r/worldnews 4d ago Bravo Grande! 1 Narwhal Salute 1

Biden: Putin has committed war crimes, charges justified Russia/Ukraine

https://kyivindependent.com/news-feed/biden-putin-has-committed-war-crimes-charges-justified
47.3k Upvotes

2.3k

u/BackIn2019 4d ago

Tbf, Biden is very aware we're not part of ICC.

Q Could you give us your reaction to the International Criminal Court issuing an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it’s justified. But the question is, it’s not recognized internationally by us either. But I think it makes a very strong point.

1.2k

u/thegreger 4d ago

Thanks for bringing this up. It's concerning that both Russia and the US originally signed the Rome treaty (which ratified the ICC) but then withdrew their ratification. The ICC fills an extremely important role in the world, few countries are going to prosecute their own soldiers (or leaders) for war crimes. Hopefully this can start a debate in the US that it is time to re-ratify it, even if it could spell trouble for American perpretrators of war crimes.

885

u/acwilan 4d ago

That’s because the US doesn’t want to abide when someone else condemns their military interventions

145

u/Rentington 4d ago

Are there any nations that would? Honest question.

317

u/acwilan 4d ago

Third world countries are forced to

117

u/Rentington 4d ago

Forced to and willful compliance are two different things, of course.

14

u/Ferelar 4d ago

And then sandwiched right in between are nations that are being the geopolitical version of obsequious too. Eritrea probably wasn't DIRECTLY forced to not condemn Russia for invading Ukraine, but they likely wanted to curry favor and found it to be an easy way.

→ More replies
→ More replies

184

u/JojAGT 4d ago

Can't say for sure but in Latin America the US overthrow legitimately elected governments. In Guatemala was because a single US company could loose money due to an agrarian reform. In 1944 a revolution took place in Guatemala and ended an authoritarian regime, after 10 years of 2 social democratic governments the government was overthrowed by the CIA and started a 40 year civil war started.

Here's a list of other examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

62

u/Ferelar 4d ago

Sometimes overthrew democratically elected nations (actually the most influential in worldwide geopolitics was probably the Shah of Iran, but of course as you mentioned there are the banana republics etc).

But also sometimes kept existing brutal regimes in power, I'm thinking of Pinochet and to some extent Chiang Kai-shek.

Sometimes this was politically expedient in the containment of even more monstrous regional powers (propping up RoC to contain PRoC), but sometimes it was ENTIRELY for access to resources and led to far more brutal and/or unstable governments (Pinochet and Shah). Though the Shah was mostly the US helping Britain execute their plan, so I blame the UK slightly more for that one.

22

u/khinzaw 3d ago

Iran was actually westernizing and pretty friendly and we ruined it because they were nationalizing the oil because a British oil company refused to let themselves be audited to see if they were paying agreed royalties to the Iranian government. It's madness.

5

u/acwilan 3d ago

They kept brutal governments until they went awol, like Noriega in Panama

→ More replies

30

u/SigerMakkerMeget 4d ago edited 3d ago

Yes, 121 countries have agreed to do so.

EDIT: Sorry, the number is 123 countries.

10

u/GastricallyStretched 4d ago

The 123 countries that are party to the Rome Statute.

→ More replies

34

u/Neo24 4d ago

You do realize over a hundred countries accept the jurisdiction of the ICC, including all of the "West" except the US?

→ More replies

14

u/flightguy07 4d ago

The UK signed it

→ More replies

11

u/ALLxDAMNxDAY 4d ago

Lol right. Shocking we wouldn't want to be a part of it considering we commit probably the most war crimes

→ More replies

150

u/overcatastrophe 4d ago

The reason the US doesn't participate in stuff like that is precisely because it hurts US interests. We don't want other countries to be able to prosecute our soldiers or our politicians

100

u/VersionReserved 4d ago

Exactly the same as Russia. And Israel. And China. Sort of obvious, nobody wants to be tried for their war crimes.

36

u/Ferelar 4d ago

Yep and there's also some power/political calculus in there. If you are a small or medium sized nation with limited economic, military, and political power projection, then an agreement which limits everyone's capabilities is disproportionately beneficial to you (by which I mean it restricts you a little bit, but restricts the big fish a lot). So it probably is a good idea if you're not one of the "top dog" nations and if you don't intend to commit a bunch of crimes.

