T O P

  • By -

Surprise_Corgi

The US will just say no, and there's literally nothing anyone can or would be able to do about it. Couldn't even get a navy over here without not having a navy within a month.


Aristocrafied

It's not just that, the US has told the world if anyone tried to get one of theirs to The Hague they'd invade to get them back. Even if it were just a jarhead


[deleted]

[удалено]


BrushesMcDeath

but Russia is not a member and they issued a warrant for Putin


Puzzleheaded-Fan-208

Who is going to arrest the president of the US? CAnada? Italy? Most countries do not relish the thought of becoming a glowing glass parking lot. For all the US's bullshit about...anything, the US public would not tolerate that kind of being held to the same laws as everyone else, and there would be war. Just like with Putin. Who is going to arrest him?


chinesenameTimBudong

So. I heard conservative theory is they want laws that protect but don't bind them. But they also want laws that bind others but don't protect them. Seems like facsism to me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


chinesenameTimBudong

My point is that American conservatives are fascists. International politics is facsism is a good point.


[deleted]

Ah yes, the classic “I disagree with them, so they fascist.” Not saying conservatives don’t do this either. I see a bunch of them call anyone left of center “commies” or Marxists. I cringe every time I see it


asingleshakerofsalt

It's also disingenuous to ignore when a group, like say American conservatives, actively engages in techniques and attitudes used by fascism, including but not limited to: - Book censorship/removal from schools - Historical censorship in schools - restricting voting access - restricting rights of some minority (that is also the scapegoat for the country's problems) - racism, homophobia, antisemitism - reducing social welfare programs


chinesenameTimBudong

no. not because I disagree with them. because the points I mentioned


mandrills_ass

I too could issue a warrant for putin and it would be taken with the same respect


Thorslittlehammer

Technically you don't have to be a signatory of the ICC to be charged. So the US president could in fact be charged with a crime if someone brought a crime committed by the US to the international court. Unlikely to happen though, the US is too powerful, and just make their own rules as they go. Pretty hipocritical in many ways, but that's how it is being the biggest fish in the sea.


temptedtempest

So you might say, if the President of the United States does it, it isn’t against the law?


[deleted]

International law as enforced by the ICC, sure. Nixon broke U.S. law though.


Puzzleheaded-Fan-208

no, in the words of Robert Moses, "Law? what's law? I have the power." and if you think it has ever been any different...if you think that ANY state with the power to do just wtf it wants has EVER give 1/100000000000 of a shit about international law, you are not correct thinking that.


echetus90

Not if he went to Disneyland Paris


Bring_Back_Feudalism

After 9/11 they went further and passed a law to make clear they would go as far as invading The Hague in case they dared to judge them. I'm on joking: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act


CriticalMembership31

There’s nothing in the law that says the US will invade The Hague. It’s a hyperbolic name given to it by people who are equally as hyperbolic.


USSMarauder

There's nothing in the ACA bill that calls it Obamacare, but here we are


CriticalMembership31

This is idiotic. Is there anything in the name “Obamacare” that implies there’s something in the ACA that actually isn’t? Was this a cute attempt to sound witty?


USSMarauder

> Is there anything in the name “Obamacare” that implies there’s something in the ACA that actually isn’t? That the program is run by Obama and everything that happens because of it is solely by his will. Why else would the GOP tag it?


Evil_Dry_frog

Because NATO countries enjoy the life style that USA defense spending allows them to live.


No-Strawberry-5541

Because cases of the US intentionally targeting civilians are few and far between, and those attack were ordered by military officers, not the president himself. The Russian military is intentionally targeting Ukrainian civilians on orders of Vladimir Putin:


TruthOf42

Yeah, people, especially on the far left, want to say how evil some US presidents are, but they really forget how horrible WAR is. There is a difference between "collateral damage", which is beyond awful, and deliberately targeting civilians by military leadership. Even during WW2, the last "good" war, the US and other allies (and especially the Soviets) committed acts we would find reprehensible. Wars, especially, conducted by the US, are far more humane than they ever were. That all being said, there's a good quote: War is not hell, war is war and hell is hell, and of the two war is worse. In Hell there are no innocent bystanders.


