It’s not appropriate for an international court that we’re not even a part of to put our Presidents and their subordinates on trial, nor is it something we should meekly concede to.
I don't advocate for the U.S. to concede its sovereignty to an outside court.
But I do think that having an outside court publicly try the guilt or innocence of somebody within the U.S. is much more palatable than having some non-court within the U.S. decide on whether non-U.S. citizens living outside the U.S. should live or die.
The U.S. openly assassinates foreigners in foreign countries without even faking a trial.
It's hard to complain that a court with very little power to enforce any ruling is giving U.S. citizens an open trial. Do you think it is inappropriate for a high school moot court team to put U.S. Presidents on trial? Or for speech and debate teams to argue the morality of the actions of U.S. politicians?
How exactly do you judge what is appropriate and what is not?
> But I do think that having an outside court publicly try the guilt or innocence of somebody within the U.S. is much more palatable than having some non-court within the U.S. decide on whether non-U.S. citizens living outside the U.S. should live or die.
If I were neutral on America and if a neutral disposition, you might be correct. However, I’m not.
The President of the United States is elected to be a civil and military leader, as the Head of the United States Government, as the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces, and to represent the United States abroad as our Head of State.
All other things being equal, I would prefer the POTUS to also be moral and to generally be a good moral leader in his capacity as the POTUS, but that is not the same as being nice, and “nice” is not what the elected President is elected to be.
So, would I for example, prefer to capture people like Qasem Soleimani and try them in an open court? Absolutely. Is that more practical than having killed him when the opportunity presented itself dealing a blow to an enemy nation, taking out one of the most important men in his nation which is openly hostile to America and our ally? Not really, but I’d rather see someone like that dead than in a position to threaten American assets and personnel in the region. You can even debate whether American assets or personnel should be in the region, but as long as they are, it is absolutely the President’s job to defend them, because it is under his orders that they are present at all and the American military is formed from the people of our country, and nowhere is it written in our Constitution that the President’s decisions should be second-guessed or tried in an International Court. Even our own courts shy away from this as it relates to foreign policy and the policy of the military.
> It's hard to complain that a court with very little power to enforce any ruling is giving U.S. citizens an open trial.
It would be pretty easy to complain if they pursued trying American citizens when we don’t recognize their jurisdiction over American citizens. The ICC, whatever else it is, is still a court with the backing of real sovereign nations. They’re not a high school debate club.
> How exactly do you judge what is appropriate and what is not?
A combination of morality, the law, diplomacy and hard power. You can even concoct scenarios if you wanted to where the United States may even been in the losing moral position but still win on all other fronts, but for starters, we’re not party to the Rome Statute, we do have our own laws on trying war crimes, and we also maintain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
I'm sure I am not alone to be alarmed and disgusted at the satisfaction in "winning" from a position of moral deficiency. As an American I reject and reprove this attitude.
At what point did I say I would be satisfied with that? I much prefer the moral victories, but one country’s morality is not another’s, but we do not carry out justice under foreign principles.
My point was that even without the moral victory, there are real problems and limits with an International court attempting to second-guess our actions against hostile powers and serve process to our leaders, and that in reality, they’re not winning that fight. Certainly not today they’re not.
It is however appropriate for a group of nations to agree that a person who has committed crimes (according to them) is to be arrested upon entering one of their nations.
It’s not really something you can or cannot concede to, unless you are of the opinion America is the only sovereign state in the world.
Historically speaking, Westphalian sovereignty meant that there was no such thing as an "international criminal court", nor "war crimes". An ICC party such as France hypothetically arresting, for example, Netanyahu, for things that he did in Israel, would amount to a substantial erosion of Israel's sovereignty in the Westphalian sense. Under the Westphalian system, Israel's prince would have sole jurisdiction in such cases.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about whether it's good or bad. Eroding Westphalian sovereignty in such a sense is the whole point of the ICC, the EU, and arguably even the UN (though, of these three, only the ICC would have the particular result described in my previous paragraph). But it's worth pointing out that it's a major difference from centuries of historical precedents, not American exceptionalism.
Maybe, but I think Westphalian sovereignty generally permitted conquerors to dispose of the conquered as they saw fit. It's not a moral system, just a Schelling point.
Sure, but we’re going to interpret the arrest of a sitting or former POTUS, their direct subordinates or military personnel for the purposes of trying them in the ICC as a political act, not an act to maintain law and order in their home countries and its going to be much easier for us to justify invading and evacuating those people.
