US threatens to arrest ICC judges for Afghan war crimes

[Telconi]

Nobody insists anything, it's a voluntary group, any nation which falls under the authority of the ICC does so because it agreed to it.

Or, the UN can refer cases to the court, superseding the typical binding of 'member states'.

The former Yugoslavia would have had trouble signing and ratifying because it didn't exist anymore, regardless of the fact that it never would have done so had it existed then - and yet, Yugoslav war criminals, plural, have been tried or sought for trial.

Which is stupid.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Do we really have different 'versions' of human rights to do with war now?

If we didn't we wouldn't need a court now would we?

What? Of course we would. The guilt of a suspect still needs to be proven. We all think murder is wrong, but we still have courts for that.

[Imperializt Russia]

Or, the UN can refer cases to the court, superseding the typical binding of 'member states'.

The former Yugoslavia would have had trouble signing and ratifying because it didn't exist anymore, regardless of the fact that it never would have done so had it existed then - and yet, Yugoslav war criminals, plural, have been tried or sought for trial.

Which is stupid.

[bewildered laughter intensifies]

[Telconi]

If we didn't we wouldn't need a court now would we?

What? Of course we would. The guilt of a suspect still needs to be proven. We all think murder is wrong, but we still have courts for that.

Murderers certainly don't seem to think murder is wrong.

[Alvecia]

What? Of course we would. The guilt of a suspect still needs to be proven. We all think murder is wrong, but we still have courts for that.

Murderers certainly don't seem to think murder is wrong.

I'm sure many do, they just do it anyway.

[Imperializt Russia]

What? Of course we would. The guilt of a suspect still needs to be proven. We all think murder is wrong, but we still have courts for that.

Murderers certainly don't seem to think murder is wrong.

That's largely because most "murderers" don't actually intend to kill anyone, hence premeditated murder being one of the lowest-prosecuted.

""Murderers"" in the sense of people who fully intend to kill others, are fully aware of the "immorality" and the proscribed nature of their actions. They simply don't care.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

What? Of course we would. The guilt of a suspect still needs to be proven. We all think murder is wrong, but we still have courts for that.

Murderers certainly don't seem to think murder is wrong.

That is why we have prosecution, but not why we have courts. Courts exist to determine guilt, not to act as an arbiter during a debate on whether murder is right or not.

[Saarkrisken]

Because it would want to hold itself apart from China, India, Russia and other countries that don't assert a claim to international moral leadership. You know, all that American exceptionalism, shining city on the hill, leader of the free world BS.

It’s why I’ve always found American nationalism funny. Normally people who want to be top of the hill, the world superpower admit it’s so they can rule the world. Americans have this wierd thing of claiming they only want to make the world safe and free in spite of years to of evidence to the contrary

Actually, that is not the case. The term superpower is a bit controversial, but the idea is used to describe the Cold War, with there being only two superpowers, the USA and USSR. This classification is in contrast to the pre-WWII idea of great powers. Russia is no longer considered a superpower by most experts, and there is debate to which extent the USA still is one. Part of the reason for this change, is that Russia not only lost a lot of territory after the fall of Communism, but was no longer the leader of a bloc.

Anyway, both the USA and USSR appealed to higher ideals. At no point did the USA or the USSR say anything that could be interpreted as admitting they wish to rule world. That is also a bit circular, like "I wish to rule the world, in order to rule the world." Great Powers, which usually designated European nations, mostly talked about the balance of power, or things like legitimacy, rights of princes etc. For example, if a king inherited another kingdom, he would claim it was rightfully his. The other nations would claim that he can't have it because of the balance of power. They justified their conquests out of Europe differently

I should also point out that American Nationalists, are usually accused of being isolationists, and indeed during the Bush administration, the term Imperialist was employed much more than nationalist. The America First idea has very much it roots in isolationism, taking its name from the most mainstream opposition group to oppose US entrance in the war. The idea that the US is responsible for world peace is not really an American Nationalist idea, but an Atlanticist idea. The Europeans have really bought into this. I suggest you read "The Obama Doctrine" article by Goldberg, it explains very well the conflict between the pro and anti intervention groups.

