r/worldnews • u/misana123 • Mar 14 '23 • Lawyer Up 1

Russia says it does not recognise Hague court amid reports of arrest warrants Russia/Ukraine

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/14/russia-says-it-does-not-recognise-hague-court-amid-reports-of-arrest-warrants
26.5k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

6.0k

u/mmoore327 Mar 14 '23

The problem is there are lots of countries that are not ICC members, including China, India, Russia, and the United States.

4.4k

u/BareNuckleBoxingBear Mar 14 '23

Funny how many are on the permanent UN Security Council

2.1k

u/Ftpini Mar 14 '23

The same reason they’re on the council is why they’re not members. Their nukes prevent other countries from forcing their compliance.

578

u/UnspecificGravity Mar 14 '23

The reason they are on the council is because they wouldn't participate at all if there weren't.

262

u/tyrghast Mar 14 '23

At this point I'm pretty sure the US is the only one of these SC members that has any real capabilities.

We are watching the paper tigers fall one by one due to the smallest amount of pressure, meanwhile the US spent a century fielding multiple wars at all times and only gaining economic activity each war.

185

u/imabustanutonalizard Mar 14 '23

This is honestly the way to think. Look at the Soviet economy after every small war they wage. Goes to shit. Now the US took a little hit after Vietnam but not ECONOMIC at all. Crazy to think wars cause more cultural shifts than economic in the US

175

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '23 edited Mar 16 '23

[deleted]

149

u/imabustanutonalizard Mar 14 '23

I’d die for my homies north and south of us. In fact the US has really blanketed the north and South American countries for so long it’s a shame we fucked with their governments to do it lol. I wish more South American countries were prosperous. It’s a shame what’s happening in Venezuela and Colombia rn but what can you do

182

u/chadenright Mar 14 '23

NOT fund and arm their drug cartels, insurrections and rebellions would be a good starting point.

50

u/MeshColour Mar 14 '23

Legal drug supply lines is the only way to stop illicit drug supply lines. At least based on the results of America's war on drugs, it made zero progress and did nothing for the opioid epidemic, legal thc has done way more and is profitable for everyone involved (consumers don't risk legal fees, tax revenue from legal sales)

→ More replies
→ More replies

91

u/Bruce_G Mar 14 '23

but what can you do

Stop fucking with their governments? Put our money where our mouth is in terms of righting past wrongs? End the failed War on Drugs throughout the hemisphere?

30

u/MushmanMcGoo Mar 15 '23

I’ll get right on it 🫡

→ More replies
→ More replies

39

u/dcreeper2 Mar 14 '23

The USA caused the issues in the south. Don't fall for that blanket nonsense.

21

u/jeffbirt Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 15 '23

Absolutely. We've taken the Monroe Doctrine and absolutely fucked the entire hemisphere to make it profitable for American businesses. I used to think "Banana Republic" meant some tinpot dictator set up an illegitimate government. Then I learned it literally meant the US set up the illegitimate government to serve US interests, which happened to be the interests of Chiquita (formerly the US Fruit Company) and Dole. Guatemala had 2 cycles of democratic elections, but as soon as the lawfully elected government suggested giving land stolen by the company back to the original, indigenous owners, the CIA (led by Allen Dulles, and supported by his brother, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, who were on the board of US Fruit) successfully performed a coup, during which time those seeking democracy were labeled "socialists" so the fat cats could justify killing them over the course of the subsequent 30 year Guatemalan Civil War (to the tune of 200,000 dead or disappeared indigenous people). This indemnified the generational poverty that is ongoing today and has led to asylum seekers at our borders, all due to the fuckery of unfettered capitalism.

Edit: I refer to what is now Chiquita as the US Fruit Company, here and elsewhere. It was actually just the United Fruit Company.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

70

u/armadillovampires Mar 14 '23

And that's why it's so worrisome that America could fall to fascistic tendencies.

→ More replies
→ More replies

38

u/stormelemental13 Mar 14 '23

At this point I'm pretty sure the US is the only one of these SC members that has any real capabilities.

China has very real capabilities and they are rapidly growing.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

245

u/DrunkenOnzo Mar 14 '23

No. After WWII, the idea was that the allies (at the time) of China, Soviets, the USA, and the UK would be the ones to guarantee world peace. It was called the "Four Policemen." That idea eventually merged into the UN and the creation of the UN Security Council, where the "Four Policemen" would be the permanent security council members with veto power and enforcement powers. The UK pushed for France to be added as well.

Didn't have anything to do with Nuclear Weapons, as at the time the USA were the only ones with nukes.

→ More replies

242

u/andyrocks Mar 14 '23

Yet France and the UK are.

525

u/meetchu Mar 14 '23

It's almost like geopolitics is a series of optional conventions that can be picked up and dropped at a moments notice, and is only "enforced" by political tides.

Or something idk.

