US threatens to arrest ICC judges who probe war crimes

[Origanalist]

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/bf0TPoCCgRJ8aeV3VREZhQ--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2g9NjAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/Part-GTY-1030570416-1-1-0.jpg

US National Security Advisor John Bolton described the International Criminal Court as 'outright dangerous'
US National Security Advisor John Bolton described the International Criminal Court as 'outright dangerous' (AFP Photo/WIN MCNAMEE)


Washington (AFP) - The United States threatened Monday to arrest and sanction judges and other officials of the International Criminal Court if it moves to charge any American who served in Afghanistan with war crimes.

White House National Security Advisor John Bolton called the Hague-based rights body "unaccountable" and "outright dangerous" to the United States, Israel and other allies, and said any probe of US service members would be "an utterly unfounded, unjustifiable investigation."

"If the court comes after us, Israel or other US allies, we will not sit quietly," Bolton said.

He said the US was prepared to slap financial sanctions and criminal charges on officials of the court if they proceed against any Americans.

"We will ban its judges and prosecutors from entering the United States. We will sanction their funds in the US financial system, and we will prosecute them in the US criminal system," Bolton said.

"We will do the same for any company or state that assists an ICC investigation of Americans."

Bolton made the comments in a speech in Washington to the Federalist Society, a powerful association of legal conservatives.

more..https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-threatens-arrest-icc-judges-probe-war-crimes-174349593.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=tw

[CCTelander]

Is this what "moving the ball in the right direction" looks like?

[enhanced_deficit]

You can never go wrong with too much liberty.

Bolton, Giuliani and other anti-swamp MAGA has surrounded himself with are the best of the best America has to offer.

War crimes trials can cause unnecessary complications when we are mainly trying to spread freedoms and demoacry to these 'shithole' countries people who probably can't even afford good NDA attorneys let alone war crimes lawyers.

[oyarde]

International Criminal Court unaccountable and outright dangerous ? Yes , I guess I agree with Bolton . I pretty well feel that way about courts in general , being in europe certainly is not going to improve that.

[goldenequity]

#exceptionalism

[shakey1]

... cuz we can do no wrong?

[specsaregood]

Is this what "moving the ball in the right direction" looks like?

Effectively invalidating a world court? yeah. What, you want global government or something?

[Swordsmyth]

Is this what "moving the ball in the right direction" looks like?

Yes, the ICC is a globalist sovereignty destroying kangaroo court, the wars and crimes of the US and our "allies" are a problem but the ICC is not the answer, it is just another problem.

[Swordsmyth]

... cuz we can do no wrong?

Cuz the UN is not and should not be the boss or judge of us or anyone else.

[Swordsmyth]

#exceptionalism

#Independence and #Sovereignty

[oyarde]

Actually , arresting ICC judges sounds like a helluva lot of fun . I could take one here to shovel some manure . That way taxpayers are not on the hook to feed them.

[Jamesiv1]

3D chess move.

[kcchiefs6465]

Yes, the ICC is a globalist sovereignty destroying kangaroo court, the wars and crimes of the US and our "allies" are a problem but the ICC is not the answer, it is just another problem.
Would you agree with sending George Bush or Donald Rumsfield to Iraq to face trial? If your answer is for them to be tried here, what is your proposed solution to the regime taking care of its predecessors (Obama Administration refusing to investigate Bush Administration, Trump Administration refusing to investigate Obama Administration, etc.)?

How do you feel about people such as Manual Noriega facing trial in the US? Even the forcible extradition of said foreign national?

Did you know the US frequently shelters foreign war criminals and terrorists and refuses to extradite them to the countries their crimes were committed?

I am not in favor of the ICC, but at the very least, publicly branding war criminals as war criminals and making it harder for them to travel abroad seems okay. So long as we are not funding it, I don't really care. And as well, John Bolton, et. al. probably should be tried for war crimes.

FFS, they 'erroneously' invaded Iraq resulting in some 1.5 million deaths, creating the modern Islamic State, and furthering humanitarian crises across the region.