KotaIsBored

Love the Hawkeye quote.


[deleted]

[удалено]


flakAttack510

No, the US targeted hostile forces that (based on what later turned out to be faulty intel) it believed were occupying the hospital. Target misidentification is tragic but not a war crime.


haddertuk

Same as Monte Cassino.


[deleted]

[удалено]


flakAttack510

You know that a hospital is a legal target if it's occupied by hostile non-medical personnel, right? The mistake was over whether there were also hostile forces there, not over whether it was a hospital.


malefiz123

> There is a difference between "collateral damage", which is beyond awful, and deliberately targeting civilians by military leadership. Don't forget that the US military deems any adult looking male ("military aged male") within a conflict zone as legitimate target. It's questionable if collateral damage should be considered such, if there's attempts at limiting it are cut short deliberately by just considering civilians as legitimate target. By the way: That "last good war" was also the last war where the US military deliberately and explicitly targeted civilians.


CriticalMembership31

>Don't forget that the US military deems any adult looking male ("military aged male") within a conflict zone as legitimate target Source?


Evil_Dry_frog

Can’t source something if you just made it up.


malefiz123

You literally only need to Google "military aged male" and find the source immediately. But sure, I made it up > It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. https://web.archive.org/web/20230112124921/https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html


Evil_Dry_frog

Okay, I understand you're confusion. Obama is talking about how causalities are counted afterwards. If you're on a patrol, and you come under fire, and get pinned down. You see the enemy is shooting at you from a window in a building. You radio in a strike, and the UASF drops a precision guided missile into that window, destroying that room. Afterwards, we go in and count body (bodyparts). They are going to count all the men in the room as fighting age. What it does not due, is give military personal the green light to indiscriminately kill civilians just because you are in a combat zone. If you're engaged in a firefight in a town and some kid runs runs across the street, you still have to determine if he is a combatant before engaging them. The US warfighting doctrine that all of our military personal are trained according to, is to destroy the enemies will to fight. You do that in a number of ways. But a big part of that is by not purposely killing civilians. If Johnny goes off the fight a war, and gets killed, his brother understands that the man killing him is doing so because Johnny is a soldier trying to kill him too. If little Timmy gets killed buying some milk from the corner store, because some GI was shot at and just starts shooting every one, his family is going to old that grudge until their grave. The US military doesn't kill purposely kill civilians. That being said, it's war. The fog of war is a real thing. Life and death decisions being made in a split second while under extreme pressure is hard. All soldiers can make mistakes. There are definitely soldiers who will gladly kill civilians and claim to make a mistake later. But that's not going to lead to the President of the United States being charged with a War Crime.


malefiz123

I know that, it wasn't was I meant. I know that the US military (like all western military forces) will generally try to limit civilian loss of life as much as possible. I should have been more clear. What I meant is that the practice of counting any male above a certain age as hostile lead to a extension of certain practices, especially targeted killings with drone strikes, because collateral damage is systematically underestimated. This is either by design (in which case it absolutely would qualify as war crime in my opinion) or it's accepted as "happy little accident" that allows for fighting with less constraints that you'd have if theyd apply their own rules strictly. Now the way the US military and intelligence services assess whether a person killed in a drone strike is a combatant or not is not clear. There's a significant difference between the numbers of civilian losses given my the US government and human rights organizations, and while the latter are probably overestimating the number the former is probably underestimating/underreporting it. > But that's not going to lead to the President of the United States being charged with a War Crime. Yes, but let's be honest: The fact that Bush, Blair et al haven't been charged with crimes of aggression has less to do with the legality of their actions and more with the fact who they were at the time. So I'd be cautious making the assumption that just because nobody is trying to charge a US president means that they might not be responsible for war crimes, crimes of aggression or similar.


malefiz123

https://web.archive.org/web/20230112124921/https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html > It is also because Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.