That is definitely true. I can imagine the ICC would fall shortly after (since I think enough member states will not execute the arrest order and so it’s existence does not do much)
You're imagining this happening in a world where the US has the political status it had ten years ago, not the political status it will have ten years in the future.
No, it’s already happening today. There is an arrest warrant out for Netanyahu. Netanyahu visited Hungary, a party of the Rome Statue, and was not arrested.
In a similar vein, Poland has said Netanyahu would have been welcome to visit the liberation of Auschwitz, without having to worry about out any arrest.
Depending on how Hungary’s actions are resolved, the ICC will lose much of it’s use if member states just ignore the treaty.
Netanyahu isn't "a sitting or former POTUS, their direct subordinates or military personnel", the arrest of which is the event you said "the ICC would fall shortly after". That's what I disagreed with.
We’re only talking about today, bruh. There’s no sense worrying about a tomorrow that may never come, but I’m willing to bet that 10 years from now we still have the strongest military in and around The Hague and even beyond, very very few would ever be willing to threaten war with us to back up the ICC.
Now, 20 years from now? 30 years from now? 50? Who knows.
>"...very few would ever be willing to threaten war with us to back up the ICC"
They would not have to. It will be up to your military to come to allied country and shoot their way through. This might be physically possible but I would imagine that the consequences of it to the standing of the US would be cataclysmic. So unless it is a former president I suspect the US will rather use some severe sanctions and still risk a payback.
It won’t even come to that because the real truth is that no ICC member is ever going to arrest and extradite to the ICC a sitting or former POTUS putting us in a position where the Marine Corps. would have to roll into The Hague with a carrier group or two nearby and multiple submarine ICBMs aimed at every capital in Europe. Also you know, the American military personnel already situated nearby within Europe on American and NATO bases.
Should the Marine Corps. actually be put into a position to roll in and say “hi” to the people of The Hague for less than peaceful purposes on their leisurely stroll to the ICC’s courthouse, who in their right minds is also going to stand in their way and exchange fire?
Not to mention that whoever arrested the President has now effectively declared war on the United States.
Taking president of course means war. I mostly meant someone who is not the president, sitting of former. Then it will be the US thinking of potential consequences.
That’s also not going to happen. Even taking a former President is effectively an Act of War, especially with all the classified intel they were privy to during and still privy to after. Honestly you should consider it the same way all the way down to the rank of General, although I sure would hate to be a rank-and-file soldier caught by the ICC somehow. Even in that case they might not get a full on invasion on their behalf, you should still expect the State Department to intervene.
I’ll admit I overlooked you also included “or former”, but I did address you and say you should consider it practically the same down to the rank of at least General, which includes the Vice President and Cabinet Secretaries.
10 years from now either a non-state entity or the People's Republic of China will have the strongest military, and geography won't matter for military power.
Let’s say for the sake of argument, that’s true just to shortcut this: the PRC is also not party to the Rome Statute. Neither is Russia if you’re wondering. The largest military of a country party to the Rome Statute and the largest financial contributor to the ICC is Japan. Good luck.
The ICC is only truly relevant today as a means of imposing justice on smaller countries without the rule of law or the power to protect themselves from larger nations. Not quite irrelevant, but certainly not a powerhouse in real political terms.
We decided to not be a part of it. Meanwhile, we systematically bully other nations and kill high ranking officials with impunity. We can't have our cake and eat it too.
We defend some of America's interests, and harm some of its other interests. Mostly we defend the interests of the richest people in America and its military industrial complex.
We also elect the leaders that make those decisions and form the parties that nominate leaders to choose from. The winners of those elections get to choose the direction to lead.
This take is willfully ignorant of the political climate we live in, where individuals and organizations can pay billions of dollars to shape public opinion through a variety of mechanisms. A huge amount of Americans feel unrepresented by the current administration.
US politics should not be "winner takes all", the entire point of having a distributed body of leadership and not just the Supreme Leader is that a wider variety of American interests are supposed to be represented.
Two major party leaderships nominate their candidates, backed by hundreds of millions of corporate and special interest funding. Then some process called electoral college (that has some vague resemblance of the plebiscite) weights two candidates and picks a winner.
The candidate then has to obtain approval for every cabinet position from the congress (which is also getting funding in hundreds of mils from major corporate and special interest lobbying groups), that ensure that people occupying cabinet positions have policies aligned with their financial donors
> Two major party leaderships nominate their candidates, backed by hundreds of millions of corporate and special interest funding.
