ratified it.
Once a country ratifies the statute, it's in until a year after it gives notice to quit. And, even then, quitting has no effect on investigations already in progress.
You can get out even if you ratify the statue, membership is basically "as long as you want" and the US' way of handling the ICC has been nothing but a farce, threatening them everytime some US soldier is investigated for war crimes.
And the US still refuses to pay those reparations.
And the US still refuses to pay those reparations.
Another perspective: if a US citizen, or a criminal organization that includes US citizens were suspected of committing a serious crime abroad, you would presumably have no problem with them being prosecuted (and not by the US). The main difference here is that those citizens were operating as part of the US Government.
You are using supposed "rationality" to just ignore facts and reality.
US is entitled to not cooperate. But bullying individual prosecutors is disgusting.
So where are the alternative "facts" he is ignoring? That, in your opinion, something is "disgusting", is an opinion and not a fact. Your moral position doesn't change, nor trump the simple facts he posted.
The top-level commenter is ignoring the fact that the Rome Statute, which set up the ICC legally, gives the Court power to prosecute crimes that happened on Rome Statute party territory. The issue here is just that the US Government is powerful enough to ignore the ICC and retaliate/abuse the Court, and probably also that the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this).
Isn't there also a law on the books in the US that permits 'exfiltration' of a captured US citizen from The Hague if it were ever to come to that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...
prevents cooperation, extradition, etc and authorizes actions to protect citizens from the court
prevents cooperation, extradition, etc and authorizes actions to protect citizens from the court
I'm not sure. I believe it depends on the precise wording of the bill linked below.
(https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4775)
> Title II: American Servicemembers' Protection Act - American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 - Prohibits U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. ...
> (Sec. 2008) Authorizes the President to use all means necessary (including the provision of legal assistance) to bring about the release of covered U.S. persons and covered allied persons held captive by, on behalf, or at the request of the Court.
(https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4775)
> Title II: American Servicemembers' Protection Act - American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 - Prohibits U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. ...
> (Sec. 2008) Authorizes the President to use all means necessary (including the provision of legal assistance) to bring about the release of covered U.S. persons and covered allied persons held captive by, on behalf, or at the request of the Court.
Imagine the shit show that would come from that...
Nothing particularly surprising here. US - probably the only country in recent history where you get decorated after downing a civilian airliner killing everyone aboard - protects its war criminals, it makes them more effective.
One more step towards dystopy.
On historical sanctions: If france had not been able to bust the british blockade[1], the US would not have become independent[2] in 1783.
[1] As a naval power, the british were also fond of economic sanctions.
[2] which would not necessarily have been a bad thing: a british North America would have ended slavery sooner with much less bloodshed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZzDP-vQXao&t=3195
[1] As a naval power, the british were also fond of economic sanctions.
[2] which would not necessarily have been a bad thing: a british North America would have ended slavery sooner with much less bloodshed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZzDP-vQXao&t=3195
Disgusting. This administration is shattering any form of international cooperation not based on power and submission. This brings humanity back to a pre WWs mentality.
To me, a non-US citizen, it seems that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is being quite reasonable here.
ICC wants to investigate US military personnel that, allegedly, committed war crimes on Afghanistan soil after 2003. They can do that because Afghanistan ratified the ICC that year.
Clearly, if the US wants to commit war crimes, they should only do that inside their own borders, where they are actually perfectly safe from the ICC.
That being said, I don't like when this kind of issues are politicized ("Obama destroyed America", "Trump sucks on all issues", ...). So I looked up the numbers.
The US congress and senate passed a law, in 2002, that gave the president authority to "with all means necessary, prohibit the International Criminal Court from seeking to exercise jurisdiction over United States persons, and allied persons"
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2002328
Votes by party
Republican YEAS: 201 NAYS: 18
Democratic YEAS: 195 NAYS: 13
Doesn't seem to be a "current administration" issue only. Clearly the US was caught up in the post-9/11 panic at the time of passing this law. But it seems a good idea to repeal it - if there is no longer a majority in support of it.
That being said, I don't like when this kind of issues are politicized ("Obama destroyed America", "Trump sucks on all issues", ...). So I looked up the numbers.
The US congress and senate passed a law, in 2002, that gave the president authority to "with all means necessary, prohibit the International Criminal Court from seeking to exercise jurisdiction over United States persons, and allied persons"
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2002328
Votes by party
Republican YEAS: 201 NAYS: 18
Democratic YEAS: 195 NAYS: 13
Doesn't seem to be a "current administration" issue only. Clearly the US was caught up in the post-9/11 panic at the time of passing this law. But it seems a good idea to repeal it - if there is no longer a majority in support of it.
Well that's still is politics. The US lost its marbles after 9/11. Obama was trying to stear the boat a different way, but he didn't have the support of the legislative bodies which made it their job to give him hell no matter what.
Anyway, The bill didn't specify the means, so the means are a part of policy. Sanctioning these type of individuals is a bully move. This administration has picked a strategy of being a bully.
Anyway, The bill didn't specify the means, so the means are a part of policy. Sanctioning these type of individuals is a bully move. This administration has picked a strategy of being a bully.
The "rules-based order" of the world is essentially a US-led world order.
What is fascinating is that the US itself is dismantling it, ultimately leading to a world that is no longer US-led and where the US is a lot poorer.
What is fascinating is that the US itself is dismantling it, ultimately leading to a world that is no longer US-led and where the US is a lot poorer.
