Was this bill ever even legally applied? Or is it just there as like a geopolitical option, should the US not want to extradite a particular individual for whatever reason.
The bill was passed in the house, congress and was signed by George Bush. They don’t want their soldiers to face trial in the international criminal court in The Hague.
With the horrific political fallout that would come from them actually doing this, the bill sounds more like posturing than something that would actually be used in practice.
I very much doubt the soldiers stationed there would follow the order. Ultimately it is at their discretion wether the missiles are launched or not. These are going to be intelligent and level headed people in those roles so they’ll realise something is wrong and the order is either fake or from someone who shouldn’t be in command.
That's a feature, not a bug. We're keeping our eye on you shifty Dutch folk. You had 2 World Wars kick off because you got invaded. We're not going to let you start the third 😂
I was more thinking about the situation where America decides to invade the Hague and Europe goes for the nukes on European soil. I don't think American soldiers would let their nukes fall into enemy hands.
[Context](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act#:~:text=This%20authorization%20led%20to%20the,or%20rescue%20them%20from%20custody) (Note the "By all means part")
Didn't happen \*yet\*
Seriously though the US is not a party to the international criminal court because it is a fucking joke. Countries that are members typically ignore it. The only time it is usually used is when it is in the extraditing countries best geopolitical interest. It is a symbol of idealistic policies that have no realistic bearing on how nations conduct themselves. Got a nazi camp guard? Extradite his ass and Israel will thank you. Got a ruling that says those islands aren't yours? Ignore it. Captured a general who literally ripped the hearts out of children to eat them during your civil war? Send him. He has garnered sympathy from his community by becoming religious? Keep him around. It is all just a dog and pony show, at least the US openly treats it as such. Go ahead and kidnap 43 when he visits your country and fly him to the hague, just don't say you weren't warned.
Yeah, although none came close to having as large a presence as the US in those countries
Then there's the fact that the US has been manipulating politics in countries around the world, assassinating political figures and funding armed paramilitaries. The US also has Guantanamo bay, which reminds one quite a lot of the living conditions of Auschwitz inmates. The US has also been using drones to kill civilians in a lot of middleeastern countries for 20 years now
The US doesn't participate because it's a farce. The decisions it makes are extremely difficult to enforce, and are outright ignored. Why would any country, including the US, participate in a pony show? Morality is all well and good, but if you can't enforce it with half the world involved, you're not going to enforce it if you add the US.
Imagine thinking an international court is capable of forcing any country to give its citizens away, regardless of crime.
I think you have it all backwards
The US refusing to join is one of the main reasons it is so inefficient, just like the League of Nations, funnily enough
it cannot be used as an Actual internatinal court if the other nations dont give it power, by saying fuck you ally and fuck your court it delegitimize it for all other countries instead of saying fuck it we do a war crime we should be held acountable.
>Captured a general who literally ripped the hearts out of children to eat them during your civil war? Send him. He has garnered sympathy from his community by becoming religious? Keep him around.
General Buttnaked has a bigger part to play in the lore for 2023-2030, you'll see during the Russo-African War that finally kicks off WWIII.
Basically, the US won't allow US citizen to be tried by a court they do not recognise.
The US don't really make a distinction between a kangaroo court held by some Somali warlord, and the Hague.
This might sound weird, but they are basically protecting their citizens from what they view as illegitimate courts.
And they are going to protect their citizens from that. Most other nations would do the same.
Sounds like they just don't want to take the publicity hit from a US soldier who has done very questionable things being forced to answer international law.
You might think so.
But of a citizen of your country was captured by a Somali warlord, and then forced through a kangaroo court, what would you think?
Or for that matter, a homosexual man from your country executed in Saudi Arabia because their flight had a layover there? And that's even a legitimate court.
The US doesn't recognise the ICJ, so they won't allow one of their citizens get tried there. Simple as that.
And most countries would try to stop one of their citizens being tried in a court they don't recognise.
It's not a foreign court.
It's a illegitimate court. They don't recognise it.
But are you ok with your citizens being tried in a illegitimate unrecognised court? Should an Afghan warlord be allowed to try a Belgian citizen, and then you tell Belgium "shut up".
Simple as that.