Other Americans. You’re also discounting the impact small-dollar donors have had in American politics as of late and the public primary system.
> Then some process called electoral college (that has some vague resemblance of the plebiscite) weights two candidates and picks a winner.
1) The Electors of the Electoral College are in turn elected by the people of the United States.
2) This only applies to the President and Vice President of the United States and no other public office.
3) Most States have laws against faithless electors, but the slate of electors appointed by each State’s elected legislature reflects the popular vote within that State.
> The candidate then has to obtain approval for every cabinet position from the congress (which is also getting funding in hundreds of mils from major corporate and special interest lobbying groups), that ensure that people occupying cabinet positions have policies aligned with their financial donors
Half of what you’re doing is just describing politics, but yes, the elected President makes appointments, and the elected Senate confirms or denies them.
Small-dollar donors had an outsized impact outside of just Sanders and others on the left, and helped, just as two examples on the right: Donald J. Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
The massive infusion of cash from small-dollar donors and politicians playing to their base on TV to boost their fundraising is doing far more to undermine both the Democratic and Republican parties than large donors ever have.
Like it or not, the elected President does lead on defending American interests, including which ones to prioritize, and they get to do that because they won the election.
I callout the naivety of believing the the U.S. President personally decides the "American interest" of every action taken. It is a reality today that a nameless, faceless, unelected somebody on the third floor of a building in Arkansas or Arizona can decide on the spur of the moment whether a person in Yemen or Canada should die and press the button to make it happen at the hands of the U.S. government. No elected official needs to be consulted.
Anything that violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice can land a soldier in the Army on that list up to and including killing random civilians abroad with military equipment outside the scope of an operation. You can look up the dockets for the other service branches yourself, but you don’t get impunity for all of your actions just for being part of the military.
Only through circular logic. If Trump dropped a nuclear bomb on Ohio tomorrow, he'd say it were in America's interests to do so, and six supreme court justices and most of congress would shrug their shoulders and say it's not their place to second-guess him, he has an electoral mandate of an entire 48%.
You are the one who said we defend American interests. If you can't defend that statement, then just retract it.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am talking about your Orange Guy. I am not. Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden all murdered people and should be held accountable.
> You seem to be under the misapprehension that I am talking about your Orange Guy.
I’m not. (EDIT: just edited this in, though I thought I’d already written this part earlier when I quoted you. My bad.)
> You are the one who said we defend American interests. If you can't defend that statement, then just retract it.
We do defend America’s interests, but the President—any sitting President—sets the agenda for how the American State and Military goes about it. Resource allocation is a part of leading. What part of that is difficult to understand?
I agree that America needs to cut back on to be sabre-rattling but you actually can have your cake and eat it too if nobody is both capable and willing to stop you.
Also how does the Hague get off imposing itself like that? Doesn't that make their judges a legitimate target by the same "can't have your cake and eat it too" principle if they actually apprehend somebody from a non-signatory? Under that logic the Hague invasion act seems less ludicrous.
If Macron were to sell old GREs online then, as the Raju case determined, the US can try him, and if Macron fails to appear for the trial, he defaults on the case and is subject to arrest should he appear in the US, or any county which has the appropriate extradition treaty.
If the US can legally do that for selling GREs, it can surely do it for far more serious crimes.
If the US can do that to citizens of other countries, then other countries should be able to do that to US citizens, including the president.
The solution for American presidents is simple - never visit any place subject to the ICC.
Just like Pinochet should never have visited the UK where he was subject to European Union extradition law letting him be moved to Spain to be tried for his abuses in Chile on Spanish citizens.
US presidents should also be concerned about their support of "extraordinary rendition."
I’m sure you want to try and catch me in an act of hypocrisy but I think I’ve been clear throughout this thread.
So let me put it to you this way, if the Chilean President had the power of the POTUS backed up by a military equivalent to or superior to the US Military, would the UK have arrested and extradited him on behalf of Spain?
So the solution for American Presidents is even simpler than the one you propose: disregard the ICC in its entirety and continue to make state visits with impunity.
So, in the end, your point is not whether the ICC should have the right to put foreign presidents on trial. It's about who has got the strongest military power.
My position is that the ICC should not even exist, but if it is going to exist, then America should safeguard itself and its allies from it.
If you look at the real history of the ICC, it’s effectively toothless over any nation that can safeguard its own sovereignty, and otherwise a fig leaf for the supposed lawfulness of foreign intervention into nations that cannot.
If you don't want to be arrested, don't visit somewhere which will likely arrest you. It's as simple as that. I don't see your issue about the ICC.