It is thought provoking, and here the question to ask is: would the usual suspects in USA also be a "lot poorer" when the superpower is dethroned?
If you review George H W Bush's early 90s speeches, he was cryctal clear that "UN" would be the center of "a new world order" and not USA or Washington DC. The undeclared attack of 9/11 necessitated a change in the plans. (If you think US was attempting to "Shock and Awe" Iraqis, that is fine, but we would disagree on that ..)
p.s. http://canadianliberty.com/new-world-order-speeches-of-presi...
If you review George H W Bush's early 90s speeches, he was cryctal clear that "UN" would be the center of "a new world order" and not USA or Washington DC. The undeclared attack of 9/11 necessitated a change in the plans. (If you think US was attempting to "Shock and Awe" Iraqis, that is fine, but we would disagree on that ..)
p.s. http://canadianliberty.com/new-world-order-speeches-of-presi...
> Obama was trying to stear the boat a different way, but he didn't have the support of the legislative bodies which made it their job to give him hell no matter what.
No he wasn't. He went after journalists in the most vicious way since Nixon. His intelligence services violated privacy in the US on a scale never seen before in the country. He attempted to invade Syria and de facto ended up doing exactly that, starting new wars across the Middle East. He didn't do a damn thing different, he was just another President in the White House committing new atrocities, like the guy before him. Then on the way out the door he sent the FBI after his replacement, in a pre-staged attempted coup. Dirty as can be.
People try to pretty up the Obama Administration years, because he's a fan favorite. I get it, he's a lot more likable than Bush or Trump; he's more composed, smoother, and smarter. It's all a con, all the way down to the fraudulent Nobel Peace Prize he apparently got ahead of time for destroying Syria and Libya. His Presidency was a travesty filled with many acts of extraordinary evil. There should have been a Syria death counter every night on CNN, but the left didn't have the integrity to do it to one of their own.
No he wasn't. He went after journalists in the most vicious way since Nixon. His intelligence services violated privacy in the US on a scale never seen before in the country. He attempted to invade Syria and de facto ended up doing exactly that, starting new wars across the Middle East. He didn't do a damn thing different, he was just another President in the White House committing new atrocities, like the guy before him. Then on the way out the door he sent the FBI after his replacement, in a pre-staged attempted coup. Dirty as can be.
People try to pretty up the Obama Administration years, because he's a fan favorite. I get it, he's a lot more likable than Bush or Trump; he's more composed, smoother, and smarter. It's all a con, all the way down to the fraudulent Nobel Peace Prize he apparently got ahead of time for destroying Syria and Libya. His Presidency was a travesty filled with many acts of extraordinary evil. There should have been a Syria death counter every night on CNN, but the left didn't have the integrity to do it to one of their own.
Sorry, but that's lazy thinking. I used the term steer the boat for a reason. He was in charge of a huge system with its own momentum expecting a change of the sort you want is just silly.
US abandoning all the fronts he had would've been disasterous for everyone.
Regarding syria, the Syrian situation was in full swing without Obama's US involvement. The ISIS situation and Iran fighting along side Assad is a direct reprocussion of the bush invasion of Iraq.
Obama did everything he could not to have forces inside syria, that's why russia and Iran established forces there. Just compare US involvement in Syria, to it's involvement in iraq and afghanistan. If anything, you could blame him for not doing enough to ward off Iran Assad and Russia.
Your type of delusional perfectionism will deter any leader who tries to follow your moral compass while keeping in touch with reality. We will be left only with assholes in charge, because they don't give a fuck what you think.
Your type of delusional perfectionism will deter any leader who tries to follow your moral compass while keeping in touch with reality. We will be left only with assholes in charge, because they don't give a fuck what you think.
>Your type of delusional perfectionism will deter any leader who tries to follow your moral compass while keeping in touch with reality. We will be left only with assholes in charge, because they don't give a fuck what you think.
Thank you very much for that great phrase to describe so much of politics today 'delusional perfectionism', and which might explain a lot of the aggressive antagonism towards the media from US and UK today (and probably others).
>We will be left only with assholes in charge, because they don't give a fuck what you think.
Which I think perfectly describes Trump, and to a large degree Johnson in the UK, but also Modi on India and Erdogan who have moved themselves out of the way of all criticism.
Thank you very much for that great phrase to describe so much of politics today 'delusional perfectionism', and which might explain a lot of the aggressive antagonism towards the media from US and UK today (and probably others).
>We will be left only with assholes in charge, because they don't give a fuck what you think.
Which I think perfectly describes Trump, and to a large degree Johnson in the UK, but also Modi on India and Erdogan who have moved themselves out of the way of all criticism.
There is a lot of perspective missing here. Libya was in total chaos before US or France began supporting the civilians. The support from US (and France) was welcome at that time and was a huge relief to the civilians there.
I am not sure how he destroyed Syria. The whole resistance was part of the Arab Spring. It was a mixture of unhappiness with the dictatorship and the food scarcity outside of the cities. The involvement from outside powers came in very late and mostly were half hearted approaches (except the Russians).
Obama is not perfect, and during his reign, journalism and whistleblowers were affected a lot. He also had other issues but these were not part of them.
I am not sure how he destroyed Syria. The whole resistance was part of the Arab Spring. It was a mixture of unhappiness with the dictatorship and the food scarcity outside of the cities. The involvement from outside powers came in very late and mostly were half hearted approaches (except the Russians).