The flipside is that of course, an agreement which limits the capabilities of all nations will be disproportionately restricting to those who have the capacity to engage in far more of those "capabilities". It's not a moral consideration in either direction, I'd argue, just that the "top dog" nations will never limit themselves and bring themselves into parity with those lower on the totem pole.

Sadly, once you become "king of the hill", a distressing amount of your time and power are spent on remaining there, and oftentimes morality is the first consideration to be thrown out.

→ More replies
→ More replies

32

u/xLeone30x 4d ago

Right. We value our soldiers’ and politicians’ abilities to commit war crimes without having to worry about being condemned for it. This is Ethics 101, brought to you by the Freedom of the United States of America!

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

200

u/mcmiller1111 4d ago

Few Americans know of the Hague Invasion Act. They should.

The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Act 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 led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the President to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of The Hague, where the ICC is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.[2][3]

137

u/NaIgrim 4d ago edited 4d ago

Yeah. It's not a good look to pass legislation that allows you to invade a fellow founding NATO member. Just Bush things, but look he paints and gives out pocket candy; what a good guy. Protecting warcriminals is just deemed more important than international justice, unless it's of a nation you dislike.

I understand though, given US track records on drone strikes and reinventing torture and POWs as enhanced interrogation techniques and enemy combatants to skirt the Geneva conventions.

The US has never been a principled ally. Cheers from NL.

Edit: Look at all the butthurt yankees unable to take any criticism of their country. I see not one reasonable justification for shielding your warcriminals either. Stop confusing nationalism for patriotism and don't mistake US hegemony for "making the world safer"; your country doesn't have bases all over the world out of the kindness of it's heart.

32

u/chadenright 4d ago

What better way to protect America in the wake of the Sepember 11, 2001 terrorist attacks than to revoke the right to a trial, the right not to suffer cruel and unusual punishment, and then set up torture black sites all over the world and declare by an act of Congress that you are definitely, for sure going to commit a bunch of war crimes and anyone who doesn't like it had better step away?

This is also the era of the PATRIOT act, the legal authorization of the president to order assassinations of American citizens on foreign soil, and the legal declaration that in fact terrorists are not people and do not have any of the rights that a person would ordinarily possess.

'Murrica!

17

u/PM_ME_UR_CEPHALOPODS 4d ago

We can't even figure out how to get henry fucking kissinger prosecuted any repercussions in what is an air-tight open-and-closed multiple-counts war crimes case. There are a lot of Americans who think our leaders should be held to a higher international standard when it comes to war crimes.

9

u/beipphine 3d ago

As recently as the Trump administration, Henry Kissinger was visiting the White House and providing Advice to the President of the United States on foreign affairs regarding China and Israel. He will never be charged with war crimes, he will die with his Nobel Peace Prize for what he did in Vietnam.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/ScaryShadowx 3d ago

But I think it makes a very strong point.

Yes, the strong point being the ICC will investigate political enemies only.

→ More replies

4.6k

u/macross1984 4d ago

In this case, Russia is clearly guilty of charges just with what has been disclosed publicly. Who knows how many more additional charges will be filed once the shooting stop.

448

u/HomeHeatingTips 4d ago

And the ICC specifically referencing genocide against children. Thousands of Children. With mountains and mountains of proof that just can't be ignored.

56

u/pretty_succinct 4d ago

I thought he was kidnapping the kids, not murdering them...?

38

u/antibubbles 4d ago

yeah, that's a war crime

→ More replies

230

u/Walse 4d ago

29

u/CigAddict 4d ago

UN definition of genocide for the lazy:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  • Killing members of the group;

  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

→ More replies

34

u/pretty_succinct 4d ago

ah. super interesting. ty.

→ More replies

3

u/HomeHeatingTips 3d ago

Yes kidnapping them. Forcibly removing them from their own Country and taking them to Russia. That is genocide

→ More replies
→ More replies

1.0k

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

843

u/negrocrazy 4d ago

Its not about going in russia to arrest him , now putin is locked in russia , if he leaves he will be arrested , thats pretty much the point of this , he cant escape anywhere

857

u/Somorled 4d ago

More than that, it's sending a message to everyone around Putin. The country is now being led by a war criminal who will have to be ousted sooner or later if they're to come back to the diplomatic table. It strips Putin of credibility on the world stage, and makes it difficult for other nation's leaders to treat with him personally without spending their own political capital.