[Swordsmyth]

Actually , arresting ICC judges sounds like a helluva lot of fun . I could take one here to shovel some manure . That way taxpayers are not on the hook to feed them.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to the merciless Injun savage again

[Swordsmyth]

Would you agree with sending George Bush or Donald Rumsfield to Iraq to face trial?
That is a difficult question that depends on the judicial culture of the foreign country in question, American citizens should not be handed over to governments that will violate their rights and fail to give them a fair trial.


If your answer is for them to be tried here, what is your proposed solution to the regime taking care of its predecessors (Obama Administration refusing to investigate Bush Administration, Trump Administration refusing to investigate Obama Administration, etc.)?
Elect better administrations, the odds are poor but they are better than a UN kangaroo court that is not accountable to American citizens.


How do you feel about people such as Manual Noriega facing trial in the US? Even the forcible extradition of said foreign national?
Did they commit crimes against us? Will we respect their rights? Was the influence used to gain their extradition just and proportionate?


Did you know the US frequently shelters foreign war criminals and terrorists and refuses to extradite them to the countries their crimes were committed?
We should put an end to that, but in cases where their guilt is in dispute we should try them here to decide whether or not to hand them over to any regime where their rights aren't guaranteed.


I am not in favor of the ICC, but at the very least, publicly branding war criminals as war criminals and making it harder for them to travel abroad seems okay.
It seems okay if you assume the UN is fair and impartial, since they are not we shouldn't allow them to come here on their witch hunts, if they find sufficient evidence to indict war criminals in countries where they are welcome and other countries make it harder for them to travel then that is the choice and responsibility of those other countries.


So long as we are not funding it, I don't really care.
I insist that we not fund it but I also do care to keep the witch hunters out of America for the reasons I have already given.


And as well, John Bolton, et. al. probably should be tried for war crimes.
Many should.

[Danke]

Actually , arresting ICC judges sounds like a helluva lot of fun . I could take one here to shovel some manure . That way taxpayers are not on the hook to feed them.

Sounds like you have a lot of shit to deal with.

[oyarde]

Sounds like you have a lot of shit to deal with.

I will get a load in special for any judges .

[specsaregood]

Would you agree with sending George Bush or Donald Rumsfield to Iraq to face trial? for what? What crimes exactly are they accused of committing while they in Iraq?



How do you feel about people such as Manual Noriega facing trial in the US? Even the forcible extradition of said foreign national?

What crimes did Noriega commit while in the US?



Did you know the US frequently shelters foreign war criminals and terrorists and refuses to extradite them to the countries their crimes were committed?

In general I don't think the US should do that, but there are always exceptions.



FFS, they 'erroneously' invaded Iraq resulting in some 1.5 million deaths, creating the modern Islamic State, and furthering humanitarian crises across the region.

unless they actually did this themselves in Iraq, then all that matters is whether it was legal in the jurisdiction they were in. eg: the US.

[spudea]

and what does the ICC say about the 15 Saudis that committed 9/11 and the victims families suit against the Saudi government? yeah I thought not.

[enhanced_deficit]

Would you agree with sending George Bush or Donald Rumsfield to Iraq to face trial?

This question is too reckless and goes against our basic human rights stance, should never have ben asked.

[goldenequity]

“If I were doing the Security Council today, I’d have one permanent member, the United States, because that’s the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world. All international laws are invalid, meaningless attempts to constrict American power.”
— John Bolton

if it was a dog
I'd have to put it down. (even as it whimpered 'sovereignty, sovereignty').
I'd do it to protect my children.
It's raging, rabid, remorseless and blood thirsty. defiant. no reasoning.
I'd probably do it with a mill stone.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZP7CLDx6Vc

[enhanced_deficit]

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/bf0TPoCCgRJ8aeV3VREZhQ--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2g9NjAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/afp.com/Part-GTY-1030570416-1-1-0.jpg



"If the court comes after us, Israel or other US allies, we will not sit quietly," Bolton said.





