Criminal says what?
“Criminal Attempts to Destroy Accountability, also a Tiny Smelly Shit”
And the Democratic Party responded with …crickets.
Funny how its always about the Dems when voters did jack shit to stop the Republicans in the first place.
Hey USAian, out here in the rest of the world, we see your governing party going full fascist about the ICC, and your opposition party staying silent. And that’s not fucking funny because it means this shit is the position of the sum of your political system. You want me to blame USAian voters? Sure whatever. But don’t expect me to engage in your little intra-tribal blame game dance about Kamala in your last election.
It’s a systemic failure. A democracy where a third of the country doesn’t feel represented by their options (and thus chooses none) is not a functioning democracy, and that’s ignoring all the other shit going on with your voting system.
Of course we’d ignore the republicans. The dems are the only group we have any hope at all in ever working with, but they have to prove that they are even slightly on our side before we’ll give them votes. The time of blindly trusting the DNC is long past. “Vote blue no matter who” is dead now and the centrists poisoned that well of solidarity we were all happily drinking from for so long.
Thats what being republican lite gets you, dont blame us for the DNC’s bad choices. They started a genocide for some AIPAC money. They should count themselves lucky we will consider working with them at all anymore, because they cant win elections without their base, and their base doesnt beleive in supporting the war crimes regime in Israel, which the centrists refuse to disavow even now.
And I dont care if you like it. Your internet blame and outrage is meaningless to the rest of us. Not all of us embrace your sellout logic.
Criminals don’t like justice and especially don’t like the courts. As the US is run by a criminal and the administration seems to be full of them, it is to be expected.
Ah yes. America, famous for its diplomacy.
Using all the tools at our government’s disposal, working beside every ally
Soooo, nobody?
Nobody is your ally anymore and nobody wants to work with criminals to destroy a justice system, you asshole
I think they have Argentina still.
Rubio is a good little AIPAC hireling. Whatever happens we need to make sure he never has any authority ever again.
I mean, there are definitely arguments for abolishing the ICC. At the best of times they are toothless or, like the Nuremburg Trials, actively platforming and legitimizing those they are ruling against. And the rest of the time they are retroactively justifying the actions of the more imperialist nations… like the USA.
But, like always, the chuds can’t even pretend to have a good reason for what they are advocating for.
Can you give examples of when they’ve done those things?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#Trial_history is a good starting point.
In terms of toothlessness? The active refusal to weigh in on the Uyghur Genocide is a “great” example of this. Or, for the tankies in the audience, the refusal to weigh in on all the evil the US is doing with ICE et al. Let alone our decades of wars of aggression.
Also… ya know, Netanyahu and Putin.
But generally? Their trials are weighted heavily towards African warlords who aren’t useful anymore.
As for legitimizing? Recent events are skewed due to a lack of interest in both the crime and the trial itself. Instead, I would recommend looking at the reality of the Nuremburg Trials themselves. Jacob Gellar did a spectacular video on this (that is only kind of tainted by doing Youtuber Voice for a lot of the quotes). But the short of it is that a lot of “crimes against humanity”… aren’t actually crimes in legal systems. And by making a farce of having an actual defense lawyer, it mostly just gives the accused a chance to lie about what they have done… or brag about it.
But, generally speaking, the ICC is, in many ways, the worst sins of the UN. Having a venue where nations are encouraged to discuss things and negotiate is good. But the moment you try to apply any penalties or enforce any of those negotiated terms, you just highlight how toothless the org itself is. And the ICC have very much done that as nations too powerful to be acted upon are, at best, given a slap on the wrist. And mostly it is a matter of punching down on “global south” nations where enforcing said rulings largely benefit the “global north” interests.
Like… in a lot of ways, your average HOA has more power than the ICC.
ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction for what states do within their own borders - every court has jurisdiction. If you don’t know them or have your own feelings about them, then that’s your own misconception of what the court’s function is.
In the end, even the creation of the ICC in 2002 was contentious because of what states viewed as infringement of sovereignty. It’s a very new international body that still doesn’t have the support it needs. Additionally, it’s judges and prosecutors are financially sanctioned by the US (for investigating war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan) which impedes their work.
It’s less about being toothless, and more like states purposefully attack it and try to weaken it - meaning it does serve a purpose (which is why it’s attacked) and can serve an even greater purpose if unimpeded.
So instead of blaming the ICC for doing their job in the quagmire that is international politics and the limited tools they have, you should be directing your ire at the states who don’t allow it to function as it should and ask for more protections of the court.
To answer some things
- Bibi (et al.) and Putin are wanted by the ICC and will be arrested should they travel to signatory states.
- The ICC isn’t part of the UN. You’re thinking of the ICJ.
I don’t know what you mean about legitimizing. The court functions as any court in the world and the prosecution needs to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. If the court makes judgements outside of what can be proven or available evidence, then it’s not a court and would not be legitimate (and probably be attacked even more than it is now).
And none of that changes anything.
You still have an org that is, to public perception, picking and choosing when they have jurisdiction and don’t… and it almost always seems aligned with how influential the country in question is. They are fundamentally lawyers so I am sure there is a document with all of these corner cases written out but that really doesn’t change the de facto of it.
And on the chance they DO decide they have jurisdiction? It just means that bibbi has to be careful about where he goes on holiday.
At its core, the ICC creates an illusion of justice when there is none. Which makes it a self serving farce that serves the interests of those who control them (which, ironically, includes the US, as you yourself point out).
If giving them more money solves it, cool. I’ll believe it when I see it. Because it is still the same fundamental issue with basically any international peacekeeping org: They only have power when they are the proxy of a, generally imperialist, power. But it creates a fairy tale that justice will be served and there is accountability when there really isn’t any.
They don’t decide jurisdiction, it’s already clear what their jurisdiction is (i.e. signatory states and others).
Sorry but you’ve shared a lot of emotional responses with very little in the way of facts - sometimes even complete inaccuracies. To be frank, I’m reading a lot of ignorance and assumptions rather than understanding. If that’s how you base your opinions then there’s not much point in engagement.