So even if it's worth no more than a petition signed by world leaders agreeing that Putin isn't their friend anymore, that still is some small amount of leverage to help pull him out of power and reright Russia.

128

u/Shoresy69Chirps 4d ago

Thank you. This is the correct take. His escape from his own people is now off the table.

This is a clear signal to the Russian people: “the world will not let your guy leave Russia, no matter how much money he stole from you. You know what to do…[winkie face emoji]”

3

u/drowning_in_honey 4d ago

Fall out of the window or get 8 year prison sentence? Please. Plus, most Russians will find out about that from propaganda channels, with propaganda messaging.

→ More replies

201

u/TbddRzn 4d ago

Same people who scream why don’t they do somehting go well that’s not gonna change anything when it happens.

Even if this is just a unenforceable declaration, it still yields multiple benefits against Putin from geo-political to negotiations and agreements with other nations.

Please if all you’re gonna do is bark about how it doesn’t change anything why don’t you go and watch Rick and morty some more instead since you are so smart and intelligent…

A step in the right the direction is still a step in the right direction even if you haven’t arrived at the final destination.

137

u/sirblastalot 4d ago

Frankly, I think the "nothing really matters so why do anything" crowd are just Russian trolls and their stooges.

105

u/TbddRzn 4d ago

A lot of them are nihilistic youth who view the world in very black and white manner and demand massive changes or else there is no worth in trying. Idealistic but not pragmatic.

And probably yes Russian and Chinese bots.

57

u/Sugioh 4d ago

A lot of them are nihilistic youth who view the world in very black and white manner and demand massive changes or else there is no worth in trying. Idealistic but not pragmatic.

I've been dealing with people like this for well over 20 years. If half of them turned out to vote reliably for the change they wanted to see, we'd have a much healthier political landscape today.

The impatience of youth is every bit as poisonous to democracy as the intransigence of the elderly. :/

17

u/djabor 4d ago

spot on. I am convinced the defeatist stance is exactly why they get their preconceived notions confirmed.

7

u/thereisgummies 4d ago

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that also provides them the benefit of never being wrong. "I didn't vote for the guy who did the bad thing. I knew that things would turn out this way and it was useless to try and change things. So, this definitely isn't my fault"

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

16

u/grey_hat_uk 4d ago

G20 could be fun, it's effectively the G19 now.

He's also effectively land locked to north and central Asia and a small amount of eastern europe.

No escape to Venezuela if this goes tits up.

→ More replies

38

u/Nebilungen 4d ago

Sure but this means nothing if Russia isn't removed or temporarily barred from anything the G summits

24

u/RichardBartmoss 4d ago

They effectively are. Putin can’t attend any of them outside Russia now.

→ More replies

3

u/Sisyphuslivinlife 4d ago

Maybe this is how they get to that easier?

→ More replies

147

u/Signature_Illegible 4d ago

he cant escape anywhere

Don't exaggerate; He can still go to those fine places like North Korea and Belarus and Iran..

38

u/Spekingur 4d ago

Prolly ends up hiding in Argentina if everything goes to full on shit for him.

8

u/LegitimateHat984 4d ago

Or Costa Rica, I've heard they are visa-free with Russia.

Plus: access to two oceans, relaxed political scene, no military, land ownership is largely based on family relationships.

Someone mentioned, a good portion of the population there bought into the Putin's propaganda. I guess, the same way as my compatriots.

Seems like a natural destination, assuming they don't participate in the ICC (no idea how to check)

→ More replies

26

u/Wild_Harvest 4d ago

Speedrunning the Hitler end, huh?

→ More replies

5

u/Psychic_Hobo 4d ago

Haven't they been taking in Ukrainian refugees too?

18

u/rocketshipray 4d ago edited 4d ago

Argentina is part of the UN. They aren’t going to hide Putin when it would be beneficial for them to turn him in.

Edit: I meant ICC.

22

u/fastolfe00 4d ago

I think you mean ICC. UN membership doesn't mean anything for this situation. Russia is a UN member.

16

u/rocketshipray 4d ago

I did mean ICC. Thank you, I’m awake way earlier than I planned.