Pinochet was arrested after he was no longer president. He expected Chilean amnesty laws meant he was untouchable for his crimes. He was wrong.
If I commit an international war crime and get the US President to issue a pardon, then I'm free from legal problems in the US, but why should I expect to be able to visit The Netherlands without being arrested?
State visits are a different topic, with promises of safe passage/diplomatic immunity arranged before hand.
Castro visited the US several times during his presidency, for example, and Hungary recently promised to ignore the ICC arrest warrant on Netanyahu before his visit.
If guarantees cannot be made, the visit doesn't occur. It's as simple as that.
Why should becoming the president of France give Macron the right to sell old GREs online to people in the US, without fear of lawsuit and being tried in abstentia?
If such an exception exists, then Macron could make good money selling illegal drugs online to US citizens.
US interventionalism over the course of its existence would make that a form of hypocrisy. Also where would the US be without support of nations like France, Spain and the Dutch Republic in its revolutionary war?
You can't have it both ways, we're intrinsically tied together. I think its important part of friendship to call one another to account.
Well let me put it this way, I’m under no illusions that foreign nations will always attempt to exert their influence over American affairs. The only obligations we maintain with other nations are the ones we committed ourselves to, and yes, I know some of that is in question right now, but for what it’s worth I’m actually on the side of maintaining our commitments rather than pissing all over them or playing this silly “will they, won’t they” game. Our relationships with nations across the world, most of which did not exist or at least did not exist in anything like their current form including France, the Kingdom of the Netherlands née the Dutch Republic, and Spain (which we have actually and directly waged war with) have not remained static since the Revolutionary War.
All of that said, our Government, our problem, and while weighing what kind of intervention you might hypothetically support, also weigh how that stands up to the power of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces. So, really, we can have it both ways, even if that makes us hypocrites. Also for what it is worth: people can be hypocrites, organized entities led by different factions of people over the course of their history like nations cannot.
Returning to the OP for a second, we're talking about the ICC issuing a warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes he has clearly overseen in Gaza. I appreciate that you've slippery sloped this into a "they're coming for us next" and I cannot prove or disprove such a notion. But putting that aside for a second; how is not acceptable for the ICC to have an opinion on the events that have unfolded in the Gaza strip and accordingly issue a warrant?
Surely given Israel is a sovereign nation, that is separate from the US and the EU, isn't that entirely acceptable? I feel like your position continues to double-dip. The US can do whatever it wants at home and abroad and the EU is not afforded the same agency, because if it does have strong opinions then that's evidence that it will ultimately interfere with US internal policy.
The purpose of the ICC is that the crimes of: Genocide, Crimes against humanity, War crimes and the crime of aggression should be prosecuted among its signatories. You are correct that its jurisdiction does not contain Israel or the US, given they withdrew. However signatories are expected to respect the warrants should individuals travel to states that are signatories. Therefore it is not exceeding the bounds of its jurisdiction in issuing these warrants, otherwise one could simply withdraw, do a little war crime and rejoin, thereby creating a loophole. The whole point of the court is that it is international and looks at these crimes happening throughout the world, so its signatories play their part in encouraging them to not happen and prosecuting them when they do, when they can (i.e. when someone guilty of them travels to these nations). In that respect is it like interpol, where a nation can arrest someone who has committed a crime in a different country, if they flee to a country signed up to interpol, despite them not theoretically not having the juristdiction to do so (given the crime wasn't committed where the arrest was made).
You don't even have to talk about genocide given that Israel (as you also state) has clearly committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in its war against Hamas. Its entirely in keeping with the ICC aims that an arrest warrant has been issued for both Yahya Siwar (now deceased) and Benjamin Netanyahu.
Given Donald Trump's bizarre demand that the Europe re-arm itself (which imho is terribly short-sighted and might make US foreign policy more tricky in the future), I imagine in the future we will see more instances where Europe tries to gain a ROI on its military spending and becomes more assertive in the future. Right now, it can be politically difficult for European countries to respect the warrants (as seen most recently with Netanyahu's trip to Poland) but in the future that could change.
Let me get this correction out at the top: I conceded that some IDF service members are probably guilty of some war crimes. I said absolutely nothing about crimes against humanity, which in reviewing the list of what the ICC considers a crime against humanity, I do not feel comfortable at all making any assertion one way or the other. It is important to get this right because the Rome Statute does make this distinction.
