The US wielding the sanctions banhammer the way they have been recently will only weaken its power over time and create opportunity for economic rivals like China. Every time they (mis)use it they create incentive for people to create alternatives to the US financial system. You won't see sanctions become completely completely toothless overnight, but I could see in maybe 15-20 years that getting around US sanctions will be a mere inconvenience.
> The US wielding the sanctions banhammer the way they have been recently will only weaken its power over time and create opportunity for economic rivals like China.
China is not party to the Rome Statute, just like the US and Israel, I would expect they would retaliate against the ICC if the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Xi Jinping.
> Every time they (mis)use it they create incentive for people to create alternatives to the US financial system.
I think the ICC has much bigger credibility issues trying to impose jurisdiction over conflicts involving countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute.
> I think the ICC has much bigger credibility issues trying to impose jurisdiction over conflicts involving countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute.
It might create opportunity for the EU. China routinely deploys similar sanctions against people who e.g. recognize the independence of Taiwan or refuse to buy cotton from Xinjiang.
That's absolutely wonderful. Great illustration why Europe needs to oust any American based service from the market. If Americans want to have access to EU customers they should be doing it only through local company (they are allowed to own) that doesn't obey US law, but only European law instead.
The US argues that the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over the cases in question, and considers the ICC's attempts to investigate them a violation of sovereignty.
So? How is that the fault of the people working there? Would you want that to happen to you if you were working for a McDonalds, and McDonalds was deemed unhealthy in Europe and banned?
> They are on a international body that is investigating allegations of war crimes and genocide that the United States and Israel have committed in Gaza
She was apparently sanctioned for the Afghanistan investigation, while others at the ICC were sanctioned for going after Israel.[0]
Let me first say I find it totally disgusting that she's getting debanked and it's not the first time: Canada did debank truckers and people organizing to send aid to truckers a few years ago.
But to answer your question...
What she did was zero condemnation of what even Amnesty International qualifies as a crime against humanity by legally elected Hamas (classified as a terror organization) but then overstepping her bound where she had no legislation and condemning the prime minister of a country that entered war.
Entered war after said crimes against humanity, where 1200 civilians were raped, killed and taken hostages (to the great joy of Gaza's population who, back then, was welcoming Hamas like heroes for the crimes against humanity they just committed).
Like way too many in the west who stayed completely silent on Oct 7th, she and others then went on a legal jihad against Israel for fighting back against people who, simply put, want to eradicate jews from the surface of the earth.
The same kind of people who are staying silent on a father and his son killing 16 jews on Bondi beach two days ago but who'll be everywhere to cry "islamophobia" if anyone points out that they were fighting islamist jihad.
I find it disgusting that she and others are getting debanked but don't get me wrong: to me she's a despicable tool of the muslim brotherhood (which is a terrorist organization) who wished Israel and jews were erased from the face of earth.
Imagine you're australian and 75x Bondi beach happens by Hamas (I'm not saying Hamas did that attack, it's an example): 75x is the scale of Oct 7th compared to the death on Bondi beach. What should the answer of Australia be towards Gaza?
And imagine 75x Bondi beach happen and then ICC judges stay eerily quiet on the subject but then, once Australia strikes back, the ICC, overstepping its jurisdiction, condemns australian officials for war crimes.
That's what she did wrong.
But this certainly doesn't mean she should get debanked. She, and the other Hamas-loving ICC judges, should just be exposed for what they are.
Think of all the people who've been very vocal pro-Gaza, including here on HN, but who are totally quiet on the 16 jews who were just killed on a beach in australia in the name of islamist jihad.
Things are way muddier and way darker than we think.
No, but do keep in mind that the ICC isn't very old. I think it's clear that the Bush administration at least would have imposed sanctions if the occasion arose; he signed the famous "Hague Invasion Act", authorizing military force to free any Americans who do end up in ICC custody.
The US wielding the sanctions banhammer the way they have been recently will only weaken its power over time and create opportunity for economic rivals like China. Every time they (mis)use it they create incentive for people to create alternatives to the US financial system. You won't see sanctions become completely completely toothless overnight, but I could see in maybe 15-20 years that getting around US sanctions will be a mere inconvenience.