Obama is not perfect, and during his reign, journalism and whistleblowers were affected a lot. He also had other issues but these were not part of them.
> Libya was in total chaos before US or France began supporting the civilians.
You got it all backward comrade. Libya was just fine before France and the US intervened. Sure the infrastructure and liberties were not there, but that's kinda the theme of the region.
Actually Libya was going on a "revolution" as Gaddafi was delegating his powers to his son who was interested in liberalizing the economy , building infrastructure and giving people more freedom.
It all went downhill and now it's a hotbed for ISIS and friends.
You got it all backward comrade. Libya was just fine before France and the US intervened. Sure the infrastructure and liberties were not there, but that's kinda the theme of the region.
Actually Libya was going on a "revolution" as Gaddafi was delegating his powers to his son who was interested in liberalizing the economy , building infrastructure and giving people more freedom.
It all went downhill and now it's a hotbed for ISIS and friends.
> You got it all backward comrade. Libya was just fine before France and the US intervened. Sure the infrastructure and liberties were not there, but that's kinda the theme of the region.
Here is a link to the civil war (Arab spring) before the involvement of other countries. I can find more if needed.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/04/happening...
Here is a link to the civil war (Arab spring) before the involvement of other countries. I can find more if needed.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/04/happening...
Unlike Tunisia, Libya had a strict and brutal dictatorship. Someone armed the people and France did intervene militarily to make them win. Otherwise, they'll be dead now and Libya would still have the same ruler.
I know because I live in Tunisia and the previous president did authorize moving arms to rebels through the country.
I know because I live in Tunisia and the previous president did authorize moving arms to rebels through the country.
Libya didn't have open slave markets until the US and the French decided to bomb the shit out of their society, then send in billions of dollars to fund insurgents, and then arm those insurgents and let them promote their hateful ideology, in order to 'weaken the Middle East'.
Don't even try not to own up to that fact. Everyone who has been counting the piles of smoking rubble the US and its allies leave around the place, know just how much nicer things were before Americans decided to drop bombs on people they think the world doesn't care about.
Don't even try not to own up to that fact. Everyone who has been counting the piles of smoking rubble the US and its allies leave around the place, know just how much nicer things were before Americans decided to drop bombs on people they think the world doesn't care about.
I am not American and dont live in USA. I was following the events in Arab Spring very closely even before USA was involved. It was expected that the situation will get worse before it got better when/if the dictators went down.
... and then it never did. I mean, if we don't set a timer on it, I'm sure they will, eventually. But "in 2155, Aliens shared their wisdom with humanity and it lead to global peace, which also included Libya" shouldn't be attributed to the NATO intervention.
The direct, immediate consequences (that is: the current state) have to be attributed to the intervention. Some consider the belief "hey, we'll just bomb it and everybody will love each other and it'll be great" naivete bordering on retardation, but I think "we really didn't know any better" has to be ruled out after repeated use. At some point even a toddler learns not to put their hand on the hot stove, unless pain is their goal.
The direct, immediate consequences (that is: the current state) have to be attributed to the intervention. Some consider the belief "hey, we'll just bomb it and everybody will love each other and it'll be great" naivete bordering on retardation, but I think "we really didn't know any better" has to be ruled out after repeated use. At some point even a toddler learns not to put their hand on the hot stove, unless pain is their goal.
I am sure Libyan citizens would have led a better life ( compared to today) without the civil war. NATO did not start the war. If anything, It helped it end faster, with lesser loss of life. The choice was made by the civilians.
> On 19 February, several days after the conflict began, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi announced the creation of a commission of inquiry into the violence, chaired by a Libyan judge, as reported on state television. He stated that the commission was intended to be "for members of Libyan and foreign organizations of human rights" and that it will "investigate the circumstances and events that have caused many victims."[137] Caricature of Gaddafi, Al Bayda, April 2011
> Towards the end of February, it was reported that the Gaddafi government had suppressed protests in Tripoli by distributing automobiles, money and weapons for hired followers to drive around Tripoli and attack people showing signs of dissent.[182] In Tripoli, "death squads" of mercenaries and Revolutionary Committees members reportedly patrolled the streets and shot people who tried to take the dead off the streets or gather in groups.[183] The International Federation for Human Rights concluded on 24 February that Gaddafi was implementing a scorched earth strategy. The organization stated that "It is reasonable to fear that he has, in fact, decided to largely eliminate, wherever he still can, Libyan citizens who stood up against his regime and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately repress civilians. These acts can be characterized as crimes against humanity, as defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."[184]
> In May 2011, International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo estimated that 500–700 people were killed by security forces in February 2011, before the rebels took up arms. According to Moreno-Ocampo, "shooting at protesters was systematic".[185]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)
This was getting worse before NATO tried to intervene.
If you want to know what happens when the world does not interfere, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_killing_of_Bengali_intell...
> On 19 February, several days after the conflict began, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi announced the creation of a commission of inquiry into the violence, chaired by a Libyan judge, as reported on state television. He stated that the commission was intended to be "for members of Libyan and foreign organizations of human rights" and that it will "investigate the circumstances and events that have caused many victims."[137] Caricature of Gaddafi, Al Bayda, April 2011
> Towards the end of February, it was reported that the Gaddafi government had suppressed protests in Tripoli by distributing automobiles, money and weapons for hired followers to drive around Tripoli and attack people showing signs of dissent.[182] In Tripoli, "death squads" of mercenaries and Revolutionary Committees members reportedly patrolled the streets and shot people who tried to take the dead off the streets or gather in groups.[183] The International Federation for Human Rights concluded on 24 February that Gaddafi was implementing a scorched earth strategy. The organization stated that "It is reasonable to fear that he has, in fact, decided to largely eliminate, wherever he still can, Libyan citizens who stood up against his regime and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately repress civilians. These acts can be characterized as crimes against humanity, as defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."[184]
> In May 2011, International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo estimated that 500–700 people were killed by security forces in February 2011, before the rebels took up arms. According to Moreno-Ocampo, "shooting at protesters was systematic".[185]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)
This was getting worse before NATO tried to intervene.
