Pretty sure even a lot of the current President's voters are slowly coming to this same realization. I predict soon in casual conversation almost no one will have voted for this man.
That's what I thought after he lost in 2020. And yet he came back in 2024 winning even more votes, both in absolute terms and in percentage, than he did in either 2016 or 2020.
I think Kamala would have been a terrible President but immeasurably better than Trump. She wasn’t openly, brazenly corrupt and self dealing nor an authoritarian with little interest in actual governing or the good of the nation he leads.
This is why you are hearing a lot about his name changing of certain things as well as the go ahead for the public shooting of Hasan. These are loyalty tests. Are you okay with AI being called SI? You're one of us. Do you want to see a public execution? Again, you're one of us. History tells us this is what regimes like this do.
You seem very sensitive if you think someone asking you if you are trolling and asking you if you are being serious is "an insult". If this is what gets under your skin, I shudder at the thought of what the rest of the internet feels like to you. It must be a living nightmare.
Also, where did you get the impression that trolling required the underlying opinion to be falsely held? Whoever taught you that was doing you a disservice.
Corruption and criminality is brazen, prices for everything are through the roof, there's an energy shortage, it started and is losing a new war, third biggest budget deficit in history (this same regime was responsible for the #1 biggest), but sure, everything is going great, comrade, the Party tells you that nothing is wrong.
Whats the timeline on that promised $1.99 gas, again? Or was that going to be $1.99/litre?
The rational ones would have switched lilong time ago, even if it means switch to the vacuum.
The ones that remained till now are happy cheering for a constantly lying pedophile who has behavior of a spoiled child and mental capacity of even less. I am not holding my breath anything can move them. Other folks who voted for him and now understand, well drown in shame for all I care, it doesnt change anything since this was obvious years ago and you still voted a childish pedophile in.
Can you imagine voting for his 2024 opponent though? Someone who spent over a year arming genocide? At least Trump eventually forced a semi-ceasefire in Gaza.
Can you imagine voting in 2024 for Trump? Someone who does whatever Israel says? Over 10K Iranians and Americans have died ... for nothing except a whisper in his ear from Netenyahu. Imagine voting for that? Imagine voting for the corruption. Imagine voting for the ICE terrorists. Imaging voting for truckers and farmers losing their jobs.
It's funny watching these older movies and tv shows where the presidency was portrayed as being dignified and statesmanlike which now seems so laughably unrealistic.
It’s a travesty but I think “never going to come back from this” is a stretch. There is no immediate replacement for the position the US holds in global politics. China has no interest in being the guarantor of freedom of transit in international waterways, to pick one example.
You're talking about some kind of projection in hard power. it's likely that the US will continue to wield the most hard power for the foreseeable future (though this war with iran has exposed logistics issues in that, as well as drained important armaments that will take years to recover).
The bigger loss is in soft power, the power that comes from economics, having the worlds reserve currency, and even the trust and respect of our allies.
Well really most of the consumers of the goodness that the US represented in international politics, including your example, are just being lazy and hoping the US will cover their arses. The sudden, stark realisation that they have been exposed by the instability of the US really kicked off the sovereign initiatives.
> China has no interest in being the guarantor of freedom of transit in international waterways
What makes you think of this? Also, why wouldn't China pick up this role, when they heavily rely on this, or why wouldn't bilateral agreements be enough?
> China has no interest in being the guarantor of freedom of transit in international waterways, to pick one example.
The Strait of Hormuz has entered the chat.
So much of American "power" in the past few decades has been based on perception, not reality. And other major powers, including China, have largely played along because it has suited their interests too.
But it's a mistake to assume that just because other major powers haven't sought conflict with the US, it means they're not capable of challenging America's power credibly in certain regions and domains.
Of note: the US doesn't even have an aircraft carrier in the Pacific right now. The only thing keeping China from, say, moving on Taiwan, is Pete Hegseth's testosterone.
It's not just this administration. The US helped create this court and pushed other countries to join, but never joined themselves and always threatened the court if they indicted or judged American people.
There's an US law that says the US will invade Belgium (edit: Netherlands) if the court wanted to investigate an American (???)
I remember Hillary Clinton, in the Obama administration, saying the US is an exceptional country that deserves exceptional conditions regarding this issue
My own country (Brazil) supported South Africa charges of genocide against Israel because we believe in this court and the role it fulfills.
For me, the sole problem with this court is that it's reluctant to judge American war crimes and crimes against humanity. But as Europe leaves the US sphere of influence, maybe they will grow a spine. It would be unfortunate if people like George W Bush, Dick Cheney, John Choon Yoo and Jay Scott Bybee died before they were indicted by this court.
Republicans are an embarrassment to the country. They've got some understandable gripes, but have been led around by the nose by corporate propaganda for decades. And then they comfort themselves by pointing the ways Democrats are similarly led, but still never perform one iota of self reflection to examine how their own movements invariably end up stillborn.
For example take a core grassroots issue - immigration reform. Slowly building support for decades against the corpo imperative for cheap labor. But after it finally gets critical mass, what does this actually result in? A personal enrichment shakedown dynamic for employers of imported labor, concentration camps, and homicidal gangs of jackboots roaming the streets itching to summarily execute people for exercising their Constitutional/natural rights. All that hard earned political capital squandered on nothing more than a performative con man "for the cause". And in a few years we'll be right back to hearing their pissing and moaning about Democrats being responsible, even though they did it to themselves.
It's worse than an embarrassment - it is an indictment of democracy itself. It is difficult to imagine a people - on paper the richest, most educated and healthiest in the history of the world - intentionally choosing a real villain as their duly-elected leader. They elected a man whose outrages, corruptions, selfishness, malice and outright crimes are so egregious and obvious that the problem becomes organizing so long a list into a workable taxonomy. But he's not done this alone - SCOTUS is in his pocket and truly made him above the law. The Republicans have enabled him by staying silent and riding on his coattails - the most "principled" of them have retired. Media is consolidated and owned by the oligarchs he calls friends. He has a personal paramilitary force (ICE) roaming the streets, killing people, and who will be "observing" the mid-term elections.
The root of the problem is in the collective mind of Americans. We are the problem - we've been hacked to be both stupid and proud of that stupidity, to cease recognizing "character" or "virtue" as a signal, to cease caring about reality that doesn't support opinions that were installed on us, like malware, or anything really except entertainment. Because that's the ONE thing we do get out of all this - we get to be entertained. How funny when he says outlandish things like immigrants are eating the cats, eating the dogs! How hilarious (and macho!) when he brags about grabbing women. How wonderful it is to see the discomfiture of the libs when he parrots Nazi propaganda or when he encouraged the Proud Boys to storm the capital to overturn his loss, and then his lackeys claimed it either didn't happen or was a false flag. "Hang Mike Pence!" is what an obese, fentanyl- and TikTok-addicted mind thinks is doing something! And hey, you can say "retard" again without getting canceled.
> It is difficult to imagine a people - on paper the richest, most educated and healthiest in the history of the world - intentionally choosing a real villain as their duly-elected leader.
Arguably the richest in terms of the GDP per capita, but I don't think Americans have ever been the most educated or healthiest in the world.
We'll see how the midterm civil war goes, but I'm guessing you should take your kids out of that place if only to offer them a future where this is no longer an option.
> It's worse than an embarrassment - it is an indictment of democracy itself.
Democracy is fine and well, it's an indictment of americans. Considering the 2 times this century the popular vote winner didn't get into power. And that the current president was given power twice.
> It is difficult to imagine a people - on paper the richest, most educated and healthiest in the history of the world -
The fact that you think these are true is part of the problem.
The qualification "on paper" was important, and seems to have been lost on you. BTW democracy itself is not okay - backsliding is rampant across the world, as are education scores, and the one commonality is the internet. The problem with America specifically is that we do have a lot of money, a lot of power and so the destruction we specifically can cause is much greater than, say, Turkey or the UK.
What are you talking about. US's congress and senate are completely silent and approving what is obvious corruption. It is very unlikely that Americans didn't know about the corruption during the first pass and it extremely unlikely that their representatives don't know. They don't act, either because they approve it or that democracy is no longer. Take your pick.
Sometimes you need to touch the stove and get burned to learn that its hot. This is something that tends to be repeated once people forget about the last time they (as a collective nation) touched the stove.
Sometimes it can be learned with a simple first degree burn. Sometimes you get blisters. Sometimes the government in power is determined to hold their hand to it and get third degree burns.
Hopefully the pain from this round of burns can be remembered for a while longer before its repeated again.
This seems like an overstatement. After all, Germany came back from Nazism.