> The US wielding the sanctions banhammer the way they have been recently will only weaken its power over time and create opportunity for economic rivals like China.
China is not party to the Rome Statute, just like the US and Israel, I would expect they would retaliate against the ICC if the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Xi Jinping.
> Every time they (mis)use it they create incentive for people to create alternatives to the US financial system.
I think the ICC has much bigger credibility issues trying to impose jurisdiction over conflicts involving countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute.
> I would expect they would retaliate against the ICC if the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Xi Jinping.
Funny that we’re using this example when the ICC has issued a warrant against someone who isn’t the US head of state
2 replies →
> I think the ICC has much bigger credibility issues trying to impose jurisdiction over conflicts involving countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute.
such as…?
4 replies →
It might create opportunity for the EU. China routinely deploys similar sanctions against people who e.g. recognize the independence of Taiwan or refuse to buy cotton from Xinjiang.
The only problem is that the EU is kind of irrelevant when it comes to "financial systems."
2 replies →
Ofcom should probably be added to the US Sanctioned list.
That's absolutely wonderful. Great illustration why Europe needs to oust any American based service from the market. If Americans want to have access to EU customers they should be doing it only through local company (they are allowed to own) that doesn't obey US law, but only European law instead.
What did she do wrong?
The US argues that the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over the cases in question, and considers the ICC's attempts to investigate them a violation of sovereignty.
So? How is that the fault of the people working there? Would you want that to happen to you if you were working for a McDonalds, and McDonalds was deemed unhealthy in Europe and banned?
31 replies →
They are on a international body that is investigating allegations of war crimes and genocide that the United States and Israel have committed in Gaza
> They are on a international body that is investigating allegations of war crimes and genocide that the United States and Israel have committed in Gaza
She was apparently sanctioned for the Afghanistan investigation, while others at the ICC were sanctioned for going after Israel.[0]
[0] https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...
Let me first say I find it totally disgusting that she's getting debanked and it's not the first time: Canada did debank truckers and people organizing to send aid to truckers a few years ago.
But to answer your question...
What she did was zero condemnation of what even Amnesty International qualifies as a crime against humanity by legally elected Hamas (classified as a terror organization) but then overstepping her bound where she had no legislation and condemning the prime minister of a country that entered war.
Entered war after said crimes against humanity, where 1200 civilians were raped, killed and taken hostages (to the great joy of Gaza's population who, back then, was welcoming Hamas like heroes for the crimes against humanity they just committed).
Like way too many in the west who stayed completely silent on Oct 7th, she and others then went on a legal jihad against Israel for fighting back against people who, simply put, want to eradicate jews from the surface of the earth.
The same kind of people who are staying silent on a father and his son killing 16 jews on Bondi beach two days ago but who'll be everywhere to cry "islamophobia" if anyone points out that they were fighting islamist jihad.
I find it disgusting that she and others are getting debanked but don't get me wrong: to me she's a despicable tool of the muslim brotherhood (which is a terrorist organization) who wished Israel and jews were erased from the face of earth.
Imagine you're australian and 75x Bondi beach happens by Hamas (I'm not saying Hamas did that attack, it's an example): 75x is the scale of Oct 7th compared to the death on Bondi beach. What should the answer of Australia be towards Gaza?
And imagine 75x Bondi beach happen and then ICC judges stay eerily quiet on the subject but then, once Australia strikes back, the ICC, overstepping its jurisdiction, condemns australian officials for war crimes.
That's what she did wrong.
But this certainly doesn't mean she should get debanked. She, and the other Hamas-loving ICC judges, should just be exposed for what they are.
Think of all the people who've been very vocal pro-Gaza, including here on HN, but who are totally quiet on the 16 jews who were just killed on a beach in australia in the name of islamist jihad.
Things are way muddier and way darker than we think.
You got down voted by haters lol, don't worry there are some of us who support you
Has the US imposed these kinds of sanctions on the ICC before Trump?
No, but do keep in mind that the ICC isn't very old. I think it's clear that the Bush administration at least would have imposed sanctions if the occasion arose; he signed the famous "Hague Invasion Act", authorizing military force to free any Americans who do end up in ICC custody.
It's part of the Trump administration's support of crypto. </sarcasm>