If you want to know what happens when the world does not interfere, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_killing_of_Bengali_intell...
> If you want to know what happens when the world does not interfere, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_killing_of_Bengali_intell....
> Deaths 1,111
That's kind of the point. Was Gaddhafi a great guy? I don't think so. Was he in control? Yeah. Was Libya, and, by extension, the region stable with him in control? Yeah. Did we destabilize the region and create the circumstances for ISIS to flourish, open chattel slavery etc? Yeah. Was that predictable? Yeah, very much so.
I tend to see dictators like Gaddhafi more like a necessary evil. Kind of like an amputation to save the whole. Yes, it sucks losing your foot. But losing your life sucks a whole lot more. The NATO approach is ostensibly "we can't accept this patient losing a foot, and if the patient dies, then so be it, at least we tried to to do the right thing™".
It rarely works, and at some point I question whether the stated goal is really the intention or the -often witnessed- side-effects of regional destabilization, endless civil wars etc are the actual intended effect. That would change two things: a) the missions would be successful, explaining why we're repeating them with the same play book time and time again and b) we don't have to assume that the tens of thousands of analysts we're paying to analyze things and make smart plans are imbeciles, incapable of learning from the past.
> Deaths 1,111
That's kind of the point. Was Gaddhafi a great guy? I don't think so. Was he in control? Yeah. Was Libya, and, by extension, the region stable with him in control? Yeah. Did we destabilize the region and create the circumstances for ISIS to flourish, open chattel slavery etc? Yeah. Was that predictable? Yeah, very much so.
I tend to see dictators like Gaddhafi more like a necessary evil. Kind of like an amputation to save the whole. Yes, it sucks losing your foot. But losing your life sucks a whole lot more. The NATO approach is ostensibly "we can't accept this patient losing a foot, and if the patient dies, then so be it, at least we tried to to do the right thing™".
It rarely works, and at some point I question whether the stated goal is really the intention or the -often witnessed- side-effects of regional destabilization, endless civil wars etc are the actual intended effect. That would change two things: a) the missions would be successful, explaining why we're repeating them with the same play book time and time again and b) we don't have to assume that the tens of thousands of analysts we're paying to analyze things and make smart plans are imbeciles, incapable of learning from the past.
Those deaths sort of killed all the academics and moved Bangladesh back by 50 years of development. Those were not the only deaths in the war.
I think you need to reread all of US history.
Hoover and Nixon committed worse privacy violations than Obama. Also, he never tried to invade Syria. And he didn't send the FBI after Trump, presidents don't have that authority.
Hoover and Nixon committed worse privacy violations than Obama. Also, he never tried to invade Syria. And he didn't send the FBI after Trump, presidents don't have that authority.
Not only did they brought Libya to ruin but they also gave arms to the radical Islamists that they ended up fighting later on. There was also the issue with ICE and the killer drones too. The only difference between a two-party system and a single-party system is the illusion of choice.
> Sanctioning these type of individuals is a bully move
The Republican administration pre-Trump appeared to be on a mission to glass 2 countries and entirely spirited at the thought of gearing up and invading of Iran. It was so terrible that the Obama Administration's foreign policy, which had a lot of problems, looked pretty good by comparison.
I'm not sure where the "international cooperation not based on power and submission" business the thread root was talking about, but speaking as a foreigner I would encourage US administrations to stick to bullying, this is the good end of the spectrum of US foreign policy. 2000-2010 wasn't that long ago.
The Republican administration pre-Trump appeared to be on a mission to glass 2 countries and entirely spirited at the thought of gearing up and invading of Iran. It was so terrible that the Obama Administration's foreign policy, which had a lot of problems, looked pretty good by comparison.
I'm not sure where the "international cooperation not based on power and submission" business the thread root was talking about, but speaking as a foreigner I would encourage US administrations to stick to bullying, this is the good end of the spectrum of US foreign policy. 2000-2010 wasn't that long ago.
Long term, internal instability of the US translates to much, much worse instability for the world.
> it seems that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is being quite reasonable here.
It's as much politics on the ICC side as on the USA side.
For years, the ICC had only prosecuted former warlords from African countries. Only the loosing sides, the criminals that won national power were usually ignored, as the recent Ivory Coast shows. So some African leaders protested and even removed their country from the ICC. So the court had to react, at least to show an intention even if a real prosecution is totally unrealistic. So the ICC Prosecutor — which is the former Ministry of Justice of the Gambia dictator — launched inquiries about crimes by security forces of Myanmar (Birmania), Israel, USA… It's mostly a symbolic gesture.
It's as much politics on the ICC side as on the USA side.
For years, the ICC had only prosecuted former warlords from African countries. Only the loosing sides, the criminals that won national power were usually ignored, as the recent Ivory Coast shows. So some African leaders protested and even removed their country from the ICC. So the court had to react, at least to show an intention even if a real prosecution is totally unrealistic. So the ICC Prosecutor — which is the former Ministry of Justice of the Gambia dictator — launched inquiries about crimes by security forces of Myanmar (Birmania), Israel, USA… It's mostly a symbolic gesture.
