Or just Hispanic people in general. Ruiz? Yeah, he might be an illegal, strike him from the rolls till we’re sure. Or maybe we need to go to his house and affirm his citizenship. Everyone keeps a copy of their birth certificate on hand for random Federal agents. Right?
Well, after he gets out of holding I’m sure it will be fine.
Good News: The USA will not longer be the World’s Police
Bad News: Actually lets get rid of all World Policing
ATTN: Dictators, It’s GO TIME
Thats not really it.
Is more “USA don’t recognize other authority than itself”. That court could still target other countries, but not USA.
And if we show that it works for us, then why won’t every authoritarian also just apply personal pressure to the ICC judges who dare to oppose them?
Because other countries aren’t the US. They don’t have a massive economy and military.
Sorry, but i didn’t vote to elect people on the ICC. I’m not interested in their laws.
I only care about the laws imposed by our government, because they reflect the will of our Democratic institutions.
Which aspects of international law do you then reject? Do you accept the validity of the Geneva Conventions?
(I mean, this is a pretty rudimentary political philosophy: Might makes right.)
Whereas I desperately wish we could be brought to heel by international sentiment a little more often. It’d have seen Bush and Cheney and their ilk in jail for the horrific war crimes we perpetrated under the guise of the War on Terror.
Mind, if Obama hadn’t learned from their mistakes, he probably would have been carted off, too, but fair’s fair.
Sure, they are a very specific set of rules that our Democratic institutions have agreed to, although that being said, in not sure how useful they actually are. I agree with what they stand for, and agree that America shouldn’t do the things that they prohibit. But my opinion on that would be the same, regardless of whether it was codified in the conventions.
We choose to not do things like employ chemical weapons because we think it’s immoral. But guys like Asad use them, and the Geneva conventions don’t do anything about it. Violating the Geneva conventions doesn’t actually matter.
Ultimately, “international law” is meaningless, because there’s no “international law enforcement”. Law without enforcement doesn’t matter.
So, in practice, all that matters is if you piss off a country that is strong enough to beat you up, and strong enough to not have other countries interfere with their beating you.
It might be a useful concept to help bootstrap us toward
WORLD
GOVERNMENT
Yes, I actually think World Government might not be a bad idea, some day. Blame it on my youth watching lots of Star Trek.
What a relief we are now in league with the autocracies of Russia and China. 'Murica!
Pathetic.
UN Security Council could take action, in theory
A full-fledged investigation, including allegations of genocide and crimes against other minorities, would only be possible if the UN Security Council referred the situation in Myanmar to the jurisdiction of the ICC — something that is unlikely to happen. Three of the Council’s veto powers — Russia, China and the United States — reject the ICC’s authority and have no intention of becoming members. Just this week, in the face of a potential indictment of US soldiers for alleged crimes in Afghanistan, White House National Security Advisor John Bolton declared that Washington would rather “let the ICC die on its own” than cooperate with or provide assistance to the court. Support is equally unlikely from Russia and China, the latter of which has close strategic and economic ties with neighboring Myanmar.
I thought this was how things worked anyway.
One rule for the USA and other (super) powers, one for the poor countries.
Reminds me of how Uhuru Kenyatta (and Odinga) got away with ordering murders in the run up to the general election in Kenya, because he cut a deal to avoid being prosecuted.
USA democratic institutions is rich people are 0.5% of the population, but 51% of the congress.
Theres is a democracy in USA and the democracy that exist in USA don’t seems to seek the well being of USA citizens, only of USA wealthy elite. And thats what USA export to the world. With al their power, that is almost godlike.
I love USA, but looking at their policy with naked eyes, is kind of sad and scary. It could be much worse, of course, USA don’t want to murder or invade you. They want you to buy their products, retain power and use you, and Stop any social progress at any cost (murder, state coup, state terrorism, arming terrorist and so on).
There is actually international law enforcement. It’s called, among other things, the International Criminal Court. It seems strange to me to on the one hand say that the Geneva Conventions are good but lack any enforcement mechanism, and on the other to dismiss an enforcement mechanism like the ICC on the grounds that they don’t reflect the will of our Democratic institutions.
What about the laws of other Democracies? I recall a substantial effort by a Spanish prosecutor to bring a case against the Bush torture regime. I recall another case in Italy, where prosecutors tried to pursue criminal charges against a number of US persons - CIA operatives and contractors - for kidnapping someone in Italy as part of their rendition operations.
Do you think it is right or wrong for the US to pressure other Democracies with threats of retaliation in order to prevent them from enforcing their own laws in their own countries? Legally right/wrong, morally right/wrong?
Shithole countries
I’m form one.
That statement makes you racist! (not that i care much fwiw)
So am I! :(
These days the US is a shithole country.
I think threatening the ICC is disgusting and makes it look like there is something to hide, but if I am not mistaken, the US isn’t a member nation of the ICC.