US sanctions International Criminal Court officials
edition.cnn.com
edition.cnn.com
Buried right at the bottom of the article: "the US is not a party to the international tribunal".
Now, you can say they should be. But they're not. So if you look at it from a purely impartial and dispassionate standpoint, the court shouldn't get any special treatment - and the US would be entitled to take such actions against any other foreign group that set itself up and issued threats. It's like me setting up my own private court and then coming to arrest you.
The fact that most other countries are part of it may make a moral case for the US to join but not a legal one, which means that, again looking dispassionately, the US is entitled to do this.
The US signed the Rome Statute, but never ratified it.
Once a country ratifies the statute, it's in until a year after it gives notice to quit. And, even then, quitting has no effect on investigations already in progress.
And the US still refuses to pay those reparations.
The highest court in the US is the supreme court and every court any of us can be subjected to is under it. The ICC has no sovereignty over the US. Our foreign policy with regards to international law is to support it having sovereignty over others but not ourselves, the world peace enjoyed for the past eight decades or so is a direct result of American hegemony and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours.
There is a power imbalance on purpose which results in a little injustice and a big lack of armed conflict.
If you speak of the western world, the main reason for peace is the construction of the european union, creating much more cooperation between countries that had always been fighting each other.
US foreign policy is not driven by peace, freedom or whatever propanganda created to have people's support but by self-interest. It's the same for any country.
Have you had a look at American foreign policy last eight decades?
> and if you don’t like it start building a military to rival ours.
Yeah, that sounds totally like what peace and democracy loving entity would say.
I'll buy that argument as long as Americans stay inside their own borders. When you choose to enter another country you are subject to their laws whether you agree with them or not. Afghanistan has signed on to the ICC and the activities being investigated took place in Afghanistan.
Having said that I don't expect US policy to change on this issue regardless of who wins the next election. Letting US soldiers be tried for war crimes is bad politics.
When a US citizen is in another country, they are under the power of the courts of that other country. Why is this so hard to understand?
The US military members, when in Afghanistan, are subject to Afghanistan courts jurisdiction—one of those courts is the ICC because Afghanistan gave the ICC jurisdiction by signing the treaty.
When the CIA operatives were in Italy they were under the jurisdiction of the Italian courts and were thus so convicted:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case
If you do not want to be under the jurisdiction of non-US courts then do not leave the US. Once you step over the border you have to follow the rules of the other country.
Let's take a hypothetical scenario. The majority of UN member states are not democracies. If all of these non-democracies would set up a court, with the legitimacy of 'the majority of UN members', would they automatically have the right to prosecute the other countries?
'Legitimacy' is a moral concept. The legal concept that matters is 'jurisdiction'.
Also, more than 100 states out of 167 are democracies, so majority of states are democracies.
They're not.
The current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index lists 22 "full democracies", 64 "flawed democracies" and 24 "hybrid regimes".
22+64 = 86
86/167 = 51.5%
less than 100 states are democracies
Whether they are a majority or not is irrelevant to what lazyjones said.
86 + 24 = 110 > 100
More than 100 states are democracies.
I can't think of a single real democracy that isn't deeply flawed except for Switzerland.
I get to vote on what I believe is right on every issue, instead of getting tricked by politicians who have positions that they later compromise on.
This actually nothing to do with being a direct democracy. You still have an executive cabinet selected by (but not responsible to) parliament. It's just that every member of the executive is selected by the parliament, instead of the parliament selecting a leader who picks the rest.
> I get to vote on what I believe is right on every issue, instead of getting tricked by politicians
You can still get tricked by politicians. America has very many citizens-initiated referenda, but it cannot be said to have improved their democratic outcomes.
The US is not part of the Italian legal system, and yet when CIA officials were in Italy, and committed crimes in Italy, and were convicted by an Italian court for those crimes in absentia, is anyone questioning that?
* https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/world/europe/05italy.html
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case
The crimes were committed in a country that gave jurisdiction to the court.
