this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
998 points (98.0% liked)

World News

39346 readers
3136 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nahuse@sh.itjust.works 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

First: it’s not my logic. It’s how this part of international law works. The International Criminal Court wasn’t created until 1998, and the statute that governs it only officially came into power in 2002. Not all countries have signed, and some (including the US) have withdrawn from it. This means that technically the ICC doesn’t have any jurisdiction over things that happen within its territory.

The US codified it into a domestic law because it doesn’t believe its should be beholden to any law higher than its domestic ones, and the United States often does shady things in countries where the ICC does have jurisdiction, making it a risk that US citizens (and leaders) can be arrested for crimes that occur there. So the US Congress wrote domestic policy stating that it reserved the right to invade if its citizens were held for trial.

And Bibi didn’t join the US military. But the US has shown it’s willing to support his administration through an awful lot of shit, and the US doesn’t have any ambiguity about how it regards the ICC.

Finally, are you referring to the Nuremberg trials? Nazis weren’t tried in The Hague court we are discussing, and I’m not sure any nazi trials happened there at all.

Edit: I don’t understand the downvotes. This is literally just how the International Criminal Court works.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

The US codified it into a domestic law because it doesn’t believe its should be beholden to any law higher than its domestic ones

Well that's not true. Our Constitution clearly places treaties above domestic law.