Thread

Netherlands bracing for potentially devastating US sanctions against the ICC

143 points · 131 comments · vrganj

jaapz · 1790157431 · focus · HN ↗
Can anyone explain to me why the trump administration hates the ICC so much?
1. [deleted] · 1790157478 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
2. ganzsz · 1790157536 · focus · HN ↗
  The investigation into both Netanyahu, and American soldiers in Afghanistan.
3. nguyenkien · 1790157553 · focus · HN ↗
  Bombing school in Iran, killing people on boat of venezuela coast. ICE murder people on streets.
  1. jvdvegt · 1790158717 · focus · HN ↗
    The latter is a domestic issue, nothing to do with the ICC probably.
    nguyenkien · 1790173091 · focus · HN ↗
    You can check Philippines president Duterte ICC case.
    Timon3 · 1790180586 · focus · HN ↗
    But the same domestic issue is most likely going to ensure that the lunatics will stay in power.
    pvaldes · 1790181276 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't know the legal technicalities, but It may be. We must not forget that most people killed by ICE were from other countries.
    The list of people killed whereas in ICE detention comprises 67 people just in the last 3 years. Plus the two US citizens executed in the streets [1]. Some died after being denied medical treatments that needed for survive, other were chocked to dead, or shoot, and other were found "unresponsive in the cells", or died with collapsed lungs, kidney failures and other symptoms that shout "being beaten to pulp". This people were also human beings.
    And some commit suicide. An example:
    "Ge was in ICE custody for 5 days, and was found hanging by the neck in a shower stall. The county coroner report later determined his feet and hands to be bound, but ruled the cause to be suicide and noted rare, known cases of self-restraint in suicide cases"
    People killed by ICE comprises citizens from USA, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Ukraine, Colombia, Vietnam, China, Venezuela, Cambodia, Haiti, Nicaragua, Honduras, Ethiopia or Iran.
    [1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_in_ICE_detention" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deaths_in_ICE_detentio...
    This list does not include people that died shortly after being liberated or that was shoot at the frontier.
4. Steve16384 · 1790157596 · focus · HN ↗
  I think it's something to do with them issueing an arrest warrant in November 2024 for Netanyahu for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity as part of the ICC investigation in Palestine.
5. petcat · 1790157597 · focus · HN ↗
  It's been every administration. Obama and Biden refused it also
  1. Nursie · 1790157748 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure, but there is a difference between not wanting to take part and actively trying to sabotage it for everyone else.
    Bush, Obama and Biden wanted to keep the US out of it. Trump wants to destroy it.
    elzbardico · 1790159232 · focus · HN ↗
    Because Evil Camacho is a buffon, and does in clear light what others have the decency to do in civilized ways.
6. heisenbit · 1790157618 · focus · HN ↗
  There is something seriously wrong when in a court POTUS (self-)pardon powers do not work.
7. ta20240528 · 1790157649 · focus · HN ↗
  Because
  - they issued a non-revocable arrest warrant for Netanyahu
  - Afghanistan is a member and once threatened to prosecute US military staff for human rights violations.
  Its not just the Trump adminstration, the "Hague Invasion Act" (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...) was signed into American law in 2002 by G.W. Bush.
  Impunity is a drug.
8. Nursie · 1790157674 · focus · HN ↗
  Because Trump's best bro, Putin, and his good friends in the Israeli government find themselves inconvenienced by it.
  The US isn't subject to it, as it didn't sign up, but he's probably also worried that Americans who are accused of war crimes and then travel to countries which are signatories may find themselves arrested and tried.
  1. ta20240528 · 1790158292 · focus · HN ↗
    "The US isn't subject to it"
    American citizens are subject to ICC jurisdiction if they commit crimes in an ICC-member country. Like US soldiers in Afghanistan.
    Which is what freaks the US government out.
    Nursie · 1790160795 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure, and then what'll actually happen? Nothing, if those soldiers are in the US or other non-signatory country.
    Only if they travel to ICC jurisdiction countries will anything actually occur.
    ta20240528 · 1790266605 · focus · HN ↗
    That’s > 150 countries including Japan, Europe, Australia, Brasil, Mexico, Canada, etc.
    It crimps their style.
9. gumby · 1790157966 · focus · HN ↗
  They are concerned that they will be the target for war crimes, such as sinking fishing ships in the Caribbean and Pacific, targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran, and the like.
10. mentalgear · 1790158049 · focus · HN ↗
