11–20 of 59 posts
What did she do wrong?
The US argues that the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over the cases in question, and considers the ICC's attempts to investigate them a violation of sovereignty.
What did she do wrong?
Let me first say I find it totally disgusting that she's getting debanked and it's not the first time: Canada did debank truckers and people organizing to send aid to truckers a few years ago. But to answer your question... What she did was zero condemnation of what even Amnesty International qualifies as a crime against humanity by legally elected Hamas (classified as a terror organization) but then overstepping her…
The US wielding the sanctions banhammer the way they have been recently will only weaken its power over time and create opportunity for economic rivals like China. Every time they (mis)use it they create incentive for people to create alternatives to the US financial system. You won't see sanctions become completely completely toothless overnight, but I could see in maybe 15-20 years that getting around US sanctions…
China is not party to the Rome Statute, just like the US and Israel, I would expect they would retaliate against the ICC if the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Xi Jinping.
> Every time they (mis)use it they create incentive for people to create alternatives to the US financial system.
I think the ICC has much bigger credibility issues trying to impose jurisdiction over conflicts involving countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US argues that the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over the cases in question, and considers the ICC's attempts to investigate them a violation of sovereignty.
So? How is that the fault of the people working there? Would you want that to happen to you if you were working for a McDonalds, and McDonalds was deemed unhealthy in Europe and banned?
What I'd want in some hypothetical situation, though, doesn't have much to do with it. If it were up to me, I'd rather the US ratify the Rome Statute so there's no jurisdictional issue in the first place.
The US wielding the sanctions banhammer the way they have been recently will only weaken its power over time and create opportunity for economic rivals like China. Every time they (mis)use it they create incentive for people to create alternatives to the US financial system. You won't see sanctions become completely completely toothless overnight, but I could see in maybe 15-20 years that getting around US sanctions…
> The US wielding the sanctions banhammer the way they have been recently will only weaken its power over time and create opportunity for economic rivals like China. China is not party to the Rome Statute, just like the US and Israel, I would expect they would retaliate against the ICC if the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Xi Jinping. > Every time they (mis)use it they create incentive for people to create alternat…
such as…?
What did she do wrong?
They are on a international body that is investigating allegations of war crimes and genocide that the United States and Israel have committed in Gaza
She was apparently sanctioned for the Afghanistan investigation, while others at the ICC were sanctioned for going after Israel.[0]
[0] https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US argues that the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over the cases in question, and considers the ICC's attempts to investigate them a violation of sovereignty.
So? How is that the fault of the people working there? Would you want that to happen to you if you were working for a McDonalds, and McDonalds was deemed unhealthy in Europe and banned?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? How is that the fault of the people working there? Would you want that to happen to you if you were working for a McDonalds, and McDonalds was deemed unhealthy in Europe and banned?
The subject of the article, Kimberly Prost, is one of the specific decisionmakers at the ICC who ruled that the Afghanistan investigation could proceed over American objections. I agree with what I think is your implication, that it wouldn't make much sense to sanction random ICC employees. What I'd want in some hypothetical situation, though, doesn't have much to do with it. If it were up to me, I'd rather the US ra…
I have few words to argue against what I consider to be 'midieval practices' that should not even exist as a thought in 'modern' Western 'democracies' on how to deal with international relations and law. Can you point me at the legal basis for this decision apart from "because we say so"? What crime did they commit? What they did as part of their job is not illegal. The US is not required to join and help actively enforce the court's decisions.
I don't mind differences of opinion. I do mind authoritarian, purely escalatory behavior not fit for a modern society with no rational basis behind it other than rage. There is no educational, pedagogical message behind this. The thought process behind actions like this seems to purely be "We happen to not agree with you, so we are in the right to hurt you" territory. Law enforcement is not meant for punishment for punishment's sake, it is meant to aim for correction. Anything else just creates more polarization and leads to more violence. I thought we had figured that out as civilization. It makes no sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? How is that the fault of the people working there? Would you want that to happen to you if you were working for a McDonalds, and McDonalds was deemed unhealthy in Europe and banned?
sending a warning to other ICC judges/employees.