You also called out crimes of aggression: most of what is listed as crimes of aggression amount to just war. You can probably debate about this with regards to the settlements, but don’t forget this current offensive doesn’t happen without Hamas attacking Israeli civilians on October 7th 2023. Israel was and is fully within their rights to prosecute a war against Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and even Iran for which all of these groups are proxies for until they achieve their war aims.
Another correction, the United States has never been party to the Rome Statute. We were part of the negotiations, we did sign but we ultimately decided against ratification therefore it never held the force of law and we withdrew our signature. From what I gathered, Israel is in the same boat, though I’m not clear what their ratification process looks like.
> However signatories are expected to respect the warrants should individuals travel to states that are signatories. Therefore it is not exceeding the bounds of its jurisdiction in issuing these warrants, otherwise one could simply withdraw, do a little war crime and rejoin, thereby creating a loophole. The whole point of the court is that it is international and looks at these crimes happening throughout the world, so its signatories play their part in encouraging them to not happen and prosecuting them when they do, when they can (i.e. when someone guilty of them travels to these nations).
The Court’s territorial jurisdiction is not “the world”, it is the territory and vessels of parties to the Rome Statute, nations which accept the ICC’s jurisdiction in a court filing, and others in situations that are referred to it by the United Nations Security Council. The personal jurisdiction is for all persons of nations over which the ICC has territorial jurisdiction, and likewise can be expanded with a referral of a situation by the UNSC.
The argument for prosecuting a non-party here is that well, Palestine is a party. It’s the stronger argument, but I think it should be insufficient, and it is the position of America and Israel that this is insufficient. In any case, the actual allegations are themselves insufficient in any situation where the ICC would have an interest in investigating and prosecuting if they don’t have the jurisdiction to do it.
> In that respect is it like interpol, where a nation can arrest someone who has committed a crime in a different country, if they flee to a country signed up to interpol, despite them not theoretically not having the juristdiction to do so (given the crime wasn't committed where the arrest was made).
Interpol is an outgrowth of bilateral extradition treaties, not a replacement for them. You still need the requisite extradition treaty in place, and if the crime alleged is not a crime for which they can be extradited per the relevant extradition treaty, then the arresting nation is under no obliteration to turn them over. In that sense, Interpol is more like an informational and cooperation forum between nations, whereas the ICC is an organization operationally separate and distinct from its members.
> Given Donald Trump's bizarre demand that the Europe re-arm itself (which imho is terribly short-sighted and might make US foreign policy more tricky in the future)
So, I’m not against re-arming Europe. From a menu of options that looks something like this:
1) Continuing to prop up Europe against Russian aggression regardless of their minimal defense spending.
2) Re-arming Europe but under continued American leadership.
3) Pushing Europe to re-arm and reconsider that whole American leadership bit.
4) Just pulling out of Europe entirely and ripping up NATO.
I favor number 2. I think even Trump favors number 2 but number 3 is what is actually happening. I would have been fine-ish but not happy about number 1 because there’s a real risk of the American public not being willing to defend say, the Baltics, against a Russian invasion regardless of what I think (I’m very pro keeping to our military commitments, even somewhat grudgingly if we must), and the risk of number 4 would have grown over time even in a world where Trump was never elected the first time, let alone the second, and actually getting to number 4 would be a worst of all worlds situation. I actually like Europe. I would like it to continue to be Europe, without getting obliterated again.
> as seen most recently with Netanyahu's trip to Poland
Did Netanyahu actually make the trek to Poland? I know he was went to Hungary, but Hungary has also decided to withdraw from the ICC. I heard reports he went to Greece, but haven’t actually seen that substantiated. I couldn’t find anything about a Polish visit earlier when I looked.
my bad, he never made that trip to Poland in the end, but the Polish government passed a resolution to enable it, which made me figure it was a done deal.
I only listed the four crimes the ICC deals with in terms of stating its directive, I wasn't asserting that Israel was necessarily guilty of all of them. In terms of things relevant to the current conflict in Gaza, war crimes and crimes against humanity are relatively easy to clear and genocide is a maybe because of the aid blockade. I entirely supported Israel's right to respond to the October the 7th attacks but we're so far past the point of the response being anywhere near proportionate and that we're so far in and Israel's objectives still have failed to have been met, demonstrates the issues with their approach. Its almost as if the cruelty is the point as opposed to the objectives of the supposed mission (especially now they're flinging rockets at Iran seemingly distracting themselves further from recovering the hostages).