123

u/zZEpicSniper303Zz Mar 14 '23

Nukes are definitely horrific, but I am afraid that the alternative would be constant large scale warfare between superpowers. Now we are limited to superpowers bullying smaller countries without deterrance. And no, I'm not saying we should give everyone nukes. That would be an incredibly stupid idea. I'm just stating how complicated of an issue nuclear weapons are.

43

u/space-blue Mar 14 '23

Yeah.. if y’all superpowers could just resolve your issues and leave us smaller countries out of it that’d be great. Or fuck it, just divide us between yourselves but stop killing our children.

→ More replies

32

u/sevseg_decoder Mar 14 '23

They’re horrific but they’re also the greatest source of world “peace” there has ever been and likely ever will be. If anything centralizing them further would be great, but the current system works until someone rogue gets their hands on a nuke. If we can prevent that the world is much better off with nukes. It’s crazy the level of economic growth the world has seen while 80% of its inhabitants aren’t facing the threat of being pulled into a war.

16

u/Hapster23 Mar 14 '23

It's like living in peace and working together is advantageous to humanity, who would have guessed

→ More replies

4

u/Past-Risk1266 Mar 14 '23 edited Mar 15 '23

Also, until a country advances weapon systems enough that the United States has little chance of any riposte.

My favorite scenario is highly advanced computer systems accurately calculate inflight intercepts within nanoseconds, and Mach 10 warheads. Any country that supersedes the current response capabilities of contemporary weaponry poses a substantial threat. Imagine possessing the ability to completely neutralize a nation's nuclear response. World changing

edit: A single character.

3

u/TheMadTemplar Mar 14 '23

The US will be among the first countries to develop such systems. Which will simply result in the advancement of warhead delivery systems to compensate.

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/Fuzzy_Logic_4_Life Mar 14 '23

Never heard it said like this, and I think you’re right.

→ More replies

71

u/mavajo Mar 14 '23

France and the UK don't need to be, because in almost any case where waving their nuclear power would be relevant, they'll almost certainly be aligned with the US -- and the US can do it for them. This lets them play ball in certain situations where they might not have been inclined to do so otherwise, because the US will do the dirty work for them.

Also, if anyone interprets those comments as shade at the UK, France or the US, they're not. Just observing reality.

14

u/tanghan Mar 14 '23

A nice good cop, bad cop cooperation

3

u/Sylvartas Mar 14 '23

Maybe I'm mistaken but iirc one of the most important points of France's doctrine regarding nukes is literaly to avoid relying on external powers for its nuclear deterrence so I'm not sure that checks out

3

u/mavajo Mar 15 '23

Is it really that uncommon for world leaders to not practice what they preach? Everyone's got a place where they compromise one ideal in favor of another, more important ideal.

In their opinion, they probably are fulfilling that vow. Instead of wasting their time devoting excessive resources for geopolitical bullshit, they can focus on investing in their own country. They have an advantageous relationship with the US and they use it - they let the US fight battles that France could fight themselves, but don't have to, because the US will do it for them. That's shrewd. That's allowing them to bide their time and be an advantageous time if they ever do need to assert their nuclear deterrence. And they'll likely have a friend by their side - the US. There's no self-determination without self-existence.

→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/Ratstail91 Mar 14 '23

In politics, might makes right. Just ask anyone who's played Civ V.

→ More replies

507

u/Cthulhu625 Mar 14 '23

Did we all ever officially agree to that? It was the USSR on the security council. Russia just kind of said, "Yeah, that's still us," after the dissolution. And we just kind of went with it, but the charter still says "USSR." Ukraine was part of the USSR, why can't it be them?

949

u/Mr_Engineering Mar 14 '23

The constituent republics of the USSR all unanimously agreed that Russia would be the continuation state of the Soviet Union.

Russia inherited the USSR's foreign debts and assets.

Ukraine and Belarus already had their own UN seats

120

u/Xytak Mar 14 '23

In light of recent events, perhaps we should... alter the agreement.

64

u/esq-with-a-habit Mar 14 '23

I think they’d just veto that motion.

11

u/forthelewds2 Mar 14 '23

It be a GA vote, like when the china seat switched

6

u/North_Atlantic_Pact Mar 14 '23

Because PRC has much more power than ROC. Russia has no other country close to it's power (nuclear wise) to be a successor state to ussr

→ More replies
→ More replies

52

u/benk4 Mar 14 '23

Throwing them off the security council probably wouldn't be as productive as it sounds. The council's legitimacy comes from the fact that all the great powers are on it and have to unanimously agree to binding motions. And even though you can laugh at Russia's current military situation in Ukraine, they still have more nukes than anyone in the world and could safely ignore most security council motions. So it would likely just neuter the security council.

16

u/Gabrosin Mar 14 '23

Drives me crazy that people don't understand this. The security council is basically just the list of nations powerful enough to ensure that no resolution they disagree with could ever possibly be enforced. If Russia was thrown off the security council, and then the new security council voted to tell Russia to leave Ukraine, Russia would just shrug and ignore it anyway. And no one would invade Russia to enforce the UN resolution, because no one would risk getting nuked over it.