There are some reports suggesting this stance may be related to below GOP-Jarvanka wing defended Israeli vioelnce against civilians of some non-chosen races:





Full text'I kept my promise to recognize Jerusalem' as Israel capital
Trump: Iran lost its mojo since I quit nuke deal; I did a great thing for Israel

Full transcript of US president’s Rosh Hashanah call to American Jewish leaders: ‘As we hear the Shofar’s sound this year, we have much to celebrate as a nation’

By TOI staff 6 September 2018


https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2017/04/000_N12F3-e1491078683243-640x400.jpgUS President Donald Trump (right) alongside his son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner during a meeting at the White House, February 23, 2017. (AFP Photo/Saul Loeb)

US President Donald Trump held a 20-minute call with US Jewish leaders on September 6, 2108, to mark Rosh Hashanah. The following is the White House transcript of the conversation, which was hosted by Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK9LWhsd3QI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK9LWhsd3QI

https://video.newsserve.net/700/v/20170409/1704091538-Ivanka-May-Have-Convinced-Trump-To-Bomb-Syria.jpg

US blocks UN call for independent probe of Gaza protests
16h ago

Ivanka Trump and Kushner 'blessed' by top Israeli rabbi who compared black people to 'monkeys' (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/ivanka-trump-jared-kushner-israel-jewish-rabbi-yitzhak-yosef-racist-us-embassy-jerusalem-latest-a8350536.html)

However, this NYDN cover may have crossed the line:

http://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/G5Z0ybb34n9C8kxtKaK82V0pHd8=/1400x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/7Y3DH4IUH3TXMR2P5OQJKPTFHQ.jpg


From: (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?526303-Trump-to-Close-Palestine%92s-DC-Office&p=6679279&viewfull=1#post6679279)Trump to Close Palestine’s DC Office (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?526303-Trump-to-Close-Palestine%92s-DC-Office&p=6679279&viewfull=1#post6679279)

[Origanalist]

Maybe if we quit spreading death and destruction around the world the likes of John Bolton wouldn't have to be frightened about international courts coming after him and his neo con buddies. Just sayin'.

[luctor-et-emergo]

You can be against the ICC, there are good arguments for that. They are however not these.

Wiki:

The ICC has jurisdiction over these crimes in three cases: first, if they took place on the territory of a State Party; second, if they were committed by a national of a State Party; or third, if the crimes were referred to the Prosecutor by the UN Security Council.
Not much risk of being prosecuted for US nationals who did something in Iraq it seems.



Finally the General Assembly convened a conference in Rome in June 1998, with the aim of finalizing the treaty to serve as the Court's statute. On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was adopted by a vote of 120 to 7, with 21 countries abstaining. The seven countries that voted against the treaty were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, the United States, and Yemen.[10] Israel’s vote against was due to the inclusion in the list of a war crimes of “the action of transferring population into occupied territory”.
Especially the last bit is really nice. No, no, we're not against the court, we're just against the part that will go after us. Which I can understand, but it's not a particularly good argument to be against this court.

[enhanced_deficit]

Not much risk of being prosecuted for US nationals who did something in Iraq it seems.

Especially the last bit is really nice. No, no, we're not against the court, we're just against the part that will go after us. Which I can understand, but it's not a particularly good argument to be against this court.

ICC should have minded its own biz and stayed with investigating mostly African SWCs. Targetting our closest ally and only non-racist democracy in mideast or Iraqi freedom events will cross too many red lines.



https://justiceinconflict.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/tdfwghhvqqwh2qu1m8cokq.jpeg

[Swordsmyth]

“If I were doing the Security Council today, I’d have one permanent member, the United States, because that’s the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world. All international laws are invalid, meaningless attempts to constrict American power.”
— John Bolton

if it was a dog
I'd have to put it down. (even as it whimpered 'sovereignty, sovereignty').
I'd do it to protect my children.
It's raging, rabid, remorseless and blood thirsty. defiant. no reasoning.
I'd probably do it with a mill stone.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZP7CLDx6Vc
If Bolton was a dog I'd have him put down too, and I'd shoot the ICC dog in the head the same day.