There are other factors at play. Palestine is a signatory to the ICC and the crimes were committed in Gaza, also Israel themselves are failing to investigate these war crimes through their own legal system. These are apparently the arguments that give the ICC the confidence to issue these warrants. I mean what does it matter anyway? Netanyahu can just avoid travelling to signatory countries and he's fine.
The whole NATO thing remains short sighted, in the years to come, the USA will learn that some things are priceless. I imagine that GOP donor pressure to reduce the budget to maintain/enact tax cuts is the root source of these desires, which if true, is digustingly short-sighted. I LOVE the USA but the pre-2025 USA, that US hegemony policy from the 20th century promised peace and prosperity at an irksome but acceptable price. However I don't like it right now and if that nation continues to prop up erratic rulers like Donald Trump who enable warmongering rulers like Netanyahu instead of restraining them, then I will start to hate it and I am _far_ from alone on that. Combining that with encouraging Europe to re-arm is just lacking in imagination given that the USA will transition in such a future from the guaranteed winner to a potential loser. You didn't vote for this mess, did you?
> my bad, he never made that trip to Poland in the end, but the Polish government passed a resolution to enable it, which made me figure it was a done deal.
Fair enough, even the bit about the Polish resolution is still good intel.
> You didn't vote for this mess, did you?
Oh hell nah. Doesn't matter though, Trump won every single step of the way.
> In terms of things relevant to the current conflict in Gaza, war crimes and crimes against humanity are relatively easy to clear and genocide is a maybe because of the aid blockade.
Even if granted up to but not including the claims of genocide, the question still remains over the ICC's jurisdiction, and the more that behave like Poland, Hungary and Germany, the more likely it is the ICC's claim in this specific conflict just becomes a dead letter regardless of Palestine having acceded to the Rome Statute.
> I entirely supported Israel's right to respond to the October the 7th attacks but we're so far past the point of the response being anywhere near proportionate and that we're so far in and Israel's objectives still have failed to have been met, demonstrates the issues with their approach. Its almost as if the cruelty is the point as opposed to the objectives of the supposed mission (especially now they're flinging rockets at Iran seemingly distracting themselves further from recovering the hostages).
I'm not going to claim to support every single action that the IDF has taken in this war, there's a lot that I don't, but as far this goes:
1) Flushing out and eliminating Hamas.
2) Flushing out and eliminating Hezbollah.
3) Suppressing and eliminating Iran's nuclear weapons development.
I'm pretty on board with that. Israel will never have peace with Hamas as long as Hamas continues to exist for the purpose of eliminating Israel. Israel will never have peace and Lebanon will never be able to fully exercise its own sovereignty over southern Lebanon as long as Hezbollah pursues to exist as a militaristic entity separate from the Lebanon Armed Forces and seeks the elimination of Israel. Israel will never have peace with an Iran that continues to seek its destruction and support proxies in the region that exist for the sole purpose of attacking with the goal of eliminating Israel.
It's pretty difficult for me to argue that the Israeli response has been disproportionate, especially as Hamas infamously uses Palestinians as a resource to be expended as meat shields. Far far fewer Palestinian civilians could have died in this war if Hamas gave a damn about them.
> The whole NATO thing remains short sighted, in the years to come, the USA will learn that some things are priceless.
Yep! Unfortunately it was never going to last, and that's why out of the menu of options I outlined above, I was very much in the #2 camp. #1 has more advantages to America if we can sustain the political will to maintain it but the truth is that the further we get from World War II and the Cold War, the fewer Americans believe that it is worth the full cost to be responsible for the bulk of Europe's defense. You can't really fight that kind of generational sentiment shift, just try to manage it and advocate for a more acceptable middle solution.
> the fewer Americans believe that it is worth the full cost to be responsible for the bulk of Europe's defense
tbh, I'm not entirely seeing it. The public mostly prefer local issues and can be quite fickle when it comes to priorities and are often easily influenced. IMHO the low tax lobby are just looking for a scapegoat to justify tax cuts and undermining US geo-political goals is puzzlingly the attack vector to maintain it, which is the biggest break from the old GOP. If I were a betting man, I reckon the moment the US finds the money to start to put a dent in the deficit, will be the moment tax breaks get back on the agenda and the defecit will end up untouched.
The point is kinda moot anyway now since US tax dollars are being spent bombing Iran which is specifically what we were all told _wasn't_ going to happen with this new strategy, so idk anymore. But this administration is like that, fickle, deceitful, reactionary, eccentric.
> I'm pretty on board with that.