→ More replies

76

u/poetdesmond Mar 14 '23

Pray I do not alter it further.

36

u/LinusBeartip Mar 14 '23

This deal is getting worse all the time.

35

u/supershutze Mar 14 '23

Furthermore, I wish you to wear this dress and bonnet.

20

u/LinusBeartip Mar 14 '23

This was never a condition of our agreement.

21

u/supershutze Mar 14 '23

I have altered the deal, pray I don't alter it further.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

114

u/tratata1973 Mar 14 '23

Because Russia is the successor to the USSR, not Ukraine. And yes, we all agreed to that because the whole point of the UNSC is to make the most powerful nations be part of it.

36

u/s0lesearching117 Mar 14 '23

When the Covenant strikes, we'll need to be ready.

5

u/Seisouhen Mar 14 '23

Along with the UNSC Marine Corps

→ More replies
→ More replies

20

u/chef_andraos Mar 14 '23

Successor state is a legal concept.

18

u/niehle Mar 14 '23

Yes, we all officially agreed with it. It is in line with the common practice of state succession

16

u/UnspecificGravity Mar 14 '23

Believe it or not, they actually figured this out and documented it when the USSR broke up instead of just doing nothing until someone on reddit found this "loophole".

→ More replies

223

u/theantiyeti Mar 14 '23

Because Russia in the '90s had the greatest population, army and nuclear arsenal as well as the greatest proportion of remnant Soviet industry.

It's not meaningless semantic magic that got them the spot. There's no magic spell that would have made Ukraine the natural successor. International law isn't arcane rituals but a recognition of the relative power of nations to impose their will.

64

u/crockett5 Mar 14 '23

Moscow had control over the nukes the other Soviet states had. It’s why Ukraine giving theirs to Russia back then was not a big deal to their security because they couldn’t use them anyway.

Every thing was controlled by Moscow and all the other former Soviet states were essentially vassal states of Russia

→ More replies

45

u/isawagoose Mar 14 '23

Because Russia in the '90s had the greatest population, army and nuclear arsenal as well as the greatest proportion of remnant Soviet industry.

Just say it like it really was; Russia was always the USSR. The other "members" were nothing more than vassals.

14

u/theantiyeti Mar 14 '23

I agree with your sentiment but I wouldn't call them vassals. I'd say the Warsaw pact/Eastern block were vassals.

Honestly "Imperial territorial holdings" in the pre-colonial view of Imperial is more accurate.

46

u/artem_m Mar 14 '23

Vassals would be a far stretch. Two of the USSR's longest-standing leaders, Khrushchev and Stalin, were from member states other than Russia, Ukraine and Georgia respectively. If these were vassal states no one from these nations would ever get the top seat.

33

u/IronChariots Mar 14 '23

If these were vassal states no one from these nations would ever get the top seat.

Eh not necessarily. There's plenty of historical examples to compare to. There were Roman Emperors from outside of Italy even before Rome lost its central place. A Scottish King ascended to the English throne, but Scotland certainly became subordinate to England.

→ More replies

3

u/Miguel-odon Mar 14 '23

Wiki says Kruschev was born in Russia.

5

u/artem_m Mar 14 '23

He was born in present-day Russia and lived in present-day Donetsk from 14 onward. This was all the Russian Empire and then USSR after there were no hard borders back then. His accumulation of power within the party came from his time in Ukraine.

→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/Arylcyclohexy Mar 14 '23

Because the entire reason the UN exists is to hopefully prevent nuclear warfare?

7

u/tunczyko Mar 14 '23 edited Mar 14 '23

Russia just kind of said, "Yeah, that's still us," after the dissolution

and also just kind of took on all of the debt and other assets and international obligations of USSR.

9

u/Arylcyclohexy Mar 14 '23

Because the entire reason the UN exists is to hopefully prevent nuclear warfare?

208

u/carpcrucible Mar 14 '23 edited Mar 14 '23

Kazakhstan was the last republic in USSR, so they should get it.

Greatest nation in world confirmed.

113

u/flipping_birds Mar 14 '23

Greatest nation in world

All other nations are run by little girls

55

u/chef_andraos Mar 14 '23

Now that you mention it, they do have inferior potassium.

16

u/Electric_Alpha_Dodo Mar 14 '23

And the amount they export is quite small, frankly.

17

u/or10n_sharkfin Mar 14 '23

They are pain in my assholes.

→ More replies
→ More replies

11

u/xCharg Mar 14 '23

Greatest nation in world confirmed.

Joke here, meme there and some 50 years in you're invading neighbours denying their right to exist.

→ More replies
→ More replies

15

u/Brandon_B610 Mar 14 '23

As I understand it, Russia accepted the debts of the USSR, making them the official successor to the USSR.

15

u/Gackey Mar 14 '23

Because Russia ended up with the nukes.

7

u/EduinBrutus Mar 14 '23

It literally can't be Ukraine because they were already a UN member state.

