US sanctions International Criminal Court officials

[Ifreann]

because he was sensible.

The reason Presidents don't allow the prosecution of the previous regime is because every regime is criminal. It's why Ford pardoned Nixon and why Obama let the torturers off the hook, because if they set a precedent they all are in trouble.

And I guarantee you Trump will never have to answer for anything he has done either. However much Democrats and Republicans pretend to hate each other, they look out for each other when it counts.

New York might nail him on some tax/charity shenanigans, which I'm sure he'll be extremely mad about, but yeah, he's getting away with all the big shit because the Dems are afraid of Biden going down in 4/8 years for all the big shit he's gonna do.

[Loben III]

The reason Presidents don't allow the prosecution of the previous regime is because every regime is criminal. It's why Ford pardoned Nixon and why Obama let the torturers off the hook, because if they set a precedent they all are in trouble.

And I guarantee you Trump will never have to answer for anything he has done either. However much Democrats and Republicans pretend to hate each other, they look out for each other when it counts.

New York might nail him on some tax/charity shenanigans, which I'm sure he'll be extremely mad about, but yeah, he's getting away with all the big shit because the Dems are afraid of Biden going down in 4/8 years for all the big shit he's gonna do.

for all the posturing trump did he did get Obama get off lightly too.

[Vassenor]

So everyone in Afghanistan is an insurgent? Because there are reports of some soldiers shooting civilians knowing they’re civilians.

and they should be prosecuted by US, not the ICC.

"We investigated ourselves and determined that we did nothing wrong."

[Thermodolia]

and they should be prosecuted by US, not the ICC.

"We investigated ourselves and determined that we did nothing wrong."

You do realize the US has Sentenced war criminals to prison right?

[Des-Bal]

You do realize the US has Sentenced war criminals to prison right?

Also regular criminals. The logic that America wouldn't convict an American is strange. You can also be executed for war crimes in the US, ICC is softball.

[The Archregimancy]

i see no difference between donald chump and sadam insane.

*** Warned for trolling via political nicknaming. ***

Note that the nicknaming of the current president of the United States is more problematic in this context than the nicknaming of the deceased former president of Iraq. The comparison between the two would not have been actionable had it simply used the relevant individuals' actual surnames.

[The Alma Mater]

The problem with that is that Pakistan has nukes

they have the range on us?

You seriously think there are not already mini-nukes in every major US city, ready to be detonated locally ? Perhaps even some bigger ones - 1000 kgs is not that hard to smuggle.

[State of Turelisa]

I think it's common knowledge that America is a pariah state, and the reason Dick Cheney and George Bush and even Obama aren't sharing a cell with Charles Taylor is because they have secret service protection and also because we may be actually insane enough to threaten to nuke Europe to ash if the Hague snatches one of our leaders up.

Frankly I would be more than willing to hand almost everyone in the Bush administration to the ICC.

Don't forget Tony Blair, the British PM who misled his nation and Parliament with false intelligence to justify invading Iraq. In a recent survey, a third of Britons want him tried for war crimes.

[The Lone Alliance]

The US in the past pretty much told the ICC to go fuck itself already, this is just a continuation of that policy.

for all the posturing trump did he did get Obama get off lightly too.

And he never did "Lock her up" either.

[Benuty]

Why are they acting like Americans aren't subject to jurisdiction? It's called the International Criminal Court, not the Every Continent and Region with the Exception of North American Criminal Court.

What a bunch of self-entitled twits.
Remember when that UK teen got run over by some Murican women and she never got prosecuted?

Yeah, a nation doesn't like extraditing its citizens imagine that. When Amanda Knox was released she understandably fled to the U.S when the Italians came round to convict her again, she rightly told them to get bent. The supreme court in Italy finally let her go, but I very much doubt she will be visiting that part of Europe for a long time.

[Bienenhalde]

How shameful it is that Trump defends war criminals! This is just one more reason why a second Trump term would be a disaster for the US and for the world.

[Vivolkha]

How shameful it is that Trump defends war criminals! This is just one more reason why a second Trump term would be a disaster for the US and for the world.

As if it was only Trump. Both Republican and Democrat administrations have shielded American war criminals from accountability.

[The Two Jerseys]

the right to turn the ICC into a pile of rubble if any random PFC got dragged before it

[US-SSR]

The thing to remember about this and similar statements and actions from the US Status Quo and Just Us departments is that they aren't aimed at persuading or convincing anyone about the rightness of their content. They are directed to an audience of one: the narcissistic buffoon in the Oval Office; and their import is "please I would very much like to keep my job, thank you, sir, may I please have another?"

[Telconi]

The thing to remember about this and similar statements and actions from the US Status Quo and Just Us departments is that they aren't aimed at persuading or convincing anyone about the rightness of their content. They are directed to an audience of one: the narcissistic buffoon in the Oval Office; and their import is "please I would very much like to keep my job, thank you, sir, may I please have another?"

The rightness of their content is self evident, no sovereign nation ought to permit foreign entities to kidnap and imprison your citizens.

[US-SSR]

The thing to remember about this and similar statements and actions from the US Status Quo and Just Us departments is that they aren't aimed at persuading or convincing anyone about the rightness of their content. They are directed to an audience of one: the narcissistic buffoon in the Oval Office; and their import is "please I would very much like to keep my job, thank you, sir, may I please have another?"

The rightness of their content is self evident, no sovereign nation ought to permit foreign entities to kidnap and imprison your citizens.

