That will never happen. The US policy is that if any US citizen is forcibly brought before the Hague the US would raid the Hague and reclaim their citizen. The only judicial system the us recognizes is it’s own.
You’d have said the same thing yesterday about a trans woman being elected to the Alabama state house.
A year ago you’d have said the same thing about a Democrat winning a Texas Senate seat and a progressive Muslim who’s unapologetically pro trans and M4A winning one in Michigan.
Two or three years ago, you’d have laughed in the face of anyone claiming that a huge majority would be against continuing to fund the West’s favorite fascist apartheid state, let alone a Democratic Socialist anti-zionist Muslim progressive being the Mayor of New York, the most zionist city outside of said apartheid ethnostate.
Guess what: sometimes,when your attitude ISN’T automatic defeatism, things CAN change for the better.
I agree with @Madison420@lemmy.world the likelihood of this policy changing anytime soon is nil.
I mean, it would be nice to change it, but count on it.
Fatalism is nice and all, and I fall into myself a good deal …
… but if ever there was a moment to believe that it at least might be possible to wrest control of the ship of state from these goddamned corrupt pedophile war mongers, it’d be now.
How many voted-in politicians regularly commit war crimes?
Not many, but they have been known to tell other people to, on their behalf.
Partially agree to it, the ICC, not full ICJ jurisdiction for every member of the US government.
Everybody in DoD is subject to it, and then define a mechanism where if a DoD official is asked or ordered to do something that could make them liable to be sent to the Hague, theres a mechanism for instantaneous security declassification and emergency presentation to Congress, that also permits the order to be stayed untill voted on by both chambers as a legitimate or illegitimate order, also simultaneously voting on impeaching and removing the offending politician(s).
Thus, it ain’t a politician directly voting to potentially fuck themselves, and it isn’t a total … relinquishing of US sovereign authority.
Something like that.
Some kind of mechanism like this would also augment what the War Powers Act tries to do but does not actually do well at all. Starting a war of aggression is a war crime.
Either we change the policy, or we exterminate the nazis who insist upon it. We need action, not a defeatist attitude toward our own corruption. If it takes violence to fix the conservatism, then violence it is.
I agree. And neither option is “impossible”. We can make these changes, with enough progressive push. It won’t be easy or quick, but it is possible. I think it’s also necessary.
So if you’re familiar with the Overton Window, can you guess which way comments like this move it?*
I’m not saying you mean ill. I’ve got a little bit of doomer in me too. Been there. But if you lose your capacity for hope and outrage you become an instrument of those that want to keep things shitty for us.
*Only microscopically, but still. The hopelessness and helplessness add up.
It’s not doomer, its accepting reality. No one said don’t try, I said don’t hold your breath.
There’s no hopelessness, no helplessness. We don’t need the icc to reign in our own country, that’s on us to do and dreaming of a solution that’s not likely isn’t helping anything either.
The US is not under the jurisdiction of the ICC. A court can’t rule outside of its jurisdiction so that would be the Hague acting illegally. The US like most other large countries are not signatory to the Rome Statute
A court can’t just operate where it has no jurisdiction and the US, much like Russia and China are not in their Jurisdiction. Who in the ICC will hold a nuclear armed country accountable? Latin America and Europe? Same reason Putin will never go to the ICC.
Because you are simply wrong. You keep insisting a court can operate where it has no jurisdiction and they “don’t care” both things are 100% completely wrong and false. This isn’t secret knowledge this is why I am telling you, but you keep insisting provably false information.
They aren’t operating in America so they don’t need jurisdiction in America! The same way a court in New Zealand doesn’t need jurisdiction in Zimbabwe to try someone in hold your horses here… Fucking New Zealand! The Hague operates in the Netherlands and have jurisdiction in multiple signatory countries and again brace yourself… the fucking Netherlands you absolute brick skull.
YOU CANT HOLD SOMEONE FROM A COUNTRY THAT DOESN’T RECOGNIZE YOUR COURT FOR TRIAL. HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU. THE NETHERLANDS HAS NO RIGHT TO DETAIN AND PUT PEOPLE WHO DIDN’T AGREE TO THE TERMS OF A COURT IN TRIAL OR DETAIN THEM. THAT IS ILLEGAL. IF AN AMERICAN TRAVELS TO A COUNTRY UNDER THE ICC THEN THEY CAN BE TRIED BUT THE US, AS WELL AS RUSSIA AND CHINA FIERCELY REJECT THE COURTS AUTHORITY AND THE COURT CAN’T LEGALLY, OR OTHERWISE, STOP THE NATIONS RETRIEVAL OF THE PERSON. ARE YOU AN IDIOT?
The US isn’t a signatory to the Rome Statute so they are not under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Neither is China, Russia, India, Israel, Iran, or Pakistan
Send this goddamned traitor to the Hague, in the same shackled, blindfolded and gagged getup as all the Guantanamo Bay prisoners he oversaw.
That will never happen. The US policy is that if any US citizen is forcibly brought before the Hague the US would raid the Hague and reclaim their citizen. The only judicial system the us recognizes is it’s own.
Then change the goddamned policy.
Won’t happen. Politicians don’t want their feet to the flame so it’ll stay.
You’d have said the same thing yesterday about a trans woman being elected to the Alabama state house.
A year ago you’d have said the same thing about a Democrat winning a Texas Senate seat and a progressive Muslim who’s unapologetically pro trans and M4A winning one in Michigan.