> The majority of UN member states are not democracies. If all of these non-democracies would set up a court, with the legitimacy of 'the majority of UN members', would they automatically have the right to prosecute the other countries?
If the prosecuted countries/people committed crimes in the jurisdictions of those non-democracies, yes it would have the right.
The crimes were allegedly occurred in Afghanistan, and the ICC has jurisdiction in Afghanistan because Afghanistan gave it.
> The ICC lacks universal territorial jurisdiction, and may only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
If the alleged crimes happened in Somalia, which is a non-member / non-signatory (AFAICT), then the ICC would have no jurisdiction.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta...
Having members in common with the UN does not automatically give it legitimacy. The UN does some good things, and does some things that are to give tinpot third-world dictators a chance to look respectable. The efforts involving the second are fine for trying to nudge countries into being more like the normal world, but should not be given any real authority over anything.
The question is, which camp does the ICC fall into? That question tells how much legitimacy it has as a court. (And I don't know the answer, so I'm not going to give one. All I'm saying is "It's like the UN" doesn't make it legitimate, at all.)
(Click saver for others, the members:
1. Ms. Tania María Abdo Rocholl Paraguay 2017–2020
2. Mr. Yadh Ben Achour Tunisia 2019-2022
3. Ms. Ilze Brands Kehris Latvia 2017–2020
4. Mr. Christopher Arif Bulkan Guyana 2019-2022
5. Mr. Ahmed Amin Fathalla Egypt 2017–2020
6. Mr. Shuichi Furuya Japan 2019–2022
7. Mr. Christof Heyns South Africa 2017–2020
8. Mr. Hernán Quezada Cabrera Chile 2019–2022
9. Mr. Bamariam Koita Mauritania 2017–2020
10. Ms. Marcia. V. J. Kran Canada 2017–2020
11. Mr. Duncan Laki Muhumuza Uganda 2019–2022
12. Ms. Photini Pazartzis Greece 2019–2022
13. Ms. Vasilka Sancin Slovenia 2019–2022
14. Mr. José Manuel Santos Pais Portugal 2017–2020
15. Mr. Yuval Shany Israel 2013–2020
16. Ms. Hélène Tigroudja France 2019–2022
17. Mr. Gentian Zyberi Albania 2019–2022
18. Mr. Andreas B. Zimmermann Germany 2018–2020 )
But even if it's true, that's not something that obligates the US to play ball. They don't have any obligations to the Court.
So what?
If there's no jurisdiction there's no obligation to start with.
Case in point: China has made it illegal worldwide to criticize what they're doing in Hong Kong[1]. That doesn't mean you have to listen to them if you're in a country that doesn't care.
[1]: https://www.axios.com/china-hong-kong-law-global-activism-ff...
The US has no such treaty with Afghanistan, and is not a party to the ICC.
Whether or not the US should cooperate with the ICC is another matter, but the US has no legal or diplomatic obligation to do so. And in fact the US executive branch is required by US law to actively thwart ICC action against US servicemembers[1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...
America is getting away with its war crimes and crimes against humanity, simply because there isn't a system by which it can have its obligations not to murder millions of people enforced by external force. Yet. That day may change, one can only hope ..
For the record, I think the US should be a member of the ICC, but we're not, and the US Congress passed a law many years ago instructing the executive branch to protect US servicemembers from the ICC. That's just the legal reality.
The usage of "legal" in this thread is highly misleading: partly erroneous and partly just a red herring. You are right about the USA national law, but that's the red herring part, because it is irrelevant in this international context with sovereign states and the ICC as parties. As far as the ICC is concerned (or rather international law and the treaty, the Rome Statute, which established the ICC) the suspected crimes were committed on party territory (Afghanistan; but also Poland, Romania and Lithuania; the latter three hosted the CIA black sites where prisoners were taken) and the USA government is not willing to prosecute themselves; so the ICC's purpose is to prosecute them.
That's why I called Llimos' position pseudo-legalist. (And also because the ICC is not a "private court" any more than the SCOTUS is a "private court".)