Your comment is interesting and informative for sure, but I don't understand why do you think that the Court finally taking up more difficult cases is a bad thing?
I wonder if some sort of war crimes reporting funnel would be useful. Along the lines of Project Censored. Like a citizen's police blotter. Or citizen's oversight board.
It'd still take extraordinary effort to persuade (shame) prosecution to take action. But with some transparency, at least the torrent of evil stuff would be recorded by someone somewhere.
It'd still take extraordinary effort to persuade (shame) prosecution to take action. But with some transparency, at least the torrent of evil stuff would be recorded by someone somewhere.
I am slow and likely missed the joke. Does an organization like Wikileaks ring a bell? Public reaction to that definitely keeps these sort of reporting funnels useless, get tortured at best.
Sure.
And how about something a bit more formal? Maybe modeled after police department citizen review board? With a staff to injest, process, and interpret stuff? Like Project Censored.
I half thought that maybe Wikileaks might do some of this. And I should have probably scouted a bit before asking for something that already exists. (I hadn't actually ever visited the site before. I've never been terribly eager to get myself added to some watch lists.)
Alas.
https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=war+crimes
Not much value add there. It really is just a fancy FTP site with a search engine. The org itself does some competent press releases, swag, and branding; that ain't nothing.
And how about something a bit more formal? Maybe modeled after police department citizen review board? With a staff to injest, process, and interpret stuff? Like Project Censored.
I half thought that maybe Wikileaks might do some of this. And I should have probably scouted a bit before asking for something that already exists. (I hadn't actually ever visited the site before. I've never been terribly eager to get myself added to some watch lists.)
Alas.
https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=war+crimes
Not much value add there. It really is just a fancy FTP site with a search engine. The org itself does some competent press releases, swag, and branding; that ain't nothing.
It seems current administration in US is weak on crime, being criminals or aiding criminals. What goes against Law in Parliament is crime, not politics.
I think this is less about wanting to protect criminals, and more about US sovereignty at all costs. And clearly upholding this sovereignty was one of Trumps election promises.
Under this philosophy (or doctrine, if you will) of sovereignty, US will never accept that the ICC - an entity that the US citizens have not explicitly delegated their sovereign power to - are trying to prosecute US nationals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty_in_the_Uni...
Under this philosophy (or doctrine, if you will) of sovereignty, US will never accept that the ICC - an entity that the US citizens have not explicitly delegated their sovereign power to - are trying to prosecute US nationals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty_in_the_Uni...
US nationals get prosecuted by entities that US citizens have not explicitly delegated their sovereign power to all the time.
> US nationals get prosecuted by entities that US citizens have not explicitly delegated their sovereign power to all the time.
How so?
If you visit a foreign country, you are making an explicit choice to enter their jurisdiction.
If you are extradited from the US, it means the government (your representatives) explicitly chose to cooperate with another jurisdiction in some manner.
The current case is somewhat confusing to me. The US doesn't participate in the ICC. The matter to be investigated apparently occurred in a country that does participate though. But the suspects were part of an active military operation. Unlike a tourist, it doesn't really seem like armed forces are usually subject to the laws of a jurisdiction they might "visit" during combat (typically quite the opposite in fact).
If someone from outside your jurisdiction threatens your citizens, isn't any capable government supposed to take actions to protect them? To me, the real question here is why the US isn't part of an international effort to prevent war crimes.
How so?
If you visit a foreign country, you are making an explicit choice to enter their jurisdiction.
If you are extradited from the US, it means the government (your representatives) explicitly chose to cooperate with another jurisdiction in some manner.
The current case is somewhat confusing to me. The US doesn't participate in the ICC. The matter to be investigated apparently occurred in a country that does participate though. But the suspects were part of an active military operation. Unlike a tourist, it doesn't really seem like armed forces are usually subject to the laws of a jurisdiction they might "visit" during combat (typically quite the opposite in fact).
If someone from outside your jurisdiction threatens your citizens, isn't any capable government supposed to take actions to protect them? To me, the real question here is why the US isn't part of an international effort to prevent war crimes.
War crimes tend to be comited by active military. The prosecution of war crime focusing on active military members should not be confusing. Prosecuting soldiers is the whole point.
> The prosecution of war crime focusing on active military members should not be confusing.
That's not the part that's confusing to me. (I'm really not clear how you could possibly come away with that from what I wrote?)
The confusing part is the jurisdiction. In what capacity were the soldiers present in the other country? (It obviously wasn't voluntarily for leisure.) Based on the answer to the former, were they subject to the laws of the other jurisdiction at the time of their actions? Or do they instead fall under US jurisdiction? The US government's stance on this seems quite clear at least.
That's not the part that's confusing to me. (I'm really not clear how you could possibly come away with that from what I wrote?)
The confusing part is the jurisdiction. In what capacity were the soldiers present in the other country? (It obviously wasn't voluntarily for leisure.) Based on the answer to the former, were they subject to the laws of the other jurisdiction at the time of their actions? Or do they instead fall under US jurisdiction? The US government's stance on this seems quite clear at least.
Afghanistan participate in ICC, presumably to get some protection against foreign soldiers. The US government's systematic stance used to be that war crimes performed by US soldiers or officials dont matter and definitely did not happened.
