Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- As a European I would want my goverent to summon the US embassador and declare them a persona non grata over this. Then as a next step to work on sanction the US on an EU level like the rouge state it is.by atoav
- Who wouldn’t want to do this. Unfortunately the EU is dependent on US economy and defence. The EU doesn’t dare. For the same reasons they also swallow shaking hands with rogue states like China and Saudi Arabia.by vinni2
- by layla5alive
- You know, there could be a world where US sanctions are as priceless as toilet paper rolls. But that needs collective action.
- No one is gonna come out and say "we're fascists who commit war crimes" but they spend a lot of time, money and effort fighting against antifascists and people who try to prevent war crimes. The purpose of a thing is what it does.
- Everybody in the Trump administration has come out and said that. We’re just so jaded that it doesn’t even register.
Hegseth tells his “warfighters” that they must ignore the Geneva convention. The president goes on social media and threatens the destruction of civilian populations (“an entire civilization will die tonight”) as well as civilian infrastructure (bridges, power plants).
by pavlov - "US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced sanctions against the president and a senior lawyer of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The move is the Trump administration's latest escalation in its campaign to "dismantle" the court which is empowered by more than 120 member countries to investigate war crimes."
The Trump administration is saying the quiet part out loud: they are pro war crimes.
by layla5alive - There was little doubt after the last 24 months. Even if it wasn't with words they did plenty of deeds that confirmed that.by jacquesm
- About a year ago CBCs "About That" show did a 10min segment on the history of the US objections/support regarding the ICC, decent watch if you want a quick recap of the last 24 years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBW6DOss67w - Also, to a degree, the ICC is somewhat moot to the US directly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...by neom
- > Rubio accused the court of being "a corrupt and fatally politicized supranational court that has maliciously abused its authority and exceeded its mandate.
Interesting times indeed. The foreign affairs secretary of the most corrupt US administration cries foul of the ICC.
> Despite its significant global representation, dozens of governments are not parties to the ICC, including China, India, Israel, Russia, and the United States
What a great club to be in, ripe with war crimes and human rights abuses.
by petre - The current US administration really doesn't like accountability, and if the judges can't be bought they get mad at them. One day we will be back to normal. I hope I'll be around to see it, the degree to which we are sliding is more than a little bit worrisome.by jacquesm
- Well the rest of the world will dismantle the US hegemony "brick by brick". Not because they want to but because they have to. It may take decades but trust has been lost. The US can't be trusted at any level and investments will adjust to this level like any other unstable state.
Research, investments and talents are all avoiding the US. AI won't save the US economy either as there is no moat as we can all see.
by sschueller - There will be another one. I hope you like the CCP's vision of the future.by lenerdenator
- D.C is controlled by enemies to humanity and freedom. They openly plan on enslaving the rest of the world to secure their hegemony.by smashah
- The relationship between the ICC and the "great powers" is an interesting one. It sort of separates the normal alliances of "west" and "non-west" alliances, and reshapes them into powerful and non-powerful. And it seems this conflict is ongoing.
Apart from Europe, the number large, powerful non-signatory countries is pretty significant: US, China, India, Russia, Iran, Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, and more.
I've always thought it is interesting that the concept of international law is by definition in conflict with the de facto anarchy of international relations. I've always had mixed opinions on the topic, simply because you can look at an institution like the UN, and see that it functions much more successfully as a simple forum than a deliberative body. The idea that somehow we are going to implement something as difficult as a criminal court on an international basis seems... very idealistic. A court like this always seems sensible at first glance, but I'm not sure it can really exist effectively at all over any serious time horizon.
by scoofy - The concept of international law outside of its jurisdiction is just a rebranded form of imperialism. How’s it different to a US Federal court deciding it has jurisdiction in Canada?
Especially as ultimately the only way to actually enforce any law is with violence (without which a court is impotent and its laws meaningless).
by throw79525 - >interesting that the concept of international law is by definition in conflict of the anarchy of real Realpolitik
not 'by definition'. There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries. For one because you don't know when you'll cease to be powerful, which will happen given enough time and secondly because even smaller players can cause significant damage when acting without constraint, a lesson several great powers are currently learning for the umpteenth time.
It's very meathead schoolyard bully coded to think that anarchy benefits you just because you happen to be the biggest dude around. It speaks more to the intellect of current leaders than it does to some fundamental contradiction.
by Barrin92 - > Those sanctions were issued in retaliation for ICC investigations into US personnel in Afghanistan and for warrants the court issued against top Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for alleged war crimes in Gaza.
Oh no! An international body is taking action against some of the worst criminals on the planet? I'm glad the U.S. is taking actions to prevent those people from doing their job. America is doing great!
by willio58 - https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1d097g2/which_coun...
The US withdrew its signature all the way back in 2002, the same year the ICC came into being.
It's only "their job" where they have jurisdiction.
This is like Ofcom trying to require overseas companies/providers to enforce the Online Safety Act.
The ICC doesn't even automatically have jurisdiction of signatory nations either -- it's only when that nation fails to actively pursue prosecutions in their own courts.
by busterarm - This mentality is exactly why the US is doing this. You've already condemned people without access to any good evidence. Besides, US defense requires the ability to do everything Israel did against Gaza.by 762236
- There is currently not a SINGLE American citizen under indictment, investigation, or facing an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC). The one case tied to US soldiers in Afghanistan was ended.
So why is the US doing this with such intensity right now?
( My question was rhetorical, you can see in the initial ICC sanctions from the Whitehouse it was all about Israel + Netanyahu: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/impo... )
by bhouston - I mean, obviously it’s because of the Netanyahu thing plus Trump is probably gonna be on there once he is done plus and I think this is a big one, Putin doesn’t want it around.by dyauspitr
- I think Trump just wants to be able to play golf at his courses in Scotland without being arrested for his decisions to arbitrarily make war however he wants. I honestly think it's that simple. He is a simple man.by scoofy
- Senior officials in the Trump regime know that we may decide to handcuff them and send them to the ICC after democracy is restored.
- It’s a preemptive attack to prevent accountability for Trump and Hegseth under the next presidency. All of those extrajudicial boat attacks that have been justified by claiming they were smuggling drugs (cocaine imports to the US haven’t dropped at all, BTW) are likely unjustified murders.
This administration attacks any body or authority that has the power to hold them accountable. See: attacks on the judiciary, attacks on the media, attacks on academia, etc.
by wnmurphy - I know your question is rhetorical, but for the avoidance of doubt: https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/netanyahuby verytrivial