I mean I hate Hamas as much as I hate Otzma Yehudit. They're both fascist, genocidal freaks who want the eradication of the other and I'd prefer a world without either. So Otzma Yehudit propping up this current Israeli coallition makes me struggle to pick a side here. I can support the eradication of Hamas, but at the same time I doubt the current strategy is going to be effective in doing that, given that the current campaign is creating another generation of scarred Palestinians who will rightly hold an emotional grudge against the state of Israel. I wouldn't mind if their strategy was swift and effective like the highly successful Hezbollah dismantling, but I can't help but think this is all strung out intentionally to keep Israel in a state of war so Netanyahu remains outside of a jail cell. Yoav Gallent himself stated that continuing the war in Gaza seemed kinda pointless given he felt that Israel's military objectives had been met and got fired for having that perspective. I'm starting to feel the cruelty is the point, especially since Ben Gvir is kingmaker. I can support Israel's right to exist and defend itself, but I can't support a fascist genocidal freak like Ben Gvir, that man is a monster.
I think the strategy on Iran has been an incredible failure, from rescinding a diplomatic agreement in the first Trump adminstration to the bombing today. Taken as a whole its a massive fumble, especially given how weak the Iranian administration has been looking recently and how its not very popular among the Iranian people. Given that US intelligence appeared to suggest that Iran isn't close to building a nuke and Trump has somehow forced Gabbard into a 180 on the subject, it feels like we're back in 2003 hyping up a WMD fear that we'll find out later isn't the case.
2025 has just been a big advert for nuclear proliferation, given that these strikes would never have happened if Iran had a nuke, that Ukraine would never have been invaded if it didn't give up its nukes, with a reluctant ally in the US trying to force a peace on Ukraine with a loss of territory earlier on this year.
> Oh hell nah. Doesn't matter though, Trump won every single step of the way.
Good to hear, I was starting to wonder. Tbf, the final vote count was a lot closer than in the moment his victory was declared. He clearly won but was as puzzlingly close as the last time he won, I guess I should be thankful that I'm insultated from the sort of American that votes for him because he doesn't at all look like the sort of person that the Americans I know and love could ever vote for.
I dont get why Americans are willing to die on a hill of defending some third-world country's president who committed well documented crimes against humanity and genocide
We have the Uniform Code of Military Justice for military personnel, and on paper, a Congress to hold the President accountable, although that obviously needs to be beefed up because the results lately have been unsatisfactory. It does not need to be the ICC, nor should we allow it.
I don't understand what you mean by "allow it". The ICC are free to do what they like, and the US are free to ignore it (outside any sanctions the international community impose).
And then we have presidents that almost uniformly pardon people convicted of the grossest war crimes.
Trump pardoned Clint Lorance who ordered murder of civilians. Before that, William Calley convicted of multiple murders had his sentence commuted by Nixon to 3 years of house arrest.
Given we’re not party to the ICC, we maintain a permanent seat on the UNSC, and nobody within striking distance of The Hague is willing to back you up on this, it is decidedly not appropriate.
The Hague Conventions and the Kellogg-Briand Pact. Although, in reality, it was a matter of the winners deciding on a suitable punishment for the losers. They did, however, go to considerable lengths to find legal justification in international law for the prosecutions and punishments of Nazi leaders. They could have just shot them: Churchill and Stalin both supported summary execution, although Churchill later changed his mind.
Germany also lost the war. Their highest ranking officials and military were not in a position to prevent it; moreover I’m pretty okay with having applied the winner’s justice over Nazi Germany. Put us in the position where we can’t say “no” before you apply your own justice, but we’re still going to do everything in our power to defend ourselves.
I thought I was clear on this, but I guess not: it was entirely appropriate. They lost so thoroughly and the Holocaust was so repulsive that it was arguably necessary. Germany itself was also in such a precarious position that the continued existence of the German State was in jeopardy, and probably the only way it could continue to exist in any form even after being divided was to go through the Nuremberg Trials first. Don’t forget Stalin and the USSR was out for blood and new additions to the Eastern Bloc.
I would have thought calling out the repulsiveness of the Holocaust and the health and wellbeing of a continued German-state would have been the moral justifications, but okay, sure.
> and the same is true of US leaders.
The thing is, there isn’t enough in the way of shared morality between nations of the world to make this claim. From our perspective, the POTUS is imbued with the power to deal with foreign nations, and this includes both diplomatic and war functions, and to do so in a way that is beneficial to America. That’s what he is elected for, so imposing the ICC’s international justice on our elected leaders is in essence the same as trying to impose a foreign justice on America. We have our own laws, and govern our military with our own code of justice passed by our Congress, therefore we cannot abide by the ICC’s infringement on our sovereignty, nor will we tolerate a threat from it against our elected leaders.