It could be any of the other former USSR States though, except Belarus and Ukraine.

→ More replies

37

u/Oaden Mar 14 '23

I think Russia claimed the role of the USSR successor state, and everyone kind of went along with it.

111

u/k-phi Mar 14 '23

I think Russia claimed the role of the USSR successor state, and everyone kind of went along with it.

Not just "kind of went along", but in exchange for not forgiving debt.

46

u/Yuzral Mar 14 '23

And their grandfathering all the non-proliferation treaties.

15

u/binghamtonswag Mar 14 '23

Successor states don't usually have a choice under international law. There's actually a few interesting cases of Russia trying to wiggle out of USSR treaties that no longer benefited them and being denied.

3

u/Amoral_Abe Mar 14 '23

International treaties and relations are broken all the time and countries absolutely have a choice on if they want to ignore them. There is no international government with binding authority and a military capability to enforce it.

However, most countries choose to go along with most existing treaties because the geopolitical consequences of breaking the agreement outweighs the benefits of it.

For example... The US and Russia signed a treaty pledging not to attack Ukraine and to offer support in the event that Ukraine was attacked. In return Ukraine gave up the nuke stockpiles they had. Russia has decided that the gains made by attacking Ukraine outweighed the geopolitical consequences of breaking the treaty.

→ More replies

10

u/chef_andraos Mar 14 '23

It’s best for everybody otherwise russia wouln’t be bound by the NPT and countless treaties.

36

u/photenth Mar 14 '23

I mean they had the nukes. Enough to stay there.

→ More replies
→ More replies

19

u/v2micca Mar 14 '23

How is that funny? The ICC and the UN Security Council are distinctly different organizations with distinctly different mandates. Yet, uninformed people all over the world continue to conflate them.

→ More replies
→ More replies

364

u/mitchanium Mar 14 '23

Didn't the US vote to invade the ICC if their servicemen were ever tried there ?

87

u/chenyu768 Mar 14 '23

No but we did sanction all their judges.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/14/us-sanctions-international-criminal-court

213

u/khad3 Mar 14 '23 edited Mar 14 '23

This order declared a national emergency and authorized asset freezes and family entry bans against ICC officials who were identified as being involved in certain activities. Earlier, the Trump administration had repeatedly threatened action to thwart ICC investigations in Afghanistan and Palestine. In a precursor step, in 2019, the Trump administration revoked the prosecutor’s US visa.

Americans are such hypocrites haha. If Russia or China did this there would be wall to wall condemnation and lectures on "rule-based order"

73

u/10000Didgeridoos Mar 14 '23

To quote Randal in clerks: "I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule."

→ More replies

23

u/wholetyouinhere Mar 14 '23

It all makes sense once you realize that all politics is power dynamics. And ethics are only a funny little irritation on the side.

→ More replies
→ More replies

10

u/AstroPhysician Mar 14 '23

You’re wrong in saying “no”, they did pass The Hague invasion act

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '23

[deleted]

11

u/mmoore327 Mar 14 '23

International Criminal Court

→ More replies

111

u/JKKIDD231 Mar 14 '23

Hague court has no enforcement power, they can prosecute all they want.

12

u/lease1982 Mar 14 '23

Plenty of Serbians and Hutus who would say otherwise. Slow justice though.

→ More replies

57

u/chenyu768 Mar 14 '23

And last time ICC tried to investigate one of them the judges themselves were sanctioned. Ill let you guess which one.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/14/us-sanctions-international-criminal-court

→ More replies

164

u/Chucky__D Mar 14 '23

Yep. They convicted George W. Bush of war crimes and we laughed at them. This is no different.

164

u/snow_big_deal Mar 14 '23

They didn't convict Bush of war crimes. You may be thinking of the "Kuala Lampur War Crimes Commission" which is an unrecognized wish.com tribunal run by Malaysia.

50

u/Chucky__D Mar 14 '23

Good call - it was the other court. We seem to cherry pick these formations. The moment the Hague announced investigations into the United States for war crimes we immediately sanctioned it's members and said we didn't recognize it either.

→ More replies

59

u/Vadered Mar 14 '23

The Hague has never tried George W. Bush for war crimes, let alone convicted him.

35

u/BlueberryHitler Mar 14 '23

..no they didn't.

Source?

→ More replies

50

u/Achillor22 Mar 14 '23

Yeah what the fuck is even the point of them? They can't do shit to you unless you let them.

92

u/sarhoshamiral Mar 14 '23

The point is to have a forum for discussions and keep smaller countries in check and play politics.

If you are a country like US, Russia, China etc none of the international stuff apply to you because there is no enforcement mechanism.

So when people say Putin should be trialed so on, it is funny and shows clear ignorance of reality.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

16

u/Good_old_Marshmallow Mar 14 '23

Yeah I was gonna say, before we too up in arms neither does the United States otherwise Donald Rumsfeld, George W Bush, and others would’ve hanged for the torture program and the Iraq war invasion

6

u/VulkanLives19 Mar 14 '23

Even if the US were a part of the ICC, I doubt that would happen. The ICC is a political tool above all else, it's not going to bite the hand of its top dog.