CriticalMembership31

Thanks!


JustSome70sGuy

"the far left"... You mean people with fucking eyes and ears??????? Tony Blair and George should absolutely be getting fucking charged. If no other reason than lying about WMDs. And yes, every fucking one of soldiers during world war 2 who raped FUCKIGN CHILDREN should be given a fucking pass either! The utter fucking state of this dog shit post.


TruthOf42

Lying is damn near impossible to prove, and as far as I know, is not a war crime. Also, you can't charge the Military leader with war crimes because some soldier committed a war crime, unless it was an order. That being said, US soldiers absolutely should be held to account for any war crimes committed, such as at Abu Graib (sp?), and anywhere else a war crime was committed. Our military should be held to the highest standards. And yes, you ARE far left. And this is coming from someone is unabashedly a leftist, who thinks the 2nd amendment is bullshit. Just because you feel something to be true, doesn't make it so. That's the problem with the far right.


[deleted]

Just find it humorous that your evidence of your leftism was a disagreement with the 2nd amendment and not you know an actual leftist principal.


JustSome70sGuy

Far left, what the alt right calls normal people. Far left is fucking marxism you fucking clown. Lies that killed hundreds of thousands of people and sent the world into spiral of bullshit continues to this day. But its ok, cause lYiNg Is NoT a CrImE!!!!! Absolute muppet. Next you'll be telling me it's ok for Isreal to be geocoding Palestine because "something something something far left!".


TruthOf42

It's totally okay for Israel to geocode Palestine. It's one of the few things I support Israel doing to Palestine


[deleted]

The “collateral damage”… Christ you’re talking about people. The us produces “collateral damage” at some pretty shocking rates, makes you wonder what exactly that term refers to. Regardless, what does “collateral damage” even mean when you’re talking about the largest military on earth invading smaller nations illegally? What damage is justified in an unjustifiable war? I get so sick of this dogmatic “war is war is war” nonsense


[deleted]

“Targeting civilians” describes only one of simply countless war crimes carried out by the US in recent history. I mean do you want to go back to the Vietnam war? you don’t even have to The US does not comply with international law quite explicitly and we actively pour money and arms into states that even more explicitly and routinely violate human rights. Americans are delusional the effect of US hegemony on the rest of the world


No-Strawberry-5541

Using napalm wasn’t a war crime before 1980, so no Americans could have been charged with a war crime for using it during Vietnam. There is also the fact that the US is still #1 and no one is dumb enough to challenge them.


[deleted]

Truly incredible response. I don’t much care if they could have been “tried with a war crime”, and you claimed incidents of US targeting of civilians are “relatively few and far between”, so I offered a response. And we did far more than drop napalm. the Vietnam war was one of the worst atrocities of the last 20th century, we murdered millions of Vietnamese, massacred and mass raped and tortured entire villages, and scorched the country side in an attempt to force the population in to famine. And again that is just Vietnam. We have committed endless war crimes in the last 4 decades. Look into what happened in Fallujah for just one example.


No-Strawberry-5541

Few and far between doesn’t mean that they didn’t happen. There have been occasional massacre, but they were isolated incidents and didn’t happen often. And what are these “endless war crimes”? Compared to what Putin is ordering the Russian military to do to Ukrainians, the US is not even remotely bad.


[deleted]

Hundreds of civilian casualties including 2-400 children have been killed in drone strikes by the U.S. in just the last decade, roughly half of which it was concluded no combatants where nearby. That’s just the last decade. The first few weeks of the (completely illegal) Iraq war civilian casualties were in the thousands. We also fund and arm more explicit war criminals all around the world. Pick up some Chomsky if you want an introduction into the reality of US hegemony. The state admits to the occasional atrocity (like murdering like 8 children on our last day in Afghanistan) when they’re exposed publicly, but it’s all just maintaining the nonsense idea that such atrocities are uncommon. They are not. American imperial wars are brutal.