4

u/FingerDrinker 4d ago

That makes two of us

→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/LordoftheScheisse 4d ago

He can still go to those fine places like North Korea and Belarus and Iran..

And South Africa, which he plans to do soon.

→ More replies

8

u/cplchanb 4d ago

China may also be a safe haven for him as well considering Xi is scheduling friendly visit to Moscow

6

u/tomoldbury 4d ago

China is also not part of ICC.

12

u/recycled_ideas 4d ago

Neither is the US.

6

u/Wand_Cloak_Stone 4d ago

The US made it pretty clear that Putin isn’t welcome there.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

79

u/spinto1 4d ago edited 4d ago

He's not going to be arrested if he leaves, it is up to the nation within which one resides to do the arrest, but Russia doesn't even recognize the ICC just as the US doesn't with it's doctrine of invasion of a US citizen is taken by the court.

We don't know what this means because it's unprecedented for someone in such a high position to be charged like this. The answer is likely nothing, so just as with the rumors of him dying of cancer, take it with a grain of salt. It means nothing spectacular until the day something actually happens.

Edit: his arrest is justice and at least a little vindication for all those he's harmed around the world, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen. I'll believe it when I see it and there isn't a reason to start expecting it.

28

u/burninatah 4d ago

it is up to the nation within which one resides to do the arrest

This is false. Any nation that is member to the ICC can arrest him. Now, Putin actually has a decent answer to the "oh yeah, you and what army?" question, so no one expects that he'll be frog walked any time soon. But ask Slobodan Milosevic if his non-recognition of the ICC worked out for him.

→ More replies

23

u/idk_lets_try_this 4d ago

I don’t understand why Biden makes a statement like this when they don’t even support the ICC.

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/crawlerz2468 4d ago

now putin is locked in russia

I really doubt this. Neither Russia (nor US/China) recognize the ICC. Putin can still travel.

20

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies
→ More replies

38

u/throwaway901617 4d ago

You aren't totally wrong but what these things do is sway global opinion which is then reflected in things like IMF actions, World Bank actions, and UN resolutions which in turn can be acted on.

It makes it easier to justify longer and more targeted and more punishing sanctions against an indicted war criminal than against a "mere" head of state.

You are correct that it won't have any visible effect but it is another piece of ammo for use during diplomatic discussions with other countries. "You don't really want to side with the war criminal, do you? It will look really bad to your people and your allies." etc.

48

u/carpcrucible 4d ago

Bush and Netanyahu haven't been convicted by the ICC.

Signatories of the treaty are obligated to arrest him now.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

22

u/toobesteak 4d ago

That says more about the ICC than anyone else.

→ More replies
→ More replies

3

u/PlentifulOrgans 4d ago

I mean probably. But a future Russian government who wants to get back in the rest of the world's good graces might, assuming they haven't killed him, hand him and his entourage over.

Plus as others have said, it limits his mobility to a handful of countries. He'll never show up at a G-whatever meeting again. He won't be able to preen at things like the olympics etc...

33

u/Wand_Cloak_Stone 4d ago

Yeah and I don’t know how Israelis would feel about Netanyahu, but one thing that almost all Americans agree on today on both sides of the aisle is that Bush is a lying dipshit.

It’s only our politicians who might care but as far as the public is concerned, put out an arrest warrant for him too then. It’s deserved, but it’ll also amount to nothing. But at least he will know it’s out there.

47

u/Frathier 4d ago

You sure? Because every time a picture of Bush gets posted on Reddit, all the comments say how much of a good guy he seems who they'd like to have a beer with, how he was just a good meaning dude surrounded by liars and manipulators, etc etc.

39

u/Wand_Cloak_Stone 4d ago

Yes I’m sure that Reddit doesn’t reflect reality. Half of them are teenagers and another quarter are bots.

Bush is a war criminal AND he was unduly influenced by Cheney.

15

u/psioniclizard 4d ago

Yes I’m sure that Reddit doesn’t reflect reality.

Isn't that the truth. Reddit is the the perfect example of an echo chamber.

14

u/Wand_Cloak_Stone 4d ago

I really didn’t want to antagonize the OC but, yeah, I simply don’t believe them. I believe they saw it once or twice, but every time? First of all why are you looking at that many Bush posts, I haven’t seen one in years and I’m here every day. Maybe they’re visiting subs that have a proclivity to think those things?

