Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 24, 2019, 10:38:59 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: Gustaf, afleitch, Hash, Both Sides™)
  U.S. to impose visa bans on International Criminal Court personnel: Pompeo
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: U.S. to impose visa bans on International Criminal Court personnel: Pompeo  (Read 1001 times)
PSOL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,792


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 15, 2019, 01:19:30 pm »

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-icc/u-s-to-impose-visa-bans-on-international-criminal-court-personnel-pompeo-idUSKCN1QW1VT
Quote
The Trump administration in September said that if the court launched a probe of war crimes in Afghanistan, it would consider banning ICC judges and prosecutors from entering the United States, sanctioning funds they have there and prosecuting them in U.S. courts.

Washington took the first step on Friday with Pompeo’s announcement.

“I’m announcing a policy of U.S. visa restrictions on those individuals directly responsible for any ICC investigation of U.S. personnel,” Pompeo told a news conference in Washington.
Lashing out like a toddler will lead to blowback when we need the world’s aid. Our actions are our own undoing.
Logged
Hammy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,981
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 15, 2019, 01:25:35 pm »

Remember back in the day when Cons said only people who are guilty act like they have something to hide?
Logged
Hugo Award nominee
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,034


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2019, 11:56:52 am »

At least old-school isolationists wanted to leave alone as well as be left alone. This is an unleaded imperial mentality.
Logged
Lok
lok1999
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,269
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -1.06, S: -3.02

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2019, 01:55:27 am »

Is this even legal?
Logged
Omega21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 554


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2019, 10:46:38 am »

Is this even legal?

The US never really cared if it was illegal.

There is a documentary about America forcing German companies to fire their employees because they dealt with Iran, so if America places sanctions, they view it as international and everyone should oblige, but when the International community takes a look at them, they don't want any of it.
Logged
Karpatsky
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,237
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2019, 10:54:37 am »

Despicable. This sort of behavior undermines the rule-based order we have fought for since 1945 just as much as blatant isolationism does. Empires feed the ego, but are built on sand. Major props to the ICC for standing up for itself.
Logged
PSOL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,792


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2019, 02:04:05 pm »

Facing hurdles from U.S., war crimes judges reject Afghan probe
Quote
The decision, which prosecutor Fatou Bensouda may appeal, angered human rights groups and means that the Taliban, the Afghan government and the United States will not face any investigation at the ICC for their alleged crimes, which dated mostly from 2003-04.

U.S. President Donald Trump called the decision “a major international victory,” and denounced the international court for its “broad, unaccountable, prosecutorial powers,” as well as for what he considers its threat to American sovereignty.

“Any attempt to target American, Israeli or allied personnel for prosecution will be met with a swift and vigorous response,” Trump said.

White House National Security Advisor John Bolton, a sharp critic of the ICC, called the ruling a “vindication” of the U.S.’ tough policy against the court that he has engineered and a “stinging defeat” for the prosecutors.

It is increasingly evident that the international system is deteriorating. So long for Bretton-Woods, say hello to a worldwide breakdown.
Logged
DavidB.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,768
Netherlands


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2019, 02:30:59 pm »

Good.
Logged
Lord Halifax
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 616
Papua New Guinea


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2019, 03:10:31 pm »

Good.

Trolling?
Logged
DavidB.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,768
Netherlands


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2019, 03:11:33 pm »

Good.
Trolling?
No. I don't support the existence of the International Criminal Court.
Logged
CumbrianLeftie
Full Member
***
Posts: 220
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2019, 06:17:28 pm »

Good.
Trolling?
No. I don't support the existence of the International Criminal Court.

I agree, what a disgraceful idea.

MIGHT MAKES RIGHT is much better, and I can't see any problems with it at all.
Logged
Ye Olde Europe
Old Europe
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,519


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2019, 06:23:50 pm »

Stupid is as stupid does.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,400
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2019, 07:00:24 pm »

Good.
Trolling?
No. I don't support the existence of the International Criminal Court.
What do you propose be done about people like Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and Omar al-Bashir?
Logged
SunriseAroundTheWorld
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2019, 07:13:48 pm »

I'm not opposed to this. I'm tired of these failing international orgs misfiring and malfunctioning everywhere.

Logged
DavidB.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,768
Netherlands


Political Matrix
E: 0.06, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: April 13, 2019, 04:41:31 am »
« Edited: April 13, 2019, 04:47:39 am by DavidB. »

Good.
Trolling?
No. I don't support the existence of the International Criminal Court.
What do you propose be done about people like Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and Omar al-Bashir?

To me, it's about the principle. Sovereignty should be at the level of the nation-state, as should the capability to prosecute and imprison people be. Whatever is or isn't a crime, what the sentence should be, and what the reasoning behind this sentence should be is inherently dependent on the tradition and values in one's own nation-state.