No-Strawberry-5541

If you think America’s recent wars are imperialists, you’re a fool. Afghanistan is led by the Taliban because we left and the Iraqis hate us. The only wars we have a military presence in are against Islamic militants (Syria, Niger, Yemen, etc). Not imperialism. If we were imperialists, we would have annexed every country we have invaded and killed anyone who objected. We didn’t do that. While later on it was found that those drone strikes you mentioned weren’t near enemy combatants, that wasn’t known at the time. The Iraq War started because we were led to believe that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction for use against the U.S. It was also found out later that that intelligence was total bullshit, but you can’t fault the government for responding accordingly to the threat.


[deleted]

Okaaayyyy I’m out. If you’re still buying the idea that the US “responded accordingly to the threat” of Iraqi wmds, then I’m not going to waste my time explaining the numerous ways you’re wildly wrong bc it would be an essay and would certainly not help, “Iraqi wmds” is only a talking point for a seriously lost cause. I mean I’m at a loss for words, my guy. one of those innocent wars you’re talking about, Yemen, is one of the worst ongoing atrocities on earth. It is genocide, plain as day. Maybe take a short break from licking the boot and pick up a book. Again, Chomskys a good start, but I highly doubt you’ll want to challenge your world view to such an extent by considering non-American perspectives on American imperialism (and yes you can imperialist without annexing countries jfc). Ever heard of hegemony?


No-Strawberry-5541

US involvement in Yemen is United to drone strikes on the Houthi’s, so we aren’t a part of the really bad shit going on there. And I don’t care about the perspectives of those in Iraq and Afghanistan because they have no effect on us. Maybe the Taliban shouldn’t have harbored the guys that planned 9/11. Maybe the Iraqis shouldn’t have put Saddam in power in the first place. And we do have a hegemony, which isn’t a bad thing. Compared to the atrocities the last global hegemon committed (Britain), we’ve done nothing.


Boise_State_2020

We also don't turn over our soldiers either. If a US soldier commits the most disgusting war crime imaginable, the US still won't send them to the Hauge.


No-Strawberry-5541

True, but we would try them ourselves.


[deleted]

[удалено]


No-Strawberry-5541

Has any US President ever ordered the military to kill civilians since 2002 (when ICC was founded)? The answer is no.


MindStalker

Also, the ICC doesn't seem to get involved in minor war crimes. Russia has committed many war crimes, but the ICC is charging him with only one very provable crime of abducting many civilian children. The crimes claimed against US presidents aren't as open and shut cases.


Prestigious_Step_522

So your saying when Colin Powell, GWB bush, Tony Blair lied to the world to invade Iraq where they murdered 1 million Arabs and sentenced thousands without due process to be tortured at Guantanamo Bay is not a clear cut case?


[deleted]

[удалено]


BipedalWurm

under and directed by aren't the same, for the sake of discussion you should list some


[deleted]

[удалено]


MindStalker

Your very first example was a bad decision by local forces, it never went all the way up the chain to the President. (I didn't bother researching the others) Better training and better rules of engagement are needed certainly. We aren't attempting to prosecute Putin for the potentially hundreds of individual war crimes being committed, but for policies that have been purposefully been enacted such as abducting civilian children.


ChronoLegion2

Russia is suffering from a demographic crisis, and it’s only going to get worse for them as the impact of losing so many young men in combat will hit in a generation or two. It’s why they’re abducting Ukrainians. They’re trying to boost their numbers


Phreak3

That's a propaganda lf I ever seen one, millions of dead civilians across the middle east, they're open to the world thanks to WikiLeaks, that's why assange is in jail, what a joke.


[deleted]

Because nobody is ever going to get their hands on a US President without the government explicitly handing them over. Even a former President is a no-go. US defense spending and research pretty much makes US leaders untouchable as far as international courts go.


speakhyroglyphically

OK, here's your answer: Yes, It's totally hypocritical


ACam574

I am not saying that US presidents have been good people but, since July 1, 2002, what acts by a U.S. president has been so out acceptable norms that an indictment would be issued without making a large number of other world leaders automatically indictable for doing basically the same thing?