I also think this is not a uniquely American problem. If anything, the US is a political bellwether. And I would note that Australian Rupert Murdoch for example has been funding right-wing propaganda in the US, as well as some other countries, for decades. (Donald Trump himself is known as a voracious consumer of right-wing media. He's in their target demographic.) In addition to donating massive amounts of money to US Republicans, South African Elon Musk has also taken an interest in other countries such as the UK. The Israel lobby is of course very powerful in the US. This is an international problem. As arguably the most powerful nation in the world, the US is a natural target for those who would abuse that power.
> This seems like an overstatement. After all, Germany came back from Nazism.
So all we have to do to come back from it is have Nuremberg style trials for GOP leadership and to ban their ideology and symbology from being displayed in the country?
Those extreme measures were the aftermath of a world war. We haven't reached that point, or even the equivalent of the Reichstag fire, at least not yet. We don't have quite as far to come back.
Yes, and then children grow up and realize that how "other people" act on "other people's opinions" has real direct and indirect effects on their lives.
The International Criminal Court is a farce. How can you tell other sovereign nation what is a "crime" or what "is not a crime"? It has literally zero authority to decide such matters.
You appear to be confused. Anyone can decide anything, the question is whether it is in their power to enforce their decisions.
Saying that they don't have authority to make a decision implies that there's some universal set of rules that internationally lays down what anyone's authority is - precisely the kind of thing you appear to be opposed to, because such a set of rules would likely need a court!
Seems to be a rather silly, pedantic point if it even passes. GP was clearly talking about sovereignty etc. which is exactly the caveat that you granted - that ICC may have no enforcement power over non-treaty countries. For the record I have no axe to grind with the ICC, but you and GP literally agree on the main difficulty facing the institution.
This is exactly the kind of discussion where the difference is important. Your reading of the point they were trying to make is impressively charitable. I shall try to learn from it.
If the point is that anyone can tell anyone else anything, that's vacuously true but a court typically wields the power of a state and its code of laws. For treaty countries ICC is perfectly unproblematic but for nontreaty countries there's a strong difficulty in calling it a court as it bears no legal legitimacy.
National courts routinely issue arrest warrants and rulings for persons of other nationalities, who could currently be located anywhere in the world. The ICC is not special in that regard.
> Right and you can imagine how much authority the average Russian lends to an American arrest warrant.
I have to applaud coming up with a sentence like that. The same sort of beauty one might find in an Escher piece.
Let me address the point underlying that contortion by asking a question: In the alternate semantic universe we're constructing, if that Russian later passes through a US-friendly country and is arrested, did the US court turn out to retroactively have had the authority to issue the warrant, and we pretend it always had it, or is it supposed to work some other way?
I don't really think there's a need to be so hostile. I don't really know how I feel about subjecting international citizens to US law to be honest with you. Certainly in some cases it's appropriate. But in others it seems strange to me.
And undoubtedly I agree that if Putin or Netanyahu pass through Europe they should be arrested. But I'm not sure if that's a legal decision or a political one.
> I don't really think there's a need to be so hostile.
There was no hostile intent or ill feelings. Some things were meant to be humorous, but in good spirits. If anything came across otherwise, that's a communication failure on my part. I'm sorry.
The entire point is to make it into (more of) a legal decision rather than a political one. That's the famed Rule of Law - a Schelling point that multiple parties with diverging interest can work towards to cooperate. It's not arrest Putin/Netanyahu/etc because "they're bad and we don't like them", but rather because they have done specific actions A, B, and C that we've written down to be considered crimes.
Well I think you hit upon an excellent point and one that I'm rather close to, which is legalization. Adopting a uniform procedure to deal with various cases and accord defendants some recourse is admirable. That doesn't make it law, but legalizing those types of proceedings is still valuable. I think Nuremberg rested on shaky grounds as a court, but it was still preferable to either summary execution or disclaiming any punishment on the accused.
Likewise I think where I'm uncertain with Putin is that while he's undoubtedly a nefarious guy and we have written down rules and norms he has broken, those norms do not apply to the Russian world. We claim they apply, but we could only make them apply through force of arms which runs opposite to the rule of law. That is rather the rule of "might makes right."
> we could only make them apply through force of arms which runs opposite to the rule of law
I'd say that these things are not opposites. Rather the rule of law is a way of tempering the power of force of arms. Look at your Nuremberg example - having won the war and enacted occupation by force of arms, the Allies were in a position where they could have simply imposed summary execution. Legalization was a stepping back from this dynamic - likely due to the amount of unilateral killing that had just gone on.
> those norms do not apply to the Russian world
The crux of the matter here is that parties on the receiving end of aggression (Ukraine, Palestine) have assented to adopting those norms. The legalistic theory is that by aggressing onto those parties, the aggressors become subject to the jurisdiction of whom they're aggressing against. I personally don't particularly like this model of international jurisdiction, but it is on solid longstanding ground. And so while I'll argue against this sort of thing at an individual level (especially where the nexus is say electronic communications), I don't feel much sympathy for leaders who end up suffering this dynamic because they decided to attack other countries.
In reality of course yes, to apply those laws requires force of arms - for there even to be something to temper in the first place. So Ukraine/Palestine assenting to those treaties is essentially asking would-be allies to defend them in some well-scoped circumstances, modulo the underlying diplomatic concerns.
I see we went from feigned concern over consent to just open hypocrisy. Telling, and a very appropriate representation of American policy. I wonder why your global power is waning?
So you are saying that USA is entitled to act with criminal intent and it has no one to answer to? If that is the case, why should it be a trusted entity at all as a nation which claims human rights and democratic rights and abiding by laws?
What you will see with a general read of the criticisms in the wiki are indications of bias and several nations in Africa and South America annulling the ICC influence.
The U.S. had peripheral involvement in these actions.
I am upvoting you, as I don't find your line of questioning abrasive enough to warrant down votes.
Well there is always bias but that is not just about bias but having an entity above nation state that can provide a ruling on wrong doings. For example, the most powerful nation on earth occupying some country to extract its resources without any entity than can do anything about it, is criminal wrong doing. Yes there is going to be bias but not if they are providing the evidence.
I am not talking about the current ethnic conflict between Israel and Palestinians because that is a century worth of conflict has gone far beyond what courts can rule on. I am talking about USA absolving itself from being accountable in presence of evidence.
Well a lot of international diplomacy depends on trade and associated meetings. If someone is sanctioned by the ICC then they can't move money or visit any member countries.
It has as much if not more authority to judge crimes commited in the member countries that gave it that authority than Trump has to sanction them in the first place.
How can a nation decide what is and isn't a crime? It's all made up, a "farce" to use your diction. We just choose to go along and build these institutions because living in lawlessness is worse.
Why should we believe in the fantasy of the nation state, but not in the fantasy of international law? It's all just social constructs to create an ordered society that stops the worst excesses.
The sanctions announcement coincided with a former ICC judge, Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her contributions to enlarging the scope and impact of international law. -- https://thehill.com/policy/international/6138693-rubio-impos...
That's neat but it's clearly not why the US imposed sanctions against the ICC, why would the US care? It's because they put out an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and some other high-ranking government officials. Neither the US or Israel is part of the ICC and yet they're attempting to threaten them with arrest/capture
I know there's a lot of (deserved) hate for the current administration, but the ICC situation is somewhat nuanced. You can argue that international law doesn't / shouldn't exist because each country has the right to self-determination, and any disputes on that line are always decided by who has more economic sway or military strength. There's no world police that a smaller and less powerful country can send to arrest the leaders of a more powerful neighbor, unless they find enough friends with fighter jets.
Now, as it happens, the US is one of the most economically and militarily powerful states out there, so they're the closest we have to an actual world police - but again, that police doesn't follow "international law", they act in what they think is the best interest of the West (or the US specifically). That's how all regional powers roll, albeit on a smaller scale. Russia and China make claims to neighboring states, Germany unceremoniously protects its economic interests in the EU, Iran bankrolls terrorists in neighboring states who in turn bomb Iran, and so on.
The ICC is a bit unusual in that it's an initiative of some Western states trying to get the most powerful state to play by their rules. It's a nice try, but also... obviously doomed?
And it's not something the US can ignore, because the court does assert the authority to arrest and try US servicemen and politicians. So this was kinda inevitable, and if you think the sanctions are bad, consider the bipartisan Hague Invasion Act of 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
Thank you for actually addressing the philosophical elephant in the room. There's way too much vitriol substituting rational thought when it comes to courts in general, doubly so for international courts. They are compacts and agreements, no matter what scale you're looking at, and there's a reason depictions of "Justice" as a lady hold scales and a sword. Neither one works without the other. The term "outlaw" used to mean outside the protection of the law, in both directions. What do these courts protect America from?