That doesn't make me a cultural relativist: I have no problem saying there's no morality in the criminal justice systems in a lot of countries. However, it does make me recognize that if you have "international" legal experts judge people from completely different contexts based on an "international" (read: American) understanding of whatever is or isn't a crime, the system is there only to re-enforce the authority of the world's big powers and to hollow out smaller nations' sovereignty. There is also no accountability mechanism whatsoever, which is inherent to all these "international" institutions to which power has been silently transferred away.

If a Karadzic or Al-Bashir goes free because this principle needs to be upheld, so be it.
Logged
SunriseAroundTheWorld
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,668
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2019, 01:29:12 am »

FTR - My criticisms of the ICC are completely different from DavidB's.

Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,409


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2019, 06:55:52 am »

Good.
Trolling?
No. I don't support the existence of the International Criminal Court.
What do you propose be done about people like Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and Omar al-Bashir?

To me, it's about the principle. Sovereignty should be at the level of the nation-state, as should the capability to prosecute and imprison people be. Whatever is or isn't a crime, what the sentence should be, and what the reasoning behind this sentence should be is inherently dependent on the tradition and values in one's own nation-state.

That doesn't make me a cultural relativist: I have no problem saying there's no morality in the criminal justice systems in a lot of countries. However, it does make me recognize that if you have "international" legal experts judge people from completely different contexts based on an "international" (read: American) understanding of whatever is or isn't a crime, the system is there only to re-enforce the authority of the world's big powers and to hollow out smaller nations' sovereignty. There is also no accountability mechanism whatsoever, which is inherent to all these "international" institutions to which power has been silently transferred away.

If a Karadzic or Al-Bashir goes free because this principle needs to be upheld, so be it.

This is probably a bit meta-the ICC as an argument, but I don't really understand why sovereignty is so precious that it shouldn't be overriden even in cases where it is objectively leading to worse outcomes. As in, surely an attachment to sovereignty in cases where it means allowing people to be killed or abused or whatever is just putting an ideological perspective over real life?

And then you have the dual arguments of - First, How does "national" sovereignty even apply if the government doesn't have the consent of the people? That isn't self-determination for the nation, so I fail to see how it can be described as "national" sovereignty in the first place; and secon, in cases like Rwanda in 1994, where the law an order, the institutions of the state, social relation between people are so breaken down that they idea of their being a nation to even have sovereignty seems to be completely misplaced.

I mean, I don't disagree that there is a concern about the accountability of international institutions, especially in the way they are abused by the big powers to satisfy their own self interests - but my solution would be to reform those and democratise them properly; even if that is a bit utopian.
Logged
Citizen (The) Doctor
ArchangelZero
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,144
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2019, 04:28:57 pm »

Good.
Trolling?
No. I don't support the existence of the International Criminal Court.
What do you propose be done about people like Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and Omar al-Bashir?

To me, it's about the principle. Sovereignty should be at the level of the nation-state, as should the capability to prosecute and imprison people be. Whatever is or isn't a crime, what the sentence should be, and what the reasoning behind this sentence should be is inherently dependent on the tradition and values in one's own nation-state.

That doesn't make me a cultural relativist: I have no problem saying there's no morality in the criminal justice systems in a lot of countries. However, it does make me recognize that if you have "international" legal experts judge people from completely different contexts based on an "international" (read: American) understanding of whatever is or isn't a crime, the system is there only to re-enforce the authority of the world's big powers and to hollow out smaller nations' sovereignty. There is also no accountability mechanism whatsoever, which is inherent to all these "international" institutions to which power has been silently transferred away.

If a Karadzic or Al-Bashir goes free because this principle needs to be upheld, so be it.

This is probably a bit meta-the ICC as an argument, but I don't really understand why sovereignty is so precious that it shouldn't be overriden even in cases where it is objectively leading to worse outcomes. As in, surely an attachment to sovereignty in cases where it means allowing people to be killed or abused or whatever is just putting an ideological perspective over real life?

And then you have the dual arguments of - First, How does "national" sovereignty even apply if the government doesn't have the consent of the people? That isn't self-determination for the nation, so I fail to see how it can be described as "national" sovereignty in the first place; and secon, in cases like Rwanda in 1994, where the law an order, the institutions of the state, social relation between people are so breaken down that they idea of their being a nation to even have sovereignty seems to be completely misplaced.

I mean, I don't disagree that there is a concern about the accountability of international institutions, especially in the way they are abused by the big powers to satisfy their own self interests - but my solution would be to reform those and democratise them properly; even if that is a bit utopian.

I feel that usually anti-internationalists tend to fall along the line that sovereignty is defined primarily by monopoly of violence, not popular consent. Ergo, whatever is the most powerful entity within those borders automatically is granted the right to govern those borders.
Logged
Bismarck
Chancellor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,790


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: April 25, 2019, 09:31:45 pm »

As long as dictatorships are part of an international organization, that organization should have zero jurisdiction to do anything in the US without the consent of the US government.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC