Comment by joering2
9 hours ago
"This action should encourage our Allies within the Court to work for solutions to end this threat to U.S. sovereignty forever."
I guess what he is saying is that work of International Criminal Court is a threat to US sovereignty ? Can someone make that make sense?
The U.S. wants to retain the right to commit war crimes without someone charging U.S. officials or soldiers with them, they have the sovereign right to commit war crimes. Russia doesn't, Iraq doesn't. The U.S. does, Israel does.
That is the 'International rules-based order' as opposed to the U.N. international law order.
> Russia doesn't, Iraq doesn't
?? Not sure. Can you provide examples of condemning for war crimes those and other regimes in the current times? I may be wrong, but I am getting the vibe of "free for all until somebody bigger shouts that's enough" - more clearly, I am not seeing ethical stances defended.
--
Edit: thanks Newjazz for the reply. Did not notice, I thought they just decided "free for all". Yes, that makes it more appalling - shameless.
Having trouble with google since they only seem to report news from the last month, but rubio has definitely criticized Hamas, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba for war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. Note that I acknowledge that in many of these cases the criticism was rightful, but the context here is the double standard.
The 'international rules-based order' was established by the US at the end of WWII as the legal framework for rebuilding Europe after the war.
Honest question, what makes you think the US, China, or Russia need to abide by legal agreements made 80 years ago by people who aren't around anymore? Those three countries have since agreed amongst themselves that the 'international rules-based order' was a mistake, and nobody else has a big enough stick to do anything about it.
> I guess what he is saying is that work of International Criminal Court is a threat to US sovereignty ? Can someone make that make sense?
Why do you need help? It's obvious. The dictionary definition of sovereignty is "supreme power especially over a body politic" and "freedom from external control : autonomy sense 1." If the ICC has power over the US government or can externally control it (for instance by arresting its leaders), it is a straightforwardly impinges on US sovereignty.
I'm not sure if I buy that argument. I understand what they mean, but the US has sovereignty over what happens within its borders. The ICC isn't entering the US and arresting anyone.
By your logic, every other country "impinges on US sovereignty" because they can arrest US citizens within their own borders.
That's not sovereignty. Sovereignty doesn't imply anything and it is not a designation bestowed by some other entity. It is purely descriptive of an evident state. If you can defend your claim to sovereignty, you are sovereign. Moreover, no claim need be made.
They consider their sovereignty to be unlimited. They bomb other countries, starve other countries, sanction other countries...
> By your logic, every other country "impinges on US sovereignty"
Trump has claimed exactly that several different times.
and in what sense is it doing that at all? unlike the US, the signatories arent parachuting into other sovereign countries to effect their laws. they are enforcing their laws within their own borders.
for some reason that's offended the US, who then proceeds to extra-judiciously impose their will on citizens of other sovereign nations who aren't even in the US.
so who is coloring outside the lines here?
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the US govt has no power outside its territory. If some US citizen commits a crime abroad, he/she can be prosecuted outside the US. This does not interfere with US sovereignty.
> Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the US govt has no power outside its territory.
I don't know what planet you live on but this hasn't been true for the better half of the last century.
US sovereignty requires being able to perform war crimes with impunity. Surprise double-tap strikes on civilian boats in the Atlantic are an example of them.
If America stood for any of the principles it claims to, the servicemembers and their commanders who performed them would be held to account for them.
Or strikes on Iranian schools killing hundreds of kids, later blamed on AI.
Bombing a school in an air war is slightly different from hitting a boat with a missile and then after its immobilized, murdering all the survivors.
One can be blamed on fog of war, the other is straight up murder, and all involved need to be prosecuted as such.
1 reply →
[dead]