That being said, sanctioning them feels a bit odd. Might be some latent jingoism but I don't see a threat from the ICC being substantial to US citizens.
No, since we're adults, aware of these nuances, it's not the elephant in the room.
The Elephant in The Room is that this is announced at the Nobel Peace Prize Winner with a relationship with the ICC studied the horrific conditions in Gaza.
That is what is happening here.
This is not a subtle ideological argument about 'international law'.
And since we're adults, two things can be true at the same time. I'm not a fan of the way sanctions are being used, and I'm similarly not a fan of the premise of the ICC.
One can also argue that, exactly because there is the right to self-determination, there is a huge need for a inter-national and super-national organism to ensure that a right of some country doesn't jeopardise the rights of others.
Is the ICC the right organism? Maybe, maybe not; we can argue about that.
I thought the ultimate root of this situation is still 3rd Reich and the realization that, for the most part, the Nazis didn’t break any laws. They passed laws, legally, making all their horrid designs legal, then carried them out.
Which is a long way of saying, there’s a consensus that there are standards higher than national law we may want to uphold.
I know ICC is later, and also US never joined, in a somewhat hypocritical compromise. But at least the purpose and motivation, IMO, are clean and noble.
USA does not seem to comply with its own treaties and agreements and now you are saying that since it is the most powerful country then it is entitled to it. Human rights won't matter only if USA says so but otherwise Americans can yell on top of their lungs that it is being violated elsewhere. That behavior simply means that USA has double standards and seeks to be above the laws and refuses to be accountable. But which laws and which accountability would that be if it can deny that there are laws that would incriminate them in wrong doing! That is by definition a Rouge state.
The American Service-Members' Protection Act has been US law since 2002, and was nicknamed "the Hague Invasion Act, since the act would allow the president to order military action in The Hague, the seat of the ICC, to prevent U.S. or allied officials and military personnel from being prosecuted or detained by the ICC." The sanctions are new, but the posture is old and bipartisan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
Why stop there? Let's do all other collaborative groups that don't put the US and their corrupted agenda first. You wanna be left alone and we don't want to have you so just make the calls.
Yes a judge a Canadian woman was not able to book a hotel since her credit card was cancelled. And other services as well anything needed a credit card to work.
"You start to lose services from American companies, Amazon, Google, potentially Apple, whatever it may be," she told Morning Edition. "Completely randomly, though, you don't know when something's going to happen."
One of those moments came during an ordinary moment at home.
"I went home and Alexa wouldn't talk to me," she told NPR's Steve Inskeep.
Her credit cards, issued in the Netherlands and Canada, were canceled. She has managed to keep some bank accounts, but says her banking services are extremely limited and even small transfers can be blocked.
These reactions are reasonable and are largely due to the US sanctions imposed on European judges at the ICC.
Nicolas Guillou, the French judge, has had all his bank assets in the US frozen; he has been banned from all US digital services (Google, Apple, Visa, Mastercard), as have many of his familly just in case.
There are literally proven war criminals who are not treated in the same way.
Scope of the sanctions is unclear, but it seems unlikely to me. This appears more like "US companies can't do direct business with the ICC organization."
E.g., the ICC ditched Microsoft last year, likely foreseeing this type of action.
Regardless - I think it's safe to assume this isn't happening in a vacuum - there are a number of world players who profit from the collapse of the U.S. And all this trouble started the moment they could use the internet to feed stupid Americans their stupid propaganda.
Europe is getting the same firehose of stupid propaganda and is looking a little shaky. Education and history give Europe an advantage but not immunity. There are stupid people everywhere eager to get their hate on.
Suicide implies something specific happening in a short time.
EU (which is what you presumably mean by "europe") has its own problems, but it do so much in such a short time. UK got close with Brexit, but that's like a single event compared to probably dozens by now by the US in last 2 years.
But you won't see any of that if best you could do was some weak whataboutism.
I think OP was talking in the past tense because they were referring to the rapid decolonization in the 50s. It must have felt similar to some Europeans at the time.
Does this mean that Microsoft or Google can no longer offer services (like mail/office/search etc..) to the ICC? Similar to what happened with the ICC prosecutor last year?
This is not a perfect analogy: when I choose not to join a club, I have a reasonable expectation of that club not declaring me its member, and not fighting me for failing to follow the rules that the club established.
If you go to someone else's house who is a member of that club and has agreed to follow its rules, it's not crazy to think you'd be held to them there.
Which is all the ICC can do to nations that aren't signatories to the Rome statute.
> it's not crazy to think you'd be held to them there.
It's not crazy to think that I won't be served meat if I'm going to a house of a vegetarian. It is however crazy to think that I will be stoned in that house for having eaten meat in the past.
And it's absolutely bonkers to think that I could be driving on my business on the road that just so happens to pass through some property belonging to a vegetarian, who will drag me out of the car and stone me as "a perpetrator of Gallinaceous Ordocide" or something.
We're not talking about eating meat; we're talking about crimes against humanity.
And you would have had to break this law in a territory that also was a signatory of the Rome statute. This isn't some out of jurisdiction or ex post facto form of law.
So for instance, US military personnel couldn't be arrested up for crimes that occured in Iraq, because Iraq is not a signatory of the Rome statute.
So your example doesn't make sense unless you ate meat somewhere else that it was also explicitly banned, and then went to another country that had the same cross agreement to arrest people in the combined territories.
It's really not complicated. You can be prosecuted for crimes committed inside another state even if you were not physically present in that state. When that state has ratified the Rome Statute then you can be prosecuted by the ICC because that state lends its jurisdiction to the ICC.
I think those are the sactions; the US is upset the ICC put out arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Regardless of what you think about Israel, it's easy to see how they might interpret the ICC's actions as a threat.
I was getting rather tired of SV opinions shaping all of our daily lives far outside the SV, but I did not expect that this would be how that would slowly end.
Not a week passes without the US giving other nations very good reasons to cut out any dependencies on anything under their jurisdiction.
Is California now panicking and exiting the United states? That would be really funny.
Some context per the below articles, and as a general IR nerd.
The proximal cause of the sanctions appears to be that the Nobel Peace Prize was won by a former ICC judge, and Trump covets it.
The distal cause is that the US never joined the ICC, arguing that US political & military leaders should not be subject to a binding foreign jurisdiction. This is a longstanding disagreement, with bipartisan consensus in DC.
Putting pressure on this disagreement, the ICC has a warrants out for Netanyahu and others that the current administration views as a political & military ally.
My interpretation is basically: this is a petty move about the Nobel, which builds on a long-simmering disagreement about the role of international law.
I'd say that the longstanding disagreement is used as a pretext today. Hence the need to stress twice the "bipartisan" nature of it, implying, the article suggests, the bipartisan support to this new move.
Isn't the concept of "bipartisan" anything suspicious today? Republicans turned away from most of the "movement conservative" principles in 2017. Rule of law personal responsibility, small local government, free markets, all either ignored or only paid lip service.
Previous bipartisan consensus thus means nothing. Bipartisan consensus now means everyone capitulated to Trump's whim of the day.
Bipartisan consensus means "at this moment, neither party opposes this policy"
It is indeed fragile since, as you point out, it only takes one party (or in Rs case, one person) to eliminate the consensus. Consensus comes and goes.
And yet, it's notable when through the chaos, both parties have consistently maintained lockstep agreement for 30 years.
A lot of these weird actions actually build on long-simmering disagreements. Which is weird - like if a state governor got drunk and tried to shut down immigration enforcement.
Is this a legitimate policy decision? Maybe - but it sure reads like the ranting of a drunk.
I knew we were all doomed 10 years ago when Trump was promoting his wall and claiming Mexico was gonna pay for it. Mexican officials pushed back, saying "We're not paying". Trump responded by telling his supporters that every time Mexico refuses to pay, the wall is gonna get 10 feet taller. That doesn't even make any sense, but MAGA ate it up, simply because it agitated people. That's it.
The picture is much clearer when you accept that they are never jokes.
"They're trolling" is simply a juvenile defense that provides the cult and its members with plausible deniability.
The world might be slightly better off if we'd all taken them seriously from the start, but taking clowns and the accompanying circus seriously is unintuitive to most.
Right, it's the same strategy as when an animal marks territory, seeing if the other animals will resist. They are marking the constitution, many stable norms, the idea that good faith can be assumed, the idea that courts will be obeyed, etc.