During the Cold War, the primary goal of the US was to contain communism. This was an international goal, and was supported by Europe as well. Only after the end of the cold war, did the focus to spreading democracy change. This was in part due to remorse by the cold warriors who helped put dictators in place. Which is why the criticism of the US support for dictators was misplaced when applied to the Iraq war. The Neocons, who pushed for Saddam's removal well before there was any mention of WMDs, were well aware of the past, having been involved in it, and were, in their minds correcting a past error.

Neocons, are not American Nationalists, and American exceptionalism is not jingoism. It doesn't mean that America is above the international law, and others aren't. One meaning is that the US is a nation of ideas, the other that without America's leadership the "Liberal World Order" doesn't work. Obama tried to change that, but it looks like Trump is doing a better job. Obama complained that without US leadership, other nations wouldn't agree on things. However, despite US opposition on the Paris Accords and Iran Deal, Europe has maintained both deals.

[Mystic Warriors]

So among the international community, America is sitting on the floor, licking its own balls?

Okay.

if we go by the description in the animal kingdom then sure the United States is a doggy dog while the vast majority of international community are just microorganism levels.

Its gonna break your heart when you find out China economically and some areas politically are stronger than the USA. We don't become #1 just because your side is in power. Same rules apply all around.

[Chestaan]

Any country which values international human rights and justice should be a part of it though...

Oh, wait...

You mean any country which values the ICC's version of what constitutes international human rights and justice.

Please be specific and give examples of parts of the ICC's version of human rights that you disagree with. Maybe something to do with not torturing prisoners?

[Chestaan]

What? Of course we would. The guilt of a suspect still needs to be proven. We all think murder is wrong, but we still have courts for that.

Murderers certainly don't seem to think murder is wrong.

If murderers had the choice their wouldn't be a court that could prosecute them for murder. In the same way that countries that commit war crimes are opposed to a court that can prosecute them for war crimes.

[Uxupox]

if we go by the description in the animal kingdom then sure the United States is a doggy dog while the vast majority of international community are just microorganism levels.

Its gonna break your heart when you find out China economically and some areas politically are stronger than the USA. We don't become #1 just because your side is in power. Same rules apply all around.

"politically" stronger. you sure about that? The relationship that exists today between the United States and China is one of symbiotic means. We have our own areas of influence. The Chinese are absolutely hated by all of their neighbors. Their international position is not ideal for political maneuvering into another country however it does mean that they have to expand their own influence into another region entirely which as of this moment the ideal is the Eastern coast of Africa.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Murderers certainly don't seem to think murder is wrong.

If murderers had the choice their wouldn't be a court that could prosecute them for murder. In the same way that countries that commit war crimes are opposed to a court that can prosecute them for war crimes.

Funny how that works

[Telconi]

You mean any country which values the ICC's version of what constitutes international human rights and justice.

Please be specific and give examples of parts of the ICC's version of human rights that you disagree with. Maybe something to do with not torturing prisoners?

The idea that an uninvolved organization has the capacity to decode what is a war crime and exert punishment for it.

[Chestaan]

Please be specific and give examples of parts of the ICC's version of human rights that you disagree with. Maybe something to do with not torturing prisoners?

The idea that an uninvolved organization has the capacity to decode what is a war crime and exert punishment for it.

An independent organisation is needed as those who are involved are unlikely to prosecute themselves.

Edit: In fact courts are always uninvolved organisations. If a judge or jury member was involved in the crime then they wouldn't be allowed to take part in the case. You can't have a murderer being their own judge, it doesn't make sense.

[Telconi]

The idea that an uninvolved organization has the capacity to decode what is a war crime and exert punishment for it.

An independent organisation is needed as those who are involved are unlikely to prosecute themselves.

Edit: In fact courts are always uninvolved organisations. If a judge or jury member was involved in the crime then they wouldn't be allowed to take part in the case. You can't have a murderer being their own judge, it doesn't make sense.

Yes, the courts who prosecure murderers are also organs of the state to which that murderer is a citizen.

[Chestaan]

An independent organisation is needed as those who are involved are unlikely to prosecute themselves.

Edit: In fact courts are always uninvolved organisations. If a judge or jury member was involved in the crime then they wouldn't be allowed to take part in the case. You can't have a murderer being their own judge, it doesn't make sense.