Current US government's stance is that war crimes by US soldiers are good celebration worthy thing.
US army itself is actually better then what that implies and does not have soldiers on the loose. But, we are talking about government here.
Current US government's stance is that war crimes by US soldiers are good celebration worthy thing.
US army itself is actually better then what that implies and does not have soldiers on the loose. But, we are talking about government here.
I believe it's not really a sovereignty issue, but primarily just a matter of practicality. If your soldiers must fear repercussions for their actions, they will be much less effective. They won't "move fast and break things".
The worst of the worst war crimes will be prosecuted in the US as well, but generally, soldiers have little to fear. A non-US court wouldn't have the same perspective.
Essentially: if you want people to do whatever it takes to get your mission done, make sure they're not liable for anything they break while doing so. That goes for the military as much as for tech companies. Tech companies just don't have armies to back up their stances, yet.
The worst of the worst war crimes will be prosecuted in the US as well, but generally, soldiers have little to fear. A non-US court wouldn't have the same perspective.
Essentially: if you want people to do whatever it takes to get your mission done, make sure they're not liable for anything they break while doing so. That goes for the military as much as for tech companies. Tech companies just don't have armies to back up their stances, yet.
The US does NOT prosecute its own war crimes.
That is the point of the ICC in the first place: you cannot trust the war criminals to bring justice to their society.
That is the point of the ICC in the first place: you cannot trust the war criminals to bring justice to their society.
The president pardoned a war criminal who stabbed a captive while he was being given medical aid by American medics and took a selfie which he then sent to his friends saying "Good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife". This is an exemplary soldier in the eyes of the American president. The fact that his administration wouldn't give a shit about prosecuting war crimes they are involved in doesn't surprise anybody.
They don't prosecute them as war criminals by building a case against themselves, but they will still prosecute individual soldiers when they feel like it, e.g. Graner and England for Abu Ghraib, but obviously not for war crimes.
We might be able to trust countries to judge their soldiers' behavior when these soldiers act on their own. The problem, and the reason, I believe, why the US won't voluntarily accept the ICC is when they don't, e.g. when drone operators bomb a wedding reception, because it's not going to be those individual operators on the hook - it's the mission and the larger policy that are going to be implicated. And a military doesn't want their officers to ask themselves "wait, can I do this? Will I be prosecuted for this?" when told to do something, they want them to say "Sir, yes, Sir" and mean it.
We might be able to trust countries to judge their soldiers' behavior when these soldiers act on their own. The problem, and the reason, I believe, why the US won't voluntarily accept the ICC is when they don't, e.g. when drone operators bomb a wedding reception, because it's not going to be those individual operators on the hook - it's the mission and the larger policy that are going to be implicated. And a military doesn't want their officers to ask themselves "wait, can I do this? Will I be prosecuted for this?" when told to do something, they want them to say "Sir, yes, Sir" and mean it.
> but they will still prosecute individual soldiers when they feel like it, e.g. Graner and England for Abu Ghraib, but obviously not for war crimes
And were they brought to justice and sentenced for their crimes? No. A sham trial isn't sufficient for war crimes.
And were they brought to justice and sentenced for their crimes? No. A sham trial isn't sufficient for war crimes.
Such oppression goes against the Founding Fathers and Constitution.
For better or worse, this isn't specific to the current administration. There's a long-standing law (passed with a bipartisan majority) instructing the President not to allow ICC prosecutions of Americans and authorizing these kinds of measures if they try.
There's a huge difference between refusing to cooperate and sanctioning indviduals.
The latter is a fear tactic move. Mafia style.
It's not a huge difference. Without this "sanctions on individuals" they already have the law where they could "attack Netherlands, save all US citizens there and along the way kill everybody who will resist them in such a move". This shows already many things... It is "already fearful enough"...
So now you're saying attacking the netherlands is the same as not cooperating with the ICC? They don't have to attack netherland nor sanction the prosecutors to ward off the ICC, they choose to use escalation of force, because that's how they perceive the world as a constant battle ground where anyone will strike you if you don't strike first.
They passed the law in 2002 where they allowed themselves to attack the Netherlands if a US citizen was brought to the ICC. This is already "fearful enough".
Now they passed the law to sanction the individuals working at ICC.
I am saying that the new law in not a huge difference from the old law, which was already "fearful". This is all I am trying to say here.
Now they passed the law to sanction the individuals working at ICC.
I am saying that the new law in not a huge difference from the old law, which was already "fearful". This is all I am trying to say here.
I see.
But talks of potential war and the actuality of targeting these type of individuals is different.
Both are very scary, but only one, for now, is an actuality.
I'm not sure I agree. Sanctioning individuals is a pretty common tactic on the international stage.
These people are not head of states, they are not war criminals, they do no oppress their citizens, they are not building weapons of mass destruction. These are the causes for the sanctions you are talking about.
Come on. That's bird logic.
Come on. That's bird logic.
This is just nonsense with an offensive remark on top. The EU and USA regularly sanction people who do none of the things you mentioned, just to punish their respective governments.
For example: https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/33/lists?search=%...
https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/member?search=%7B...
"press photographer in Germany"
For example: https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/33/lists?search=%...
https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/member?search=%7B...
"press photographer in Germany"
Did you read the allegations? These are people accused of stealing money from the tunisian population. For me it falls under oppression of citizens. Even if you don't agree, they are criminals. Not war crime prosecutors, whose crime is investigating war crimes.