On the other hand, the USA is a sovereign state and its government is presumably in a position to ignore the international tribunal. This is the might part, which some are equating with a legally nonexistent right.
I don't know what exactly makes the USA different in this regard to some other relatively democratic state that finds its military and government under investigation by an international tribunal. It's surely got to do something with USA's might (power the US government is able to project across the world, e.g. sanctions) and worldwide reputation; but I think public opinion within the (democratic) country in conflict with the ICC is also hugely relevant in such cases, thus I'd say the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this, or pass the relevant laws).
For a comparison, I doubt there is currently an European internationally recognized state besides Russia and, maybe, Belarus whose governing politicians would dare defy something like the ICC; and sanctions by any state other than the USA would also carry much less weight.
Taking another look at the top-level comment, another thing that is visible in it apart from fake legalism is the "if it is legal, it is right", or, alternatively, "if it is within my might, it is right" point of view. That, too, is horrible; I guess I just didn't notice it consciously before.
But I think it's still correct to say that the US is not legally beholden to the ICC, just as any other country not party to the Rome Statute is not. It's a voluntary thing, and there are plenty of countries in the world with less might than the US that are non ICC members. If Rome Statute signatories could just flat-out decide what and what is not legal for everyone, that wouldn't be a great outcome for the concept of sovereignty.
> I'd say the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this, or pass the relevant laws).
I think that's an uncharitable view that paints with a way-too-broad brush. Mine is that US citizens do generally care about these things, but don't trust the idea of a foreign body having oversight in criminal matters. Sure, there almost certainly is some subset that believes that "those terrorists deserve what they get", and believe that due process should go out the window whenever someone utters the magic phrase "national security", and that's shameful.
> the suspected crimes were committed on party territory (Afghanistan; but also Poland, Romania and Lithuania; the latter three hosted the CIA black sites where prisoners were taken)
This is also interesting, though: has the ICC been investigating, and potentially prosecuting individuals in, Poland, Romania, and Lithuania for their part in allowing this stuff to happen on their soil? If not, why not? Seems like it would make sense for them to concentrate where the targets of potential prosecution are actually within their jurisdiction, no?
I agree that "if it is within my might, it is right" is reprehensible, but I don't think that explains the situation fully. I think it's reasonable to disagree with the ICC's implementation, and to want nothing to do with it, even if its intended mission is an honorable one.
Joining the ICC has no upside for this country since it simply enforces its will upon the world directly. Why would the empire limit its own ability to commit war crimes for nothing in return? The US government can label any action it disagrees with as terrorism and act unilaterally.
While this is true they certainly also don't have an obligation to attack individuals, who happen to work for the court.
That's just a totally underhanded shit move of a bully and, I strongly suspect, it's red meat for a certain segment of voters.
No matter how you look at it. This move is fucking disgusting.
The fact that the ICC counts many nations as members certainly makes it feel like the US should cooperate on moral/ethical grounds, but it has no legal requirement to do so.
The US had the power to establish before committing war crimes, that it does not want to be investigated (acting lawfully but immorally), while any other criminal would not have the power to plan ahead and could only try to escape justice after having committed a crime (acting immorally and unlawfully).
So what I am saying is: Nobody cares about acting lawfully when it comes to war crimes. Especially not, when you base your dominance on your fantasy of a moral high ground.
That's demonstrably incorrect, and we're talking about this exact counterexample. You're saying that the US has acted immorally (which I agree with!) while simultaneously saying the US is legally responsible, which it is not. That right there suggests that morality and law are not aligned, and that there is sometimes quite a big difference between the two.
The Nazis acted "lawfully" under their jurisdiction, but because the laws themself were unjust, it is widely recognized that they in fact did not act lawfully and so they have been trialed for it. It's called "legal positivism". The concept means, that there is in fact no difference between "law" and "moral", when it comes to war crimes. Ironically, it was the US, which established that concept.