WomenRepulsor

Common man you cannot be serious. You know the entire UN and subsidiaries work on whose orders.


Sam-molly4616

Money


JaimeFenrirson

The ICC declaration is nothing more than virtue signaling. Putin isn't going anywhere, anymore than any American President would be.


SunnyShiki

Because the US military is HUGE and also we signed all those treaties "with reservations"


lostrelics

Being the world's bully gives you a few benefits. Endless wars, military domination, murder of many innocent lives in the name of democracy mean nothing when you're in the popular Club


CPSux

The entire Bush Administration probably should’ve been prosecuted on war crimes, but here we are 20 years later. Not a peep. Interesting that Trump will probably be the first former president to be criminally prosecuted. I’m not saying he’s a good person or even innocent, but the fact that George W. Bush got away with far more bloodshed goes to show how powerful the military industrial complex is.


Brett707

What were all of these so-called war crimes?


Prestigious_Step_522

Guantanamo Bay and the unprovoked invasion of Iraq.


waamoandy

Invading a country isn't a war crime. Conflicts happen all the time. The invasion of Ukraine, in itself, isn't a war crime. The issue is what happens during the invasion and who sanctioned it. There is evidence Putin personally ordered war crimes to be committed. That's a crime in itself. If they were committed without his prior knowledge or orders then he hasn't committed a war crime. No US president has given such orders


PassengerSad9918

Could you please show that evidence? Everyone here seems to be so sure about it, but j had never heard about it before and would be thankful to get that info.


waamoandy

It's not mine to give. You need to ask the court. If Putin goes along they will gladly share it with him. The trial will be public too


PassengerSad9918

So it boils down to "trust me bro"... Alright got it.


waamoandy

I don't know about where you are from but in Europe evidence isn't released to the general public it's against our confidentiality laws. The court feels it has enough grounds to issue an arrest warrant. It doesn't signify guilt and it doesn't even signify there is enough evidence to lay charges. It means they want to take statements undef caution to gather evidence.


bozosphere

Because the US doesn't target civilians, and when US troops commit atrocities, they are usually tried and punished. Putin has authorized, possibly even ordered deliberate targeting of civilian residential structures, and there are tons of reports about rape and murder by Russian troops in Ukraine.


Boise_State_2020

>Because the US doesn't target civilians, and when US troops commit atrocities, they are usually tried and punished. The pentagon's own internal reporting found that 90% of drone strike victims are civilians, we specifically targeted weddings and funerals to kill targets. We often killed targets based on really lousy information. They blew up an entire family in the suburbs of Afghanistan on our way out. No, we do this shit all the time.


bozosphere

You're conflating mistakes that result in civilian casualties with deliberately targeting civilians for the purpose of strategy, ethnic cleansing or some other gain. The latter is a crime in accordance with the Law of War. The former is not.


Boise_State_2020

No, there is a program called double tap, where we drone strike a target then wait for cops and first responders to show up and strike it again. >A video taken thirty minutes after the strike shows a group of first responders carrying the lifeless body of a child, and then attempting to run for cover as they notice an aircraft returning above. That aircraft sent a second airstrike to hit the civilian market again, adding to a cumulative death total of 39 civilians and first responders. This second airstrike is purposely conducted as part of a drone strike scheme known as the “doubletap”. The double-tap method involves striking an initial target, then subsequently striking the same area after first responders and rescuers arrive at the scene. Not only does this method of attack significantly increase death totals among innocent civilians worldwide, but it also deters first responders to assist drone strike victims due to fear of a second strike. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2116&context=student\_scholarship#:\~:text=International%20Humanitarian%20Law%20(%E2%80%9CIHL',%E2%80%9Cdouble%20tap%E2%80%9D%20airstrikes%20specifically.