So what if the guy also works as a press photographer? Does that give him immunity from being a criminal?
So what if the guy also works as a press photographer? Does that give him immunity from being a criminal?
> These are people accused of stealing money from the tunisian population. For me it falls under oppression of citizens.
Sure, you can redefine everything as it suits you. "Stealing money fron the Tunisian population" is similar to tax fraud. You turn it into a war crime or being dictators.
Sure, you can redefine everything as it suits you. "Stealing money fron the Tunisian population" is similar to tax fraud. You turn it into a war crime or being dictators.
Lacking recognition of legitimacy, a court is just a kidnapping gang.
It's just a modern day siege.
I don't get the downvotes. This is true. The US rejedct the authority of the ICC. See another comment in this thread, the law was passed in 2002.
> This brings humanity back to a pre WWs mentality.
While I agree that ideally we shouldn't have international cooperation based on power and submission, I don't think your depiction of post and pre-WWs mentality is accurate. The post-WWs mentality is even greater form of power and submission than pre-WWs. Pax Americana is pretty much the US ( and by extension the anglo world ) dominating everyone else. For example, more nations today have foreign troops ( predominantly american/anglo/western ) than during the pre-wws colonial era.
Trump is trying to preserve the post-wws world order, the ICC is trying to bring it back to pre-wws world order. Do you want america ruling the world ( post-wws ) or a collection of international powers ( pre--wws )? There are pros and cons to both.
While I agree that ideally we shouldn't have international cooperation based on power and submission, I don't think your depiction of post and pre-WWs mentality is accurate. The post-WWs mentality is even greater form of power and submission than pre-WWs. Pax Americana is pretty much the US ( and by extension the anglo world ) dominating everyone else. For example, more nations today have foreign troops ( predominantly american/anglo/western ) than during the pre-wws colonial era.
Trump is trying to preserve the post-wws world order, the ICC is trying to bring it back to pre-wws world order. Do you want america ruling the world ( post-wws ) or a collection of international powers ( pre--wws )? There are pros and cons to both.
Exactly to a WWs mentality. Before those wars[1] the mentality (at least for continental europe) was balance-of-power (with a brief interlude during which Napoleon tried to export revolution[2]).
... δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.[3]
[1] In another few centuries they'll probably be lumped together as the 31 years war or something.
[2] not all of which was bad. Afterwards, unlike the Bourbons, my country kept the best changes (e.g. the law code) and got rid of the worst (e.g. the french running things).
[3] If JFK were alive today, I bet he'd have half a mind to call these sanctions a dick move.
... δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.[3]
[1] In another few centuries they'll probably be lumped together as the 31 years war or something.
[2] not all of which was bad. Afterwards, unlike the Bourbons, my country kept the best changes (e.g. the law code) and got rid of the worst (e.g. the french running things).
[3] If JFK were alive today, I bet he'd have half a mind to call these sanctions a dick move.
>[1] In another few centuries they'll probably be lumped together as the 31 years war or something.
A large majority of people consider that in fact it is WORLD WAR THREE that was started by the US and its allies in 2003.
It just hasn't hit Western shores yet.
A large majority of people consider that in fact it is WORLD WAR THREE that was started by the US and its allies in 2003.
It just hasn't hit Western shores yet.
To be fair this is not a new thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands.
To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd. The only bad thing about this is that the US is not willing to punish their own war criminals.
> This administration is shattering any form of international cooperation not based on power and submission
The only other two things that I can think of are the withdrawal from UNESCO and from WHO (this one was justified IMO), do you have anything else in mind?
They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands.
To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd. The only bad thing about this is that the US is not willing to punish their own war criminals.
> This administration is shattering any form of international cooperation not based on power and submission
The only other two things that I can think of are the withdrawal from UNESCO and from WHO (this one was justified IMO), do you have anything else in mind?
> They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands.
> To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd.
What? This is the definition of absurdity.
> To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd.
What? This is the definition of absurdity.
...if they arrest a service member
I am not saying that it is not absurd, just that it is not that absurd.
I am not saying that it is not absurd, just that it is not that absurd.
Well, the US government can call this any way they want, good luck finding countries to agree that it is a valid one. So, sorry, still absurd sabre rattling. And oddly specific wording, which only applies to this particular court.
The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before, but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump.
The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before, but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump.
> Well, the US government can call this any way they want
"this"?
> The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before
So it is useless.
> but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump.
It is certainly not the first time that the US has made such threats. Whether it is likely to act on it I do not know - in the same spirit though, isn't the work of the ICC bonkers? It is not like the US going to just send their service member there out of their goodwill.
"this"?
> The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before
So it is useless.
> but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump.
It is certainly not the first time that the US has made such threats. Whether it is likely to act on it I do not know - in the same spirit though, isn't the work of the ICC bonkers? It is not like the US going to just send their service member there out of their goodwill.
Trade wars with Europe China Mexico
You can be at war, as a pacifist, in total denial of reality. That's what the USA did with China. The trade war was really active, but the USA was just taking damage without any response. The non-response was pretty dumb.
The Chinese trade war was going on for a while now. In addition it seems that issues regarding china are one of the things that both parties seem to agree on. Although you are right that there wasn't such an issue with Europe and Mexico before the current administration.
And yet the US pulled out of the deal that would have curtailed Chinese influence in the region ...
I would not expect competence from politicians.