And I absolutely agree that we can say that some countries do things that are entirely consistent with their own laws, that we will nevertheless judge to be immoral. The US is sadly no stranger to this phenomenon.
But again... what's the point? My original comment was simply addressing the legality of the situation. The US has no legal requirement to cooperate with the ICC, and has enough clout on the international stage to maintain that position. When it comes to international relations, "law" isn't the same thing as what it is between a government and its citizens. International "law" can only be enforced either through the consent of those who are party to it, or through economic or military might.
(https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/4775)
> Title II: American Servicemembers' Protection Act - American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 - Prohibits U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. ...
> (Sec. 2008) Authorizes the President to use all means necessary (including the provision of legal assistance) to bring about the release of covered U.S. persons and covered allied persons held captive by, on behalf, or at the request of the Court.
prevents cooperation, extradition, etc and authorizes actions to protect citizens from the court
[1] As a naval power, the british were also fond of economic sanctions.
[2] which would not necessarily have been a bad thing: a british North America would have ended slavery sooner with much less bloodshed.
They literally have a casus belli to invade the netherlands.
To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd. The only bad thing about this is that the US is not willing to punish their own war criminals.
> This administration is shattering any form of international cooperation not based on power and submission
The only other two things that I can think of are the withdrawal from UNESCO and from WHO (this one was justified IMO), do you have anything else in mind?
> To be honest, I do not find this to be that absurd.
What? This is the definition of absurdity.
I am not saying that it is not absurd, just that it is not that absurd.
The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before, but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump.
"this"?
> The UN charter prevents war except in specific situations, which do not include someone being indicted for war crimes. Of course it didn’t stop the US before
So it is useless.
> but the mere idea of the US attacking a NATO ally that’s also a member state of the EU is bonkers, even after 4 years of Trump.
It is certainly not the first time that the US has made such threats. Whether it is likely to act on it I do not know - in the same spirit though, isn't the work of the ICC bonkers? It is not like the US going to just send their service member there out of their goodwill.
To be fair, the article is not necessarily fantastic, it was just to show that there indeed were trade wars between the US and the EU before Trump.
... δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν.[3]
[1] In another few centuries they'll probably be lumped together as the 31 years war or something.
[2] not all of which was bad. Afterwards, unlike the Bourbons, my country kept the best changes (e.g. the law code) and got rid of the worst (e.g. the french running things).
[3] If JFK were alive today, I bet he'd have half a mind to call these sanctions a dick move.
A large majority of people consider that in fact it is WORLD WAR THREE that was started by the US and its allies in 2003.
It just hasn't hit Western shores yet.
Come on. That's bird logic.
For example: https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/33/lists?search=%...
https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/member?search=%7B...
"press photographer in Germany"
So what if the guy also works as a press photographer? Does that give him immunity from being a criminal?
Sure, you can redefine everything as it suits you. "Stealing money fron the Tunisian population" is similar to tax fraud. You turn it into a war crime or being dictators.
Now they passed the law to sanction the individuals working at ICC.
I am saying that the new law in not a huge difference from the old law, which was already "fearful". This is all I am trying to say here.
Both are power moves. Do you think they're the same thing though?
Yes, power is good way to bootstrap cooperation based on trust. This is a much more effective form of cooperation as you waste less energy on paranoia and watching over your back. You can also base cooperation on submission but then you have to constantly be at an all out war to protect your regime. Much less efficient or reasonable.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kennedy.asp
> "We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom--and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside."
https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/mad.jpg
Now more than ever, I'm quite certain that almost all countries in the world would jump on any opportunity to get rid of this currency influence.
The world will resume, and so will the progress, and it’ll happen here on Earth unless we choose to do it elsewhere, not because it’s easy but because it’s the only place there is.
That being said, I don't like when this kind of issues are politicized ("Obama destroyed America", "Trump sucks on all issues", ...). So I looked up the numbers.