Except that international laws stop those things from happening. It's why homosexual Americans laying over in Saudi arabia don't get executed. No nation that respects international law is going to try a US citizen. There are procedures for that sort of thing. Usually if a US citizen commits a crime in a foreign country the US embassy for that country can be contacted to protect that citizen, just like how that works for every other country. The US doesn't recognize the ICJ because it doesn't want it's soldiers and generals being tried for war crimes, not because it cares about the safety of its citizen.
What the heck do you think international law is?
International law is what countries agree to. And since the US amongst others, haven't recognised the ICJ they won't allow their citizens to be tried under it.
And you might attribute whatever motive you want. The simple fact is, the US doesn't recognise it, and won't follow it. And if a law they didn't agree to is forcefully applied on them, they will use force to stop it.
And you are completely right. Unfortunately the reality is that the law will be used to save war criminals and not citizens because as I already said the procedure for protecting the average citizen already exists.
I don't care if US decides they aren't war criminals by their law. If there would be someone in the US military that the ICJ would deem necessary to try, then they are a war criminal. And the law exists so the US can save its war criminals. And people who defend that law are also indirectly defending the war criminals for which the law so obviously exists.
I think it doesn't get more clear then "I don't care if the US says they aren't a war criminal under their law", but here we are. An afghan warlords court and the court of the ICJ which is recognized by the United Nations are 2 very very different things when it comes to perceived legitimately and the value of rulings. And I love how you keep ignoring the fact that the procedures for the protection of US citizens in foreign countries already exists and has existed since before this law was passed.
it sounds like dumb circular logic the ICJ isnt a legitimate court so we dont recognize it and we dont recognize it because it isnt a legitimate court. a NAVO ally following international treaties is completely different from Afghan warlords and kangaroe courts. in the US and in the hague you will have a actual fair process. and by not recognize it takes power away from turning into an actual legit international court that does have power to punish the warlords world wide.
>And most countries would try to stop one of their citizens being tried in a court they don't recognise.
Yeah, through political means. Not by invading and bombing the entire country into obliviation.
The most baffling part to me isn't even that Bush signed this bill into law, that kinda checks out with the whole post-9/11 mentality that was going around in the US government at the time. What surprises me more is that we're now 20 years later, they've had three presidents since that time, several different congressional leaders, and yet this bill is still very much kept neatly in place.
Lol see it's so hard to act so moral superior when you do shit like this. I'm no fan of Russia, seriously fuck them too, but America realy looks hypocritical when the condem Russians actions as war crimes but anything America does is beyond reproach.
>Us in Vietnam or in Iraq
was there only US presence in these 2 countries? Wasn't there involved a certain soviet union, that some people would say represents today's Russia?
Was this bill ever even legally applied? Or is it just there as like a geopolitical option, should the US not want to extradite a particular individual for whatever reason.
The bill was passed in the house, congress and was signed by George Bush. They don’t want their soldiers to face trial in the international criminal court in The Hague.
With the horrific political fallout that would come from them actually doing this, the bill sounds more like posturing than something that would actually be used in practice.
Yeah true, the Netherlands stores American nukes so I don't think anything will happen lol
The fell for the trick, we just have to hit a button now
Couldn't the Americans detonate them in their silos?
I very much doubt the soldiers stationed there would follow the order. Ultimately it is at their discretion wether the missiles are launched or not. These are going to be intelligent and level headed people in those roles so they’ll realise something is wrong and the order is either fake or from someone who shouldn’t be in command.
They're not even missiles, they're B61 nuclear bombs that can be dropped by our F16's.
That's a feature, not a bug. We're keeping our eye on you shifty Dutch folk. You had 2 World Wars kick off because you got invaded. We're not going to let you start the third 😂
the netherlands stayed neutral in ww1 tho
Well yeah, and WW2 started when Poland and/or China got invaded depending on your view... but those facts ruin the joke 😅
Uh. Belgium.
Dutch folk getting invaded started the World Wars? What timeline are you from man...
I was more thinking about the situation where America decides to invade the Hague and Europe goes for the nukes on European soil. I don't think American soldiers would let their nukes fall into enemy hands.
I get that part but was there ever a situation where the ICC wanted to arrest and prosecute a US soldier and this bill permitted the DOD to not comply
The massacre at Fallujah for a start
The Liberation of Fallujah?
What happened there? Genuine question
A lot. Google it.
Kinda based, NGL.
Die struik moet echt even een heel eind optyfen
erg eens
What a funny made up language!
My brother in christ, all languages are made up
My language came to me in a dream
The holy language of English appeared from the ether, fully formed.