Trade wars across the Atlantic are not new to Trump. See this, for example:
https://econlife.com/2018/06/banana-trade-war-2/
This does not contain the article text. Just an image of bananas, some words about the supposed author, some tags, "leave a reply", and a bunch of useless "latest news".
Might be an issue with an ad blocker or something like that. It’s archived here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190323103101if_/https://econli...
To be fair, the article is not necessarily fantastic, it was just to show that there indeed were trade wars between the US and the EU before Trump.
To be fair, the article is not necessarily fantastic, it was just to show that there indeed were trade wars between the US and the EU before Trump.
Also the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.
You have it the wrong way round. International cooperation is based on US power, in particular US nukes, US air and naval superiority, US protection of Europe and US financing of European defence (NATO), US protection of international trade routes ...
No a lot of the current mess is due to US imperialism and bullying, the same way it had been messed up by British, French and Spanish imperialism before.
And this based on USD being at the core of finance.
US protection is not needed other than in places destroyed by the US in the first place.
Now more than ever, I'm quite certain that almost all countries in the world would jump on any opportunity to get rid of this currency influence.
Now more than ever, I'm quite certain that almost all countries in the world would jump on any opportunity to get rid of this currency influence.
I agree with this comment. The “long-standing peace” on this planet that began 1945 was just a moratorium of world wars for American fear of nuclear winter situation, and it’s ending.
The world will resume, and so will the progress, and it’ll happen here on Earth unless we choose to do it elsewhere, not because it’s easy but because it’s the only place there is.
The world will resume, and so will the progress, and it’ll happen here on Earth unless we choose to do it elsewhere, not because it’s easy but because it’s the only place there is.
Let's say there's a bully, and he just takes and steal stuff.
And then there's a big guy seeing that and telling the bully to fuck off and let the kids play without fear.
Both are power moves. Do you think they're the same thing though?
Yes, power is good way to bootstrap cooperation based on trust. This is a much more effective form of cooperation as you waste less energy on paranoia and watching over your back. You can also base cooperation on submission but then you have to constantly be at an all out war to protect your regime. Much less efficient or reasonable.
Both are power moves. Do you think they're the same thing though?
Yes, power is good way to bootstrap cooperation based on trust. This is a much more effective form of cooperation as you waste less energy on paranoia and watching over your back. You can also base cooperation on submission but then you have to constantly be at an all out war to protect your regime. Much less efficient or reasonable.
As JFK alluded to in his Inaugural Speech, 騎虎難下.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kennedy.asp
> "We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside."
https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mad.jpg
Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i4dJaYMebI
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kennedy.asp
> "We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside."
https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mad.jpg
Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i4dJaYMebI
fit2rule(1)
It's pretty normal that any organization trying to unlawfully assert its jurisdiction over another country will be met with a response. ICC has been trying to do the same thing to Israel which it also has no jurisdiction over.
If they also investigate china Great Leap Forward, ... up to rent Hong Kong or they try Russia ... just get everyone then I am all ears. For now, destroy USA credibility meant more than just touch the last remaining power sort of helping humanity.
They have all committed crimes so prosecuting either one isn't mutually exclusive. The great leap forward happened within the confines of a nation so its less clear cut then America invading another nation since thats a much more clear international interaction. Same with Russia since they had hidden their actions using "volunteers"
> If they also investigate china Great Leap Forward
China has not signed the ICC, and so the ICC has no jurisdiction with-in China (including HK). Afghanistan has signed the ICC treaty, so the ICC has jurisdiction with-in Afghanistan.
The alleged crimes occurred with-in Afghanistan.
If the alleged crimes occurred with-in Somalia, which is not an ICC member, the ICC could not investigate.
When you go to another country, you are bound by the laws of that country while you are with-in that country.
China has not signed the ICC, and so the ICC has no jurisdiction with-in China (including HK). Afghanistan has signed the ICC treaty, so the ICC has jurisdiction with-in Afghanistan.
The alleged crimes occurred with-in Afghanistan.
If the alleged crimes occurred with-in Somalia, which is not an ICC member, the ICC could not investigate.
When you go to another country, you are bound by the laws of that country while you are with-in that country.
The court is ridiculous. It has had 2 convictions in 13 years and has cost over a billion dollars.
Have the UN set up a trial commission whenever there is need to prosecute someone internationally.
No need to have it wander around on geopolitically volatile fishing expeditions when they have nothing to do.
Have the UN set up a trial commission whenever there is need to prosecute someone internationally.
No need to have it wander around on geopolitically volatile fishing expeditions when they have nothing to do.
Which part of your comment refers to the verb "sanctions"?
That's nihilism right there. There should be an international court and if you want to "judge" it you should have the credentials to divredit their work. Software developer is not one of them.
Who better to pass judgement on a court than its constituents/subjects? If the people that the court is meant to protect believe the court is illegitimate or lacks authority, then the court has failed.
It's subjects are the people of Bosnia, Rwanda etc. You are not from there and therefore you think it's just a money sink. You can't feel the value. But if you know how to better it please write an open letter to the court or UN
Buried right at the bottom of the article: "the US is not a party to the international tribunal".
Now, you can say they should be. But they're not. So if you look at it from a purely impartial and dispassionate standpoint, the court shouldn't get any special treatment - and the US would be entitled to take such actions against any other foreign group that set itself up and issued threats. It's like me setting up my own private court and then coming to arrest you.
The fact that most other countries are part of it may make a moral case for the US to join but not a legal one, which means that, again looking dispassionately, the US is entitled to do this.