Second of all, you can post the same picture on the same sub around the same time on two different days, and get totally opposite discourse in the comments all depending on who got to it first.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/carpcrucible 4d ago

Really? I think most people call him a war criminal.

5

u/d3k3d 4d ago

I've literally never seen GW described as such. I will say, Trump made me wish GW was president and that made me even sadder because Bush suuuuuuuuuuuuuucks.

4

u/bthoman2 4d ago

They’re just comparing him to trump and saying at least he was at least halfway competent.

A gym locker smells like heaven compared to a pile of pig shit.

→ More replies

37

u/AzureDreamer 4d ago

I didn't know republicans washed their hands of bush.

5

u/Itsjeancreamingtime 4d ago

What do you think the Trump era was about? Part of the reason Trump did so well is because he rejected a lot of Bush-era doctrine, and frankly a lot of Republicans wanted to forget their incessant pro-war drumbeating from '03-'08.

6

u/AzureDreamer 4d ago

To be honest I think the trump era was and is the evolution of the southern strategy. My experience is that most of his support is based on anti immigration and shit I am tired of calling out and talking about because its genuinely vile.

But if you say some of their was support coming from an anti war footing. I won't really dispute you.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

1.2k

u/Kflynn1337 4d ago All-Seeing Upvote

The rich and the powerful (the latter more so) never face the consequences of their actions. Which is why they act the way they do.

Society today has a real problem with that. Company CEO's and politicians alike all know they can do whatever they like, and what they like seems to mostly involving being evil bastards who fuck over everyone.

315

u/beyondbeliefpuns 4d ago

For real. If I had a billion dollars, I'd fuck right off and you'd never hear from me again.

221

u/intadtraptor 4d ago

Compared to how most billionaires act, that would be downright benevolent.

65

u/Paperfrowns 4d ago

That's the neat part, there are quite a lot of billionaires (/families) who do exactly that and avoid the spotlight, while doing the same unethical business the egomaniac narcissists do.

37

u/blue-mooner 4d ago

Exactly, how often do you hear about Rodolphe Saadé doing anything, or Zhong Shanshan, or Dieter Schwarz, or Phil Knight?

In fact, chances are that (without Googling) you don’t know who these billionaires are, or how they made their money (I certainly didn’t).

And these folks don’t have $1B, they are all in the top 30 wealthiest people, with $40B each.

8

u/mildmuffstuffer 4d ago

I only recognize the Nike guy from that list

→ More replies
→ More replies

68

u/Terelith 4d ago

Not only would you never hear from me again, but you would never know that I would be behind all the little things that happen.

Like when a little girl is fucking raped and the state laws make having proper medical attention illegal possibly, and somehow that poor girl and family just magically gets a limo to an airport, tickets, hotels, and medical attention in a nearby state that still has common fucking sense.

anonymously as possible, but somehow I'm sure it would find the light of day anyways. Christ...probably need 10 shell companies deep to keep it from being discovered.

Oh jesus...it just occurred to me that I would be Batman if Nolan's Alfred had his way.....

The point is...I'd fucking help people.

75

u/tveye363 4d ago

Then you wouldn't be a billionaire. They don't get that rich by being upstanding citizens.

18

u/Terelith 4d ago

sadly, probably correct. Unless I win a powerball that gets up to obscene amounts that gives me a billion after taxes! Then...for at least a moment...I would be!! Course I would then begin to spend it helping people and would simply be a mega-millionaire in short order...

49

u/Cosmo48 4d ago

Exactly, people don’t realize that there is NO GOOD BILLIONAIRE. It is just not possible outside of inheriting and being the total opposite of your parents. If you made the billions then you a) fuck over your workers regularly b) probably use slave labour wether in your country or from a third world country c) don’t come anywhere to paying your fair share in society taxes and such wise. Probably all three of the above.

10

u/r0xby 4d ago

Amen.

→ More replies

6

u/__Seris__ 4d ago

There is no ethical way to become a billionaire

→ More replies
→ More replies

11

u/Gains4months 4d ago

The problem with that is, like the other commenter said, you wouldn't be a billionaire.

Disgustingly rich people get that way by stepping on others. Not by helping their fellow man. You would spend your money helping people faster then you accumulate it.

