Matthew Downhour: The US should be embracing the ICC indictments of Putin, Sinwar, and Netanyahu. None of them are likely to end up in the Hague but all three are effectively working against the actual interests of the United States and our choice to defend 1/3 of them is absurd

The US should be embracing the ICC indictments of Putin, Sinwar, and Netanyahu. None of them are likely to end up in the Hague but all three are effectively working against the actual interests of the United States and our choice to defend 1/3 of them is absurd

it's the natural conclusion of the US pussyfooting with the ICC membership

"oh noes, Kissinger might be indicted for genocide, we can't set a precedent" kicking down the can for decades yields this clusterfuck

Not even that. Joining does not concede jurisdiction for cases pre-ratification, which makes the US' choice to not formally join particularly indefensible.

I really do believe we'd be in a much better place if we'd acted morally in the past, even against what seemed at the time to be our interests. It's much harder to start now, but easier than it will be down the road.

see also: the Nixon pardon but then kicking down the can is always the more desirable option

The moral fallout from that one...

the good news is, it enabled the recovery of the Republican party yay

Especially after the US had already voted to establish ICTY and ICTR, with a mandate to bring charges for genocide.

yeah but you see, stuff like that could be applied to you and we can't have that

we as a community have been pretty soft on this thing

Uh there's pussyfooting and then there's this: "The Hague Invasion Act"

American Service-Members' Protection Act - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org

I mean I'm happy with this result but I imagine EU leaders are mostly cursing the court out right now for giving them this headache. You think Macron or Scholz want to arrest Gallant next time he lands in Europe?

Obviously not an ironclad rule

Honestly, the ICC gave Biden an off-ramp he's passing up This is a chance to say "The US is not an ICC member, but we believe in core int'l law principles. Israeli leaders repeatedly assured us they would follow the law, and there is credible evidence they have not. The evidence should be heard"

there are a lot of foreign policy decisions i don't understand

I agree, but the US is the most powerful nation on earth and powerful nations generally don't like to undermine how much power they can theoretically have. Even though IMO it undermine's your argument that you are for the rules based order, when you don't support the rule based order sometimes.

Post