Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

82% Positive

Analyzed from 1811 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#icc#power#why#world#don#international#war#china#things#investigation

Discussion (85 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

guytv•about 2 hours ago
Israeli here.

Just a reminder: the ICC was founded in the aftermath of WWII, when Jews had no voice and no one fighting for them.

Israel’s finance minister, one of the most senior ministers in the government:

“No one in the world will allow us to starve two million civilians to death, even though it may be justified and moral, until our hostages are returned.”

Israel’s defense minister:

“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly.”

Someone should prosecute those bastards.

mentalgear•about 1 hour ago
Thank you for speaking up, the political leadership indeed is a shame and it's important for citizens to speak out and let the world know that these blood-hungry bastards do not represent their citizens.
lrasinen•about 1 hour ago
ICC was established in 2002, hardly "in the aftermath."
Someone•about 2 hours ago
> Just a reminder: the ICC was founded in the aftermath of WWII

I don’t think that’s correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court:

“The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an intergovernmental organisation and international tribunal seated in The Hague, Netherlands. Established in 2002

[…]

The establishment of an international tribunal to judge political leaders accused of international crimes was first proposed during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 following the First World War”

Aeolun•about 1 hour ago
I’m pretty sure they’re past the point of prosecution.
postepowanieadm•about 1 hour ago
I hope Israel will. You know how to deal with Nazis.
celticninja•about 1 hour ago
We have Hamas and their like because no one prosecute them
quietbritishjim•about 1 hour ago
I think your comment is more ambiguous than you realise. Who is the "them" at the end of your sentence?

Some would argue that Hamas continues to exist because no one has prosecutes its members.

Some would argue that Hamas exists because no one prosecutes those in the Israeli government (the "them" of the parent comment) who continue to persecute Palestinians in a way that is bound to cultivate terrorism.

boxed•about 1 hour ago
And a time machine I guess? :P
mentalgear•about 2 hours ago
It's really sad seeing the international order, erected primarily by the US as a driving force after WW2, now being torn down by the current US administration to the detriment not only of global safety but also the US itself.

Giving up the best soft-power levers they had in an attempt to replace them with coarse, obvious and ineffective hard-power beat-sticks is not only foolish but history shows never works well or long term.

celticninja•about 1 hour ago
The US never signed up to the ICC, rules for thee and not for me as usual from our Yankee 'friends'
JDEW•about 1 hour ago
The US has always been actively hostile to the ICC [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...?

glimshe•about 1 hour ago
Keep in mind that the US has never joined the ICC. China, Russia, India and, in fact, most of the world (including the Arab world) aren't part of it.

The ICC, irrespective of its merits, represents a fairly narrow point of view.

pbiggar•about 1 hour ago
The problem is that the US used its soft power for evil, not for good. WW2 was the last war where the US were the good guys.

With the US' war of aggression on Iran, it just doesnt care what it loses in its quest to support Israel.

Aeolun•about 1 hour ago
The US has really degenerated into a strongman state hasn’t it? This is more like what they tell us to expect from China, but what we actually get from the US.
elzbardico•about 1 hour ago
This is what the propaganda, from school to hollywood, taught us to expect from China and USSR.
beng-nl•about 1 hour ago
Total speedrun.
bamboozled•about 1 hour ago
Which goes to show that China under Xi is probably the best "super power" enemy the US could ever hope for. What happens after Xi is anyone's get but I doubt it will be so benign.
Gud•about 1 hour ago
Why wouldn't it be so "benign"? Unlike the USA, China seems to have pretty sane leadership in general.
bamboozled•43 minutes ago
From everything we know about China, there is no succession plan, so I guess no one knows what it will be like, but the odds are it won't be as stable as it is now. I hope I'm wrong.
47282847•about 2 hours ago
Which country besides the US has the audacity to think it has extraterritorial rights to interfere with legal practices elsewhere? To me, it is obvious that this is violent behavior and will lead to defensive action by others, and more violence, not more peace.