Meanwhile the US now has a collapse of due process, concentration camps on domestic soil and abroad, many officials and family members who are suddenly billions of dollars richer, crony firms that are billions richer, and a docile and captive congress that seems unwilling to stop any of it.
It's a big missed opportunity in history that they did not put charges against the war criminals of the Iraq War. They would probably never succeed with these charges, but at least they would have made a statement similar to how Italy declared some Americans as war criminals.
The sanctions announcement coincided with a former ICC judge, Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her contributions to enlarging the scope and impact of international law. -- https://thehill.com/policy/international/6138693-rubio-impos...
The Americans got upset first because the ICC wants to take action against the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people.
But now it just happens to be that their president didn't get the Nobel peace price. The person who did was a judge on the ICC.
It could be a complete coincidence, of course. I mean, if it isn't, it would reinforce the notion of the USA being a clown of a country, which I'm sure Americans would prevent.
> For decades, Republicans and Democrats alike rejected the idea that the International Criminal Court had the power to prosecute American citizens, military servicemembers, or political leaders. America never joined the court. We don’t need it. And we don’t want it.
I mean this is your answer. Regardless of what you think about Israel and their actions, the ICC has no real authority, and there is no government authority above the US that can criminally charge people. Creating fake arrest warrants for people who aren't in your organization is easily interpreted as a threat, and it would be silly to think the US and/or Israel would want to retaliate to the ICC's threats.
Really the moral thing to do would be for the ICC to not try and charge or convict people who aren't part of their organization, since they don't have fair trials, but I suppose that's never how these international organizations work.
The last round of ICC sanctions got everyone here talking about tech sovereignty, now France and Germany are rolling their own productivity suites, the Netherlands are rolling their own NixOS distro, etc etc.
This is just going to further hurt US interests. Biting the hand that feeds, burning down their own empire out of hubris. And Americans voted for this! Twice!
It's time the EU rolls out the Blocking Statute [0] to counteract this nonsense.
Also, bear in mind that the first time he won he lost the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points. We have a voting system that favors less populous states. In 2024 he won the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points. He has never been very popular in this country. But his party controls all branches of government and he controls his party.
It turns out electing a stupid, vengeful narcissist and liar who is at death's door is not the way to go.
There is cantillon effect happening here with respect to trust in govts. media and institutions in general. People are becoming distrustful but slowly. Those who are on internet a lot know about these topics in depth but people farther away take time to adjust to New Reality.
He will try but even the Supreme Court has shown they are willing to place limits on his power, ruling against him in some cases. So I don't think he has a pathway to bypassing the 22nd Amendment.
It's truly bizarre. I think some of his supporters think that they are all in on the joke and that he doesn't mean half of it. But at this point there is zero evidence good faith, zero evidence of strategy. Just one odd PR stunt after another that someone can day trade on if they know about it a few hours in advance.
Unfortunately, we won't know for sure until they're presented with a real case involving the 22nd Amendment.
Given its recent behavior, my prediction is that the Roberts court would drag out hearing any challenge against Trump's 2028 candidacy until such time that they can confidently announce that it's too close to the election to remove him from the ballot, much like they did with his criminal case regarding classified documents leading up to the 2024 election.
As an outside observer, the US administration is an embarrassment to the country. You're never going to come back from this. Well done.
Oh, we are well aware.
Pretty sure even a lot of the current President's voters are slowly coming to this same realization. I predict soon in casual conversation almost no one will have voted for this man.
That's what I thought after he lost in 2020. And yet he came back in 2024 winning even more votes, both in absolute terms and in percentage, than he did in either 2016 or 2020.
Covid was one hell of an excuse, and if there is one thing Grump is good at it's blaming others.
I'm not sure about that! Don't see any evidence of that from where I'm sitting.
They will agree Trump is an idiot but quickly change the conversation to how Democrats are Even Worse.
Got into it at a coin show recently:
"Democrats eat babies, are Satanist, globalists, shadow-government elite that trump is saving us from!": said the Coin Dealer.
I wish I was doing hyperbole... I really wish that I was...
https://www.youtube.com/@TheGoodLiars/videos
You cannot identify idiocy if you are an idiot.
It boggles my mind that people honestly think things would be worse if Harris won.
Pretty much everything that is worse because of decisions that Trump made.
I think Kamala would have been a terrible President but immeasurably better than Trump. She wasn’t openly, brazenly corrupt and self dealing nor an authoritarian with little interest in actual governing or the good of the nation he leads.
This is why you are hearing a lot about his name changing of certain things as well as the go ahead for the public shooting of Hasan. These are loyalty tests. Are you okay with AI being called SI? You're one of us. Do you want to see a public execution? Again, you're one of us. History tells us this is what regimes like this do.
Nah, they are all getting ready to vote for him a fourth time.
Great vote, great administration, regardless of the hn echo chamber.
Trolling? I mean, you cannot be serious right now.
How hard is it to accept that someone thinks differently than you without dropping to insults immediately?
You seem very sensitive if you think someone asking you if you are trolling and asking you if you are being serious is "an insult". If this is what gets under your skin, I shudder at the thought of what the rest of the internet feels like to you. It must be a living nightmare.
Also, where did you get the impression that trolling required the underlying opinion to be falsely held? Whoever taught you that was doing you a disservice.
Those were legitimate questions, not insults.
Corruption and criminality is brazen, prices for everything are through the roof, there's an energy shortage, it started and is losing a new war, third biggest budget deficit in history (this same regime was responsible for the #1 biggest), but sure, everything is going great, comrade, the Party tells you that nothing is wrong.
Whats the timeline on that promised $1.99 gas, again? Or was that going to be $1.99/litre?
That was sarcasm I think. Nobody sane and having iq > 80 is buying those empty talks for a long time.
The rest of folks, he could br singing kumbaja and nothing more and they would still follow
How hard is it to accept that someone thinks differently than you without dropping to insults immediately?
Isn't this trump's modus operandi? He comes up with an insulting name for every person he disagrees with.
Trump was right about one thing. He said we’d be winning so much we’d get tired of winning.
He says we’re winning and I’m tired of it. So i guess that’s another win for Trump!
The rational ones would have switched lilong time ago, even if it means switch to the vacuum.
The ones that remained till now are happy cheering for a constantly lying pedophile who has behavior of a spoiled child and mental capacity of even less. I am not holding my breath anything can move them. Other folks who voted for him and now understand, well drown in shame for all I care, it doesnt change anything since this was obvious years ago and you still voted a childish pedophile in.
Can you imagine voting for his 2024 opponent though? Someone who spent over a year arming genocide? At least Trump eventually forced a semi-ceasefire in Gaza.
Can you imagine voting in 2024 for Trump? Someone who does whatever Israel says? Over 10K Iranians and Americans have died ... for nothing except a whisper in his ear from Netenyahu. Imagine voting for that? Imagine voting for the corruption. Imagine voting for the ICE terrorists. Imaging voting for truckers and farmers losing their jobs.
Can you imagine?
It's funny watching these older movies and tv shows where the presidency was portrayed as being dignified and statesmanlike which now seems so laughably unrealistic.
Yeah. President Camacho would be an improvement.
It’s a travesty but I think “never going to come back from this” is a stretch. There is no immediate replacement for the position the US holds in global politics. China has no interest in being the guarantor of freedom of transit in international waterways, to pick one example.
You're talking about some kind of projection in hard power. it's likely that the US will continue to wield the most hard power for the foreseeable future (though this war with iran has exposed logistics issues in that, as well as drained important armaments that will take years to recover).
The bigger loss is in soft power, the power that comes from economics, having the worlds reserve currency, and even the trust and respect of our allies.
> China has no interest in being the guarantor of freedom of transit in international waterways
Neither does the US anymore.
US influence has gone up in the smoke of broken economic agreements, psychotic bloviation, and tariff wars.
If all you can do is threaten other people/countries to stand beside you, you have no friends.
Well really most of the consumers of the goodness that the US represented in international politics, including your example, are just being lazy and hoping the US will cover their arses. The sudden, stark realisation that they have been exposed by the instability of the US really kicked off the sovereign initiatives.
Bridges are burned that will never be rebuilt.
Well, the number one beneficiary of US soft power was the US itself. It's just that many can't/won't see the harm that follows from losing that power.
> China has no interest in being the guarantor of freedom of transit in international waterways
What makes you think of this? Also, why wouldn't China pick up this role, when they heavily rely on this, or why wouldn't bilateral agreements be enough?
Guarantor, you must be kidding. It is actually causing transit blockage to name one instance.
> China has no interest in being the guarantor of freedom of transit in international waterways, to pick one example.
The Strait of Hormuz has entered the chat.