[Origanalist]

John Bolton vs. the International Criminal Court: A Simple Solution

by Thomas Knapp Posted on September 12, 2018
In a September 10 speech to the Federalist Society, National Security Advisor John Bolton offered “a major announcement on US policy toward the International Criminal Court.” The US government, per Bolton, considers the court “fundamentally illegitimate. … We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC.”

Bolton threatened sanctions against the court and those who resort to it or cooperate with it in investigations of war crimes involving the United States or Israel. He also announced the first such sanction, closure of a Palestine Liberation Organization office in Washington in retaliation for the state of Palestine’s referral of charges against Israel for actions in the West Bank and Gaza.

What’s with this sudden interest in the court and its jurisdiction?

Why is Bolton suddenly so concerned with protecting notions of “sovereignty” (he uses the word nine times) that the US government itself routinely ignores at its convenience, claiming global jurisdiction over individuals and organizations outside its own borders in matters ranging from the 17-year “war on terror” to its financial regulation and sanctions schemes?

The answer, in a word: Afghanistan. The regime installed by the US after its 2001 invasion of that country, and maintained in power by the US since then, ratified the Rome Statute in 2003. Crimes committed in Afghanistan since then, regardless of the perpetrators’ nationalities, therefore fall under the ICC’s jurisdiction.

Bolton finds it unconscionable that an American – in particular an American soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, or politician – accused of crimes committed in Afghanistan might be tried in a court Afghanistan’s government has duly accepted the authority of. So much for “sovereignty.”

Bolton wants it both ways. On one hand, the long arm of US law must reach everywhere, be it to a bank in Switzerland, to a hacker’s keyboard in the United Kingdom, or to a battlefield in the Middle East. On the other hand, no foreign arm of law must ever reach a US citizen, regardless of the alleged crime or where it was committed.

Pretty messed up, but there’s a simple solution. All the US government has to do is close its embassies and consulates in, withdraw its troops from, and advise its citizens not to travel to, any of the 120-odd countries which recognize the International Criminal Court as their judicial authority for war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

Starting with Afghanistan.

Problem solved.

https://original.antiwar.com/thomas-knapp/2018/09/11/john-bolton-vs-the-international-criminal-court-a-simple-solution/

[Influenza]

Yes, the ICC is a globalist sovereignty destroying kangaroo court, the wars and crimes of the US and our "allies" are a problem but the ICC is not the answer, it is just another problem.

What is your solution? Or do you want US war crimes to go unpunished for all eternity? Cuz that's how it appears.

[Swordsmyth]

What is your solution? Or do you want US war crimes to go unpunished for all eternity? Cuz that's how it appears.
I address that in another post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?526325-US-threatens-to-arrest-ICC-judges-who-probe-war-crimes&p=6679555&viewfull=1#post6679555

And it would still be better to let them go unpunished by man than to enable a globalist sovereignty destroying kangaroo court.

[Influenza]

I address that in another post:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?526325-US-threatens-to-arrest-ICC-judges-who-probe-war-crimes&p=6679555&viewfull=1#post6679555

And it would still be better to let them go unpunished by man than to enable a globalist sovereignty destroying kangaroo court.

Unpunished by man, for all intents and purposes, is completely unpunished, as there is absolutely no evidence that any sort of "personal god" exists and engages in the judgment of human beings.

Why do we punish people in the first place for wrongdoings? So that it will decrease the likelihood that similar wrongdoings will be done in the future. If no one will punish US leaders/generals/etc. for obvious war crimes against OTHER COUNTRIES, then they will continue to occur. What is the argument, anyways, against an international body governing disputes between countries? No one is advocating for the UN to prosecute criminals for things they committed within the borders of the US, unless you want to argue a slippery slope fallacy.

