US sanctions International Criminal Court officials

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/02/politics/us-icc-sanctions/index.html

by echaozh • 6 years ago

182 145 6 years ago

edition.cnn.com

mola11• 6 years ago

Disgusting. This administration is shattering any form of international cooperation not based on power and submission. This brings humanity back to a pre WWs mentality.

dependenttypes9• 6 years ago

To be fair this is not a new thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands.

To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd. The only bad thing about this is that the US is not willing to punish their own war criminals.

This administration is shattering any form of international cooperation not based on power and submission

The only other two things that I can think of are the withdrawal from UNESCO and from WHO (this one was justified IMO), do you have anything else in mind?

kergonath4• 6 years ago

They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands.
To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd.

What? This is the definition of absurdity.

mola11• 6 years ago

Trade wars with Europe China Mexico

amanaplanacanal• 6 years ago

Also the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal.

0823498723498723• 6 years ago

Exactly to a WWs mentality. Before those wars[1] the mentality (at least for continental europe) was balance-of-power (with a brief interlude during which Napoleon tried to export revolution[2]).

... δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.[3]

[1] In another few centuries they'll probably be lumped together as the 31 years war or something.

[2] not all of which was bad. Afterwards, unlike the Bourbons, my country kept the best changes (e.g. the law code) and got rid of the worst (e.g. the french running things).

[3] If JFK were alive today, I bet he'd have half a mind to call these sanctions a dick move.

fit2rule5• 6 years ago

[1] In another few centuries they'll probably be lumped together as the 31 years war or something.

A large majority of people consider that in fact it is WORLD WAR THREE that was started by the US and its allies in 2003.

It just hasn't hit Western shores yet.

SpicyLemonZest2• 6 years ago

For better or worse, this isn't specific to the current administration. There's a long-standing law (passed with a bipartisan majority) instructing the President not to allow ICC prosecutions of Americans and authorizing these kinds of measures if they try.

mola11• 6 years ago

There's a huge difference between refusing to cooperate and sanctioning indviduals. The latter is a fear tactic move. Mafia style.

_pferreir_• 6 years ago

I don't get the downvotes. This is true. The US rejedct the authority of the ICC. See another comment in this thread, the law was passed in 2002.

tomp• 6 years ago

You have it the wrong way round. International cooperation is based on US power, in particular US nukes, US air and naval superiority, US protection of Europe and US financing of European defence (NATO), US protection of international trade routes ...

mola11• 6 years ago

Let's say there's a bully, and he just takes and steal stuff. And then there's a big guy seeing that and telling the bully to fuck off and let the kids play without fear.

Both are power moves. Do you think they're the same thing though?

Yes, power is good way to bootstrap cooperation based on trust. This is a much more effective form of cooperation as you waste less energy on paranoia and watching over your back. You can also base cooperation on submission but then you have to constantly be at an all out war to protect your regime. Much less efficient or reasonable.

boudin2• 6 years ago

No a lot of the current mess is due to US imperialism and bullying, the same way it had been messed up by British, French and Spanish imperialism before. And this based on USD being at the core of finance. US protection is not needed other than in places destroyed by the US in the first place.

Now more than ever, I'm quite certain that almost all countries in the world would jump on any opportunity to get rid of this currency influence.

numpad0• 6 years ago

I agree with this comment. The “long-standing peace” on this planet that began 1945 was just a moratorium of world wars for American fear of nuclear winter situation, and it’s ending.

The world will resume, and so will the progress, and it’ll happen here on Earth unless we choose to do it elsewhere, not because it’s easy but because it’s the only place there is.

jchb2• 6 years ago

To me, a non-US citizen, it seems that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is being quite reasonable here. ICC wants to investigate US military personnel that, allegedly, committed war crimes on Afghanistan soil after 2003. They can do that because Afghanistan ratified the ICC that year. Clearly, if the US wants to commit war crimes, they should only do that inside their own borders, where they are actually perfectly safe from the ICC.

That being said, I don't like when this kind of issues are politicized ("Obama destroyed America", "Trump sucks on all issues", ...). So I looked up the numbers.

The US congress and senate passed a law, in 2002, that gave the president authority to "with all means necessary, prohibit the International Criminal Court from seeking to exercise jurisdiction over United States persons, and allied persons"

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2002328

Votes by party

Republican YEAS: 201 NAYS: 18

Democratic YEAS: 195 NAYS: 13

Doesn't seem to be a "current administration" issue only. Clearly the US was caught up in the post-9/11 panic at the time of passing this law. But it seems a good idea to repeal it - if there is no longer a majority in support of it.

mola11• 6 years ago

Well that's still is politics. The US lost its marbles after 9/11. Obama was trying to stear the boat a different way, but he didn't have the support of the legislative bodies which made it their job to give him hell no matter what.