The US congress and senate passed a law, in 2002, that gave the president authority to "with all means necessary, prohibit the International Criminal Court from seeking to exercise jurisdiction over United States persons, and allied persons"
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2002328
Votes by party
Republican YEAS: 201 NAYS: 18
Democratic YEAS: 195 NAYS: 13
Doesn't seem to be a "current administration" issue only. Clearly the US was caught up in the post-9/11 panic at the time of passing this law. But it seems a good idea to repeal it - if there is no longer a majority in support of it.
Anyway, The bill didn't specify the means, so the means are a part of policy. Sanctioning these type of individuals is a bully move. This administration has picked a strategy of being a bully.
No he wasn't. He went after journalists in the most vicious way since Nixon. His intelligence services violated privacy in the US on a scale never seen before in the country. He attempted to invade Syria and de facto ended up doing exactly that, starting new wars across the Middle East. He didn't do a damn thing different, he was just another President in the White House committing new atrocities, like the guy before him. Then on the way out the door he sent the FBI after his replacement, in a pre-staged attempted coup. Dirty as can be.
People try to pretty up the Obama Administration years, because he's a fan favorite. I get it, he's a lot more likable than Bush or Trump; he's more composed, smoother, and smarter. It's all a con, all the way down to the fraudulent Nobel Peace Prize he apparently got ahead of time for destroying Syria and Libya. His Presidency was a travesty filled with many acts of extraordinary evil. There should have been a Syria death counter every night on CNN, but the left didn't have the integrity to do it to one of their own.
I am not sure how he destroyed Syria. The whole resistance was part of the Arab Spring. It was a mixture of unhappiness with the dictatorship and the food scarcity outside of the cities. The involvement from outside powers came in very late and mostly were half hearted approaches (except the Russians).
Obama is not perfect, and during his reign, journalism and whistleblowers were affected a lot. He also had other issues but these were not part of them.
Don't even try not to own up to that fact. Everyone who has been counting the piles of smoking rubble the US and its allies leave around the place, know just how much nicer things were before Americans decided to drop bombs on people they think the world doesn't care about.
The direct, immediate consequences (that is: the current state) have to be attributed to the intervention. Some consider the belief "hey, we'll just bomb it and everybody will love each other and it'll be great" naivete bordering on retardation, but I think "we really didn't know any better" has to be ruled out after repeated use. At some point even a toddler learns not to put their hand on the hot stove, unless pain is their goal.
> On 19 February, several days after the conflict began, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi announced the creation of a commission of inquiry into the violence, chaired by a Libyan judge, as reported on state television. He stated that the commission was intended to be "for members of Libyan and foreign organizations of human rights" and that it will "investigate the circumstances and events that have caused many victims."[137] Caricature of Gaddafi, Al Bayda, April 2011
> Towards the end of February, it was reported that the Gaddafi government had suppressed protests in Tripoli by distributing automobiles, money and weapons for hired followers to drive around Tripoli and attack people showing signs of dissent.[182] In Tripoli, "death squads" of mercenaries and Revolutionary Committees members reportedly patrolled the streets and shot people who tried to take the dead off the streets or gather in groups.[183] The International Federation for Human Rights concluded on 24 February that Gaddafi was implementing a scorched earth strategy. The organization stated that "It is reasonable to fear that he has, in fact, decided to largely eliminate, wherever he still can, Libyan citizens who stood up against his regime and furthermore, to systematically and indiscriminately repress civilians. These acts can be characterized as crimes against humanity, as defined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."[184]
> In May 2011, International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo estimated that 500–700 people were killed by security forces in February 2011, before the rebels took up arms. According to Moreno-Ocampo, "shooting at protesters was systematic".[185]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)
This was getting worse before NATO tried to intervene.
If you want to know what happens when the world does not interfere, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_killing_of_Bengali_intell...
> Deaths 1,111
That's kind of the point. Was Gaddhafi a great guy? I don't think so. Was he in control? Yeah. Was Libya, and, by extension, the region stable with him in control? Yeah. Did we destabilize the region and create the circumstances for ISIS to flourish, open chattel slavery etc? Yeah. Was that predictable? Yeah, very much so.
