16 thoughts on “Another Trump policy reversed. Another step towards the rule of law.

    1. Ho hum. Try to keep up. The United States is not a party to that agreement. Never has been. So, don’t hold your breath. If what Biden has done is “just theater” what does that say about Dear Leader’s original orders?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. So, you’re OK with these UN officials intent to arrest US personnel and put them before a kangaroo court should they happen to venture into a country that is a signatory?

        Like

        1. I am for the rule of law. What you call a “kangaroo court” is not viewed that way by honest and decent people around the world who believe that war criminals should answer for their crimes whatever their nationality. Apparently you think Americans should get a bye. I don’t.

          But that is not the question. American and Israeli war criminals can avoid the jurisdiction of this court by simply staying home. The question Trump raised with his sanctions is . . .Should we be meddling with the court by punishing its officers? President Biden now says, “No we should not” and most of the world agrees and applauds.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. The rule of which law? Do you think the ICC provides the same due process as US citizens are due? We have never allowed foreign governments to try our diplomats or servicemen without extradition.

            Like

          2. “We have never allowed foreign governments to try our diplomats or servicemen without extradition.”

            Uh, truthy but like most of your made up facts, not actually true. For example, President George W. Bush was tried and found guilty of war crimes by a court in Malasia. And Italy has tried the CIA station chief in Milan and two other Americans “in absentia” for crimes they committed.

            https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/12/bush-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-absentia/
            https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/italian-court-convicts-cia-trio-kidnap-article-1.1253324

            But even though you have offered this “alternative fact,” it is irrelevant. Nobody is turning over any Americans for trial in The Hague. That is not the issue. I have already reminded you that we have never been a part of the Court. The issue was . . . is it appropriate for our government to bully and punish that Court. Trump did so. President Biden now says He should not have done that.

            Liked by 1 person

  1. There is little connection between the “rule of law” and the ICC. The ICC itself is merely a tribunal established by treaty that prosecutes alleged crimes that are not otherwise defined by statute within the signatory states. A signatory state may have no law against genocide, for example. Assuming some miscreant commits genocide — in the opinion of the ICC — the ICC may prosecute. Ir has no sovereign authority to enforce any decision it makes.

    Note that while ICC proceedings may have all the trappings of a court of law, the issues they adjudicate are inherently ideological or philosophical. The ICC is essentially a court of man, not of law.

    The U.S. is not a signatory to the treaty which created the ICC. President Trump applied sanctions against the ICC’s lead prosecutor for exceeding ICC’s authority by seeking indictments against U.S. persons for alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan. (We have our own laws against war crimes and we are not a signatory state.)

    By rescinding those sanctions Stumble Joe weakened the U.S. position in the world. We no longer stand for the rule of law, but have signaled our willingness to be ruled by men, like servants.

    Like

    1. Uh, President Biden re-affirmed the rule of law by rescinding the inappropriate response to the legitimate actions of the ICC. Whatever their process, we have no legal justification to interfere with it. It was a prime example of Trump acting like a petulant monarch. It was yet another diplomatic embarrassment and our allies welcome this reversal.

      By the way and for what it is worth your spinning this into a question of “our willingness to be ruled by men, like servants” is an obvious manifestation of some sort of toxic masculinity so common in Trump circles.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “Whatever their process, we have no legal justification to interfere with it.”

        I cited several legal justifications for interference:

        a) We are not signatories to the treaty; therefore we are not bound by it.

        b) We have our own laws against war crimes which apply to our people. ICC has no authority under its charter to prosecute our people for crimes we choose not to, even if we were signatories to the treaty.

        c) ICC is not a sovereign entity. It has no authority to do anything whatsoever.

        You might as well argue that a Martian court of law has jurisdiction over the U.S.

        Like

        1. “I cited several legal justifications for interference”

          Uh, no you did not. There is not ANY legal justifications to punish individuals doing the bona fide work of the ICC.

          Your “legal justifications” would be relevant if the question were whether the United States should cooperate with the ICC by extraditing Americans for trial. That is NOT the question.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. You are the one who posited that the ICC represents the “rule of law.” I refute the assertion.

            Why should the U.S. extradite it’s own citizens to be tried by a lawless body?

            Like

          2. “Why should the U.S. extradite it’s own citizens to be tried by a lawless body?”

            You keep wanting to ask a question that is not in dispute. This action by President Biden has nothing to do with extradition. It is not on the table and the Biden administration has not changed our historic relationship with the ICC – we are not a member and do not enforce its decisions.

            Trump issued a FAKE national emergency decree to give himself the authority to personally bully and punish individuals merely doing their job – in this case responding to 699 allegations of war crimes committed in Afghanistan. Most of those allegations involved the Taliban but some involved Americans alleged to have committed murders, rapes and torture. The ICC’s LAWFUL role is to investigate such allegations from citizens of member countries. Interfering with its work based on a FAKE national emergency is spit in the face to the rule of law. President Biden wiped off the spit.

            Finally, the ICC is NOT a “lawless body.” The treaty which authorizes it contains protections of individual rights every bit as robust as our law. Here, actually learn something . . .

            https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/02/qa-international-criminal-court-and-united-states

            Liked by 1 person

          3. You are the one who raised this issue of extradiction, not me. I wrote: “Note that while ICC proceedings may have all the trappings of a court of law, the issues they adjudicate are inherently ideological or philosophical. The ICC is essentially a court of man, not of law.”

            If you feel compelled to argue, why not argue with things I have said instead of going off on imaginary tangents?

            Like

          4. Try again . . .

            “Your “legal justifications” would be relevant if the question were whether the United States should cooperate with the ICC by extraditing Americans for trial. That is NOT the question.”

            I would say “Try harder” but, I know you can’t. You are too pot committed to spewing “conservative” LIES about the ICC. It is NOT a “lawless body” and that LIE is the essence of your trying to justify Trump’s lawless bullying and punishment of the individuals who work for it.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. RE: “Trump’s lawless bullying and punishment of the individuals who work for it.”

            The president is obligated to protect U.S. citizens and our national interests. The ICC exceeded it’s own charter by seeking to prosecute U.S. citizens for war crimes. Trump’s response was both appropriate and principled.

            Like

          6. “The ICC exceeded it’s own charter by seeking to prosecute U.S. citizens for war crimes.”

            Uh, no the ICC did NOT exceed its own charter. The war crimes formally alleged by the victims and their families and demanding action by the ICC were committed in the territory of a member state but not prosecuted there. That sort of crime is their explicit remit. Trump claiming that U.S. War criminals are not subject to the ICC investigation and prosecution is something he made up. It is not in the ICC charter to exempt citizens of non-member countries from prosecution if their actions and the evidence warrants.

            Furthermore, it is NOT in the interests of the United States to undermine or cripple international efforts to punish and deter war criminals. Trump would not know a “principled” action from a hole in the ground. You have descended into laughable with that remark. In fact, Trump issued a FAKE state of emergency since he actually has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to punish individuals for non-existent crimes. And, whether you believe it or not, it is NOT a crime to look into allegations of war crimes.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s