→ More replies
→ More replies

1.2k

u/Yuzral Mar 14 '23

Point’s completely moot anyway: Article 61.1 of the Russian Constitution forbids the extradition of a Russian citizen from Russia, so they wouldn’t turn anyone over even if they did recognise The Hague.

394

u/araiderofthelostark Mar 14 '23

Makes leaving Russia way more stressful and difficult for them, though.

157

u/IceNein Mar 14 '23

That’s still the case though. If I’m wanted by the ICC as an American, I’m safe here, but unless the country I visit has some arrangement with the US, I am not safe in a country that is party to the ICC.

103

u/strangepostinghabits Mar 14 '23

The US has not only said they'd ignore the hague, they've said they would retaliate if an us citizen came under scrutiny. You'd be safe anywhere pretty much.

123

u/Disastrous_Elk_6375 Mar 14 '23

You'd be safe anywhere pretty much.

Eh. I think it depends. If it's admiral such and suchinson wanted for some sanctioned US business, yea sure. If it's joe shmoe cosplaying a warlord in Africa, probably not.

52

u/gustad Mar 14 '23

The law in question covers any service member regardless of rank. Since it has never been invoked, we can only speculate as to who would be rescued in practice, but if any American actually was imprisoned by the ICC, you can bet the political fallout of not rescuing them would be enormous.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act#:~:text=This%20authorization%20led%20to%20the,or%20rescue%20them%20from%20custody.

68

u/Gronfir Mar 14 '23

The diplomatic fallout from committing an act of war against a NATO ally and member of the EU would also be enormous.

23

u/gustad Mar 14 '23

No doubt. The law intentionally sets up a no-win situation to motivate the government to negotiate bilateral agreements with individual nations to make it moot.

→ More replies

26

u/dingdongdinger1 Mar 14 '23

You'd have to be a seriously special person for the US to actually go ahead and destroy any remaining political goodwill it still has and go to war with peaceful western european countries to protect you from consequences of your war crimes.

Like its possible, but you'd have to be a lynchpin in the US economy or an ex-president or something.

→ More replies

19

u/ItsThanosNotThenos Mar 14 '23

You'd be safe anywhere pretty much.

LMAO over 40 upvotes. Sure, they'll send the army over there for some rando xD

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/anarwhalinspace Mar 14 '23

Sure, but life in the US is kinda better than the one in Russia.

→ More replies

90

u/eadgar Mar 14 '23

Thing is, many Russians would like to leave Russia if possible. Even if only for holidays. But they won't be able to if there are arrest warrants out for them.

→ More replies

35

u/the_sexy_muffin Mar 14 '23

Similarly, the US Constitution's 6th Amendment presents a major challenge to the US joining the ICC treaty. If a citizen commits war crimes from within the US, the US could not constitutionally extradite them, since that would deprive them the right to an impartial jury. (If I recall correctly, the ICC does not have a jury system).

→ More replies

21

u/Bike_Chain_96 Mar 14 '23

So if they're captured in Ukraine, that's different?

12

u/Spoztoast Mar 14 '23

or if there's a regime change in russia that changes the constitution.

→ More replies

3

u/m703324 Mar 14 '23

Russian constitution is a joke. One point in it forbids war against a sovereign nation for example. And another had a rule about how long a president can hold office but you know it's all bs for them

→ More replies

1.7k

u/Senator_45 Mar 14 '23

Neither does US

334

u/WealthyMarmot Mar 14 '23

Yeah let's be real. In practice, the ICC is for countries who are not world powers. The powers will deal with their own citizens as they see fit.

159

u/captainkilowatt22 Mar 14 '23

Rules for thee but not for me.

101

u/Dragoniel Mar 14 '23 edited Mar 14 '23

Might makes right. That is what it always comes down to on a global geopolitics stage. You can't enforce shit if you don't have a force to do it with. And unenforced rules are moot.

→ More replies
→ More replies

622

u/Traevia Mar 14 '23

This is true but the US courts charge US citizens who act against international law. The mercenaries who killed civilians in the middle east were fairly publicly charged with the crimes and sent to jail. That being said, Trump pardoned them.

976

u/WealthyMarmot Mar 14 '23

Trump pardoning those guys was a fucking disgrace and didn't get talked about enough

167

u/Traevia Mar 14 '23

No complaint from me. I mentioned this case as one of the flaws of the US system vs the international system.

92

u/WealthyMarmot Mar 14 '23

Yeah. And a more general flaw of presidential systems in general, which can work very well until a Donald Trump comes along and causes unbelievable chaos

26

u/Traevia Mar 14 '23

You can find flaws with every single system. For instance, Israel has a parliamentary system but is largely ignoring their own courts. The UK does as well and voted for Brexit largely against their own self interest.