So much of American "power" in the past few decades has been based on perception, not reality. And other major powers, including China, have largely played along because it has suited their interests too.
But it's a mistake to assume that just because other major powers haven't sought conflict with the US, it means they're not capable of challenging America's power credibly in certain regions and domains.
Of note: the US doesn't even have an aircraft carrier in the Pacific right now. The only thing keeping China from, say, moving on Taiwan, is Pete Hegseth's testosterone.
Just because someone cannot replace the US does not mean things go back to where they were. We get the "multipolar world" AKA chaos.
It's not just this administration. The US helped create this court and pushed other countries to join, but never joined themselves and always threatened the court if they indicted or judged American people.
There's an US law that says the US will invade Belgium (edit: Netherlands) if the court wanted to investigate an American (???)
I remember Hillary Clinton, in the Obama administration, saying the US is an exceptional country that deserves exceptional conditions regarding this issue
It's frankly ridiculous
Netherlands, not Belgium. Though with the quality of US targeting, it's possible they might accidentally invade Belgium instead.
I don't get it... Why would any other country handicap themselves by joining such an obviously corrupt court that judges them but not the US?
Pretty wild that the US has a law that literally says it must invade another country if they judge Americans for war crimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
> Why would any other country handicap themselves by joining such an obviously corrupt court that judges them but not the US?
It's not a corrupt court. It has judged crimes against humanity cases before, and a lot of countries give credence to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_indicted_in_the... the people in this list all deserve to be there, I can't see a single exception
My own country (Brazil) supported South Africa charges of genocide against Israel because we believe in this court and the role it fulfills.
For me, the sole problem with this court is that it's reluctant to judge American war crimes and crimes against humanity. But as Europe leaves the US sphere of influence, maybe they will grow a spine. It would be unfortunate if people like George W Bush, Dick Cheney, John Choon Yoo and Jay Scott Bybee died before they were indicted by this court.
its only this administration, its the whole Congress and Uniparty in DC
The US is an embarrassment to the Planet.
I wish it was just that. Existential threat is the term I'd use at this point.
Republicans are an embarrassment to the country. They've got some understandable gripes, but have been led around by the nose by corporate propaganda for decades. And then they comfort themselves by pointing the ways Democrats are similarly led, but still never perform one iota of self reflection to examine how their own movements invariably end up stillborn.
For example take a core grassroots issue - immigration reform. Slowly building support for decades against the corpo imperative for cheap labor. But after it finally gets critical mass, what does this actually result in? A personal enrichment shakedown dynamic for employers of imported labor, concentration camps, and homicidal gangs of jackboots roaming the streets itching to summarily execute people for exercising their Constitutional/natural rights. All that hard earned political capital squandered on nothing more than a performative con man "for the cause". And in a few years we'll be right back to hearing their pissing and moaning about Democrats being responsible, even though they did it to themselves.
(signed, a libertarian)
It's worse than an embarrassment - it is an indictment of democracy itself. It is difficult to imagine a people - on paper the richest, most educated and healthiest in the history of the world - intentionally choosing a real villain as their duly-elected leader. They elected a man whose outrages, corruptions, selfishness, malice and outright crimes are so egregious and obvious that the problem becomes organizing so long a list into a workable taxonomy. But he's not done this alone - SCOTUS is in his pocket and truly made him above the law. The Republicans have enabled him by staying silent and riding on his coattails - the most "principled" of them have retired. Media is consolidated and owned by the oligarchs he calls friends. He has a personal paramilitary force (ICE) roaming the streets, killing people, and who will be "observing" the mid-term elections.
The root of the problem is in the collective mind of Americans. We are the problem - we've been hacked to be both stupid and proud of that stupidity, to cease recognizing "character" or "virtue" as a signal, to cease caring about reality that doesn't support opinions that were installed on us, like malware, or anything really except entertainment. Because that's the ONE thing we do get out of all this - we get to be entertained. How funny when he says outlandish things like immigrants are eating the cats, eating the dogs! How hilarious (and macho!) when he brags about grabbing women. How wonderful it is to see the discomfiture of the libs when he parrots Nazi propaganda or when he encouraged the Proud Boys to storm the capital to overturn his loss, and then his lackeys claimed it either didn't happen or was a false flag. "Hang Mike Pence!" is what an obese, fentanyl- and TikTok-addicted mind thinks is doing something! And hey, you can say "retard" again without getting canceled.
I've got kids and I'm terrified for them.
> It is difficult to imagine a people - on paper the richest, most educated and healthiest in the history of the world - intentionally choosing a real villain as their duly-elected leader.
Arguably the richest in terms of the GDP per capita, but I don't think Americans have ever been the most educated or healthiest in the world.
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/
We'll see how the midterm civil war goes, but I'm guessing you should take your kids out of that place if only to offer them a future where this is no longer an option.
> It's worse than an embarrassment - it is an indictment of democracy itself.
Democracy is fine and well, it's an indictment of americans. Considering the 2 times this century the popular vote winner didn't get into power. And that the current president was given power twice.
> It is difficult to imagine a people - on paper the richest, most educated and healthiest in the history of the world -
The fact that you think these are true is part of the problem.
The qualification "on paper" was important, and seems to have been lost on you. BTW democracy itself is not okay - backsliding is rampant across the world, as are education scores, and the one commonality is the internet. The problem with America specifically is that we do have a lot of money, a lot of power and so the destruction we specifically can cause is much greater than, say, Turkey or the UK.
What are you talking about. US's congress and senate are completely silent and approving what is obvious corruption. It is very unlikely that Americans didn't know about the corruption during the first pass and it extremely unlikely that their representatives don't know. They don't act, either because they approve it or that democracy is no longer. Take your pick.
Most Americans agree with you at this point.
Just on the record I sympathise with you. Wish it could have been different for the sake of the good people over there.
(I am from the country that voted to leave the EU...)
Sometimes you need to touch the stove and get burned to learn that its hot. This is something that tends to be repeated once people forget about the last time they (as a collective nation) touched the stove.
Sometimes it can be learned with a simple first degree burn. Sometimes you get blisters. Sometimes the government in power is determined to hold their hand to it and get third degree burns.
Hopefully the pain from this round of burns can be remembered for a while longer before its repeated again.
Sometimes it's touching a hot stove. Sometimes it's putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger to see if it's loaded.
I would love to believe you, but it's going to take a handful of election cycles to be convinced.
My largest problem with the statement is the utterly false claim that sanctions for the ICC have bipartisan support.
> You're never going to come back from this.
This seems like an overstatement. After all, Germany came back from Nazism.
I also think this is not a uniquely American problem. If anything, the US is a political bellwether. And I would note that Australian Rupert Murdoch for example has been funding right-wing propaganda in the US, as well as some other countries, for decades. (Donald Trump himself is known as a voracious consumer of right-wing media. He's in their target demographic.) In addition to donating massive amounts of money to US Republicans, South African Elon Musk has also taken an interest in other countries such as the UK. The Israel lobby is of course very powerful in the US. This is an international problem. As arguably the most powerful nation in the world, the US is a natural target for those who would abuse that power.
> This seems like an overstatement. After all, Germany came back from Nazism.
So all we have to do to come back from it is have Nuremberg style trials for GOP leadership and to ban their ideology and symbology from being displayed in the country?
And they are sliding back into it again apparently.
Those extreme measures were the aftermath of a world war. We haven't reached that point, or even the equivalent of the Reichstag fire, at least not yet. We don't have quite as far to come back.
Parents spend considerable time teaching children to not get caught up in other people's opinions.
Yes, and then children grow up and realize that how "other people" act on "other people's opinions" has real direct and indirect effects on their lives.
The International Criminal Court is a farce. How can you tell other sovereign nation what is a "crime" or what "is not a crime"? It has literally zero authority to decide such matters.
You appear to be confused. Anyone can decide anything, the question is whether it is in their power to enforce their decisions.
Saying that they don't have authority to make a decision implies that there's some universal set of rules that internationally lays down what anyone's authority is - precisely the kind of thing you appear to be opposed to, because such a set of rules would likely need a court!
> Anyone can decide anything, the question is whether it is on their power to enforce their decisions.
You seem to have arrived at a suitable definition of "authority"
"authority" is an overloaded term in English, but "having authority" isn't. The latter implies a set of rules.
Seems to be a rather silly, pedantic point if it even passes. GP was clearly talking about sovereignty etc. which is exactly the caveat that you granted - that ICC may have no enforcement power over non-treaty countries. For the record I have no axe to grind with the ICC, but you and GP literally agree on the main difficulty facing the institution.