Yes, the courts who prosecure murderers are also organs of the state to which that murderer is a citizen.

Firstly, they don't have to be as sometimes non-citizens commit crimes. Secondly, war crimes are often committed by states, not individuals. The US can't try itself for war crimes and call the trial fair.

[Telconi]

Yes, the courts who prosecure murderers are also organs of the state to which that murderer is a citizen.

Firstly, they don't have to be as sometimes non-citizens commit crimes. Secondly, war crimes are often committed by states, not individuals. The US can't try itself for war crimes and call the trial fair.

Sure it can. Just like the ICC can.

And you're right, sometimes the court is an organ of the state in which the crime occured, either way, the ICC is neither of these things.

[Chestaan]

Firstly, they don't have to be as sometimes non-citizens commit crimes. Secondly, war crimes are often committed by states, not individuals. The US can't try itself for war crimes and call the trial fair.

Sure it can. Just like the ICC can.

The ICC doesn't have an army and so would find it quite difficult to commit warcrimes. In any case, why should only involved parties decide what a war crime is?

[Telconi]

Sure it can. Just like the ICC can.

The ICC doesn't have an army and so would find it quite difficult to commit warcrimes. In any case, why should only involved parties decide what a war crime is?

Who said anything about the ICC committing war crimes? But in any case, why should some random entity decide what a war crime is?

[Thermodolia]

America is gonna start losing their superpower status anyways, in the upcoming decades

None of the other world powers are party to the ICC either. China definitely isn’t and neither is Russia

[Eodor]

I read half a page of this thread and my brain did a somersault after people legitimately got mad at the Hague for telling Americans to stop committing war crimes.

What has this website come to?

[Thermodolia]

Just read a cogent analysis of this on the Lawfare blog. Bolton's jeremiad is what those of us who have been in the diplomatic service used to call "for domestic consumption," what today is called "red meat for the whooping yokels at his boss's campaign events." As noted the US honors the principles of the ICC as it does its existence, very much in the breach. Personally I think one of Bolton's greatest outrages was quoting FDR, who helped create the postwar international community and would have wholehartedy supported the ICC; and I look forward with interest to the ICC's proposed investigation into US war crimes in Afghanistan.

No FDR wouldn’t have joined the ICC. No president has. Besides the ICC can’t do shit because they have no legal authority in the US

What is the electoral college?

A mechanism conceived when the US enslaved Africans to work the land it stole from Natives to give the most reactionary elements in its society an outsized voice in seating a President. Having thwarted the will of the American people as expressed at the ballot box twice in the last five elections and utterly failed to fulfill whatever function it may have had in keeping narcissistic buffoons with zero respect for the rule of law, the patience of 8-year-old boys and the moral sense of toddlers who are supported by and embrace the policies of the nation's most formidable adversaries out of the Executive Mansion, its time, if it ever had one, has passed.

Oh bullshit. I don’t like the EC as much as the next guy but this is just insane

The US prosecutes its own war criminals while Russia does not.

Does it now? It just made one of its chief torturers head of the CIA; torture is a war crime. George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are all running around at liberty despite having planned and carried out aggressive war against Iraq; planning and carrying out aggressive war "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" according to the Nuerenberg Tribunal

Not one of those is a war criminal.

It is still holding people in captivity without charges or trial 17 years after 9/11, an atrocity and a standing shame continued under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

How is that a bad thing?

And the trial of a US military contractor who, with his fellow criminals, murdered 31 Iraqi civilians with machine guns and grenades just ended in a hung jury.

Shit happens. It’s not to say that wouldn’t happen in an international tribunal either. Remember even a few Nazis got acquitted.

At one point I might have said the same, maybe even made the claim that the US was a nation of laws and not of men. In the year of the common era two thousand and eighteen I'm far from convinced.

Oh look it’s the “current year” argument

[United American Commomwealth]

Daily reminder that we should bomb the Hague.

^

[Proctopeo]

I read half a page of this thread and my brain did a somersault after people legitimately got mad at the Hague for telling Americans to stop committing war crimes.

What has this website come to?

because

the Dutch have no jurisdiction in America