If it was the “hard power” it claims, what is it that makes “it” so afraid? To me, it is fairly obvious that this is how a threatened being behaves, in “childish ways”, before it fully falls apart.

mrkeen•about 1 hour ago
You may not have intended it this way, but your top paragraph could easily be repurposed as a talking point for the current administration. What does the I in ICC stand for?
grumple•about 1 hour ago
The ICC itself and its member states believe they have extraterritorial rights to interfere with legal practices elsewhere, which is sort of the whole point.
nephihaha•about 2 hours ago
The PRC.
jabron•about 2 hours ago
Where?
pasc1878•about 1 hour ago
Manchester https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63972640

and several others in UK

impossiblefork•about 2 hours ago
There's been a lot of stuff bringing us back to the 2002-2008 era, with the occupation of Afghanistan, etc., now that the Brits are finally investigating the SAS men who murdered people in their beds etc., so I've been reading about the old El-Masri case and the CIA black sites in Europe, and the use of state secrets privilege to block El-Masri's lawsuit in the US, the Polish unwillingness to seriously investigate.

The only two good things are I think the ECtHR's willingness to demand an investigation, and one can question whether the CoM of the CoE have done their job in ensuring implementation, but they're at least regularly checking whether there are implementation attempts.

But what struck me was the endless deference of the ICC. They've limited their Afghanistan investigation to Afghani perpetrators even though they have access to vast numbers of Europeans with information about the black sites and the investigation of these things is even more tractable than investigating things in Afghanistan, and I think it's this deference that is the ICC's problem.

The ICC actually has powers sufficient to deal with the sanctions completely, with no need for aid from European states in any regard.

It's to the point where anyone participating in anything affecting the ICC's ability to do its job can be ordered arrested and confined indefinitely. The ICC can literally order the arrest of the workforce of an entire bank if it participates in anything having to do with retaliation against the ICC. The only thing preventing milder things like ordering the arrest of the CEO and board is the ICC's insane deference.

So I really don't understand the Americans. The ICC is doing exactly what they want. They're not even subpoenaing Europeans who sit right here with knowledge about the black sites and torture, even under intense criticism from victims who are of course pushing for investigation.

jaapz•about 2 hours ago
Can anyone explain to me why the trump administration hates the ICC so much?
Steve16384•about 2 hours ago
I think it's something to do with them issueing an arrest warrant in November 2024 for Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity as part of the ICC investigation in Palestine.
gumby•about 1 hour ago
They are concerned that they will be the target for war crimes, such as sinking fishing ships in the Caribbean and Pacific, targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran, and the like.
ganzsz•about 2 hours ago
The investigation into both Netanyahu, and American soldiers in Afghanistan.
heisenbit•about 2 hours ago
There is something seriously wrong when in a court POTUS (self-)pardon powers do not work.
mentalgear•about 1 hour ago
Because both T & N that have utter disrespect for law & order when it affects themselves. For example: both have to remain in political power as this immunity from law shields them from running trials that would probably end them in prison.
ta20240528•about 2 hours ago
Because

- they issued a non-revocable arrest warrant for Netanyahu

- Afghanistan is a member and once threatened to prosecute US military staff for human rights violations.

Its not just the Trump adminstration, the "Hague Invasion Act" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...) was signed into American law in 2002 by G.W. Bush.

Impunity is a drug.

petcat•about 2 hours ago
It's been every administration. Obama and Biden refused it also
Nursie•about 2 hours ago
Sure, but there is a difference between not wanting to take part and actively trying to sabotage it for everyone else.

Bush, Obama and Biden wanted to keep the US out of it. Trump wants to destroy it.

Nursie•about 2 hours ago
Because Trump's best bro, Putin, and his good friends in the Israeli government find themselves inconvenienced by it.

The US isn't subject to it, as it didn't sign up, but he's probably also worried that Americans who are accused of war crimes and then travel to countries which are signatories may find themselves arrested and tried.

ta20240528•about 1 hour ago
"The US isn't subject to it"

American citizens are subject to ICC jurisdiction if they commit crimes in an ICC-member country. Like US soldiers in Afghanistan.