→ More replies
→ More replies

26

u/boyaintgotnolegs 4d ago

You wouldn’t be a billionaire just by that logic. You’d have to have a maniacal need for more if you became one. No one becomes a billionaire and is ever satisfied.

12

u/Dashthefox 4d ago

There's a reason I see the term "psychopathically wealthy" more and more these days.

3

u/boyaintgotnolegs 4d ago

And why you’ll never seen the term “ethical billionaire”

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/ComradeRasputin 4d ago

Society today? This is the story since forever. Today its actually better than there ever has been in history. Still its not good tho

→ More replies

84

u/Sujjin 4d ago

Not that i disagree, but if we go after Putin they are going to demand that the ICC go after Bush, and the US can hardly claim any moral high ground there

7

u/2459-8143-2844 3d ago

They can be cell mates.

→ More replies

645

u/No-Resource-852 4d ago Silver

Didn't the US threaten to jail judges of the ICC because they wanted to prosecute the US over afghanistan and iraq?

236

u/Badtrainwreck 4d ago

Yeah if Biden wants Putin to get held accountable he should allow the ICC to hold the US accountable first as a way to set the standard, but we know that won’t happen.

53

u/Organic-Strategy-755 4d ago edited 4d ago

"Biden puts the US on the chopping block" would make one hell of a headline.

→ More replies
→ More replies

243

u/Widowmaker_Best_Girl 4d ago

The US also maintains a law in their government that they can basically invade The Hague if they deem it necessary to release any of their citizens.

Edit: Link

59

u/Hugford_Blops 4d ago

"The subsection (b) specifies this authority shall extend to "Covered United States persons" (members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government) and "Covered allied persons" (military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand)."

Wow. So if these guys are arrested, the US could technically extract them: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_NCPkoUekHQ&feature=shares

27

u/TwinkForAHairyBear 4d ago

Don't forget the US spy in the UK who killed a random dude in a car crash and was promptly evacuated back to safety.

9

u/hunmingnoisehdb 4d ago

Anne Sacoolas, I think she was the wife of an CIA agent.

24

u/deadlygaming11 4d ago edited 3d ago

She wasnt evacuated. She wasnt a spy either.

She was a part of the CIA i believe and they recommended she leave after the incident and she did then the government refused to send her back.

6

u/whale-sibling 4d ago

"a part" and "apart" mean opposite things.

→ More replies

3

u/Quickjager 4d ago

Are you talking about the one during Trump's presidency or another. Because she wasn't a spy if you mean that one.

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

323

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

71

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

36

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies
→ More replies

98

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies
→ More replies

1.4k

u/dogwoodcat 4d ago Silver

Sign on to the ICC, then you can talk about war crimes.

377

u/Andre5k5 4d ago

The US will never acknowledge or give jurisdiction to an entity other than itself, you can rest assured that God isn't real, otherwise we'd have killed him, the US recognizes no supreme authority other than itself

41

u/AnacharsisIV 4d ago

"God isn't real, but if you were any kind of real American you'd demand that he treat you as an equal!"

-J. R. "Bob" Dobbs

→ More replies

32

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies

18

u/fuckyourstyles 4d ago

you can rest assured that God isn't real, otherwise we'd have killed him

I'm stealing this one.

40

u/evasive_dendrite 4d ago

Least deranged American

18

u/aa2051 4d ago

Most politically sane man in the United States

→ More replies
→ More replies

459

u/Orqee 4d ago

Signing on to the ICC is not up to president. But I don’t see any reason he would not be allowed express his opinion upon been asked.

55

u/Bruvvimir 4d ago

He doesn’t have an opinion. He speaks for the USA.

→ More replies

288

u/nacholicious 4d ago

Biden voted for the Hague Invasion Act, which authorized military invasion against the Netherlands in case any american is held by the ICC for war crimes.

436

u/nybbleth 4d ago edited 4d ago

People keep throwing this around and I can't really correct them all unfortunately, but as a general note: this isn't actually true.

First, the Hague Invasion Act is just a nickname that the actual act was given by its opponents. The act is actually called the 'American Service-Members' Protection Act'.

It doesn't authorize the US to invade the Netherlands. It authorizes the presidents 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."

I very much doubt that launching an invasion of one of your oldest allies and starting a war with the EU; thereby launching WW3; would qualify as "appropriate" means to secure the release of someone accused of the sort of heinous crimes the court concerns itself with.