Two or three years ago, you’d have laughed in the face of anyone claiming that a huge majority would be against continuing to fund the West’s favorite fascist apartheid state, let alone a Democratic Socialist anti-zionist Muslim progressive being the Mayor of New York, the most zionist city outside of said apartheid ethnostate.
Guess what: sometimes,when your attitude ISN’T automatic defeatism, things CAN change for the better.
I agree with @Madison420@lemmy.world the likelihood of this policy changing anytime soon is nil.
I mean, it would be nice to change it, but count on it.
No I wouldn’t. Don’t put words in my mouth especially if they’re wrong. Aside from that it’s a wildly different situation as no one risks prison time.
No again, I would not have.
Wrong yet again but fuck it you must know me better than me huh?
Sometimes your attitude is based solely on assuming someone’s position and then acting catty based on that flawed series of assumptions.
Not with that attitude it won’t.
Fatalism is nice and all, and I fall into myself a good deal …
… but if ever there was a moment to believe that it at least might be possible to wrest control of the ship of state from these goddamned corrupt pedophile war mongers, it’d be now.
You can probably get control but you are unlikely to find a politician to actively vote for something that directly sets them up for criminal charges.
How many voted-in politicians regularly commit war crimes?
Not many, but they have been known to tell other people to, on their behalf.
Partially agree to it, the ICC, not full ICJ jurisdiction for every member of the US government.
Everybody in DoD is subject to it, and then define a mechanism where if a DoD official is asked or ordered to do something that could make them liable to be sent to the Hague, theres a mechanism for instantaneous security declassification and emergency presentation to Congress, that also permits the order to be stayed untill voted on by both chambers as a legitimate or illegitimate order, also simultaneously voting on impeaching and removing the offending politician(s).
Thus, it ain’t a politician directly voting to potentially fuck themselves, and it isn’t a total … relinquishing of US sovereign authority.
Something like that.
Some kind of mechanism like this would also augment what the War Powers Act tries to do but does not actually do well at all. Starting a war of aggression is a war crime.
In the US most arguably. There is collective guilt to be had by the boatload around here.
Either we change the policy, or we exterminate the nazis who insist upon it. We need action, not a defeatist attitude toward our own corruption. If it takes violence to fix the conservatism, then violence it is.
One is unlikely, the other more likely but less plausible if that makes sense.
I agree. And neither option is “impossible”. We can make these changes, with enough progressive push. It won’t be easy or quick, but it is possible. I think it’s also necessary.
I didn’t say impossible, it’s very possible. That said it will never happen.
So if you’re familiar with the Overton Window, can you guess which way comments like this move it?*
I’m not saying you mean ill. I’ve got a little bit of doomer in me too. Been there. But if you lose your capacity for hope and outrage you become an instrument of those that want to keep things shitty for us.
*Only microscopically, but still. The hopelessness and helplessness add up.
Comments like mine don’t move it at all boss.
It’s not doomer, its accepting reality. No one said don’t try, I said don’t hold your breath.
There’s no hopelessness, no helplessness. We don’t need the icc to reign in our own country, that’s on us to do and dreaming of a solution that’s not likely isn’t helping anything either.
The US is not under the jurisdiction of the ICC. A court can’t rule outside of its jurisdiction so that would be the Hague acting illegally. The US like most other large countries are not signatory to the Rome Statute
Iirc we signed but didn’t ratify like a lot of things. That said the icc doesn’t care, if you’re brought before them they will try you if need be.
A court can’t just operate where it has no jurisdiction and the US, much like Russia and China are not in their Jurisdiction. Who in the ICC will hold a nuclear armed country accountable? Latin America and Europe? Same reason Putin will never go to the ICC.
It can, the results do not need to matter in the country the person is from because they aren’t in that country.
Yeah, no duh. We already went over this and I’m not sure why you’re not aware of that fact or seem to think you’re making a point.
Because you are simply wrong. You keep insisting a court can operate where it has no jurisdiction and they “don’t care” both things are 100% completely wrong and false. This isn’t secret knowledge this is why I am telling you, but you keep insisting provably false information.
They aren’t operating in America so they don’t need jurisdiction in America! The same way a court in New Zealand doesn’t need jurisdiction in Zimbabwe to try someone in hold your horses here… Fucking New Zealand! The Hague operates in the Netherlands and have jurisdiction in multiple signatory countries and again brace yourself… the fucking Netherlands you absolute brick skull.
YOU CANT HOLD SOMEONE FROM A COUNTRY THAT DOESN’T RECOGNIZE YOUR COURT FOR TRIAL. HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU. THE NETHERLANDS HAS NO RIGHT TO DETAIN AND PUT PEOPLE WHO DIDN’T AGREE TO THE TERMS OF A COURT IN TRIAL OR DETAIN THEM. THAT IS ILLEGAL. IF AN AMERICAN TRAVELS TO A COUNTRY UNDER THE ICC THEN THEY CAN BE TRIED BUT THE US, AS WELL AS RUSSIA AND CHINA FIERCELY REJECT THE COURTS AUTHORITY AND THE COURT CAN’T LEGALLY, OR OTHERWISE, STOP THE NATIONS RETRIEVAL OF THE PERSON. ARE YOU AN IDIOT?
Best we can do is a pardon
Presidential pardons have no authority over the ICC
The US isn’t a signatory to the Rome Statute so they are not under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Neither is China, Russia, India, Israel, Iran, or Pakistan