Hard to see how the US can claim a moral high ground on anything when it continues to not be a member of the ICC and is even occasionally actively hostile towards individual judges and member countries by threatening sanctions.
> ASPA authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act".
> The act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the International Criminal Court (ICC). For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the U.S. to the ICC; it also prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the ICC.
> The act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the ICC. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the ICC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
edit after 7 upvotes, sorry: I just want to make clear that I still largely support Pax Americana, because the alternatives are worse. But this law is cowardly and actually works against US interests, just like torture.
The alternative of supernational courts dispensing justice at an international level is essentially loose federations of gangs doing the same thing.
And, when a kid in a crips neighborhood tries to join the bloods...
Doesn't seem to stop other countries from doing this internationally and to their own citizens anyway. Something like the ICC in how you're envisioning things can only work when it's backed by military force. So long story short, it is mainly just the U.S. enforcing things, which doesn't really change anything.
America is an international gang not an international cop.
I just think that America is uniquely incapable of that.
An EU led super power emerging after an American collapse might successfully step into that role. Probably not, but still possible.
One person's policeman is another's mafia don. The international system as it exists, exists how you're describing it (supranational entity backed by national militaries) - it's just that the absence of the premier and effective military (America) makes that infeasible. So railing against America, calling the country a gang and mafia don, and advocating for it to withdraw from international organizations that it basically maintains flies in the face of your stated ideas and goals.
> An EU led super power emerging after an American collapse might successfully step into that role.
I mean that's certainly a scenario of events that could happen, but recent events on the ground suggest the EU is far too weak and neutered to supplant the United States in a meaningful way. It's more likely that the EU would break down and give way to war and conflict than create a unified state - hence the reason for NATO and the EU being created to babysit Europeans who continue to start war after war. More likely is just that the collapse of America (whatever that means) would give rise to either new nation state actors, or China, or some yet unknown and interesting new nation state.
One of the things that I think is interesting that has come out of the recent conflict in Ukraine that was started by Russia is that it is breaking the illusion of rules-based order on the international level and people are apparently very surprised about this.
Unfortunately might does make right at this level of interaction. To the extent that "fair" international organizations can exist they only can exist in that they are enforced by might and power. Actual bombs, guns, tanks, money, resources, and taking the lives of others. All of these organizations: the UN, ICC, WTO, you name it only exist in a meaningful way because they're literally backed by the United States' willingness to bomb or take away someone's toys (Russian yachts), and that you'd advocate for distancing the US from these organizations is to lead to the collapse of them without clear, ready replacements. No country or group of countries has the apparent ability to do this. Even the EU cannot conjure up a single, unified military and impose its will on the world.
Much of this anti-Americanism is geared toward sowing division where there is none and trying to convince Americans to be isolationist so that these international organizations do break down and then other countries can murder and pillage with impunity. I think it's safe to say we can reject this, in favor of a rules-based international order that is imperfect, but can be backed by America and supported by the EU and other participants such as Japan, Australia, Singapore, and others.
For the most part I just view this stuff (being anti-America, destroy international organizations, etc.) as right-wing talking points supported by bad actors to break ties in democracies.
Wait, what? I'm American... South American, to be precise. The US as world police doesn't exactly fill me with confidence, given their track record in our part of the Americas.
Whether this world policing is a "US liberal" or a "US right-wing" thing is of no interest to me. Both camps will call anyone who disagrees anti-American, anyway. (I think right now it's more of a "US liberal" thing but it used to be "US center-right/neocon". US politics are confusing!).
Just to be precise, being American means you're from the United States of America. I don't call myself North American, for example. Neither does anyone else. When you introduce yourself you don't say "Hi I'm the_af and I'm from America". That would be confusing, unless you're actually from the United States.
> The US as world police doesn't exactly fill me with confidence, given their track record in our part of the Americas.
Compared to what?
> Whether this world policing is a "US liberal" or a "US right-wing" thing is of no interest to me. Both camps will call anyone who disagrees anti-American, anyway. (I think right now it's more of a "US liberal" thing but it used to be "US center-right/neocon". US politics are confusing!).