I tend to see dictators like Gaddhafi more like a necessary evil. Kind of like an amputation to save the whole. Yes, it sucks losing your foot. But losing your life sucks a whole lot more. The NATO approach is ostensibly "we can't accept this patient losing a foot, and if the patient dies, then so be it, at least we tried to to do the right thing™".
It rarely works, and at some point I question whether the stated goal is really the intention or the -often witnessed- side-effects of regional destabilization, endless civil wars etc are the actual intended effect. That would change two things: a) the missions would be successful, explaining why we're repeating them with the same play book time and time again and b) we don't have to assume that the tens of thousands of analysts we're paying to analyze things and make smart plans are imbeciles, incapable of learning from the past.
You got it all backward comrade. Libya was just fine before France and the US intervened. Sure the infrastructure and liberties were not there, but that's kinda the theme of the region.
Actually Libya was going on a "revolution" as Gaddafi was delegating his powers to his son who was interested in liberalizing the economy , building infrastructure and giving people more freedom.
It all went downhill and now it's a hotbed for ISIS and friends.
Here is a link to the civil war (Arab spring) before the involvement of other countries. I can find more if needed.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/04/happening...
I know because I live in Tunisia and the previous president did authorize moving arms to rebels through the country.
Hoover and Nixon committed worse privacy violations than Obama. Also, he never tried to invade Syria. And he didn't send the FBI after Trump, presidents don't have that authority.
Your type of delusional perfectionism will deter any leader who tries to follow your moral compass while keeping in touch with reality. We will be left only with assholes in charge, because they don't give a fuck what you think.
Thank you very much for that great phrase to describe so much of politics today 'delusional perfectionism', and which might explain a lot of the aggressive antagonism towards the media from US and UK today (and probably others).
>We will be left only with assholes in charge, because they don't give a fuck what you think.
Which I think perfectly describes Trump, and to a large degree Johnson in the UK, but also Modi on India and Erdogan who have moved themselves out of the way of all criticism.
The Republican administration pre-Trump appeared to be on a mission to glass 2 countries and entirely spirited at the thought of gearing up and invading of Iran. It was so terrible that the Obama Administration's foreign policy, which had a lot of problems, looked pretty good by comparison.
I'm not sure where the "international cooperation not based on power and submission" business the thread root was talking about, but speaking as a foreigner I would encourage US administrations to stick to bullying, this is the good end of the spectrum of US foreign policy. 2000-2010 wasn't that long ago.
What is fascinating is that the US itself is dismantling it, ultimately leading to a world that is no longer US-led and where the US is a lot poorer.
If you review George H W Bush's early 90s speeches, he was cryctal clear that "UN" would be the center of "a new world order" and not USA or Washington DC. The undeclared attack of 9/11 necessitated a change in the plans. (If you think US was attempting to "Shock and Awe" Iraqis, that is fine, but we would disagree on that ..)
p.s. http://canadianliberty.com/new-world-order-speeches-of-presi...
Under this philosophy (or doctrine, if you will) of sovereignty, US will never accept that the ICC - an entity that the US citizens have not explicitly delegated their sovereign power to - are trying to prosecute US nationals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty_in_the_Uni...
How so?
If you visit a foreign country, you are making an explicit choice to enter their jurisdiction.
If you are extradited from the US, it means the government (your representatives) explicitly chose to cooperate with another jurisdiction in some manner.
The current case is somewhat confusing to me. The US doesn't participate in the ICC. The matter to be investigated apparently occurred in a country that does participate though. But the suspects were part of an active military operation. Unlike a tourist, it doesn't really seem like armed forces are usually subject to the laws of a jurisdiction they might "visit" during combat (typically quite the opposite in fact).
If someone from outside your jurisdiction threatens your citizens, isn't any capable government supposed to take actions to protect them? To me, the real question here is why the US isn't part of an international effort to prevent war crimes.