5

u/eriverside Mar 14 '23

Not exactly. The new government is trying to pass laws allowing them to bypass the courts, and there's plenty of revolt about it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

4

u/coldblade2000 Mar 14 '23

Presidential pardons are a double edged sword. They are key to override past unjust laws and free those who society no longer considers worthy of imprisonment, but they are also an avenue for corruption

→ More replies

15

u/kurttheflirt Mar 14 '23

There was just way too much to talk about with trump. And then 1/3 of people agree with you, 1/3 don’t care, and 1/3 are fucking insane cultists

16

u/AdventureBum Mar 14 '23

Everything about Trump was a disgrace.

9

u/WealthyMarmot Mar 14 '23

Which is why it didn't get talked about enough. The man was a Gish gallop of disgraces.

→ More replies

3

u/onomatopoeiano Mar 14 '23

nor the fact that their boss, erik prince, is evil betsy devos' eviler younger brother. extremely creepy group of people.

5

u/DropShotter Mar 14 '23

Ya I had heard of blackwater but didn't know what it was about. Then I watched their POV videos the other day and was like what in the hell I hope these idiots are in prison. Then I learned Trump pardoned them...

→ More replies

24

u/Radiant_Ad_1851 Mar 14 '23

Other presidents also pardoned these criminals. Obama specifically made it so intelligence agency torturers couldn’t be prosecuted and Bush specifically signed The Hague invasion act. Not to mention that many just aren’t recorded unless there’s some form of media outrage. We still don’t know who shot a bunch of civilians (including two journalists) revealed through Wikileaks and one of Biden’s first controversies was when we blew up 7 children in a drone strike. George Bush Sr. oversaw the highway of death and Seymour Hersh (well renowned journalist who has been right more than he has been wrong) has accused the US of gunning down hundreds of surrendering Iraqi soldiers. This isn’t just a “trump issue”

→ More replies

135

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '23

Trump pardoned them.

probably why it's not an adequate substitution for the ICC

→ More replies

23

u/Dxbjin Mar 14 '23

US courts charge US citizens who act against international law.

sometimes...

I've worked with the aftermath of the "War on Terror". civilians around central asia and the mid east. aka Collaterals. I've seen so many who have been maimed with no recourse but to live their lives broken by the Military Industrial ComplexTM

→ More replies

51

u/MisterBackShots69 Mar 14 '23

Oh man, committing mass torture got three people longer than a year sentence. Damn, we really held them accountable.

I assure you, if Russia does the same internal investigation and punishment nobody here would feel it was sufficient.

→ More replies

6

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '23

L. O. L.

6

u/engagementisdumb Mar 14 '23

Yeah but we also have people who get promoted for propagandistically lowering the impact to our international image for the war crimes we "put on trial". For example Colin Powell was promoted for his work in helping minimize the impact of the My Lai massacre. Only one person was convicted for the literal demolition, raping and pillaging of a Vietnamese village. A lot of American war crimes that are "dealt with" aren't actually given the same level of justice as the Hague would, in reality we're managing perceptions not "self policing".

88

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '23

Sure bud the US totally prosecutes our war crimes. Definitely

→ More replies

13

u/ObjectiveNet2 Mar 14 '23

Surely Bush and Obama are tried for war crimes, right?

→ More replies

20

u/Purplebuzz Mar 14 '23

People who investigate themselves often have a conflict of interest.

→ More replies

62

u/1_9_8_1 Mar 14 '23

Do you really believe that the US tried all the human rights aggressors in the wars they waged on the world in the last 70 years?

→ More replies

276

u/SirionAUT Mar 14 '23

The Iraq invasion of 2003 was against international law.

Instead of punishing the criminals the US has a law promising to invade other nato members if they attempt to put their soldiers on trial.

→ More replies

175

u/der_titan Mar 14 '23

This is true but the US courts charge US citizens who act against international law.

It's hypocritical and false statements like these that make the world collectively roll its eyes and drives them to want a multipolar world.

The US fabricated a war in Vietnam, used chemical WMD that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and caused severe health issues in millions more for generations, and nobody was was prosecuted let alone went to jail for it.

One person was convicted for the My Lai massacre where an entire unarmed village was gang-raped, tortured, and executed. James Calley served a couple of years of house arrest, and even Jimmy Carter spoke up in his defense.

Was anyone in the US prosecuted for Grenada? Panama? Iraq?

115

u/akkad34 Mar 14 '23

People want to hate Russia so bad they’re willing to whitewash Bush’s war crimes. Never thought I’d see the day.

89

u/der_titan Mar 14 '23

LBJ, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr: four US presidents who illegally invaded four different countries on three different continents.

Too many people in this sub are then surprised when the global south don't view the US as a champion of rights and freedom. It's a superpower who uses its military might when convenient and then cynically calls for international law and justice when it suits.

39

u/ObjectiveNet2 Mar 14 '23

Obama did Syria and Libya too.

→ More replies

22

u/Yarnin Mar 14 '23

oBombYa and Libya, what has happened there since is disgusting, let's not forget Haiti's problems can be traced back 100+ years to the US first intervention, those people are still paying the price today.