Anyway, The bill didn't specify the means, so the means are a part of policy. Sanctioning these type of individuals is a bully move. This administration has picked a strategy of being a bully.

_y5hn2• 6 years ago

It seems current administration in US is weak on crime, being criminals or aiding criminals. What goes against Law in Parliament is crime, not politics.

idoubtit• 6 years ago

it seems that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is being quite reasonable here.

It's as much politics on the ICC side as on the USA side.

For years, the ICC had only prosecuted former warlords from African countries. Only the loosing sides, the criminals that won national power were usually ignored, as the recent Ivory Coast shows. So some African leaders protested and even removed their country from the ICC. So the court had to react, at least to show an intention even if a real prosecution is totally unrealistic. So the ICC Prosecutor — which is the former Ministry of Justice of the Gambia dictator — launched inquiries about crimes by security forces of Myanmar (Birmania), Israel, USA… It's mostly a symbolic gesture.

disown• 6 years ago

This brings humanity back to a pre WWs mentality.

While I agree that ideally we shouldn't have international cooperation based on power and submission, I don't think your depiction of post and pre-WWs mentality is accurate. The post-WWs mentality is even greater form of power and submission than pre-WWs. Pax Americana is pretty much the US ( and by extension the anglo world ) dominating everyone else. For example, more nations today have foreign troops ( predominantly american/anglo/western ) than during the pre-wws colonial era.

Trump is trying to preserve the post-wws world order, the ICC is trying to bring it back to pre-wws world order. Do you want america ruling the world ( post-wws ) or a collection of international powers ( pre--wws )? There are pros and cons to both.

MattGaiser• 6 years ago

The court is ridiculous. It has had 2 convictions in 13 years and has cost over a billion dollars.

Have the UN set up a trial commission whenever there is need to prosecute someone internationally.

No need to have it wander around on geopolitically volatile fishing expeditions when they have nothing to do.

biolurker13• 6 years ago

That's nihilism right there. There should be an international court and if you want to "judge" it you should have the credentials to divredit their work. Software developer is not one of them.

nickff• 6 years ago

Who better to pass judgement on a court than its constituents/subjects? If the people that the court is meant to protect believe the court is illegitimate or lacks authority, then the court has failed.

sorokod• 6 years ago

Which part of your comment refers to the verb "sanctions"?

biolurker13• 6 years ago

One more step towards dystopy.

llimos5• 6 years ago

I'm going to give an unpopular view here because I think we need to look at actual facts and laws instead of emotions.

Buried right at the bottom of the article: "the US is not a party to the international tribunal".

Now, you can say they should be. But they're not. So if you look at it from a purely impartial and dispassionate standpoint, the court shouldn't get any special treatment - and the US would be entitled to take such actions against any other foreign group that set itself up and issued threats. It's like me setting up my own private court and then coming to arrest you.

The fact that most other countries are part of it may make a moral case for the US to join but not a legal one, which means that, again looking dispassionately, the US is entitled to do this.

zaarn2• 6 years ago

The US used to be part of the international tribunal until they lost a case on warcrime, instead of paying reparations they signed out and left chat.

rahimnathwani• 6 years ago

As I understand it:

The US signed the Rome Statute, but never ratified it.

Once a country ratifies the statute, it's in until a year after it gives notice to quit. And, even then, quitting has no effect on investigations already in progress.

mola11• 6 years ago

You are using supposed "rationality" to just ignore facts and reality. US is entitled to not cooperate. But bullying individual prosecutors is disgusting.

lazyjones4• 6 years ago

So where are the alternative "facts" he is ignoring? That, in your opinion, something is "disgusting", is an opinion and not a fact. Your moral position doesn't change, nor trump the simple facts he posted.

fulafel2• 6 years ago

It's not like you setting up your private court at all. It's more like the UN (the majority of UN member states are also ICC members). It has plenty of legitimacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

colechristensen2• 6 years ago

To those parties who accepted the treaty, sure. We didn’t.

The highest court in the US is the supreme court and every court any of us can be subjected to is under it. The ICC has no sovereignty over the US. Our foreign policy with regards to international law is to support it having sovereignty over others but not ourselves, the world peace enjoyed for the past eight decades or so is a direct result of American hegemony and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours.

There is a power imbalance on purpose which results in a little injustice and a big lack of armed conflict.

llimos5• 6 years ago

Legally, it is like a private court. From the point of view of someone who is not a member, it's the same thing.

