Have to wonder what compelled folks to do a drive by on the “I disagree” button. I wouldn’t have thought anything I said to be controversial amongst geopolitically aware individuals.
I'm wondering what power does the ICC have to carry out its sentencing if the US chooses to disagree with it?
Same with The Hague court, where the US said its soldiers would be imune from standing trial for crimes.
So if these international courts are only allowed selective enforcement, what's the point of their existence? To only prosecute people the US doesn't choose to protect? Then what's the line between good guys and bad guys?
There is pretty much no way to enforce so-called "international law" other than through sanctions or direct military action. Germany is not going to arrest Netanyahu if he visited the country. What would be the consequence of that? Nothing of substance, maybe a sternly worded letter from the ICC, but there are no effective and practical means of forcing them to act.
In order to avoid the problem, Germany would probably not allow Netanyahu to visit the country in the first place.
If I remember correctly, a former president of the USA cancelled a visit to Switzerland because they were wanted for war crimes. Would Switzerland have arrested that former president of the USA? Hard to say: cancelling the visit was an easier solution for the people who made the decision.
In Britain, an Israeli general arrived by plane but never disembarked because of an outstanding warrant for war crimes. Would they really have arrested the Israeli general? Hard to say: not letting them disembark was an easier solution for the people who made the decision.
Obliged by who? The US can choose to wipe their ass with whatever they signed and arbitrarily say NO to a request they don't like. Who's gonna hold them accountable for breaking their signed agreement?
Wasn't there the same pitfall with the League of Nations?
I was just answering your question my friend. Given the states are not party to the ICC, they have very little to do with it. But to your point: what teeth does the ICC have? In theory the 120ish other countries that WOULD arrest someone with a warrant, south korea, ausieland, canada etc. In theory.
The US is not a signatory to the ICC. The US legal position is that the bilateral immunity agreements it has with many (mostly non-european) countries that are signatories to the ICC prevent those countries from being required to arrest US citizens accused of war crimes. I'm not aware of any legal theory in or agreements that lets the US directly block the arrest of non-us citizens in a foreign country so it would have to be the result of backroom pressure.
It’s really rather simple. Anyone on this planet only has as much authority as their guns provide them. The people who operate these courts have fewer guns than the US, so they don’t get authority over US interests.
Of course. Isn't it obvious how in history books the "good guys" were always those with the most guns who ended up defeating the guys with less guns, who lost and were always the bad guys, 100% of the time? What a strange coincidence.
US interests is a very broad category, it frequently doesn’t get its way.
There’s tit for tat involved where things might escalate to the point where the US kills some people via airstrikes, but it simply can’t escalate everything to a full on war.
“He served 21 months of his sentence before being released in a prisoner swap in 1962.” So no actual retaliation, and we gave up something they wanted for him.
There’s also edge cases. Yeh Changti was trained by the CIA and then shot down flying a U-2 in 1963 and held in China for 19 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeh_Changti
Listing examples of chinese nationals captured in a time when 85% of Americans today weren’t even alive isn’t proving the point you seem to think it is.
The simple fact of the matter is that modern countries simply don’t want to mess with america.
Your question included allies, but if we’re talking US citizens only USS Pueblo (AGER-2) Was a capture of a US military vehicle, torture of its crew, and we did nothing.
Sure, going back to the main point North Korea has guns and this helps to hem get their way. And if we restrict ourselves to those countries which are relevant to the main point (ICC member states), they don’t, and don’t. What’s your point? To date all you’ve done is list rule proving exceptions.
That’s no true Scotsman… but anyway as long as you’re giving up the idea that this different recently.
Compare France or the UK as ICC member states with NK and your argument is obviously false. They have plenty of nukes to be a major issue.
I’ll flip this around, try and find examples that fit your narrative outside of fiction or active wars. IE, situations where civilians are in charge of deciding what our military is doing.
I still don’t know what your point is. I’ve been consistent since the beginning. UK and France are quite weak indeed, nuclear is a separate plane that is irrelevant in this thread.
> Do we have many examples of cases where countries have held US soldiers or commanders of allied nations captive without repercussion?
And clear answer to that such a year yes, with dozens of examples off the top of my head that I was unsure in what context you might assume it was true.
> UK and France are quite weak indeed
Not in comparison to NK and especially not historic NK they aren’t. Have you ever actually studied foreign events, history, or looked into foreign militaries etc? You have such a distorted viewpoint I just find it baffling. In terms of traditional military NK has 1/3 the UK’s population, vastly worse industry, outdated equipment, minimal ability to move beyond their borders, etc. In a head to head fight they would lose badly.
Its been years, but I worked on strategic planning for the DoD. As in the group that actually plans how to preform an invasion, though I was developing the software not doing the actual planning. They still wanted us to have an understanding of what’s involved.
All I can suggest is your methods are inherently flawed. Ask yourself why you were unaware of all these incidents and how you might change that deficiency.
Yes, I see that it’s been years. That’s why all your examples are ancient news. Consider other people might be active, and that you never actually refuted my point.
Not in the ways you might think. I used examples from well outside the periods and events I have classified knowledge of, for legal and ethical reasons.
However, reading your responses I can understand why you ended up with such a wildly inaccurate understanding of the world. It’s been interesting talking with you.
yes, and in this case, the relevant guns are those of the ICC and Israel.
The court has no army or power, while Israel does, so US guns are already irrelevant. Israel doesnt need US military protection form the ICC any more than it needs US protection from random critics.
Guns don’t exist in a vacuum. They need constant financial support. US provides that support. Without US, they have no support. Without support, they have no guns.
Don’t just take my word for it, look at all the published requests Israel has made for American gun money.
I don't think so. I am aware that the US has thrown in about 20 Billion to the war effort. Israel has spent more than twice that much from its own budget.
Pre-war US military aid was about 4 billion/year, compared to the the Israeli domestic budget of 16 Billion/year.
The idea that Israel would have "no guns" without US aid is flat out wrong. Doubly so when you are talking about enough guns to to defy the ICC, which actually has zero.
Ha. “more than double”. So, a third? If I needed government welfare to pay half my salary in order to get by, I’d consider myself pretty damn dependent. A far cry from getting a free meal at costco to be sure.
But I agree it’s not the ICCs guns that are the problem for any israeli’s wellbeing.