[Swordsmyth]

Unpunished by man, for all intents and purposes, is completely unpunished, as there is absolutely no evidence that any sort of "personal god" exists and engages in the judgment of human beings.
:rolleyes:



Why do we punish people in the first place for wrongdoings? So that it will decrease the likelihood that similar wrongdoings will be done in the future. If no one will punish US leaders/generals/etc. for obvious war crimes against OTHER COUNTRIES, then they will continue to occur. What is the argument, anyways, against an international body governing disputes between countries? No one is advocating for the UN to prosecute criminals for things they committed within the borders of the US, unless you want to argue a slippery slope fallacy.
If you read the post I linked to you will see that I want them punished if possible but the ICC is not fair or impartial or accountable, it is used to justify international aggression based on trumped up charges and it should be abolished.

[oyarde]

What is your solution? Or do you want US war crimes to go unpunished for all eternity? Cuz that's how it appears.

Who determines what war crimes are ?

[AZJoe]

If Trump's Johnny Bolton doesn't want criminal trial in foreign courts then don't commit murders, torture, renditions, bombings, invasions, in foreign countries.

If Trump's Bolton has nothing to hide, then he has nothing to fear. He should embrace the trial.

[Origanalist]

If Trump's Johnny Bolton doesn't want criminal trial in foreign courts then don't commit murders, torture, renditions, bombings, invasions, in foreign countries.

If Trump's Bolton has nothing to hide, then he has nothing to fear. He should embrace the trial.

In other words, he should live like the rest of us do?

[kcchiefs6465]

That is a difficult question that depends on the judicial culture of the foreign country in question, American citizens should not be handed over to governments that will violate their rights and fail to give them a fair trial.
It is often said that when within a foreign country, it is wise to abide by their laws, just or not. Or at least I have read the sentiment.

In the reverse, those who traffic in counterfeit goods, for instance, or even looking at the case of Megaupload; would it not be fair to say that they will receive no fair trial within the US? Especially considering that many of the laws they've allegedly violated were not even applicable in the country they were in.

Yet the United States insists these people be brought here for trial, obviously under the auspices of them receiving a fair trial (for crimes that were not necessarily illegal within the jurisdiction they resided or operated in). You can't have it both ways.

And even still, the US incarcerates per capita higher than any other nation and in terms of the total number. Some 97%+ Federal indictments are plead out to minimize the chances of receiving absurd sentences, the Fourth Amendment hardly applies to citizens and does not begin to apply to foreigners, the Insular Cases have determined that the Constitution only guarantees (in what limited way it does, and in fact, it doesn't) the Rights of citizens of this country.

Would it not be fair then, under the cover of possibly not receiving a fair trial, to say that no foreigner should be held accountable for the crimes they've committed against the US, or more proper, citizens of the US? You can't have it both ways.



Elect better administrations, the odds are poor but they are better than a UN kangaroo court that is not accountable to American citizens.
Is there precedence in expecting that the crimes of one President/Administration will be held to account by the next?

To be fair, one, they're all kangaroos, and two, the US funds the majority of their program. They are accountable in some respect.



Did they commit crimes against us? Will we respect their rights? Was the influence used to gain their extradition just and proportionate?
To really boil it down, many of the crimes which extradition is sought for are not crimes at all.

In that respect, they not only disrespect their Rights, they show contempt for them.


We should put an end to that, but in cases where their guilt is in dispute we should try them here to decide whether or not to hand them over to any regime where their rights aren't guaranteed.
My Rights aren't even guaranteed.

I guess I don't understand the semantics.

Especially when considering history, Insular Cases, torture, renditions...

Obviously there is no Justice.



It seems okay if you assume the UN is fair and impartial, since they are not we shouldn't allow them to come here on their witch hunts, if they find sufficient evidence to indict war criminals in countries where they are welcome and other countries make it harder for them to travel then that is the choice and responsibility of those other countries.
That's pretty much how I envision it. Though of course, there is no Justice for the crimes committed (said war criminal just won't travel, and will receive the benefit of the doubt of every cable news program, eventually ending with a Commissar's Grand exit).


I insist that we not fund it but I also do care to keep the witch hunters out of America for the reasons I have already given.
The US has been giving the finger to that court for decades now.


Many should.
Yeah.

[Swordsmyth]

It is often said that when within a foreign country, it is wise to abide by their laws, just or not. Or at least I have read the sentiment.