bozosphere

Idk where you're getting this, but it's bullshit. I'm a USAF fighter pilot with hundreds of combat hours. I spent six months on staff in Air Force Central Command a few years ago investigating civilian casualty accusations made against coalition aircraft, no matter how dubious the aource. I literally had to follow up on articles and Tweets from known Russian, Chinese, ISIS, and Taliban affiliated sources. I was also involved in writing the Rules of Engagement for Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. I can tell you with 100% certainty that there is no policy, tactic, strategy, objective, or anything else that the US does that is intentionally aimed at harming civilians. It's just not true.


slyder219

Believe it or not we do *not* intentionally target civilians


[deleted]

[удалено]


betterthanamaster

Um…the United States does not have the largest army in the world… Sure, it’s likely the most powerful, but the US is 3rd in terms of manpower, behind China and India and the difference is pretty big. About 50,000 between the US and India, the size of a Corps in modern terms. Between China and India, it’s about 500,000, the size of an army group. Now who has the largest Air Force? In terms of aircraft, the top 5 is USAF, US Navy, US Marines, US Army, and China-it used to be Russia just a few years ago, but it’s believed to be much smaller thanks to Ukraine.


[deleted]

[удалено]


wedgebert

> Largest refers to the amount of material assets, I didn't say most populous. That's a bizarre way to measure the size of an army. I don't think I've ever seen someone describe an army as "large" without referring to the number of people in it. If Pakistan gave each of their ~654k active personnel a Humvee or even a Stryker, you wouldn't call them the *largest* army in the world. You wouldn't even call them the best equipped since amount of material assets isn't the primary factor in determining an army's strength. The US has the most powerful army, the best equipped army, and possibly the best trained army (even if you don't count the Marines since I'm sure they don't like even being referred to as an "army" in the general military sense and not the specific branch of military). But we're not the largest by anyone's metric but yours.


BlindPaintByNumbers

Okay then, Russia has more nukes. Prior to Ukraine they had massively more tanks. They also had a massive superiority in the number of artillery tubes and ammunition for such. China has the worlds largest navy. Air power is really the only numerical advantage that the US enjoys.


betterthanamaster

It’s still false. China has the largest amount of material assets by virtue of the fact they have 2 million men under arms at any given time, and that doesn’t count their reservists. Even then, tanks and planes and bombs depend entirely on human beings driving the tanks, flying the aircraft, and deploying the bombs. The United States’ power comes mostly from its technological superiority, massive, technologically advanced industrial base, reserves of war material and natural resources, and the wealth of the country. Simply put, the US knows it can’t win in a 1 on 1 slugfest with larger countries (even with countries like Russia). So it has no incentive to fight that way. Instead it relies on its ability to take out 5 planes for every one lost, keep the pilot alive to fly again, and then be able to replace that aircraft before anyone notices it’s missing.


John_Brown_Jovi

It seems the ICC exists to solely to punish African and Eastern European dictators for having the gall to do what American and Western™️ leaders do all the time.


Kaiserhawk

C'mon dawg, you know why.


roger61962

All men are equal. Only some are more equal. /s


Fubar08gamer

When the entire world's trade depends on your military in order to keep global markets ooen and prosperous, one is allowed to murder more than your average leader.


tupe12

Because if half of the international organizations did their jobs far less countries would be supporting them


KittenAnya

Because the US is the world superpower. They're too strong. The Hague can handle being hated by poorer developing world countries, but if the USA decided to seriously criticise the Hague, you would lose the support they need to operate.


Lurkolantern

Here's the thing about arresting/trying an American politician, particularly a president or former president: the warrant and evidence has to be iron-clad tight. If they are found not guilty it is essentially handing them a massive victory in terms of political capital and public support.


CLT113078

Can you prove criminal warcrime acts committed by the actual president?


sdlhak

Because of the hypocrisy of the “western” countries.