This is exactly the kind of discussion where the difference is important. Your reading of the point they were trying to make is impressively charitable. I shall try to learn from it.
If the point is that anyone can tell anyone else anything, that's vacuously true but a court typically wields the power of a state and its code of laws. For treaty countries ICC is perfectly unproblematic but for nontreaty countries there's a strong difficulty in calling it a court as it bears no legal legitimacy.
National courts routinely issue arrest warrants and rulings for persons of other nationalities, who could currently be located anywhere in the world. The ICC is not special in that regard.
Right and you can imagine how much authority the average Russian lends to an American arrest warrant.
> Right and you can imagine how much authority the average Russian lends to an American arrest warrant.
I have to applaud coming up with a sentence like that. The same sort of beauty one might find in an Escher piece.
Let me address the point underlying that contortion by asking a question: In the alternate semantic universe we're constructing, if that Russian later passes through a US-friendly country and is arrested, did the US court turn out to retroactively have had the authority to issue the warrant, and we pretend it always had it, or is it supposed to work some other way?
I don't really think there's a need to be so hostile. I don't really know how I feel about subjecting international citizens to US law to be honest with you. Certainly in some cases it's appropriate. But in others it seems strange to me.
And undoubtedly I agree that if Putin or Netanyahu pass through Europe they should be arrested. But I'm not sure if that's a legal decision or a political one.
> I don't really think there's a need to be so hostile.
There was no hostile intent or ill feelings. Some things were meant to be humorous, but in good spirits. If anything came across otherwise, that's a communication failure on my part. I'm sorry.
The entire point is to make it into (more of) a legal decision rather than a political one. That's the famed Rule of Law - a Schelling point that multiple parties with diverging interest can work towards to cooperate. It's not arrest Putin/Netanyahu/etc because "they're bad and we don't like them", but rather because they have done specific actions A, B, and C that we've written down to be considered crimes.
Well I think you hit upon an excellent point and one that I'm rather close to, which is legalization. Adopting a uniform procedure to deal with various cases and accord defendants some recourse is admirable. That doesn't make it law, but legalizing those types of proceedings is still valuable. I think Nuremberg rested on shaky grounds as a court, but it was still preferable to either summary execution or disclaiming any punishment on the accused.
Likewise I think where I'm uncertain with Putin is that while he's undoubtedly a nefarious guy and we have written down rules and norms he has broken, those norms do not apply to the Russian world. We claim they apply, but we could only make them apply through force of arms which runs opposite to the rule of law. That is rather the rule of "might makes right."
> we could only make them apply through force of arms which runs opposite to the rule of law
I'd say that these things are not opposites. Rather the rule of law is a way of tempering the power of force of arms. Look at your Nuremberg example - having won the war and enacted occupation by force of arms, the Allies were in a position where they could have simply imposed summary execution. Legalization was a stepping back from this dynamic - likely due to the amount of unilateral killing that had just gone on.
> those norms do not apply to the Russian world
The crux of the matter here is that parties on the receiving end of aggression (Ukraine, Palestine) have assented to adopting those norms. The legalistic theory is that by aggressing onto those parties, the aggressors become subject to the jurisdiction of whom they're aggressing against. I personally don't particularly like this model of international jurisdiction, but it is on solid longstanding ground. And so while I'll argue against this sort of thing at an individual level (especially where the nexus is say electronic communications), I don't feel much sympathy for leaders who end up suffering this dynamic because they decided to attack other countries.
In reality of course yes, to apply those laws requires force of arms - for there even to be something to temper in the first place. So Ukraine/Palestine assenting to those treaties is essentially asking would-be allies to defend them in some well-scoped circumstances, modulo the underlying diplomatic concerns.
The International Criminal Court was created by a treaty between sovereign nations. These nations chose to for it to have authority over them.
> These nations chose to for it to have authority over them.
Refresh my memory, what did USA choose about that?
So far the last several Presidents of the USA have decided they don't want that.
If you equate what the Presidents of the USA want to what the USA itself wants, then the USA have decided they don't want that.
If not, then you'd need to organize a referendum and let the population itself decide on a one person, one vote basis.
Where the "what" is human rights. Pretty much horrific things I'd rather not describe.
Then they got mad that the rest of the world didn't approve of actually doing the horrific things.
And then no one wanted to buy bonds from the country endorsing the horrific acts.
> If not, then you'd need to organize a referendum and let the population itself decide on a one person, one vote basis.
Our founders smartly chose against direct democracy. The more I look around, the more right I see they were.
They didn't. But they're big mad that ICC put out warrants for Netanyahu etc.
EDIT: forgot the peace prize, trump likely mad over that again.
The US created its predecessor with the Nuremberg Trials. (Which I'm pretty sure Nazi Germany never signed up for, fwiw)
Rules for thee, not for me.
Rules apply to those on whom they are enforced by those who can enforce. News at 11.
I see we went from feigned concern over consent to just open hypocrisy. Telling, and a very appropriate representation of American policy. I wonder why your global power is waning?
Nothing to do with America. This is how the world works.
Again, you started by talking about consent.
This pivot to brute force exposes the hypocrisy not in the world, but specifically in America, as represented by the American citizen I am talking to.
It's also not "how the world works", it's how the world works while America has the power to make it work that way.
Thankfully, it is a self-defeating approach.
There is indeed a long list of criticisms of the ICC.
The U.S., along with China, India, Russia, and many other nations, are not members and do not grant any weight to ICC rulings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#C...
So you are saying that USA is entitled to act with criminal intent and it has no one to answer to? If that is the case, why should it be a trusted entity at all as a nation which claims human rights and democratic rights and abiding by laws?
What you will see with a general read of the criticisms in the wiki are indications of bias and several nations in Africa and South America annulling the ICC influence.
The U.S. had peripheral involvement in these actions.
I am upvoting you, as I don't find your line of questioning abrasive enough to warrant down votes.
Well there is always bias but that is not just about bias but having an entity above nation state that can provide a ruling on wrong doings. For example, the most powerful nation on earth occupying some country to extract its resources without any entity than can do anything about it, is criminal wrong doing. Yes there is going to be bias but not if they are providing the evidence.
I am not talking about the current ethnic conflict between Israel and Palestinians because that is a century worth of conflict has gone far beyond what courts can rule on. I am talking about USA absolving itself from being accountable in presence of evidence.
Well a lot of international diplomacy depends on trade and associated meetings. If someone is sanctioned by the ICC then they can't move money or visit any member countries.
That is authority if you like it or not.
The treaties a country signs up to is a good start on defining what constitutes crimes.
Germany in the 30/40s, no notes?
It has as much if not more authority to judge crimes commited in the member countries that gave it that authority than Trump has to sanction them in the first place.
Quite simply because you are allowed to set up international organizations by treaty.
How can a nation decide what is and isn't a crime? It's all made up, a "farce" to use your diction. We just choose to go along and build these institutions because living in lawlessness is worse.
Why should we believe in the fantasy of the nation state, but not in the fantasy of international law? It's all just social constructs to create an ordered society that stops the worst excesses.
The sanctions announcement coincided with a former ICC judge, Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her contributions to enlarging the scope and impact of international law. -- https://thehill.com/policy/international/6138693-rubio-impos...
Dr. Pillay also chaired the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory from 2021 to 2025.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2026/pillay/facts/
Cry cry, Netanyahu isn't a war criminal. Waa waa, this guy got the Nobel Prize and I didn't.
oh that matches. Current admin must feel guilty/wary of something. "Best defense is attack" type of reasoning. There is no reason otherwise.
That's neat but it's clearly not why the US imposed sanctions against the ICC, why would the US care? It's because they put out an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and some other high-ranking government officials. Neither the US or Israel is part of the ICC and yet they're attempting to threaten them with arrest/capture
I know there's a lot of (deserved) hate for the current administration, but the ICC situation is somewhat nuanced. You can argue that international law doesn't / shouldn't exist because each country has the right to self-determination, and any disputes on that line are always decided by who has more economic sway or military strength. There's no world police that a smaller and less powerful country can send to arrest the leaders of a more powerful neighbor, unless they find enough friends with fighter jets.
Now, as it happens, the US is one of the most economically and militarily powerful states out there, so they're the closest we have to an actual world police - but again, that police doesn't follow "international law", they act in what they think is the best interest of the West (or the US specifically). That's how all regional powers roll, albeit on a smaller scale. Russia and China make claims to neighboring states, Germany unceremoniously protects its economic interests in the EU, Iran bankrolls terrorists in neighboring states who in turn bomb Iran, and so on.