→ More replies
→ More replies

9

u/DeLurkerDeluxe Mar 14 '23

Never thought I’d see the day.

The day? It has been going on for years.

→ More replies
→ More replies

7

u/mgsantos Mar 14 '23

used chemical WMD that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians

Millions of civilians, 2 million to be precise according to the US government.

→ More replies

12

u/Sunomel Mar 14 '23

US courts charge US citizens who act against international law

Henry Kissinger

3

u/Initial_Cellist9240 Mar 14 '23

One of my favorite tidbits of weird history is that Henry Kissinger, notable piece of shit and monster of a person, prevented a nuclear Holocaust by preventing a drunk Richard Nixon from launching a first strike nuclear attack

14

u/_Adamn_ Mar 14 '23

This is just not true. American interventions in the middle east have killed thousands of civilians and in the vast majority of cases, there have been no charges any of kind. The Collateral Murder killings and the Highway of Death come to mind. Beyond that, there are countless stories of random civilian murders by American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq that were never even examined for criminality.

→ More replies

3

u/C_h_a_n Mar 14 '23

What about the murder of José Couso?

3

u/SleepyHobo Mar 14 '23

That’s fairly rare. They’re not always charged in the US and if they are, a lot of the time it’s done in a military court where they can control the outcome.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

188

u/PositivelyAcademical Mar 14 '23

FWIW the ICC doesn’t require you / your country to recognise the court for it to put you on trial. The main thing frustrating prosecutions is that the ICC does not hear cases in abstentia.

53

u/Divineinfinity Mar 14 '23

Probably a tactical decision; if their convicted war criminals can still commit atrocities until their dying day then it would make the whole thing feel useless. There is no perfect solution to this so we better kind of make it work some of the times

→ More replies

620

u/cloggednueron Mar 14 '23

Not only does the US not recognize The Hague, but we literally have a law on the books that says that if a politician or soldier is ever taken to The Hague, we reserve the right to invade the Netherlands to rescue them. People call it the “Hague invasion act” but it’s real name is the “Armed service members protection act.”

207

u/robhol Mar 14 '23

I love the phrasing "reserve the right" for this. As if there's a right that can be reserved.

92

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '23

It's just subtle "we have nukes and huge army so fuck you Netherlands if you dare arrest our citizens".

30

u/IcecreamLamp Mar 14 '23

Ironically some of those nukes are kept in The Netherlands.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

31

u/Reedrbwear Mar 14 '23

Hague only exists to go after small potatoes. None of the big powers will ever be held accountable there- money & bombs make certain of that :(

→ More replies

59

u/Apeshaft Mar 14 '23

Putin: I'm not driving, I'm traveling! AM I BEING DETAINED, OR AM I FREE TO GO?!!! I don't anwer questions. I'm a free man and not a corporation.

→ More replies

740

u/iluvdankmemes Mar 14 '23

It kinda baffles me though how many americans I see here calling for him to be dragged to Den Haag (the real name) while their own country doesn't even recognise the ICC. Get onto it peeps.

430

u/CatsAndCampin Mar 14 '23

It's embarrassing. There's literally some idiots saying that nobody should recognize Russia because of this, while we (the US), have threatened to invade if any of our troops are arrested for their atrocities.

4

u/coldblade2000 Mar 14 '23

It's embarrassing. There's literally some idiots saying that nobody should recognize Russia because of this, while we (the US), have threatened to invade if any of our troops are arrested for their atrocities.

Not just threatened, the right of the US to invade the Hague over the imprisonment of ANY US citizen is specifically enshrined in law

102

u/Groundbreaking_Ask81 Mar 14 '23

The whole idea is kind of moot. No great power is going to let their militaries be punished for sanctioned state actions. Every country that wages war feels like they are the good guys. Atrocities are the name of the game, and the game is literally kill and inflict as much damage on your enemy. As much as we wish there could be no civilian casualties, we can’t just put soldiers on some kind of removed game board, so all sides party to war will commit ‘atrocities’ . If you are the Kremlin, Beijing, or the Pentagon, will you want your military to refuse an order from you because the judge in the Netherlands thinks you’re the baddie? No, of course not. Your command needs to be the highest law for the soldier. ICC and ICJ are useless IMO.

5

u/ACoderGirl Mar 14 '23

The Hague is for war crimes, though. I'd argue that any good country would want to distance themselves from anyone committing war crimes. They'd want to make it clear that it was individuals doing the atrocities, not the country.

→ More replies
→ More replies

85

u/majestic7 Mar 14 '23

Den Haag (the real name)

TIL English isn't real

→ More replies

4

u/EduinBrutus Mar 14 '23

Den Haag (the real name)

Huh?

Are you talking about s-Gravenhage ?

Cos that's its real name.

→ More replies

70

u/keatonatron Mar 14 '23

Americans can be in support of the ICC, and also disagree with the US government's stance on it. Being American doesn't mean you created or even agree with the policies.