It's meant to be able to exercise political power against countries who might be involved in extraditing US citizens to the Hague. The idea that the US would actually invade the Netherlands over this is flat out absurd. Over here, that aspect is seen as nothing more than political theatre for the American public.

Edit: No people, I'm not going to be engaging with any mental masturbatory fantasies about how the US can just do whatever and people will let them, or your personal beliefs about how to interpret legal language or that actually invading an ally is totally 'appropriate', or any variation thereof. If this applies to you, congratulations, you prove exactly my point about this law being political theatre for domestic US consumption.

110

u/n16r4 4d ago

Next you gonna tell me ACA is not actually called Obamacare.

9

u/TchoupedNScrewed 4d ago

Almost like it came from a Republican think tank, what a twist that would be

3

u/I__LOVE__LSD 4d ago

I find that so interesting given how popular ACA is. I would've figured that Republicans would be trying to take away credit from Obama, and not giving him even more credit.

→ More replies

76

u/10thgradelosers 4d ago

It authorizes the presidents 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."

Vague language was used as legal justification for invading Iraq and needlessly ending the lives of thousands of Americans plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Not to mention the trillions of dollars of economic cost.

Anything that’s vague just gives politicians more power.

→ More replies

184

u/ArgusTheCat 4d ago

There's a massive problem with the wording of laws like that, which is that "appropriate" changes based on how many hate crimes the people in charge think are cool this year.

→ More replies

31

u/amongthecannibals 4d ago

It obliges the president to do everything within his power to prevent any American from being charged with war crimes by an international body, up to and including military violence. That is the salient point.

84

u/nacholicious 4d ago

The point is that the act deliberately authorizes military force, which was the complaint of the international community before it was signed into law. Sure one might argue whether that is likely, but it's still the intent.

→ More replies

65

u/CptHair 4d ago edited 4d ago

"this isn't actually true."

How is it not true? It's an act that authorizes "any means necessary" which has been justified for invasions before.

You don't seem to understand the purpose of the act. It's primary purpose is to threaten, so it won't be necessary to enforce. The secondary purpose is to signal to the service men that the government has their back.

If they get an order that sounds like it could be a warcrime, they don't have to worry about being prosecuted.

The true nickname should be "the warcrime enabling act".

The "all means necessary" includes war. The point of the act is to signal that it isn't off the table.

→ More replies

50

u/XkrNYFRUYj 4d ago

People keep throwing this around and I can't really correct them all unfortunately, but as a general note: this isn't actually true.

You can't correct them all because you're not correcting shit. The act actually DOES authorize US to invade Netherlands. Plain reading of statue you already provided proves that and you didn't provide anything to dispute that fact.

You're just throwing empty words around. Yeah law says that but we won't actually do it guys. I promise. What you and others think about if US actually would invade is entirely irrelevant to what the law actually says.

→ More replies

76

u/prawncounter 4d ago

I don’t like the phrase “weasel words”, because I like weasels, but that’s what you’re doing here.

The whole planet knows it as The Hague Invasion Act because the entire fucking intent was to threaten invasion.

It was made plain as day that if the ICC so much as detained one of Americas child-murdering, journalist machine-gunning, innocent uncharged black site torturing war criminals there would be dire consequences.

And you’re here defending it with weasel words. Scummy.

17

u/BlameTheJunglerMore 4d ago

child-murdering, journalist machine-gunning, innocent uncharged black site torturing war criminals

You're probably referring to the CIA, right?

→ More replies

3

u/ThexAntipop 4d ago

While it may be true that we wouldn't invade I think the broader point is that regardless, we won't let the ICC put Americans in trial so it's a little hypocritical to say that they should put a Russian on trial. For the record I think Putin should be put on trial by the ICC I just think Americans who commit war crimes should be as well

→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies
→ More replies

77

u/Bruvvimir 4d ago

Pure moment of brilliance commenting on legitimacy of charges of a court which your country doesn’t recognize. 👌🏼

→ More replies
→ More replies

288

u/GlitchSurfer 4d ago

Certainly, Putin is a war criminal that should be prosecuted. Same as all the other war criminals from Russia, China, and the USA.

George W. Bush would be a good next person to start the charges with.