The "let's get America out of international organizations" rhetoric are right-wing talking points propped up by countries that seek to divide democracies. Brexit is another good example. It's not that you're being called "anti-American" it's just that you're incorrect. The rhetorical talking points that discredit our international institutions and create anti-American sentiment seek to destroy those institutions (because they're maintained by the United States) to get the US to withdraw from those organizations to collapse them.
No, this is false. I call myself American. We're from the Americas. (North)American exceptionalism is bullshit.
But my point is that disagreement over US policy and their role as world police, and disagreement with their Manifest Destiny, is not "being anti-American". Even the phrase "anti-American" reeks so much of exceptionalism it should be avoided at all costs.
I'm not anti-American. Being American is about cooperating with all of America, not being a bully who doesn't have to comply with the rules unless you're the one writing them.
Ok. I don't really think I have anything else to add from this point on. Have a good day/evening.
But the point is that using these words, "American" and "anti-American", to refer to how people across the world choose to bow down -- or refuse to -- to the way things are handled by the US, is absurd. If you don't look up to the US you're not anti-American.
Nobody is "anti-American" just because they don't think the US is (or even should be) the guiding light of freedom and morality in the world. Nobody is anti- or un- American because they think the US is not above the rules.
"You're either with us or against us" -- a ridiculous and jingoistic mindset.
American = Citizen of the USA
I mean, you do you, but don’t get mad when people don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
But this is neither here nor there. I didn't intend to lead this in a linguistics direction, but rather towards this notion of Manifest Destiny and exceptionalism, that leads some people (like the ones who replied to me) to believe that rejecting the notion of the US as World Police is somehow the same as being "anti-American".
Since not everyone is from the US, I argue, this idea that we are "all in the same boat" and pushing against US supremacy and above-the-rules'ness is somehow "being anti-American" and "right-wing" is both ridiculous and parochial.
> don't complain when people don't know what you're talking about
I'm not complaining and everyone here does know what I'm talking about.
Actually it was u/ericmay who was complaining about alleged "anti-American" sentiment. Because this is about the world stage and about international rules, the interpretation that America != US is particularly relevant in this case; the interpretation about "common usage" is less relevant since this has major implications for the rest of the world (i.e. that the US is not above the rules and is not the moral light of the free world or whatever).
What other countries are constantly drone assassinating people in other countries territories?
The closest to that I can think of might be Turkey and Saudi Arabia with their drone operations in Syria and Yemen, but those campaigns accompany full blown open military campaigns, quite a bit different to US signature strike operations.
So you can only be murdered in your sleep by a drone? Nothing else counts?
But yea sure whatever. Here's 5 seconds of Google search [1].
> but those campaigns accompany full blown open military campaigns, quite a bit different to US signature strike operations.
I think that's a bizarre distinction to draw. Why would a military operation justify anything? U.S. drone strikes previously did accompany full-blown military campaign anyway.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2021/09/16/france-...
That's neither a French citizen nor is it anything beyond an anecdote. If you can show me France's equivalent to Pakistan [0], then we might be getting somewhere.
> I think that's a bizarre distinction to draw. Why would a military operation justify anything?
It's not bizarre at all; Weapons of war being used in a conflict of war is something very different than dropping weapons of war on a civilian population you are not officially at war with.
Well I don't know why it would matter that it's a French citizen. And I'm not sure how in the world you're claiming this is an anecdote as if France's drone strike were untrue. Do you have a direct source that contradicts the account of the French government?
> If you can show me France's equivalent to Pakistan [0], then we might be getting somewhere.
Why would I need to show you that? You asked for an example, not "show me an exact equivalent to this thing I haven't previously mentioned".
> It's not bizarre at all; Weapons of war being used in a conflict of war is something very different than dropping weapons of war on a civilian population you are not officially at war with.
Ok then we're at war with Pakistan (since that's the example you're using). Great now we're back to where we started and you got the "war" designation you wanted.
Because the US is even droning its own citizens [0], you were the one who originally brought this up as something the US allegedly does not do.
> And I'm not sure how in the world you're claiming this is an anecdote as if France's drone strike were untrue.