16

u/LupusDeusMagnus Mar 14 '23

I mean, at least the Russians have the excuse of being in a dictatorship. If the American electorate decides to pressure their presidents to join, and they fail to do so, then it’s not an American individual issue.

→ More replies

38

u/captainfalcon93 Mar 14 '23

You'd think Americans would prioritise the issue that has them being the only western country not signatory to the Rome statute as well as not recognising the verdicts of the ICJ.

In both cases it's so sad to see the US heavily undermining international law, because it effectively 'legitimises' others to do the same (like with Russians in Ukraine claiming they aren't worse than Americans in the Middle East).

20

u/BeraldGevins Mar 14 '23

The US military has a contingency plan to invade, called the American Service Members Protection Act, to invade The Hague in the event that a U.S. service member is put on trial there.

→ More replies
→ More replies

31

u/davidzet Mar 14 '23

Agreed on American hypocrisy.

The Hague is the English translation of Den Haag, like Florence is of Firenze. So both are fine, especially in an English article...

→ More replies
→ More replies

22

u/evilpercy Mar 14 '23

Since someone down voted me that th USA also does not recognize the Hague court when it comes to war crimes. I give you the invade the Hague Legislation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act

19

u/scwizard Mar 14 '23

Remember the George W Bush administration passed the Hague Invasion Act to make extra sure US military personnel could never be held accountable at the Hague for war crimes committed in the middle east.

31

u/[deleted] Mar 14 '23

Neither does the USA. Gotta protect Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

→ More replies

5

u/Accomplished_Lemon56 Mar 15 '23

All five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) are not currently parties to the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, it is important to note that the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territories of states parties to the Rome Statute, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator.

→ More replies

12

u/EnergyCC Mar 14 '23

Funny cause neither does the US considering that Bush implemented the Hague Invasion Act cause he knew he was a war criminal.

4

u/odinsleep-odinsleep Mar 15 '23

Putin's Russia is very much like Trump's America.

neither recognize ANY oversight, and do whatever they want to do.

15

u/autotldr BOT Mar 14 '23

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 65%. (I'm a bot)

Moscow has said it does not recognise the jurisdiction of the international criminal court in The Hague, after reports that the court is expected to seek its first arrest warrants against Russian individuals over the war in Ukraine.

The New York Times and Reuters news agency reported on Monday that the prosecutor at the international criminal court would formally open two war crimes cases and issue arrest warrants for several Russians deemed responsible for the mass abduction of Ukrainian children and the targeting of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure.

Reports of imminent arrest warrants come just over a year after the prosecutor Karim Khan opened an investigation into possible war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Ukraine.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine#1 court#2 war#3 international#4 Russia#5

83

u/P2K13 Mar 14 '23

Ah the American strategy of avoiding war crimes

→ More replies

12

u/areolegrande Mar 14 '23

Allow me sip my coffee slowly in disbelief 🤦

7

u/Valonis Mar 14 '23

Well colour me fucking unsurprised

3

u/ImmoralModerator Mar 14 '23

I mean… neither does the United States for the same reason

→ More replies

3

u/SnooCakes1904 Mar 14 '23

Um no country recognizes Hague when it’s their citizens involved.

4

u/asiantechno19 Mar 14 '23

Or if they have nukes.

→ More replies

3

u/George_Hayduke Mar 14 '23

Funny thing is, just a few short years ago, they were trying to weaponize INTERPOL to arrest dissidents including American Citizens like Bill Browder. So they DO recognize international arrest warrants, just only when they're in their favor.

→ More replies

3

u/Dank_Redditor Mar 15 '23

Who carries out these arrest warrants ordered by the Hague Court?

3

u/tacit_urn Mar 15 '23

It's like a whole nation of 2 year-olds. If they aren't getting attention, they will do anything to get it. Even if that means throwing a tantrum and breaking everything in sight.

3

u/showmiaface Mar 15 '23

Russia declares itself a sovereign citizen.

3

u/Bustomat Mar 15 '23

Milosevic nor Saddam didn't recognize Hague either and yet they were tried there. Their feeble attemt of fronting a sovereign citizen defense didn't do any good.

→ More replies

117

u/Jurangi Mar 14 '23 edited Mar 14 '23

This is something that the U.S. is not able to push back on. As they are even worse. The U.S. would use force if necessary to obtain anyone that has a warrant for their arrest given by the ICC. Hopefully, this is a sign that the U.S. will finally succumb to the ICC and start paying back debts owed from past cases which the U.S. has lost.

Edit: It is literally stated in their Hague Convention. We all hate Putin right now, but the U.S. shouldn't really be acting like this is some "shock and awe" statement.

→ More replies

26

u/WangusRex Mar 14 '23

Neither do we (USA)

6

u/Maniachanical Mar 15 '23

Holy shit, this is LITERALLY that one meme.

"Going to jail? Just say no. The judge legally cannot imprison you without your consent."