You are becoming incoherent. By your own argument, the Nuremberg trials were not necessary. Anybody lacking the military might to defy the U.S. can be summarily executed without a trial. Anybody enjoying the support of the U.S. military is exempt from any courtroom regardless of their actions.
Then here you write that Nurenmberg was appropriate and necessary.
You don't seem to be able to hold the thread of your own argument.
If the alternative was to leave Germany to the Soviet wolves, allow France to colonize it, or disregard the events of the Holocaust and not thoroughly document what occurred, how, and under whose orders, then it was necessary.
If you don’t care about any of that, sure, you can make the argument the Nuremberg trials were unnecessary, but I’m not going to be the one to do it.
Do note that the key difference between America in 2025 and Germany in 1945 is that we’re not a diminished State without really any sovereignty left to claim and haven’t recently invaded pretty much the entirety of Europe with the intention of subsuming it into a greater Empire and spent the last 4 years systematically destroying the entire Jewish population therein. That’s some important context and shouldn’t be overlooked in your zeal to put American Presidents on trial.
"America" is a lot of things. Of course it is a sovereign nation. But let me here propose to you a different idea of America.
I was raised inside the United States. I have a very deep love for America. But the America I love is not a place. It is a collection of principles. It is an ideal. In as much as that ideal has been realized in the place I grew up, it makes that place America to me. But America the place and people have not been perfect executing America the idea. What group of humans ever were perfect? One of the beauties of America the place, and one of the things I cherish most about it is the constant willingness to put itself and its ideals on trial. I love an America that asks "What is right?" before asking "What are you going to do about it?"
I believe it is un-American to refuse to ask the first question, but constantly ask the second question without considering the first. Using the second question to intimidate all those who ask the first question is repugnant to me. It threatens the America that I love.
America is on trial whether you like it or not. The America I love will always be on trial as long as it exists. To end the trial would kill that America.
> I love an America that asks "What is right?" before asking "What are you going to do about it?"
Agreed, but I’ll put forth that the context for the first question also matters.
The context within this particular sub-thread which is within a larger thread regarding the ICC, the warrant issued againstNetanyahu and American sanctions on ICC staff is whether America and Americans as a non-signatory of the Rome Statute should be subject to the ICC’s jurisdiction. Actually it was originally Presidents, current and former, but there’s been some scope creep.
My answer is “No”. Your answer may be “Yes”, but I’m making the case for my “No”, not advocating for discarding all morality and total lawlessness and might-makes-right behavior, even if I think “might” is a mighty great deterrent for backing up that “No” to non-Americans that believe the answer should be “Yes” and would be willing to try out that “Yes” in the real world.
you are being dishonest. Only 161 people were convicted at Nurembourg trials, Nazi Germany's population was 70 mln (I am not even including Italy or Japan).
The rest of the Nazis were given amnesty and continued working for the USA, or continued living/serving as usual as part of West Germany's Wehrmacht forces.
The whole process was heavily politicized and completely sham, massive tortures were used to obtain "evidence" of guilt.
What sort of punishment do you think would have been appropriate for the systemic extermination of an entire race of people? And for starting a war that killed tens of millions? For an illegal coup against the government of a country (which is what the Nazis did in 33)?
How could you think that 161 convictions was enough for this? Far more than that had direct agency and culpability for those crimes.
don't you think that if there was some form of systematic extermination system, there should have been more than 161 people involved in it??????
this basic contradiction basically tells you that it was all bogus, either there was no systematic extermination, or there was not enough people brought to justice for their crimes.
How many people do you think are required to do anything systematic on the territory spanning from France to Belarus ?
161 people is probably the headcount of my local DMV office.
also, the fact that mainstream western history over-indexes on the plight of one ethnic group (6 mln dead), and completely ignores the deaths of Soviets (27 mln dead) or China (20 mln) pretty much seals this whole thing as bogus politicized process.
Typical eurocentric history rewriting, while simultaneously white-washing the crimes of the same white europeans
I am not even mentioning genocide of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki via nuclear bombs and genocide of civilians in Dresden: all three cities were basically civilian with no large military armies in there. Mostly women elderly and kids died
If we don't want to keep our own house clean -- and the re-election of Trump makes it crystal-clear that we don't -- is it such a surprise that other people will?