In that particular case it's not even clear it was a French drone that got him, the French only reported his passing, but going after him was a joint operation together with the US.
It's an anecdote because France has only been using drone strikes since 2019 and only in Mali, that's about two decades after the US first started droning people and about a dozen fewer countries droned.
> Why would I need to show you that? You asked for an example, not "show me an exact equivalent to this thing I haven't previously mentioned".
I asked for an example of a country constantly droning some place or another, which the US very much does, as the US has the most active and largest scale (global scale) drone program on the planet.
> Ok then we're at war with Pakistan (since that's the example you're using). Great now we're back to where we started and you got the "war" designation you wanted.
The US is not at war with Pakistan and I'm not "wanting" any designations.
You where the one who claimed "doesn't stop other countries" like the US drone program ain't some massive outlier, like the US didn't champion and normalize this for two decades.
And it only became normalized as nobody dared to seriously call the US out on it, even those who are directly enabling such US atrocities [1]
[0] https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o...
[1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/08/germany-could-have-deli...
Additionally, sovereign states are already free to prosecute anyone within their borders.
The ICC, however, would preempt US judicial authority — including the US Supreme Court.
I don’t see a due process violation in your link — just an example of how abdicating sovereign judicial authority can go wrong, as is the case with diplomatic immunity.
Which basically says "the state must respect the legal rights owed to a person" according to the legal process. And those can range from "you have none because we think you're a terrorist" to "whatever you desire because you're rich enough to buy yourself laws, or at the very least judges".
I will quote something I said just 2 days ago:
> Speaking of due process, 97% of criminal cases don't actually go to trial in the US and are instead settled with plea deals [0]. The sentencing is so harsh for anyone demanding trial and losing that it's mostly a paper right at this time. It does give people the warm fuzzy feeling of justice and correctness though.
Under these conditions having "due process" matters a lot less than you think. China also has laws against having more than 3 children, it just happens that Uyghurs are disproportionately imprisoned for breaking them. Can you think of another group of people being disproportionately imprisoned elsewhere?
> We still have extradition treaties
What's the value of treaties if attempts to enforce them are met with threats from a country with powerful economy and military? The US has repeatedly threatened countries to deter them from ever attempting to prosecute US citizens even for things as serious as war crimes (including the famed "Hague Invasion Act [0]) despite never actually taking any actions to punish this even internally. Like a mob "protection tax", it's not a real agreement if it can't realistically be enforced both ways.
What sort of moral high ground do you think you're defending now? I find it both fascinating and depressing that people find pride in defending such behavior just because it's enacted by their country.
[0] https://innocenceproject.org/guilty-pleas-on-the-rise-crimin...
[1] https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-be...
Not without being invaded by the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...
The ICC only has authority in territories where a sovereign state grants them authority. Hence the act, a threat to invade a sovereign state if that sovereign state follows the legal process they've legally decided (by signing the Rome statute) and prosecute an American citizen
> and only prosecutes cases that the sovereign states are themselves unwilling to prosecute.
Cases that the sovereign state defers to the ICC as their established legal process.
The subject of this article, that the United States government tortured was not so lucky.
Do the constitutional rights of a USA citizen need torture to maintain?
After 9/11, was anyone calling for diminishing US government powers? Maybe a few people, but for the most part - just the opposite - we wanted to hand even more power and money to the federal government.
Back then I’d ask my classmates to look at the other UN member countries not signatories to the Rome Statute subject to the ICC: China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, and Yemen. Not exactly a list of countries championing human rights or state Sovereignty, the US included.
Absolute sovereignty is a very romantic notion, but the US gives up sovereignty regularly through other treaties, it is very telling the Rome Statute is where the US and others draw the line. If you are worried about violation of your US Constitutional Rights you should be significantly more concerned about the US government that in the last 20 years has created secret kills lists and conducted extra judicial killings of its own citizens including bombing citizens abroad in violation of the territorial integrity of other nations. When those charged with protecting and enforcing your Constitutional Rights are the ones violating them, I personally like the idea those bearing the most responsibility be subject to an International Court.