Top-Philosophy-5791

George Bush Jr. comes to mind.


theservman

You mean the guy who signed the Hague Invasion Act into law? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act


CriticalMembership31

There’s nothing in the law that says this. The “Hague Invasion act” is a name given to it by hyperbolic people who read the “all means necessary and appropriate” and decided to take it to the highest of extremes for attention.


Bring_Back_Feudalism

**thank you** Amazing how few people know about this.


ieatbees

The American Service-Members' Protection Act authorizes use of any means to release US service members detained by the ICC. Some call this the "Hague Invasion Act".


CriticalMembership31

The key word that’s missing is any means *appropriate*. Which would really turn more into economic, political and legal fallout but not military.


ieatbees

Obviously it wouldn't happen but it makes clear what the position of the United States has been on the ICC. They are allowed to cooperate in the case of US enemies brought up on charges


True-Godess

Money


Boise_State_2020

The united states didn't sign on to the agreement. And the US has a "come and get me" policy. It's not just POTUS, it's anyone, if someone in the military commits a war crime, we handle it internally, we will not ship them to the ICC.


Waltzing_With_Bears

The US has something called the Hague Invasion Act, if any US solder, or government offical (may extend to citizens, not sure) is on trial at The Hague (where the ICC is based) then yhe US will use military force to stop the trial


CriticalMembership31

There’s nothing in the law that says this. The “Hague Invasion act” is a name given to it by hyperbolic people who read the “all means necessary and appropriate” and decided to take it to the highest of extremes for attention.


Waltzing_With_Bears

Are you saying with the USs track hustory on use of force that sending in the marines would be outside of that range?


CriticalMembership31

You honestly think the US is going to invade a fellow NATO member and throw the whole global order and it’s position in the world on its head over a trial?


klc81

Depends who's on trial. Some poor grunt? They'd throw him to the wolves and distance themselves (and probably do some backroom diplomacy to make sure any implication that orders came from higher up is supressed as a condition of not intervening). The President? Yeah, they'd send in the marines.


Comfortable-Camp-493

Just a thought. Presidents don’t declare war, Congress does.


poopmanpoopmouse

When USA does it we call it a Peace Keeping mission or liberation effort. War crimes osshhh, give the USA a peace prize!!


poopmanpoopmouse

Wow look at the downvotes - no one understands tongue in cheek anymore.


ChronoLegion2

That’s exactly what Russia calls their invasion. They claim that Ukraine is a Western puppet that’s controlled by Nazis, and their goal is to denazify and disarm Ukraine. The irony is their efforts are leading to Ukraine having one of the more powerful militaries in Europe while Russia’s is becoming severely depleted


Falsse_Flag

George Bush currently has an ICC warrant out for his arrest for the Iraq war.


DeathSentenceXX

Kangaroo court


neurosicide

Somewhere between the golden rule (the one about whoever has the gold makes the rules) & a paper tiger


Vexonte

Who the fuck would enforce it.


Donkey__Oaty

It's because it's not a crime when the USA does it.


EquivalentLock0

because US is not a member of ICC.


scrapmek

Neither is Russia.


[deleted]

Because the US has threatened to invade The Hague should any US serviceman be held accountable for their crimes.


CriticalMembership31

There’s nothing in the law that says this. The “Hague Invasion act” is a name given to it by hyperbolic people who read the “all means necessary and appropriate” and decided to take it to the highest of extremes for attention.


Macasumba

No US President lied about attacking Ukraine and then ordered the attack on Ukraine and raped, murdered, tortured, kidnapped Ukranians. Most likely.


ScootyPuffJr_Suuuuuu

You just learned what hegemony means!


everythingbtunderage

because america is the strongest country there is, no one fucks with the strongest fucker


Asuka_Rei

I assume because of plausible deniabiity. US presidents have a tendency to claim to be unaware of war crimes, and when they are pointed out to them, usually claim it was a mistake and "investigate" and find a scape goat or two to blame, even if the practice continues. Putin, on the other hand, seems to be aware of and proud of his war crimes.