  Because both T & N that have utter disrespect for law & order when it affects themselves. For example: both have to remain in political power as this immunity from law shields them from running trials that would probably end them in prison.
11. elzbardico · 1790159153 · focus · HN ↗
  Trump, a.k.a. Evil President Camacho, is not the only one. Even Bill Clinton, which I, as a conservative, consider the last US real stateman, was more interested in neutering the ICC than really joining it.
12. nentorask · 1790172797 · focus · HN ↗
  The USA has a robust legal system that draws its powers from the people, who elect legislators that can rectify situations where the law is wrong or if the courts have wronged someone incorrectly. From the perspective of US citizens, as a non-signatory country, there is no higher authority than the US justice system.
  Other countries can’t just say that they’ve decided on laws and a justice system to prosecute Americans (in the absence of a US agreed treaty), and if they threaten to detain Americans anyway they are engaging in hostile aggression against the USA, especially if this is done in a politicized way.
  1. Timon3 · 1790180887 · focus · HN ↗
    > The USA has a robust legal system that draws its powers from the people, who elect legislators that can rectify situations where the law is wrong or if the courts have wronged someone incorrectly.
    Not sure why this is relevant, since the same holds true for any democratic country, no?
    nentorask · 1790184095 · focus · HN ↗
    Correct, but it doesn’t hold true for the ICC.
    Americans have no say on its laws and procedures, and it is not accountable to the American people. Many of its member states are themselves semi-democratic or totally autocratic. People such as Afghani women, for example, have no rights at home and by extension no say on the procedures of the ICC, but they can be judged by it, because their dictators are signatories and do have a say.
    Timon3 · 1790188565 · focus · HN ↗
    > Americans have no say on its laws and procedures, and it is not accountable to the American people.
    Maybe I'm missing your point, but what stops Americans from having a say in its laws and procedures? If the US signed on, Americans would have the same voice as everyone else, no? Though I guess its voice would actually still be louder, because the ICC draws its power from the member countries.
    Regarding the accountability - yes, it's not solely accountable to the American people. That's the core idea behind an international court: it is not beholden to any single country.
    > Many of its member states are themselves semi-democratic or totally autocratic. People such as Afghani women, for example, have no rights at home and by extension no say on the procedures of the ICC, but they can be judged by it, because their dictators are signatories and do have a say.
    While I get the idea, I'm not convinced that the absence of an ICC-like institution would in any way help disenfranchised people with gaining these rights. As the last few years have shown, the US - left to its own devices - will gleefully support an ongoing genocide.
    nentorask · 1790193066 · focus · HN ↗
    > If the US signed on, Americans would have the same voice as everyone else, no?
    But you can’t force them to accept a foreign sovereignty. It would be like the USA saying that US federal law now applies to Greenland, and they have a right to participate in federal elections.
    > I'm not convinced that the absence of an ICC-like institution would in any way help disenfranchised people with gaining these rights.
    I’m not convinced that the ICC is capable of helping anyone. They can run tribunals after-the-fact, if some other power has already taken care of the perpetrator, which may be useful in some situations, like when a devastated country doesn’t have the resources to run a trial themselves, but it can’t prevent or stop anything from happening. Doing that would usually mean the ICC would have to raise an army and go to war.
    For example, in 2024 the ICC issued arrest warrants for the leaders of Hamas. Palestine, which is a signatory, did nothing to try and arrest them. Neither did any of the other ICC countries, because executing that warrant would require going to war in Gaza (which is what Israel did). Neither has the warrant for Netanyahu made any difference.
    danaris · 1790197856 · focus · HN ↗
    > But you can’t force them to accept a foreign sovereignty.
    ...No, that's why the ICC requires us to sign on.
    We voluntarily accept a joint sovereignty over each other.
    The problem is that for the past 80 years or so, the US has gotten very, very comfortable forcing other nations to accept our sovereignty. Over them. The powers that be really, really don't want to give that up and be accountable to anyone.
    That's not sustainable, it's not ethical, and it's guaranteed to lead to more conflict down the line.
    The ICC as currently constituted may be imperfect, but IMO it is a good step forward toward a world where we are all accountable to each other, and we collectively enforce an agreed-upon set of ethics for every country's operations.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.