I don’t want to say your concern about being subject to the ICC as a civilian otherwise in contravention to your US Constitutional Rights isn’t worthy of discussion or potential concern, but it is detached from reality. Moreover, the ICC has jurisdiction over things like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity it’s not exactly a “criminal court” the average citizen is likely to find themselves in violation of their Constitutional Rivhts (though perhaps you are not a civilian rather a high ranking military officer, in which case I understand your concern over an international court that prosecutes war crimes and human rights abuses).
But I think the real issue is that the CIA doesn't want oversight from anyone foreign or domestic.
However, whether or not US judges are, or may be, appointed to the ICC or any other tribunal, US judges don’t make them domestic courts nor would they apply domestic law.
From the time of the Nuremberg Trials these kinds of courts are commonly called international tribunals in English, the ICC is just a proper name of one such international tribunal. Another includes the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which was not a domestic court.
Arguably the first hybrid international tribunal/domestic court was the Special Court for Sierra Leon where both international law and domestic laws were applied. If Liberia ever successfully gets a war crimes it is likely to be a similar hybrid international tribunal/domestic court approach. Coincidentally I was part of a law clinic that represented a number of Liberian refugees and torture victims and obtained a $22M judgment against the son of the Liberian ex-President Charles Taylor in the US under the Foreign Tort Claims Act. If you’ve ever seen the movie Lord of War, the son is the character in this clip [2] with the golden AK-47 though the names were changed to Baptiste it’s otherwise pretty accurate, down to the fact Charles “Chucky” Taylor Jr. was a private school kid in Florida with a normal life until he went to Liberia and become the head of his Father’s security force ironically called Anti-terrorism Unit.
That's far from a complete list. There are 193 UN members[1]; only 123 have made themselves subject to the ICC[2].
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_United_Na...
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_parties_to_the_Rome_Sta...
The US has also signed but not yet ratified the treaty. We're not one of the 41 who haven't signed.
> Of those 41 members feel free to highlight those countries which are shining examples of rule of law and human rights.
I couldn't name any countries I would consider "shining examples of rule of law and human rights", ICC member or not. Even the ICC itself has been accused of racism and neo-colonialism because nearly all its prosecutions have targeted Africa.
I did notice that Ukraine, like us, signed but didn't ratify the treaty, which I thought was interesting at this time.
Since then, it has been on track to ratify the statute, recently affirming ICC jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes going as far back as the Euromaiden protests.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/02/ukraine-countries-reques...
It’s a little more nuanced, Ukraine formally declared acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ICC following Russia’s initial illegal use of force and armed conflict in Ukraine beginning in 2014.
Thereafter Russia withdrew their signature from the Rome Statute in 2016 the day following the ICC report on Crimea classifying Russia’s act as occupation.
I could just as easily turn that argument around and say “why would the US want to sign onto an agreement that include countries like Jordan and Cambodia that have no rule of law”?
The ICC is no different than the UN - an international body that is a convenient cover for powerful nations to cloak themselves in.
Charges against African despots? Well Europe is on board for that!
Charges for war crimes during the Afghan war? Whoa there! We never agreed to that!
Pointing in the direction of a hypothetical doesn't really change that.
> Charges against African despots? Well Europe is on board for that!
And Europeans as seen from the trials of the war crimes that occurred following the breakup of Yugoslavia.
> Charges for war crimes during the Afghan war? Whoa there! We never agreed to that!
And yet the ICC has been investigating war crimes during the Afghan war, until the US started sanctioning ICC employees. They have since restarted the investigations. https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/prosecutor-se...
Of course they don’t.
My point stands - if the ICC starts charging powerful members states citizens you’ll pretty quickly watch support crumble. That’s why the African countries are pulling out - it’s pretty clear how the court will be used and it won’t be pointed towards its most powerful members.
Rather than join that circus, the US would rather bow out.
I'd appreciate if you at least finished one argument before shifting to another.
