Comment by AdmiralAsshat
9 hours ago
> "President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement, first published by Reuters.
Can't think of a more flagrant and succinct declaration that the US believes itself "above the law."
All countries are above the law. When was the last time you saw a country in jail or meaningfully punished? The only one who can punish a country is another country if they are powerful and violent enough.
Who should be responsible for enforcing the Geneva Conventions and other international humanitarian law? Or are we finally admitting that the only "international law" we officially recognize is Might Makes Right?
Nobody is. Russia is repeatedly violating them despite being signers of the treaty, and nobody does anything.
I don't like it, but I'm not signing up to do anything about it, and I'm not going to sign my kids up for it either.
4 replies →
All signatories to the Geneva Conventions are responsible for enforcing it. The USA never ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and thus has no responsibility to enforce it.
9 replies →
> Or are we finally admitting that the only "international law" we officially recognize is Might Makes Right?
People like Trump and Hegseth have been saying that very explicitly in at least the past couple years
It has always been might makes right, are you under the impression it wasn’t that way at some point? I’m not endorsing the actions of the current administration, simply stating how global geopolitics works. There’s no such thing as a supranational organization that can force a nuclear power to do anything of consequence.
The only people that get prosecuted by the ICC are people that lose wars (no winner has ever been prosecuted) and are also from nations that do not have nuclear weapons / nuclear protection.
2 replies →
I mean... just about every 'enforcement' of international norms has been by american hard and soft power. Might has always made right, it's just that the guy with the biggest gun happened to have western liberal values.
Seems like that changed a little in the last decade. Hopefully it's not forever, but who knows.
"Finally admitting"
Google League of Nations
We're repeating old social tropes the 50+ year old leadership lived through.
It's sad and pathetic. The youth reliance on old leadership and putting that on them is elder abuse. McConnell and Feinstein handlers should be prosecuted for such.
This is 100% on lazy, low-skilled, younger American public that doesn't need Depends expecting better from the generation glazing over live on TV and vanishing from office only to be found months later in an institution
The censored for TV era propped such olds up on screen for decades and refused to challenge their speculations and bullshit; everyone actually believes the elders are cogent and capable but they never were. Just puppets of a bygone era of televised circuses beamed to the Wonder Bread eating masses
1 reply →
It's one thing to say: "We will not recognize or abide by ICC verdicts".
It's another thing to say: "We will dismantle it if it goes after Americans".
It's also extremely hypocritical since Rubio himself co-sponsored a resolution backing the court's jurisdiction over Russians accused of war crimes.
So it's really more like: "If it says things we agree with, we will be on board. If it says things we disagree with, not only will we not be on board, we will erase the whole thing".
Which is why the ICC was established by several countries as part of an international agreement. It's literally other countries collaborating to punish bad actor countries.
> Which is why the ICC was established by several countries as part of an international agreement. It's literally other countries collaborating to punish bad actor countries.
What would you think of an agreement by ten guys that they'll work together to beat you up if they decide you're a "bad actor"? Is it somehow solemn and respectable merely because they came to an agreement? Even if you don't agree their self-declaration should give them power over you?
I think the way you've presented things is misleading. International relations is literally anarchy, and different groups have different points of view. Mere collaboration is only that.
12 replies →
Bad actor _people_. The court tries people.
USA sovereignty is not at issue, it's who now holds it as your democracy has failed, and will a future sovereign demos choose to apply this moral law to those within it's sovereign estate.
But it's largely the court of center-left European thinking. It's a political tool without teeth, and since none of US, China, Russia are signatories, it can only prosecute people without a great power sponsor.
How’s that going ?
4 replies →
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche
A country is an abstract idea at the end of the day. How can you put Uganda in a physical jail? Or how can one country "punish" another?
If you're talking about invading and occupying the people, every person is still theoretically under the law of whatever country they are in by default.
International law isn't real. If Americans do crimes, they will be tried for them (or not) in American courts.
This is largely consistent with historical US views on international law. In 2002 the US passed the American Service-Members' Protection Act, which states that if any US service member or elected official is criminally prosecuted by the ICC, the president can use "any means necessary" (i.e. invading the Hague) to ensure their release.
In general any idea that international law is relevant except as a tool for the West to provide moral justification for its actions when it's convenient to do so is naive. At least the Trump administration being more vulgar and crude in expressing its disregard for international law compared to previous administrations may open more people's eyes.
>> "President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement, first published by Reuters.
> Can't think of a more flagrant and succinct declaration that the US believes itself "above the law."
So would you think of yourself "above the law" if you refused to submit to my law?
Apparently the US never ratified the ICC treaty. International relations is literally an anarchy, there's no "higher authority" to impose law. Countries can only voluntarily submit to a treaty, or be violently coerced by another country.
The ICC would be unconstitutional in the United States.
https://usunrome.usmission.gov/why-were-dismantling-the-icc/
That link doesn't make that argument, and I wouldn't find Marco Rubio convincing at steelmanning that point even if he tried.
"Rules for thee, but not for me!"
> Can't think of a more flagrant and succinct declaration that the US believes itself "above the law."
I don't think you understand the concept of "sovereignty"
The US has always been “above the law.” This is about Israel and its genocide against the Palestinians.
[flagged]
Yes, the world's leading experts on what constitutes genocide have agreed with the use. Please google it before saying things behind a new account.
Words have meaning. Gaza qualifies. So does Ukraine.
1 reply →
We don’t have even need to imagine what would have happened if the Nazis had won
As in, they would have forgiven themselves and punished international courts who tried to prosecute them.
I have a hard time seeing the alternative history where the nazis' won which lead to the formation of Israel 3 years later and consequent Israeli colony expansion, leading to the current conflicts and ICC stuff.
but it would probably an an entertaining novel.
The Nazis actually supported the Zionists, so this would have been the likely outcome regardless of who won the war unfortunately: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
It makes sense if you think about them wanting to ethnically cleanse Jewish people out of Germany.
4 replies →
On the other hand America justified using 2 nukes on people
No surviving Soviet Union and hence no Mao, no North Korea (and no Korean War), Viet Minh easily squashed, no Vietnam War (the American one -- but the one against the French would happen anyway). Half of Europe would not have been occupied by the Soviet Union.
And the Nazis wouldn't have lasted long, anyway.
Random bombings of boats in the Caribbean is another.
That’s a war crime confession, isn’t it?
This is not "the US", this is one or two very unpopular politicians whose tenure will be short. Wait until the midterm elections before you judge the whole country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
one or two? this has been standing us law since the bush era.
That'd be nice, but it's fantasy. This, as I gesture at the state of the world, was inevitable if Trump was voted in, and Trump was voted in.
The US has very large problems far beyond one or two politicians.
> This is not "the US", this is one or two very unpopular politicians whose tenure will be short
Trump has been in office for 6 years. Because 2/3 of America either voted him in or didn't bother showing up. I've been reading people say "he's unpopular" for a decade. But America voted him in again, this time with more power than he's ever had before.
There is no way to decouple his legacy from America anymore. You would have to have a blowout midterm with a Senate supermajority that can roll back everything he's done.