Somehow, I don’t think that’s the remedy the treaty imagines.
Well, you claim the US was in violation. What happened next?
ICE has made several arrests in California inside of Courthouses. In fact they have made at least one arrest I am aware of inside an actual court room. And the judge did nothing to stop it.
What was it Obama got a Nobel Prize for?
Mostly for not being George W. Bush
The U.N. set up the ICC to have jurisdiction over violations of the conventions; so that states and the U.N. could refer matters to that court, and so that states who were unable or unwilling to press charges against violators would have another court to which such matters could be referred.
Which means they didn’t imagine that the remedy for violations would be limited only to that the violating state would no longer be party to the treaty.
Really, what are you arguing here? Do you think ‘the expected outcome didn’t occur’ is synonymous with ‘that wasn’t the expected outcome’?
So, how many will the next guy/girl get for not being Donald Trump? 5, 10, 25?
I mean, first we have to make it to 2020 and having election, so fingers crossed.
I think they would have to not be a Republican as well, but as many as possible please.
Well, I was responding to the argument that “diplomacy is useless”. It is not, because ratified treaties are binding.
You brought up the Geneva Conventions, which the US ratified in part. So as far as Americans are concerned, the Geneva Conventions are not useless. They obviously have multiple levels of remedy for violations, but the ultimate remedy is nullification of the treaty. Which is not in American interests. So that threat is the ultimate “enforcement”.
In contrast, the treaty that established the ICC has not been ratified by the US, so the US is not bound by it. Thus, the ICC is useless to America, for the same reason that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is useless to America.
Nobody seems to be saying the purpose of the ICC isn’t good, just that it’s toothless when it comes to the US; if a set of laws require you to agree to them to be binding, they’re “suggestions” until that agreement is made.
Deep State Radio covered the ICC stuff, and people on that show were in the State Department under Bush and Obama.
Pretty mixed feelings. Especially initially the ICC had little support from the US. Later the Bush administration ended up softly supporting the court as it found it useful with atrocities and terrorism and this was continued by the Obama admin.
Amusingly the main reason the US didn’t like the court is that we didn’t want to be targeted by it (or Israel specifically). But this whole thread is about how the ICC is toothless.
Not quite. I’d say everyone agrees it is toothless when it comes to the US, because the US isn’t a party; but some people say it’s entirely toothless, which is not so. It relies on the willing cooperation of the countries that are parties to the treaty, which has been at least somewhat effective.
You totally got me.
Look, I’m just saying that if nobody is willing to use their atomic arsenal to force the Academy and Tom Chick to acknowledge that Blade Runner is the best film of all time, then what good is it being a superpower?
Are we talking the original or the reboot? You might have may agreement for the original. I’m happy to threaten the use of nuke to get the Academy to change their mind but Tom Chick is too stubborn, you might as well just Nuke LA now.
You guys sure do have some of the most inane arguments.
It’s been nearly two years since Donald Trump won enough Electoral College votes to become president of the United States. On the day after, in my concession speech, I said, “We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead.” I hoped that my fears for our future were overblown.
They were not.
In the roughly 21 months since he took the oath of office, Trump has sunk far below the already-low bar he set for himself in his ugly campaign. Exhibit A is the unspeakable cruelty that his administration has inflicted on undocumented families arriving at the border, including separating children, some as young as eight months, from their parents. According to The New York Times , the administration continues to detain 12,800 children right now, despite all the outcry and court orders. Then there’s the president’s monstrous neglect of Puerto Rico: After Hurricane Maria ravaged the island, his administration barely responded. Some 3,000 Americans died. Now Trump flatly denies those deaths were caused by the storm. And, of course, despite the recent indictments of several Russian military intelligence officers for hacking the Democratic National Committee in 2016, he continues to dismiss a serious attack on our country by a foreign power as a “hoax."
As I see it, there are five main fronts of this assault on our democracy.
- First, there is Donald Trump’s assault on the rule of law.
- Second, the legitimacy of our elections is in doubt.
- Third, the president is waging war on truth and reason.
- Fourth, there’s Trump’s breathtaking corruption.
- Fifth, Trump undermines the national unity that makes democracy possible.
She is completely correct, but she’s probably the wrong messenger. I have no idea who the right messenger would be, though. Maybe someone from the Republican side could grow a pair and speak about these things, such as Bush II or maybe John Boehner.
Not sure where to put this, but it’s an excellent long-form piece about the rise of Authoritarianism. It makes me despair a bit because I worry that democracy is just a blip on the radar and authoritarian rule is really the destiny of human affairs.