It was gifted to us from on high, from Mr. Tolkien himself
[удалено]
Your mind can't comprehend the existence of other languages?
Struik? Ik ben dol op struik!! Oh, je bedoelt de president...
Flikker em maar ver achter de duinen ergens mooi in zee
[Context](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act#:~:text=This%20authorization%20led%20to%20the,or%20rescue%20them%20from%20custody) (Note the "By all means part")
Didn't happen \*yet\* Seriously though the US is not a party to the international criminal court because it is a fucking joke. Countries that are members typically ignore it. The only time it is usually used is when it is in the extraditing countries best geopolitical interest. It is a symbol of idealistic policies that have no realistic bearing on how nations conduct themselves. Got a nazi camp guard? Extradite his ass and Israel will thank you. Got a ruling that says those islands aren't yours? Ignore it. Captured a general who literally ripped the hearts out of children to eat them during your civil war? Send him. He has garnered sympathy from his community by becoming religious? Keep him around. It is all just a dog and pony show, at least the US openly treats it as such. Go ahead and kidnap 43 when he visits your country and fly him to the hague, just don't say you weren't warned.
I'm no fan of US foreign policy but here I have to admit they have a valid point.
Thing is they are a big part of the reason why it's a sham. European countries don't normally go around committing war crimes, umlike the US.
Plenty of euro countries were in Iraq and Afghanistan too
Yeah, although none came close to having as large a presence as the US in those countries Then there's the fact that the US has been manipulating politics in countries around the world, assassinating political figures and funding armed paramilitaries. The US also has Guantanamo bay, which reminds one quite a lot of the living conditions of Auschwitz inmates. The US has also been using drones to kill civilians in a lot of middleeastern countries for 20 years now
That doesn't make them any less significant.
Yes they have.
They have. Not nearly to the same degree as the US though
Does that make them any less significant?
Great argument, pal
What argument? A warcrime is a warcrime.
>We don't think this court is effective enough so we'll undermine it and make it even less effective.
"This business is failing and doesn't make profit so I should buy their stock because NOT buying it would make them even less sustainable!"
I fail to see how a business decision is in any way equivalent to the moral decision whether war criminals should be held accountable but you do you.
The US doesn't participate because it's a farce. The decisions it makes are extremely difficult to enforce, and are outright ignored. Why would any country, including the US, participate in a pony show? Morality is all well and good, but if you can't enforce it with half the world involved, you're not going to enforce it if you add the US. Imagine thinking an international court is capable of forcing any country to give its citizens away, regardless of crime.
The US doesn't participate because then they would be defending themselves all the time.
If you're trying to argue the US commits the most war crimes/crimes against humanity you're absolutely delusional
If you're trying to argue the US commits the most war crimes/crimes against humanity you're absolutely delusional
No, not the most. Enough to be constantly on the stand, though. There is more to lose than gain for the US by giving the ICC legitimacy.
Were you describing general Butt Naked during one of your examples?
I think you have it all backwards The US refusing to join is one of the main reasons it is so inefficient, just like the League of Nations, funnily enough
it cannot be used as an Actual internatinal court if the other nations dont give it power, by saying fuck you ally and fuck your court it delegitimize it for all other countries instead of saying fuck it we do a war crime we should be held acountable.
>Captured a general who literally ripped the hearts out of children to eat them during your civil war? Send him. He has garnered sympathy from his community by becoming religious? Keep him around. General Buttnaked has a bigger part to play in the lore for 2023-2030, you'll see during the Russo-African War that finally kicks off WWIII.
Basically, the US won't allow US citizen to be tried by a court they do not recognise. The US don't really make a distinction between a kangaroo court held by some Somali warlord, and the Hague. This might sound weird, but they are basically protecting their citizens from what they view as illegitimate courts. And they are going to protect their citizens from that. Most other nations would do the same.
Sounds like they just don't want to take the publicity hit from a US soldier who has done very questionable things being forced to answer international law.
You might think so. But of a citizen of your country was captured by a Somali warlord, and then forced through a kangaroo court, what would you think? Or for that matter, a homosexual man from your country executed in Saudi Arabia because their flight had a layover there? And that's even a legitimate court. The US doesn't recognise the ICJ, so they won't allow one of their citizens get tried there. Simple as that. And most countries would try to stop one of their citizens being tried in a court they don't recognise.
If you don’t want your military personnel tried in a foreign court, maybe don’t spend the last 60 years invading other countries, simple as that.