The ICC is a bit unusual in that it's an initiative of some Western states trying to get the most powerful state to play by their rules. It's a nice try, but also... obviously doomed? And it's not something the US can ignore, because the court does assert the authority to arrest and try US servicemen and politicians. So this was kinda inevitable, and if you think the sanctions are bad, consider the bipartisan Hague Invasion Act of 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
Thank you for actually addressing the philosophical elephant in the room. There's way too much vitriol substituting rational thought when it comes to courts in general, doubly so for international courts. They are compacts and agreements, no matter what scale you're looking at, and there's a reason depictions of "Justice" as a lady hold scales and a sword. Neither one works without the other. The term "outlaw" used to mean outside the protection of the law, in both directions. What do these courts protect America from?
That being said, sanctioning them feels a bit odd. Might be some latent jingoism but I don't see a threat from the ICC being substantial to US citizens.
No, since we're adults, aware of these nuances, it's not the elephant in the room.
The Elephant in The Room is that this is announced at the Nobel Peace Prize Winner with a relationship with the ICC studied the horrific conditions in Gaza.
That is what is happening here.
This is not a subtle ideological argument about 'international law'.
And since we're adults, two things can be true at the same time. I'm not a fan of the way sanctions are being used, and I'm similarly not a fan of the premise of the ICC.
I agree - but 'since we are adults we already recognize those things can be true at the same time' is my point.
That is not the Elephant, it's a 'helpful reminder'.
The Elephant is the UN / Peace Prize / Gaza / Vengeance Politics / AIPAC directed foreign policy.
> No, since we're adults, aware of these nuances, it's not the elephant in the room.
You'd be surprised. People aware of such nuances are usually a very small minority in any room.
you can argue many things. This isn't arguing.
One can also argue that, exactly because there is the right to self-determination, there is a huge need for a inter-national and super-national organism to ensure that a right of some country doesn't jeopardise the rights of others.
Is the ICC the right organism? Maybe, maybe not; we can argue about that.
I thought the ultimate root of this situation is still 3rd Reich and the realization that, for the most part, the Nazis didn’t break any laws. They passed laws, legally, making all their horrid designs legal, then carried them out.
Which is a long way of saying, there’s a consensus that there are standards higher than national law we may want to uphold.
I know ICC is later, and also US never joined, in a somewhat hypocritical compromise. But at least the purpose and motivation, IMO, are clean and noble.
USA does not seem to comply with its own treaties and agreements and now you are saying that since it is the most powerful country then it is entitled to it. Human rights won't matter only if USA says so but otherwise Americans can yell on top of their lungs that it is being violated elsewhere. That behavior simply means that USA has double standards and seeks to be above the laws and refuses to be accountable. But which laws and which accountability would that be if it can deny that there are laws that would incriminate them in wrong doing! That is by definition a Rouge state.
The American Service-Members' Protection Act has been US law since 2002, and was nicknamed "the Hague Invasion Act, since the act would allow the president to order military action in The Hague, the seat of the ICC, to prevent U.S. or allied officials and military personnel from being prosecuted or detained by the ICC." The sanctions are new, but the posture is old and bipartisan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
The article is (probably purposefully) unclear of what actually is happening here... what sanctions are being applied, to whom, and to what effect?
> America never joined the court. We don’t need it. And we don’t want it.
Wow, so tough, much decision
Why stop there? Let's do all other collaborative groups that don't put the US and their corrupted agenda first. You wanna be left alone and we don't want to have you so just make the calls.
Meanwhile, the EU is working on further entrenching payment and identity into American service providers (mainly: Apple and Google).
Do these sanctions also affect anyone working at the ICC?
Yes a judge a Canadian woman was not able to book a hotel since her credit card was cancelled. And other services as well anything needed a credit card to work.
https://www.npr.org/2026/10/01/nx-s1-5977815/trump-icc-sanct...
"You start to lose services from American companies, Amazon, Google, potentially Apple, whatever it may be," she told Morning Edition. "Completely randomly, though, you don't know when something's going to happen."
One of those moments came during an ordinary moment at home.
"I went home and Alexa wouldn't talk to me," she told NPR's Steve Inskeep.
Her credit cards, issued in the Netherlands and Canada, were canceled. She has managed to keep some bank accounts, but says her banking services are extremely limited and even small transfers can be blocked.
Bitcoin FTW.
Try using that at the grocery store or fuel pump.
Crypto exchanges are not immune to sanctions. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sb0598
These reactions are reasonable and are largely due to the US sanctions imposed on European judges at the ICC.
Nicolas Guillou, the French judge, has had all his bank assets in the US frozen; he has been banned from all US digital services (Google, Apple, Visa, Mastercard), as have many of his familly just in case.
There are literally proven war criminals who are not treated in the same way.
Scope of the sanctions is unclear, but it seems unlikely to me. This appears more like "US companies can't do direct business with the ICC organization."
E.g., the ICC ditched Microsoft last year, likely foreseeing this type of action.
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1ommt2f/the_int...
I believe the term is 'superpower suicide'. Amazing to see it in real-time.
Is that really a term?
Regardless - I think it's safe to assume this isn't happening in a vacuum - there are a number of world players who profit from the collapse of the U.S. And all this trouble started the moment they could use the internet to feed stupid Americans their stupid propaganda.
Europe is getting the same firehose of stupid propaganda and is looking a little shaky. Education and history give Europe an advantage but not immunity. There are stupid people everywhere eager to get their hate on.
Well... yeah... Brexit is exactly the same thing. But now it's moving to the continent....
People are really dumb. Who knew?
Is that what happened to europe?
Suicide implies something specific happening in a short time.
EU (which is what you presumably mean by "europe") has its own problems, but it do so much in such a short time. UK got close with Brexit, but that's like a single event compared to probably dozens by now by the US in last 2 years.
But you won't see any of that if best you could do was some weak whataboutism.
I think OP was talking in the past tense because they were referring to the rapid decolonization in the 50s. It must have felt similar to some Europeans at the time.
Does this mean that Microsoft or Google can no longer offer services (like mail/office/search etc..) to the ICC? Similar to what happened with the ICC prosecutor last year?
Yes, the CPI did manage to move out Microsoft / Google. I bet Apple is harder to escape.
That's the kind of thing only a rogue state would do.
If you choose not to join a club, you don’t need to try to “cripple its ability to operate”.
This is not a perfect analogy: when I choose not to join a club, I have a reasonable expectation of that club not declaring me its member, and not fighting me for failing to follow the rules that the club established.
If you go to someone else's house who is a member of that club and has agreed to follow its rules, it's not crazy to think you'd be held to them there.
Which is all the ICC can do to nations that aren't signatories to the Rome statute.
> it's not crazy to think you'd be held to them there.
It's not crazy to think that I won't be served meat if I'm going to a house of a vegetarian. It is however crazy to think that I will be stoned in that house for having eaten meat in the past.
And it's absolutely bonkers to think that I could be driving on my business on the road that just so happens to pass through some property belonging to a vegetarian, who will drag me out of the car and stone me as "a perpetrator of Gallinaceous Ordocide" or something.
We're not talking about eating meat; we're talking about crimes against humanity.
And you would have had to break this law in a territory that also was a signatory of the Rome statute. This isn't some out of jurisdiction or ex post facto form of law.
So for instance, US military personnel couldn't be arrested up for crimes that occured in Iraq, because Iraq is not a signatory of the Rome statute.
So your example doesn't make sense unless you ate meat somewhere else that it was also explicitly banned, and then went to another country that had the same cross agreement to arrest people in the combined territories.
It's really not complicated. You can be prosecuted for crimes committed inside another state even if you were not physically present in that state. When that state has ratified the Rome Statute then you can be prosecuted by the ICC because that state lends its jurisdiction to the ICC.
The 'club' is 'humanity' in this case, we're all in it together and that's it.
You do if they're bullying you for not joining.
Just like the US is bullying them for let me check: dare to try perosnally having a bank account and do online payments.
I think those are the sactions; the US is upset the ICC put out arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and his Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Regardless of what you think about Israel, it's easy to see how they might interpret the ICC's actions as a threat.
Did a child write this? So embarrassing to be an American.
There's probably a reason they write these at the 3rd- to 4th-grade level. Trump doesn't really talk much above that. I'm honestly not sure why.
The silver lining is this was clearly not AI-generated.
I dunno... have you ever asked an AI to talk like Trump?
I was getting rather tired of SV opinions shaping all of our daily lives far outside the SV, but I did not expect that this would be how that would slowly end.
Not a week passes without the US giving other nations very good reasons to cut out any dependencies on anything under their jurisdiction.
Is California now panicking and exiting the United states? That would be really funny.
