Hacker News Reader

Comment by mentalgear | Hacker News Reader

It's really sad seeing the international order, erected primarily by the US as a driving force after WW2, now being torn down by the current US administration to the detriment not only of global safety but also the US itself.

Giving up the best soft-power levers they had in an attempt to replace them with coarse, obvious and ineffective hard-power beat-sticks is not only foolish but history shows never works well or long term.

View on HN

The US has always been actively hostile to the ICC [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...?

The US never signed up to the ICC, rules for thee and not for me as usual from our Yankee 'friends'

How is that "rules for thee and not for me" of they didn't sign up and didn't want the ICC to have any jurisdiction for unsigned states (including for other countries)

Edit: I guess you could point out Biden justifying Putin's warrant as a hypocrisy.

When has the US respected jurisdictions? The US for years have sent drones to foreign jurisdictions and executed people outside of any combat zone with no due process whatsoever. And according to news reports, some of the people killed were guilty by being in close physical proximity to a target. This is an affront to the rule of law, to say the least.

Conducting war is not subject to jurisdictions almost by definition so I'm unsure what your point is.

The last time the US has declared war is 1942.

That aside, you know exactly what my point is. Just because there's a military conflict doesn't mean it's legal to kill anyone, anywhere, under any circumstances.

How that relates to rules to thee but not for me or jurisdiction of ICC?

I don't know what the parent was thinking about, but the examples where the USA intervenes militarily in some country under the guise of justice while refusing any accountability for itself are many. The latest example to date is capturing Maduro because he's supposedly the leader of a drug gang to have him tried in a US court. So the concept of supranational justice and "assault on state sovereignty" is fine when it is in the interest of the USA.

Keep in mind that the US has never joined the ICC. China, Russia, India and, in fact, a large portion of the world (including the Arab world) aren't part of it.

The ICC, irrespective of its merits, represents a somewhat narrow point of view.

The problem is that the US used its soft power for evil, not for good. WW2 was the last war where the US were the good guys.

With the US' war of aggression on Iran, it just doesnt care what it loses in its quest to support Israel.

Is supporting one ally a war of aggression? Explain your criteria.

Agreed mostly but there's some exceptions. Like the first gulf war, America did come to the aid of Kuwait as it was attacked by Iraq.

Of course this was motivated by oil interests and not human rights but I can't call them the 'bad guys' here.

The first gulf war, the one that happened 4 years after the US government sold Iraq war helicopters very cheaply, and help them improve their chemical weapons to use against Iran. Two years after it gave Iraq targets for their brand new cyclosarin weapons, as well as political support to prevent Iraq from loosing.

The US saw the opportunity to entrench itself by putting bases in the Gulf states.

That one had a UN mandate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com