So I guess 2016 claimed its biggest victim yet - America

You keep saying that, but this looks like something that works. All it takes is the cooperation of nations.

A shredded flag planted in a state that officially bans recognition of climate change?

Yep. That works.

The fuck?

Trump and all he touches turns evil.

So return to parents actually means kidnap more children?

You should probably read through that list, because it’s basically making my point for me. A bunch of folks indicted who then didnt actually get punished, like ghaddafi.

A court without enforcement is nothing.

We’ve got over twelve million illegal aliens living in the U.S. and he’s only managed to cage 13k of their kids? It’s like he’s not even trying. Fail.

I did read it, but I didn’t read it just for the purpose of cherry-picking the results I wanted to see. I understand your objection to the US supporting the ICC, and what motivates it, and I get that you won’t change your mind. I’m just pointing out the things you’re saying along the way (e.g. that the ICC can’t work) that aren’t actually true.

The specific example of Ghaddafi is interesting. He’s not being tried at the ICC because there are two opposing governmental bodies in Libya, one wants to extradite him to the ICC while the other doesn’t, and he happens to be in the territory and under the control of the latter.

Rather than one example, maybe look at the numbers in aggregate?

The ICC has publicly indicted 42 people. The ICC has issued arrest warrants for 34 individuals and summonses to eight others. Eight persons are in detention. Proceedings against 23 are ongoing: 12 are at large as fugitives, three are under arrest but not in the Court’s custody, one is in the pre-trial phase, six are at trial, and one is appealing his conviction. Proceedings against 19 have been completed: three are serving sentences, two have finished their sentences, one has been acquitted, six have had the charges against them dismissed, two have had the charges against them withdrawn, one has had his case declared inadmissible, and four have died before trial.

Doesn’t look like a record of total impotence to me.

5 folks actually served sentences out of 42 indicted.

Yeah… Guess not total impotence.

The court has no enforcement arm. Not sure what part of this you don’t understand.

John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!

I understand it perfectly. You oppose the ICC because you don’t want to give it authority over the United States, which is an argument which has legs; but for some reason you feel compelled to argue — foolishly — that something like the ICC can’t work. I can’t help feeling that if the ICC had a 100% conviction rate, you’d be arguing that invalidates the legitimacy of the court too.

It could work, if you actually had countries all invest enough money such that they would have the military force necessary to enforce their laws.

But it’d be stupid for us to yield that authority to the ICC, when we would ultimately be the ones tasked with then enforcing it’s rulings.

We can just do that now, if we want. Giving up authority to the ICC serves no useful purpose to us.

It’s not because we’d have to enforce it… It’s because it’d be used against the US the next time it goes rampage in another country.

Not only could it work, it has worked. It has tried nearly half the people it has indicted. It has convicted a third of the people it has tried. The people it hasn’t tried are dead, or on the run, or being protected by rogue states.

It relies on the enforcement arm of its member states, much like our own courts, which have no enforcement arm to speak of.

There is no “enforcement” for the Nobel Prizes either, so I guess they are useless too?

Lolwhut? Nobody aspires to win an indictment from the ICC.

Anyway, as it turns out Jean-Paul Sartre refused his Nobel Prize. Basically because it would cramp his style. Nothing they could do about it, and his style remained uncramped.

Why does congress every pass non-binding resolutions? They have no enforcement so they are useless! Why is there any international diplomacy? There is no reason for negotiating if anyone can still declare war! Why so we try Soviet spies in absentia, when they will never be arrested and go to jail?

Sometimes public decision making, mutual fact finding, publicly seeking truth and justice with international partners is valuable in itself. If might-makes-right is the only authority and justice that matters, then nobody will aspire to do the right thing, just to be the biggest bully.

What a strange conversation.

Yes, they are useless. They are political props meant only to help the politician get re-elected. That’s why they pass with hardly any national debate.

Treaties aren’t just about war. See NAFTA. Furthermore, a ratified treaty is binding.

I don’t know, why?

You are describing an investigation, not a trial. Investigations are useful. A trial with only one party present is a waste of time.

Is it? The Geneva Conventions were ratified by the US, and the US allegedly violated them in the aftermath of 9/11. Now what? Where’s that enforcement arm?

If the treaty is abandoned, then the US can no longer expect other treaty members to follow it. Loss of those benefits is the “enforcement arm”.

It’s kind of like asking what is the enforcement arm for your Comcast subscription. If you don’t make your payments, you lose the benefits of cable access.