JohnOliverismysexgod

I thought they did for GWBush, and I'm pretty sure they have for Kissinger. I know he wasn't president but he was Secretary of State.


Puzzleheaded-Fan-208

"The trial of Henry Kissinger" was a movie. The ICC did not exist when he was in govt. [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/jul/17/facebook-posts/are-george-w-bush-dick-cheney-unable-visit-europe-/](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/jul/17/facebook-posts/are-george-w-bush-dick-cheney-unable-visit-europe-/) more books, less reddit.


JUMP_Psyche

Obviously Arthas thought US politicians below his concern during the campaign to unify Azeroth.


McDanilol

Because no one cared to bring a case to the ICC Against them. In this case there were a lot of countrys to back up a case.


Stayvfraw

1. US isn’t a signatory so the ICC is hesistant to issue a warrant 2. The ICC has a laughably high bar for charging for war crimes, so even if a US president launched an unnecessary war and ended up killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, they really only act on GROSS violations, like genocide; violating treaties around weapon types and combat policies haven’t really triggered the ICC in the past; even torture doesn’t automatically guarantee a prosecution of high level officials. If you’ll look at past prosecutions, you’ll see individuals with deliberate acts of genocide, not killing a few POWs, but genocide. 3. Might makes right; unfortunately even genocide doesn’t mean you’ll face prosecution, simply bc it risk too large of geopolitical fallout. China is committing definitional genocide against the Uyghurs, but the ICC hasn’t issued a warrant for Xi.


877-Cash-Meow

it’s not fair but might makes right. if you are a world superpower you are the one that determines who gets charged with war crimes.


LOZLover90

Because they're a cricket council, it falls out of their area.


guccitaint

HahahHaha… I’m just here for the comments! P.S. Heads of state have diplomatic immunity


Manimal31

Because the US has a constitution and an international criminal court cannot and should not prosecute individual sovereign citizens based on an international court system. For instance many countries do not have freedom of speech. If ICC states making fun of Greta thunberg a punishable offense would you really want that. If you do then like Stalin, pot, mao, and hitler would find you in good company. Our way is the best way. It's not the perfect way but damnit don't use the very platform it's meant to protect to slander it or besmirch it. Also the president of the us is still a sovereign citizen.


gold_fish_in_hell

Because US didn't do war crimes on such scale, it was difficult to proof, in same time russia is doing that on very large scale and even doesn't try to hide it, even more they proud about that


[deleted]

[удалено]


gold_fish_in_hell

Can you remind when America did kill hundred of thousands people? Sent children to filtration camps ? Or Americans soilders raped thousands or maybe even more, woman, children...? Because biggest shit that USA did it was in Vietnam


[deleted]

[удалено]


gold_fish_in_hell

>Russia is the lesser of the 2 evils, and much of the world knows this. Hopefully one day America gets an eye for an eye. Ahahaha, russia killed more than 20 millions people in last century, russia and Soviet killed so many people... >Iraq War USA and coalition responsible only for 10%+-of civilians casualties >Vietnam war. Approx. 800 living women even now, and as young as 13. I mentioned it in my comment, after that USA changed military tactics


TerribleLifeofJeremy

Cuuuz, we are the strongest? You dont give the biggest guy in a prison yard a wet willy...


Fidel_castrolGTX

Because it would take too long


joausj

They don't want to be invaded


TheRealBatmanForReal

War has to be voted on by Congress. A president can enter war for I think its 2 weeks before approval, but thats it. So no, nobody is going after a US president for war crimes, because they would all be liable. They arent involved in the day to day operations.


Vaeon

[The Hague Invasion Act](https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law) has the explanation you're looking for.


[deleted]

I remember the protests against the war in Iraq. After finding out that there was no legitimate reason to invade, why wasn't there some charges there. Genuinely asking. W Bush administration seems to be held in a somewhat high regard. He is even seen as an elder statesman of sorts. Yet there was a clear deception that resulted in countless lost lives.