No panic at all. The ICC is irrelevant to anyone here's day to day life.
- from California with love.
So just when the whole Greenland debacle seemed to be settled, it's time to create another rift with the EU.
"We will ban transactions with this rogue court, cutting off their resources and crippling its ability to operate."
How much are we talking about? A few million? Less?
All of this, because one war criminal can't come to Europe anymore
> "Either the ICC will end its threats, or we will end the ICC."
Are the ICC already terrorists, or not yet? Asking for a friend who doesn't want to get bombed.
N-th amendment festivities intensifies. What happens in america, must stay in america. That's what world we want to live in.
The rest of the world need to wake up... 20 years ago.
"I'll take International Politics for $200 Alex"
"The answer is YES!"
Is it "Are we the baddies?"
ding ding ding ding
Some context per the below articles, and as a general IR nerd.
The proximal cause of the sanctions appears to be that the Nobel Peace Prize was won by a former ICC judge, and Trump covets it.
The distal cause is that the US never joined the ICC, arguing that US political & military leaders should not be subject to a binding foreign jurisdiction. This is a longstanding disagreement, with bipartisan consensus in DC.
Putting pressure on this disagreement, the ICC has a warrants out for Netanyahu and others that the current administration views as a political & military ally.
My interpretation is basically: this is a petty move about the Nobel, which builds on a long-simmering disagreement about the role of international law.
https://apnews.com/article/us-icc-trump-rubio-4ea3555403e3c6... https://www.reuters.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-internati...
I'd say that the longstanding disagreement is used as a pretext today. Hence the need to stress twice the "bipartisan" nature of it, implying, the article suggests, the bipartisan support to this new move.
Isn't the concept of "bipartisan" anything suspicious today? Republicans turned away from most of the "movement conservative" principles in 2017. Rule of law personal responsibility, small local government, free markets, all either ignored or only paid lip service.
Previous bipartisan consensus thus means nothing. Bipartisan consensus now means everyone capitulated to Trump's whim of the day.
Bipartisan consensus means "at this moment, neither party opposes this policy"
It is indeed fragile since, as you point out, it only takes one party (or in Rs case, one person) to eliminate the consensus. Consensus comes and goes.
And yet, it's notable when through the chaos, both parties have consistently maintained lockstep agreement for 30 years.
In my state, early voting in the US midterm elections start on October 17. That's just eight days from now.
Thank goodness.
I'm confused, if you're not a criminal, what have you got to hide?
See the similarity here...?
It's hard to tell which executive orders are meant as a joke and which are meant as sincere (but horrible) policy perspectives.
I suspect this one was actually meant as a joke, although it is not remotely funny in my opinion.
Someone in Trump's orbit who writes them gets an immature charge out of trolling people.
So far my prediction about Trump have sadly been correct: The US is getting weaker and poorer every day.
A lot of these weird actions actually build on long-simmering disagreements. Which is weird - like if a state governor got drunk and tried to shut down immigration enforcement.
Is this a legitimate policy decision? Maybe - but it sure reads like the ranting of a drunk.
A world in which official statements from the US State Department and a joke are indistinguishable.
> ...gets an immature charge out of trolling people.
That describes MAGA perfectly.
They'll eat a shit sandwich if it means others have to smell their breath.
Love the description ^^^
I knew we were all doomed 10 years ago when Trump was promoting his wall and claiming Mexico was gonna pay for it. Mexican officials pushed back, saying "We're not paying". Trump responded by telling his supporters that every time Mexico refuses to pay, the wall is gonna get 10 feet taller. That doesn't even make any sense, but MAGA ate it up, simply because it agitated people. That's it.
The picture is much clearer when you accept that they are never jokes.
"They're trolling" is simply a juvenile defense that provides the cult and its members with plausible deniability.
The world might be slightly better off if we'd all taken them seriously from the start, but taking clowns and the accompanying circus seriously is unintuitive to most.
Right, it's the same strategy as when an animal marks territory, seeing if the other animals will resist. They are marking the constitution, many stable norms, the idea that good faith can be assumed, the idea that courts will be obeyed, etc.
Meanwhile the US now has a collapse of due process, concentration camps on domestic soil and abroad, many officials and family members who are suddenly billions of dollars richer, crony firms that are billions richer, and a docile and captive congress that seems unwilling to stop any of it.
"If they do not, the United States will continue its campaign to dismantle the ICC, brick by brick, until Americans are threatened no longer."
- Are We the Baddies?
It's a big missed opportunity in history that they did not put charges against the war criminals of the Iraq War. They would probably never succeed with these charges, but at least they would have made a statement similar to how Italy declared some Americans as war criminals.
I don't understand why this is such an urgent topic. Is ICC currently prosecuting an US citizen?
The sanctions announcement coincided with a former ICC judge, Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her contributions to enlarging the scope and impact of international law. -- https://thehill.com/policy/international/6138693-rubio-impos...
Even worse!!
https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/netanyahu
An Israeli citizen probably.
The Americans got upset first because the ICC wants to take action against the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people.
But now it just happens to be that their president didn't get the Nobel peace price. The person who did was a judge on the ICC.
It could be a complete coincidence, of course. I mean, if it isn't, it would reinforce the notion of the USA being a clown of a country, which I'm sure Americans would prevent.
Shameful
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50021066
ROFL… the hubris is strong
These "independent" organizations are usually just cliques without any kind of democratic oversight. Trump at least was elected.
> For decades, Republicans and Democrats alike rejected the idea that the International Criminal Court had the power to prosecute American citizens, military servicemembers, or political leaders. America never joined the court. We don’t need it. And we don’t want it.
I mean this is your answer. Regardless of what you think about Israel and their actions, the ICC has no real authority, and there is no government authority above the US that can criminally charge people. Creating fake arrest warrants for people who aren't in your organization is easily interpreted as a threat, and it would be silly to think the US and/or Israel would want to retaliate to the ICC's threats.
Really the moral thing to do would be for the ICC to not try and charge or convict people who aren't part of their organization, since they don't have fair trials, but I suppose that's never how these international organizations work.
Yikes.
Another match lighting US soft power on fire
The last round of ICC sanctions got everyone here talking about tech sovereignty, now France and Germany are rolling their own productivity suites, the Netherlands are rolling their own NixOS distro, etc etc.
This is just going to further hurt US interests. Biting the hand that feeds, burning down their own empire out of hubris. And Americans voted for this! Twice!
It's time the EU rolls out the Blocking Statute [0] to counteract this nonsense.
[0] https://finance.ec.europa.eu/eu-and-world/open-strategic-aut...
> And Americans voted for this! Twice!
For many Americans, three times!
And for many Americans, never.
Also, bear in mind that the first time he won he lost the popular vote by 2.1 percentage points. We have a voting system that favors less populous states. In 2024 he won the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points. He has never been very popular in this country. But his party controls all branches of government and he controls his party.
It turns out electing a stupid, vengeful narcissist and liar who is at death's door is not the way to go.
I have read here on this here HN, that "soft power" does not in fact exist, and therefore cannot be lost!
So, good news I guess. Everything is fine. Trump is the best president ever in the history of the world.
There is cantillon effect happening here with respect to trust in govts. media and institutions in general. People are becoming distrustful but slowly. Those who are on internet a lot know about these topics in depth but people farther away take time to adjust to New Reality.
This place is populated by people that have rotted out their intelligence and morals by obsessively reading and regurgitating “rationalist” blogspam.
Will Trump be able to change the law so that he becomes a lifetime dictator of USA?
He will try but even the Supreme Court has shown they are willing to place limits on his power, ruling against him in some cases. So I don't think he has a pathway to bypassing the 22nd Amendment.
I think that decision is still a bit in flux and won't truly be made until late 2027.
At the end of the day, the law is what people agree it is… And people don’t seem to be too interested in keeping the lunatic in check.
It's truly bizarre. I think some of his supporters think that they are all in on the joke and that he doesn't mean half of it. But at this point there is zero evidence good faith, zero evidence of strategy. Just one odd PR stunt after another that someone can day trade on if they know about it a few hours in advance.
The Supreme Court doesn't seem too interested in letting the 22nd Amendment slide.
Even they have their limits.
Unfortunately, we won't know for sure until they're presented with a real case involving the 22nd Amendment.
Given its recent behavior, my prediction is that the Roberts court would drag out hearing any challenge against Trump's 2028 candidacy until such time that they can confidently announce that it's too close to the election to remove him from the ballot, much like they did with his criminal case regarding classified documents leading up to the 2024 election.
Putin would hope so because there's no other way.
He does not seem to care much for laws in general. Why change them when you can just ignore them? Much less work.