That's not the part that's confusing to me. (I'm really not clear how you could possibly come away with that from what I wrote?)
The confusing part is the jurisdiction. In what capacity were the soldiers present in the other country? (It obviously wasn't voluntarily for leisure.) Based on the answer to the former, were they subject to the laws of the other jurisdiction at the time of their actions? Or do they instead fall under US jurisdiction? The US government's stance on this seems quite clear at least.
Current US government's stance is that war crimes by US soldiers are good celebration worthy thing.
US army itself is actually better then what that implies and does not have soldiers on the loose. But, we are talking about government here.
The worst of the worst war crimes will be prosecuted in the US as well, but generally, soldiers have little to fear. A non-US court wouldn't have the same perspective.
Essentially: if you want people to do whatever it takes to get your mission done, make sure they're not liable for anything they break while doing so. That goes for the military as much as for tech companies. Tech companies just don't have armies to back up their stances, yet.
That is the point of the ICC in the first place: you cannot trust the war criminals to bring justice to their society.
We might be able to trust countries to judge their soldiers' behavior when these soldiers act on their own. The problem, and the reason, I believe, why the US won't voluntarily accept the ICC is when they don't, e.g. when drone operators bomb a wedding reception, because it's not going to be those individual operators on the hook - it's the mission and the larger policy that are going to be implicated. And a military doesn't want their officers to ask themselves "wait, can I do this? Will I be prosecuted for this?" when told to do something, they want them to say "Sir, yes, Sir" and mean it.
And were they brought to justice and sentenced for their crimes? No. A sham trial isn't sufficient for war crimes.
It's as much politics on the ICC side as on the USA side.
For years, the ICC had only prosecuted former warlords from African countries. Only the loosing sides, the criminals that won national power were usually ignored, as the recent Ivory Coast shows. So some African leaders protested and even removed their country from the ICC. So the court had to react, at least to show an intention even if a real prosecution is totally unrealistic. So the ICC Prosecutor — which is the former Ministry of Justice of the Gambia dictator — launched inquiries about crimes by security forces of Myanmar (Birmania), Israel, USA… It's mostly a symbolic gesture.
It'd still take extraordinary effort to persuade (shame) prosecution to take action. But with some transparency, at least the torrent of evil stuff would be recorded by someone somewhere.
And how about something a bit more formal? Maybe modeled after police department citizen review board? With a staff to injest, process, and interpret stuff? Like Project Censored.
I half thought that maybe Wikileaks might do some of this. And I should have probably scouted a bit before asking for something that already exists. (I hadn't actually ever visited the site before. I've never been terribly eager to get myself added to some watch lists.)
Alas.
https://search.wikileaks.org/?q=war+crimes
Not much value add there. It really is just a fancy FTP site with a search engine. The org itself does some competent press releases, swag, and branding; that ain't nothing.
While I agree that ideally we shouldn't have international cooperation based on power and submission, I don't think your depiction of post and pre-WWs mentality is accurate. The post-WWs mentality is even greater form of power and submission than pre-WWs. Pax Americana is pretty much the US ( and by extension the anglo world ) dominating everyone else. For example, more nations today have foreign troops ( predominantly american/anglo/western ) than during the pre-wws colonial era.
Trump is trying to preserve the post-wws world order, the ICC is trying to bring it back to pre-wws world order. Do you want america ruling the world ( post-wws ) or a collection of international powers ( pre--wws )? There are pros and cons to both.
China has not signed the ICC, and so the ICC has no jurisdiction with-in China (including HK). Afghanistan has signed the ICC treaty, so the ICC has jurisdiction with-in Afghanistan.
The alleged crimes occurred with-in Afghanistan.
If the alleged crimes occurred with-in Somalia, which is not an ICC member, the ICC could not investigate.
When you go to another country, you are bound by the laws of that country while you are with-in that country.
Have the UN set up a trial commission whenever there is need to prosecute someone internationally.
No need to have it wander around on geopolitically volatile fishing expeditions when they have nothing to do.