The ideal would be that violators of the laws of war and human rights would be investigated, arrested, charged, tried and if guilty, convicted and sentenced in their home countries. The President of the USA having pardoned said violators, however, that leaves that job up to "foreign entities."

Absent diplomatic immunity or special status under a Status of Forces or similar agreement, individuals resident in countries other than their country of nationality are subject to local law. If they break that law, they are subject to arrest, imprisonment, trial, and if guilty, conviction and sentence. The rights of their country of nationality are limited to assisting them in dealing with the "foreign entity's" legal process, translating the proceedings, etc.

What the ICC is doing is investigating -- investigating -- alleged violations of law in Afghanistan. No one has been charged or even accused at this point. What the US should do is announce its total cooperation with that investigation and its willingness to take legal action against any identified violators. Its overreaction further diminishes its standing with its allies, adversaries and international organizations.

But as I noted that overreaction is meant for the ears of one man, Donald John Trump, and its import is that Mike Pompeo likes his job and would like to keep it. Allies, adversaries and international organizations -- not to mention justice -- be damned.

[Des-Bal]

The ideal would be that violators of the laws of war and human rights would be investigated, arrested, charged, tried and if guilty, convicted and sentenced in their home countries. The President of the USA having pardoned said violators, however, that leaves that job up to "foreign entities."

Absent diplomatic immunity or special status under a Status of Forces or similar agreement, individuals resident in countries other than their country of nationality are subject to local law. If they break that law, they are subject to arrest, imprisonment, trial, and if guilty, conviction and sentence. The rights of their country of nationality are limited to assisting them in dealing with the "foreign entity's" legal process, translating the proceedings, etc.

What the ICC is doing is investigating -- investigating -- alleged violations of law in Afghanistan. No one has been charged or even accused at this point. What the US should do is announce its total cooperation with that investigation and its willingness to take legal action against any identified violators. Its overreaction further diminishes its standing with its allies, adversaries and international organizations.

But as I noted that overreaction is meant for the ears of one man, Donald John Trump, and its import is that Mike Pompeo likes his job and would like to keep it. Allies, adversaries and international organizations -- not to mention justice -- be damned.

Fuck. No. Your description would suggest that a presidential pardon invites ICC oversight. The correct response is not to recognize that authority as legitimate, it's to bitchslap and pledge further bitchslapping. Trumps a dickhead but this is'n't just about him. Obama didn't push to join the ICC, he didn't do shit about the Bomb the Hague act, and even though he was nicey nice with them when the ICC came knocking there's no way in hell he would have taken the investigation lying down. He may not have gone straight to the "we will treat you like terrorists" saber rattling but it wasn't going to be nice.

[USS Monitor]

Maybe don't commit war crimes and you won't have a problem with the ICC?

[Des-Bal]

Maybe don't commit war crimes and you won't have a problem with the ICC?

If you're going to have war you're going to have war crimes. The US is capable of and willing to investigate and prosecute them. If the ICC attempts involve itself the best case scenario is that they get punked.

[Mahabrahma]

Even Pete Hoekstra (R - congressman from Michigan at the time) suggested that the "Bomb The Hague" act should be withdrawn.

It was disgusting that the Americans kept it around - and now we see why: they want to act with impunity.

Unvoluntarily, Albrecht Haushofer's Moabiter Sonnetten come to mind:

How easy it is to hear of other people's demises
How heavy it is to bear your own people's fall.
From strangers it's a faint echo.
Close to home it is a loud death rattle.

A death rattle born from hate
Nursed by vengeful pride and hubris
And now it's forced, broken, and twisted.
And the best is lost as well in the downfall.

When this people could not bear the victory,
God's mills have ground quickly
And now it must pay terribly for its sweep.

It was so tough when it hit the others
So deaf to the pleading of its victims:
How will it like to bear victimhood?

Gentle reminder: The American service members protection act has bipartisan support. BOTH parties are leading the USA into a world of cold shoulders, indifference, and pay-back.

[Cordel One]

Bad things happen to people with influence that call out the United States on its terrorism and war crimes...

Maybe don't commit war crimes and you won't have a problem with the ICC?

If you're going to have war you're going to have war crimes. The US is capable of and willing to investigate and prosecute them. If the ICC attempts involve itself the best case scenario is that they get punked.

The US almost never holds itself or the individuals responsible accountable for war crimes. The people running Abu Ghraib are far from the only ones to be let off the hook with little to no punishment.

[Mahabrahma]

If the USA would prosecute war criminals, not only "she" would have been locked up, but also her husband and the president who made her Secerary of State.

[Ifreann]

If the USA would prosecute war criminals, not only "she" would have been locked up, but also her husband and the president who made her Secerary of State.

And every living President and their cabinets and so on und so weiter...

[Liriena]

Chomsky put it best. Every single post-WWII American president could have faced the same consequences that the Nazis did if the Nuremberg laws had been applied to them. The United States have a very good geopolitical reason, at least from a cynical pragmatic POV, not to abide by the rules they themselves once championed. If the United States were to play the international law game by the same rules as most less powerful nations, they would almost immediately find themselves short of most of their political and military leadership since 1945. And you couldn't remain a global superpower for long if your political and military leadership loses its unaccountable, untouchable international status.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

And then one day you wake up and you are no longer the dominant global superpower. Another country is rendering your citizens into prison camps for old war crimes, and torturing them. And all the countries you treated like shit, when you were at the top of the pile, are lining up to join in kicking you. But of course America is special and will never lose its dominance...