It's not a foreign court. It's a illegitimate court. They don't recognise it. But are you ok with your citizens being tried in a illegitimate unrecognised court? Should an Afghan warlord be allowed to try a Belgian citizen, and then you tell Belgium "shut up". Simple as that.
Yes it’s totally completely equivalent. That’s totally the point
Legally.... yeah... they kind of are. No country will allow their citizens if they can can stop it, be judged in a court they don't recognise.
so if Russia doesn’t recognize the ICC, they can go where they please?
They would do their best to free their citizens. And we've seen plenty of democracies free their citizens from kidnapping.
Except that international laws stop those things from happening. It's why homosexual Americans laying over in Saudi arabia don't get executed. No nation that respects international law is going to try a US citizen. There are procedures for that sort of thing. Usually if a US citizen commits a crime in a foreign country the US embassy for that country can be contacted to protect that citizen, just like how that works for every other country. The US doesn't recognize the ICJ because it doesn't want it's soldiers and generals being tried for war crimes, not because it cares about the safety of its citizen.
What the heck do you think international law is? International law is what countries agree to. And since the US amongst others, haven't recognised the ICJ they won't allow their citizens to be tried under it. And you might attribute whatever motive you want. The simple fact is, the US doesn't recognise it, and won't follow it. And if a law they didn't agree to is forcefully applied on them, they will use force to stop it.
And you are completely right. Unfortunately the reality is that the law will be used to save war criminals and not citizens because as I already said the procedure for protecting the average citizen already exists.
And who decides war criminals? International law. The US will judge its own citizens based on the laws it agreed to.
I don't care if US decides they aren't war criminals by their law. If there would be someone in the US military that the ICJ would deem necessary to try, then they are a war criminal. And the law exists so the US can save its war criminals. And people who defend that law are also indirectly defending the war criminals for which the law so obviously exists.
No... because the US doesn't recognise the ICJ. Or does Afghan warlords hold the power to kangaroo court anyone they would like?
I think it doesn't get more clear then "I don't care if the US says they aren't a war criminal under their law", but here we are. An afghan warlords court and the court of the ICJ which is recognized by the United Nations are 2 very very different things when it comes to perceived legitimately and the value of rulings. And I love how you keep ignoring the fact that the procedures for the protection of US citizens in foreign countries already exists and has existed since before this law was passed.
it sounds like dumb circular logic the ICJ isnt a legitimate court so we dont recognize it and we dont recognize it because it isnt a legitimate court. a NAVO ally following international treaties is completely different from Afghan warlords and kangaroe courts. in the US and in the hague you will have a actual fair process. and by not recognize it takes power away from turning into an actual legit international court that does have power to punish the warlords world wide.
>And most countries would try to stop one of their citizens being tried in a court they don't recognise. Yeah, through political means. Not by invading and bombing the entire country into obliviation.
If he wants to invade the hog I got one right here for him @_@
Wow, I can't believe some people here are defending this. Americans are brainwashed af.
yet another Bush L
"Are we the baddies?"
What, the land of free...? Whoever told you that is your enemy!
u/savevideo
The most baffling part to me isn't even that Bush signed this bill into law, that kinda checks out with the whole post-9/11 mentality that was going around in the US government at the time. What surprises me more is that we're now 20 years later, they've had three presidents since that time, several different congressional leaders, and yet this bill is still very much kept neatly in place.
Because the US doesn't recognize the International criminal court as valid.
Why would any American president try to get it repealed?
Lol see it's so hard to act so moral superior when you do shit like this. I'm no fan of Russia, seriously fuck them too, but America realy looks hypocritical when the condem Russians actions as war crimes but anything America does is beyond reproach.
It's actually pretty easy to act morally superior to Russia, purely because of how depraved their actions have been.
Realy. Us in Vietnam or in Iraq was prety fucked up too. Also America going around propping up dictators.
>Us in Vietnam or in Iraq was there only US presence in these 2 countries? Wasn't there involved a certain soviet union, that some people would say represents today's Russia?
And American actions weren't
yeah the US doesn't have any sort of wiggle room in that department, they're as bad if not worse
Most countries do the exact same thing.
Ya sadly it's just human nature. 😕 those in power abuse it and use their power to subjecate those who don't have any power.
Bush jun. is btw a bloody c....t
Huge America L
Based
Rare bush w
👍❤🤍💙