In the reverse, those who traffic in counterfeit goods, for instance, or even looking at the case of Megaupload; would it not be fair to say that they will receive no fair trial within the US? Especially considering that many of the laws they've allegedly violated were not even applicable in the country they were in.

Yet the United States insists these people be brought here for trial, obviously under the auspices of them receiving a fair trial (for crimes that were not necessarily illegal within the jurisdiction they resided or operated in). You can't have it both ways.
I don't want it both ways, we should extradite people to countries that will respect their rights and we should not abuse extradition from other countries, those other countries should follow the same policy with their citizens.


And even still, the US incarcerates per capita higher than any other nation and in terms of the total number. Some 97%+ Federal indictments are plead out to minimize the chances of receiving absurd sentences, the Fourth Amendment hardly applies to citizens and does not begin to apply to foreigners, the Insular Cases have determined that the Constitution only guarantees (in what limited way it does, and in fact, it doesn't) the Rights of citizens of this country.

Would it not be fair then, under the cover of possibly not receiving a fair trial, to say that no foreigner should be held accountable for the crimes they've committed against the US, or more proper, citizens of the US? You can't have it both ways.
I dealt with that above, we should respect the rights of those we extradite and we shouldn't extradite people who don't deserve it and other countries should do the same.



Is there precedence in expecting that the crimes of one President/Administration will be held to account by the next?
I don't know but we should set one.


To be fair, one, they're all kangaroos, and two, the US funds the majority of their program. They are accountable in some respect.
The ICC is a globalist imperial tool that is even more of a kangaroo court than usual, rather than legitimizing it by submitting to it the best thing for the world is for us to delegitimize it as Bolton is doing. (admittedly for his own corrupt purposes)



To really boil it down, many of the crimes which extradition is sought for are not crimes at all.

In that respect, they not only disrespect their Rights, they show contempt for them.
Then we shouldn't extradite them and other countries shouldn't cooperate.



My Rights aren't even guaranteed.
Definitely a problem but the ICC won't fix it.


I guess I don't understand the semantics.

Especially when considering history, Insular Cases, torture, renditions...

Obviously there is no Justice.
The ICC won't solve the problem any more than the Nuremberg trials did, it will just give whoever gains control of it a weapon to use against their enemies without regard to truth or justice.
I was suggesting that we should extradite some criminals even to states where their rights might not be respected if their guilt was proved in our courts.



That's pretty much how I envision it. Though of course, there is no Justice for the crimes committed (said war criminal just won't travel, and will receive the benefit of the doubt of every cable news program, eventually ending with a Commissar's Grand exit).
It is better that 100 guilty men go free than that 1 innocent man be punished, most crimes will go unpunished by an in this life and not only will the ICC not fix that it will be used to punish innocents and justify more crimes.



The US has been giving the finger to that court for decades now.
And it is time we made it official and reduced its legitimacy as far as we can.

[thoughtomator]

Look at what happened to Pinochet. Saved his country from Communism and the Communists used the ICC to prosecute him for it.

[Influenza]

Look at what happened to Pinochet. Saved his country from Communism and the Communists used the ICC to prosecute him for it.
What a gross utilitarian ideology you have. Doesn't matter how many thousands die as long as you like the end result, eh?

[Influenza]

Who determines what war crimes are ?

The UN and affiliated organizations, obviously.

[Influenza]

The ICC is a globalist imperial tool that is even more of a kangaroo court than usual, rather than legitimizing it by submitting to it the best thing for the world is for us to delegitimize it as Bolton is doing. (admittedly for his own corrupt purposes)

You are right, they rarely go after powerful countries or their allies, they only accuse the small and powerless nations that no one gives a shit about anyways. So now that they will MAYBE go after a powerful country, that's when you howl for its abolition? Right when it starts becoming a bit more balanced and going after powerful countries, that's when they go too far?

[Swordsmyth]

The UN and affiliated organizations, obviously.
That is not good.