- OP was dishonest by listing only a few countries that haven't signed on
- OP argument was "everyone else is doing it", which is not very convincing
- My argument is the ICC is no different than the UN or other international bodies, their authority comes from the most powerful members, so you can guarantee the most powerful members won't play nice when they're in the crosshairs (as evidenced by the current countries' citizens being prosecuted are all minor powers)
I don’t think you know the definition of dishonest. One final time I list a number of countries that aren’t signatories to the Rome Statute, I never stated or implied that was an exhaustive list.
>OP argument was "everyone else is doing it", which is not very convincing
That is dishonest because that was not my argument and obviously inconsistent with the fact that I gave a list of countries that “were not doing it”.
Lastly your argument fails in light of every other international body the US is a part of, every treaty the US is a part of, and every international law the US is subject to…the irony is that is my argument. Moreover, your argument is “the ICC is no different than the UN or other international bodies” and the US isn’t part of the ICC. because “powerful countries won’t play nice”. If you don’t see where your logic breaks down, try to answer why the US is a member to all the other international bodies you claim are “no different” than the ICC, and the US is part of those other bodies but not the ICC.
One final time I list a number of countries that aren’t signatories to the Rome Statute, I never stated or implied that was an exhaustive list.
Let's see exactly what you said "Not exactly a list of countries championing human rights or state Sovereignty, the US included." Your argument (that the US is aligning with states that don't champion human rights) falls apart if other countries exist beyond that list that don't fit that singular conclusion. In fact, many countries that don't respect human right did ratify, so that completely blows up your argument. But you knew that, so that's why you only listed the countries you did.
That is dishonest because that was not my argument and obviously inconsistent with the fact that I gave a list of countries that “were not doing it”.
You said "When all other countries we'd consider the closest things to paragons of democracy we have signed it, it paints a pretty clear picture." How else does one interpret that other than "the US should do it because the other good countries are doing it"? It's a terrible argument - my parents would say "if your friends jumped off a bridge would you?".
If you don’t see where your logic breaks down, try to answer why the US is a member to all the other international bodies you claim are “no different” than the ICC, and the US is part of those other bodies but not the ICC.
It's because the US (like the major EU powers) make a choice - get a seat at the table or don't. Joining provides no guarantees that they'll adhere to the rules of membership. If the UN were to pass a resolution saying "Russia rightfully owns Poland and the land within the prior borders of East Germany". You think Germany will go "gee golly, we're a member of the UN so we better just hand it over". No, they'd weasel their way out of their obligations and defend their sovereignty. Just like the US and every other nation would.
That’s at least the second time you direct quote me on something I didn’t say. That’s the definition of dishonest or you don’t know how quotes work.
If you had better reading comprehension you would clearly see my post isn’t about what the US should do or shouldn’t do, much less about “they should jump off the bridge because everyone else is jumping off a bridge.” My post was about “why” the US isn’t a a signatory to the Rome Statue. The list of other countries not signatories to the Rome Statute, for the most part, have a history of foreign aggression and human rights abuses, the US included, so of course they don’t want to subject themselves to the ICC because it is against their interests to submit themselves to a tribunal that has jurisdiction over their actual and/or anticipated crimes.
> It's because the US (like the major EU powers) make a choice - get a seat at the table or don't. Joining provides no guarantees that they'll adhere to the rules of membership. If the UN were to pass a resolution saying "Russia rightfully owns Poland and the land within the prior borders of East Germany". You think Germany will go "gee golly, we're a member of the UN so we better just hand it over". No, they'd weasel their way out of their obligations and defend their sovereignty. Just like the US and every other nation would.
And yet the US is a member of the UN and not the ICC. Your response does nothing to explain the question I asked you to defend your position, why the US would be part of the UN and not the ICC.
Good luck in your future endeavors.
And you clearly didn't read my last paragraph where I clearly stated why the US would be a part of the UN and not the ICC.
I think the main thing you got from law school was how to weasel out of prior statements.
Not really, I just don’t think you understand of the Rome Statue and ICC jurisdiction works.
An aggressor State is subject to the ICC whether or not they are a signatory to the Rome Statute so long as the violations occur within a signatory State that has accepted jurisdiction of the ICC.
Russia was able to withdraw from the Rome Statue, but that’s only meaningful because they are a permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto power, that only applies to 5 countries, and none of them are African. Meaning African countries can be subject to ICC whether or not they are a signatory provided they are the aggressor and the crimes are committed within a country that is a signatory.