Which is what freaks the US government out.

nguyenkien•about 2 hours ago
Bombing school in Iran, killing people on boat of venezuela coast. ICE murder people on streets.
sagarm•about 2 hours ago
This will result in an erosion of the effectiveness of US sanctions.
chain-xvi•about 2 hours ago
the united states is a threat to the world.
HSO•about 2 hours ago
is it really a `threat` (ie potential damage)?

id say it is harmful. like a cancerous tumor that now went into hypergrowth

iammjm•about 2 hours ago
Oh it's definitely a threat, and the damage is not potential but factual already. Consider 120+ children dead in a single airstrike on a school in Iran, or the current gasoline prices worldwide as a result of the unprovoked war they started. People killed, world economy damage, plus the damage to international alliances, institutions, and the rule of law. Just quick 3 examples of the actual damage, and that's only this year!
alt227•about 2 hours ago
Is a cancerous tumour not a threat to life?
gspr•about 2 hours ago
It's better that they rip the badaid off like this. The EU cannot stand by if all of the ICC is hit. It's gonna be painful for all of us in Europe for a little while, but this is far better than letting any more single individuals have their lives ruined for doing their (legal!) jobs for European institutions. This has already happened too many times, and is truly shameful – let this conflict rage for real now, so that it's a burden we all have to bear together!
_ink_•about 2 hours ago
Fully agree. EU needs to get their act together and start getting independent. It's absurd that I cannot pay cashless without using American companies. Or that people lose their bank account because someone in America does something.

Edit: They also need to force banks to make a decision. Do you want to do business in the EU? Then you must not close accounts bank accounts because someone in US puts someone on a list. If that means you lose business in the US, so be it. Make a decision which market you want to operate in. If you want to leave EU, do it. Others will take your place.

kaon_2•about 2 hours ago
No. Wait for the midterms and hope it can be done without catastrophic consequences.
elric•about 2 hours ago
Why would those make a difference? The US elected the same corrupt madman twice. Why would things suddenly improve after this election?
ZiiS•about 1 hour ago
If both houses switch then he will be distracted fighting them for the rest of his term; if they don't we no longer need to treat the US as a functioning democracy.
petcat•about 2 hours ago
> "The Trump Administration has been clear: the International Criminal Court is a corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court that has maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement.

I've never really thought about the ICC at all other than just knowing that the few countries that possess both hard power (military) and soft power (economic) have refused to join or recognize the ICC since its inception in 2002.

Why would China and USA both not recognize it? It seems like they're the only ones that really matter.

arlort•about 1 hour ago
I'll preface it with the only part of the US argument against the ICC that is somewhat principled and reasonable: there is some concern that it'd be used for political prosecution of US service members or decision makers outside of constitutional guarantees like a jury trial

I don't think it actually would happen if it joined but since it's the US I can also imagine someone being pushed to (or doing it for some personal fame) to bend the procedural rules to at least launch an investigation that wouldn't generally be launched if the facts were the same in another western country.

That being said, their accusations towards the ICC as it has operated so far (as opposed to why they don't join) are mostly pretextual and right now they're mostly motivated by their alliance with Israel which is being investigated over Gaza

lazyasciiart•about 2 hours ago
They don’t recognize it because they don’t have to. Why would you voluntarily agree to be bound by laws and subject to a court system if you have the option to just say you didn’t want to?
applfanboysbgon•about 2 hours ago
If you like doing illegal things, why would you voluntarily submit to a framework for punishing illegal things?
pbiggar•about 1 hour ago
This will further push the EU towards sovereignty, not just on a tech front but through the financial sector. Similar to their sanctions of the Iranian airlines - these are attacks on civilian and human rights infrastructure that other countries actually find value and alignment with.

Probably (hopefully) we'll look back on this as the start of the end of US soft influence.

account42•about 1 hour ago
Yes, these moves can only be self-defeating in the long term.
Advertisement
poisonborz•38 minutes ago
Almost none of the US's recent actions are new or a "turning point". All what the Trump government changed was to throw the gloves off and make it blatantly, stupidly obvious, and to act haphazardly and without thorough preparation.

ICC, embrace-extinguishing EU, exploiting Middle East, South America as colonies - these are not 180 turns, just playing the same game faster and dumber. Notable exceptions may be Canada or Greenland, but even there one might suspect they just surfaced a previously well disguised agenda.