Let's take a hypothetical scenario. The majority of UN member states are not democracies. If all of these non-democracies would set up a court, with the legitimacy of 'the majority of UN members', would they automatically have the right to prosecute the other countries?

'Legitimacy' is a moral concept. The legal concept that matters is 'jurisdiction'.

AnimalMuppet2• 6 years ago

How much legitimacy does the UN Human Rights Commission have? (Hint: Look at the members.)

Having members in common with the UN does not automatically give it legitimacy. The UN does some good things, and does some things that are to give tinpot third-world dictators a chance to look respectable. The efforts involving the second are fine for trying to nudge countries into being more like the normal world, but should not be given any real authority over anything.

The question is, which camp does the ICC fall into? That question tells how much legitimacy it has as a court. (And I don't know the answer, so I'm not going to give one. All I'm saying is "It's like the UN" doesn't make it legitimate, at all.)

caf2• 6 years ago

On the other hand, Afghanistan, where the actions being investigated allegedly took place, is a party. I don't see anything illegitimate about Afghanistan investigating events that took place within its borders, or to delegate that to an international tribunal of which it is a member.

llimos5• 6 years ago

This is a good point and may well be the case, we'd have to look at the exact rules of jurisdiction.

But even if it's true, that's not something that obligates the US to play ball. They don't have any obligations to the Court.

kelnos7• 6 years ago

Nations may of course enforce their own laws while foreign nationals are on in their jurisdiction, but once they are outside that jurisdiction, they are at the mercy of the foreigners' home country for extradition. If that country doesn't care to extradite, they're out of luck (barring extraordinary rendition). Delegating the investigation to an international body doesn't change that (not to mention that the US is not a part of and has been actively hostile toward the ICC).

The fact that the ICC counts many nations as members certainly makes it feel like the US should cooperate on moral/ethical grounds, but it has no legal requirement to do so.

nsajko7• 6 years ago

Another perspective: if a US citizen, or a criminal organization that includes US citizens were suspected of committing a serious crime abroad, you would presumably have no problem with them being prosecuted (and not by the US). The main difference here is that those citizens were operating as part of the US Government.

0823498723498723• 6 years ago

On historical sanctions: If france had not been able to bust the british blockade[1], the US would not have become independent[2] in 1783.

[1] As a naval power, the british were also fond of economic sanctions.

[2] which would not necessarily have been a bad thing: a british North America would have ended slavery sooner with much less bloodshed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZzDP-vQXao&t=3195

tdons• 6 years ago

Isn't there also a law on the books in the US that permits 'exfiltration' of a captured US citizen from The Hague if it were ever to come to that?

Reelin3• 6 years ago

I'm not sure. I believe it depends on the precise wording of the bill linked below.

(https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4775)

Title II: American Servicemembers' Protection Act - American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 - Prohibits U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. ...
(Sec. 2008) Authorizes the President to use all means necessary (including the provision of legal assistance) to bring about the release of covered U.S. persons and covered allied persons held captive by, on behalf, or at the request of the Court.

colechristensen2• 6 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...

prevents cooperation, extradition, etc and authorizes actions to protect citizens from the court

LatteLazy• 6 years ago

Imagine the shit show that would come from that...

nsajko7• 6 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...

ngcc_hk• 6 years ago

If they also investigate china Great Leap Forward, ... up to rent Hong Kong or they try Russia ... just get everyone then I am all ears. For now, destroy USA credibility meant more than just touch the last remaining power sort of helping humanity.

BoringAsian• 6 years ago

They have all committed crimes so prosecuting either one isn't mutually exclusive. The great leap forward happened within the confines of a nation so its less clear cut then America invading another nation since thats a much more clear international interaction. Same with Russia since they had hidden their actions using "volunteers"

throw0101a3• 6 years ago

If they also investigate china Great Leap Forward

China has not signed the ICC, and so the ICC has no jurisdiction with-in China (including HK). Afghanistan has signed the ICC treaty, so the ICC has jurisdiction with-in Afghanistan.

The alleged crimes occurred with-in Afghanistan.

If the alleged crimes occurred with-in Somalia, which is not an ICC member, the ICC could not investigate.

When you go to another country, you are bound by the laws of that country while you are with-in that country.

trasz• 6 years ago

Nothing particularly surprising here. US - probably the only country in recent history where you get decorated after downing a civilian airliner killing everyone aboard - protects its war criminals, it makes them more effective.

auganov• 6 years ago

It's pretty normal that any organization trying to unlawfully assert its jurisdiction over another country will be met with a response. ICC has been trying to do the same thing to Israel which it also has no jurisdiction over.

US sanctions International Criminal Court officials

Related Stories