You are right, they rarely go after powerful countries or their allies, they only accuse the small and powerless nations that no one gives a $#@! about anyways. So now that they will MAYBE go after a powerful country, that's when you howl for its abolition? Right when it starts becoming a bit more balanced and going after powerful countries, that's when they go too far?
I have always wanted it dead and I will take any opportunity to kill it.

[bunklocoempire]

Who determines what war crimes are ?

The "winning" government.

[oyarde]

The "winning" government.

Yep .

[oyarde]

That is not good.


I have always wanted it dead and I will take any opportunity to kill it.
My thoughts exactly , abolish it all . As far as the Flu's comment to me personally about war crimes , well it means nothing to me . I have survived more gun battles probably than anyone people here are likely to meet and I never sought anyones opinion on it , I am fully aware of the fact of my choices . I would never though surrender to submit myself to a trial lead by some asshat , useless eater lawyers and I really would not encourage anyone else to .

[oyarde]

The UN and affiliated organizations, obviously.

Yeah , I would pass on that . I do not even believe the US should be supporting the UN , allowing it here or participating .

[Swordsmyth]

In practice, the International Criminal Court is a failed experiment.
Its trials appear selective and political (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2014.901310?src=recsys). While the court has received more than 10,000 written complaints referring to 139 countries, according to the London-based Africa Research Centre, it has focused its prosecutions exclusively on sub-Saharan Africans (https://iccforum.com/africa). Of the 10 investigations in progress, nine relate to African leaders or rebel leaders. (The only non-African case was against Serbian extremists.) This leads to the all-too-easy accusation that the court is racist, neo-colonialist or, in the words of one African writer, "white justice for black Africans." Following a 2013 African Union summit, Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn denounced (https://www.dw.com/en/african-union-accuses-icc-prosecutors-of-racial-hunt/a-16840955) the court as a "racial hunt". While these charges are hyperbolic, the court's selective prosecutions have undermined its credibility among Africans.
The ICC has also not been successful in Africa. The court's first chief prosecutor, Luis Ocampo, pledged to indict and try the leaders of Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), a Ugandan terror (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/africa/dominic-ongwen-uganda-rebel-hague-icc.html) group linked to slaughter, rape and kidnapping, by the end of 2005. The LRA's leaders have yet to face justice. Almost a decade ago, the court indicted (http://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/albashir/Documents/AlBashirEng.pdf) Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir. No trial has occurred and Bashir continues to travel freely to Arab and African states that have signed the ICC's implementing treaty. The court has not delivered on its promise to bring justice to people who have none.
As a result, African nations are pulling out. South Africa, Burundi, Gambia have voted to withdraw (https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/jan/31/african-leaders-plan-mass-withdrawal-from-international-criminal-court) from the ICC and other African states are joining the stampede for the exit.
The ICC likes to refer to itself as the world's court, but it represents fewer and fewer of world's nations. The U.S., Israel, China and Russia have refused (https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/3/issue/10/results-rome-conference-international-criminal-court) to ratify the court's implementing Treaty of Rome. The African Union itself has openly criticized the ICC and debated leaving the court's jurisdiction en masse.
The court's leaders have, in addition, not held themselves to particularly high standards. Chief prosecutor Ocampo, defended (http://www.lesoir.be/116820/article/2017-09-29/laveu-docampo-enregistre-mon-salaire-netait-pas-suffisant) his use of offshore bank accounts by saying that his salary was insufficient. Such a remark hardly inspires confidence.
Even worse for the court's credibility are the allegations (http://www.thelondoneveningpost.com/icc-president-in-corruption-scandal-over-bashir/) brought by David Nyekorach Matsanga, president of the Pan-African Forum, that Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi, the ICC's president, allegedly received illegal sums totaling some $17 million between 2004 and 2015. These payments, Matsanga said, were to bribe prosecution witness against Sudan's president. A court spokesman dismissed Matsanga's evidence as a falsified invoice and unverified bank records. (Matsanga is no angel. He was spokesman for the infamous Lord's Resistance Army in the 1990s.) Still, the evidence deserves an impartial review.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-20/international-criminal-court-failed-experiment