US bars entry to International Criminal Court investigators

I didn't know this. I thought Trump had created a Supreme Court who would do what he wanted.

 

Are you thinking of Universal Jurisdiction? I am not sure you actually got Bush or Blair. We in the UK used to try and get Israelis who were wanted for war crimes. I am trying to remember who stopped that. I think it was the Coalition which came in in 2010 but I may be wrong.

However that was an attempt to get them to court. If a court had found them guilty then presumably we would be able to send them back, not forgetting that if the UK manages to avoid fascism we will be in a much more legit form of Government so will certainly send them for their punishment.

 

They have more bombs than anyone else. That is precisely why North Korea and Iran want a few for themselves. Who can blame them?

 

Oh boy! Where do we run to hide!

 

….and so the US could adopt international treaties.

But Trump's supreme court - "America First" - is a hot-bed of Conservativism/Libertarianism, antagonistic to an international rules-based system.

 

Dutch, I've been noticing the tendency to "hairy chest thumping" - of the Neanderthal type, among conservatives lately.
Can you bring anything more meaningful to the discussion?

 

and we kept our landmines...

 

I do more than that. I make fun of Liberals, their posts and Liberalism in general. Is it not a useful, meaningful function?

 

Actually, those who commit crimes are prosecuted here. We don't need the ICC to do that. Servicemen and -women who commit war crimes face trial and are punished if found guilty. It has happened plenty of times already. Given that and the fact that we are not signed up for the ICC, they don't have a leg to stand on and you and others are failing to present any meaningful argument in favor of the ICC's preliminary investigation, instead just casting general aspersions at the US and Israel.

 

Nope, but Trump thanks you all the same.

 

Yes and I’m not counting on Trump’s thanks. In reverse, I thank him.

 

How about promoting the desirability of an international rules-based system, which (by definition) implies the delegitimization of war as a means of dispute settlement?

 

It's good to be a Super Power, and the friend of one.

 

"Liberalism" doesn't even exist, but have fun.

 

Fun I have oodles of at the expense of Liberalism that does not even exist. Thanks.

 

You opinion is not the opinion of the majority.
In the US nothing is above constitutional law. We elect our judges. You can’t have an external power appoint a judge who then tries a US citizen.
Therefore, ICC has no authority here and even if the POTUS were to sign the treaty and get it approved by the senate the law wouldn’t last because it contradicts our constitution.
You have a problem with a US citizen? Come here, file your complaints and chances are you will be heard.
The concept of a country or a nation and the government’s duty to its citizens hasn’t changed for thousands of years and counting.

 

The constitutional aspect has already been addressed in Eleuthera's post #69. The US could ratify an international treaty.
I believe that's not an opinion?

I questioned the concept of absolute national sovereignty in my post #68, which I must assume you don't want to address because you can't.

That something has endured for "thousands of years" doesn't necessarily point to its desirability, eg slavery, war and poverty.

 

He has, but his nominations are more for the future than for the present time.

I hate to say it, but the Supreme Court has become as political as the other 2 branches. Good men are few and far between in Washington DC.

 

And the US has indeed adopted international treaties.

Under the Unitary Executive theory brought by the neocons, and as Trump, Bolton, Pence and Pompeo have demonstrated and defended, the US has abrogated and withdrawn from several such agreements.

 

If all that were true, then why has no Israeli leader been prosecuted for the crimes committed by the government? I think you are paying lip service to what laws might be written, even as you ignore the reality of the situation. Yes, Bibi is supposedly under indictment, but for crimes unrelated to war crimes.

It is very difficult to NOT cast general aspersions at the US and Israeli governments. Their track records for violence and criminality are well established.

 

Enjoy it while you can. Only moral midgets rejoice in the crimes committed by their governments.

 

Or engage in personal attacks when they have no rational argument to offer.

 

Oh here they go, not just intent on refusing to face the law, the rogue US is threatening to harm any who intend on following the law.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/...over-possible-war-crime-probes-un-experts-say

How the mighty have fallen....As I said earlier the US can refuse to join in, it obviously is able to stop the ICC from entering, signifying itself as a country which contravenes International Law and as such a country which should itself suffer serious sanctions. US law breakers however can only avoid the law if they stay inside the US. Go abroad and they will be liable to Universal Jurisdiction? The threat shows they are scared. They know they are guilty. Like cowards everywhere they will not face the consequences.
They can hide but in this case they cannot run. It is amazing how fast the US is working to bring forward its own destruction and isolation.