Comment by torstenvl
2 years ago
"International war crimes courts" do not prosecute treason.
And it isn't about the personnel being "above" anything. It's simply that the ICC is not a court and does not respect due process, so we do not subject American citizens to it (and indeed it would be an interesting Constitutional question as to whether that's even truly possible).
From a more pragmatic perspective, as long as Russia and China don't recognize the ICC's authority, it would be a major global strategic blunder to impose checks and balances only on the United States.
Were some of the comments up-thread edited or something? I don’t see any mention of treason in this specific chain until this post (but it is weird because hammock’s post, at this same level, also mentions treason).
Of course there are other threads that bring up the possibility of treason. But I don’t see why there’s a need to explain the (obvious, right?) fact that the ICC wouldn’t prosecute treason.
The post I was responding to asked:
> “If he was a "war criminal" as many here claim, why wasn't he ever prosecuted or convicted?”
Which, I guess I just meant, prosecuted by whom? He was the US government at the highest levels and there is no international body with jurisdiction. It doesn’t seem like nobody being able to press charges means a man is innocent.
Sure I just mean, “how come nobody prosecuted him for it” doesn’t really prove innocence here.