The US isn’t bowing out of something it thinks is a circus, the US was part of the negotiation process to create the ICC, the US is a major advocate of the ICC and other International Tribunals, the US just doesn’t want to be subject to their jurisdiction.
The bubble of people who post on HN have been living in that cloister for the last decade or so, not realizing what goes on in the world. At the end of the day, the US has made it a policy to defend and promote democracy across the world, and has actively done so, through it's support of international institutions and protection of democratic norms.
Maybe some, but some of us in Latin America live in countries that at times have been subjected to US "influence" which resulted in subverting governments, abductions and torture. All in the name of freedom and fighting communism, which I guess makes it alright!
Can't you see that Ukraine war is the direct consequence of this decision? To reinforce the statement: all public polls in 90s showed Russians to be very enthusiastic about cooperating with West, they truly believed that the Western model is just and brings prosperity. But it is US' political arrogance and notorious "exceptionality" distracted not only authorities, but people from believing US. People lost trust in US even before propaganda started to arise. Think about it, my American friend.
Of course, living in such a safe island as USA, far from potential enemies and with insanely huge military budget you might think it is not your problem. And obviously you do. But keep in mind that every consequence has a cause.
In 90s US had a unique chance to make this world a better and safer place, but instead US planted seeds of nowadays' wars. Have you heard of Wolfowitz Doctrine (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine)? Even written in diplomatic language, it is horrific. Current US foreign policy is no better.
So please don't BS us that US "defends and promotes democracy across the world", because it simply doesn't. You accuse people on HN of "living in cloister", but it is you who transmits US slogans without slightest hint of critical thinking. Dixi
Poor grammar
Blames Ukrainian self determination for the war.
This is a shill propaganda account
Possibly more than any other country in the world.
Although one can say that the US stopped being the good guys when they nuked Japan.
They're a shill, it's fine.
I'm convinced they know what the ICC is as it's even spelled out above, they just ignore the uncomfortable arguments.
> make climate change the issue
The ICC is the International Criminal Court [0], which is "Trying individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression". The US is not a part of it after formerly withdrawing about 20 years ago. It shares this position with other countries with strong human rights values like China, Sudan, Indonesia, or Israel.
Moreover the US has passed the infamous "American Service-Members' Protection Act" [1] (also known as the "Hague Invasion Act") which authorizes the President of the US to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court" and also prohibits the United States from providing military aid to countries which had ratified the treaty establishing the court. This has exceptions if the countries in question already have bilateral agreements with the US to the same effect. The US went as far as to criminalize anyone who works for the ICC [2]. None of this can possibly be in the interest of justice but only to protect the ones who violate human rights as long as they advance US interests.
Since the US does not itself punish or even acknowledge any war crimes commuted by them you can see how this is not a matter of "we can't have others punish our people" it's just "we can't have anyone punish our people". There's only one reason for the situation to look like this and that's quite literally to be able to commit war crimes with impunity.
If you were looking at things that put countries like Russia, China, Israel, and others at the exact same level, it's the ease with which they commit such atrocious crimes and go unpunished. But with "due process". That should tell you everything you need to know about their actual values, not the ones claimed on a forum by people who selectively ignore whatever doesn't fit their world view.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
[2] https://theconversation.com/us-punishes-international-crimin...
[0] https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o...
Which is nowadays commonly handwaved away as the "Embarrassing Trump episode of the US", like it was unprecedented and will never happen again.
But it wasn't Trump who put the responsible ASPA in place, that happened under Bush, and Obama never brought that up as something he disagreed with.
Which is the same dynamic with most of these laws that give more power to the US executive; Both parties keep expanding and enjoying them, it's not seen as a problem because each of them gets their turn to then make use of them.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54003527
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-icc-idUSKCN1QW1ZH
People now counter any claim like this with "that's whataboutism!". It's free reign to be be hypocritical I guess.
The fact that Blackwater exists doesn't make Wagner any less evil. Whataboutism is using one to shut down conversations about the other.