127

u/Alittude 4d ago

Yeah Nd probably Obama ans every other president too

84

u/VoiceofKane 4d ago

Going to prison should just be a part of the job description. Once you leave office as president, you are immediately sentenced for every crime you committed on the job.

27

u/YawnTractor_1756 4d ago

Republican - to jail, right away, no trial no nothing. Independent - we have a special jail for independents. Democrats - right to jail. Signing executive orders - jail. Not signing executive orders - believe it or not also jail.

→ More replies

15

u/nmathew 4d ago

Might was too look at the Roman Republic to see where that road leads.

17

u/VoiceofKane 4d ago

Ooh, even better! Let's take a note from Julius Caesar, and make it so that after you leave office, you're stabbed for every crime you committed on the job.

3

u/LawTeaDough 4d ago

Sounds good to me.

→ More replies
→ More replies

20

u/Muffinmaker457 4d ago

He should be sent to Iraq, not the Hague, and be tried there.

→ More replies
→ More replies

361

u/N_F_X 4d ago

how about joining the fucking ICC then?

92

u/RAGEEEEE 4d ago

"United States participation in the ICC treaty regime would also be unconstitutional because it would allow the trial of U.S. citizens for crimes committed on U.S. soil, which are otherwise entirely within the judicial power of the United States."

Not going to happen.

20

u/Relevant_Monstrosity 4d ago

United States participation in the ICC treaty regime would also be unconstitutional because it would allow the trial of U.S. citizens for crimes committed on U.S. soil, which are otherwise entirely within the judicial power of the United States.

This is actually the saving grace of the US system -- crimes generally fall under the lowest common jurisdiction. Which means that localities and states can defy the federal government and get away with it (many crocodile tears are shed about this e.g. cannabis and abortion pills). With the Federal governent having such an out-sized influence in global affairs, the states may not want to lose their privileges...

4

u/karit00 3d ago

The ICC acts only if the local system is unwilling or unable to prosecute:

The principle of complementarity means the Court will only prosecute an individual if states are unwilling or unable to prosecute. Therefore, if legitimate national investigations or proceedings into crimes have taken place or are ongoing, the Court will not initiate proceedings. This principle applies regardless of the outcome of national proceedings. Even if an investigation is closed without any criminal charges being filed or if an accused person is acquitted by a national court, the Court will not prosecute an individual for the crime in question so long as it is satisfied that the national proceedings were legitimate.

→ More replies
→ More replies

78

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

50

u/Mattho 4d ago

US does a lot of warcrimes around the world and it would be a bad look to ignore the court as a member.

→ More replies
→ More replies

21

u/flippingtimmy 4d ago

Putin's charged along with Maria Lvova-Belova.

His inner circle now face a future where they too will be charged and trapped in countries friendly to Russia.

Just another reason for them to stab him in the back.

22

u/TCastro2013 4d ago

Bush trump Obama and Clinton nervously glancing at each other*

→ More replies

47

u/Elliptical_Tangent 4d ago edited 3d ago

The US doesn't recognize the ICC and passed a resolution about storming Den Hague Haag if an American were held by it. This means the US's take is either anti-ICC or hypocritical—choose.

23

u/Arretu 4d ago

Why would you use half of the Dutch name?

"den Haag" or "the Hague". Pick one.

→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/bat_soup_people 4d ago

Mai Lai & the Trail of Tears

153

u/Gerrut_batsbak 4d ago

I'd rather not The US comment on anything ICC related when they themselves don't recognize it at all.

44

u/Tudpool 4d ago

Yeah it's a bit hypocritical.

→ More replies
→ More replies

20

u/AverageJak 4d ago

On this logic every US president of the last 70 years should be in the same position

8

u/cameron4200 4d ago

Lol right like how many civilians have been drone striked on accident and on purpose?

→ More replies
→ More replies

22

u/Cr33py07dGuy 4d ago

What is the US's official position on the ICC? Checks notes... hmm... oh here's a commentary from John Bolton from 2018... ah... OK.

59

u/Rough_Drop673 4d ago

Time for Israel noe

46

u/Muffinmaker457 4d ago

And for every American president ever, lmao

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/LouisBalfour82 4d ago

Q    Could you give us your reaction to the International Criminal Court issuing an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin? 

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I think it’s justified.  But the question is, it’s not recognized internationally by us either.  But I think it makes a very strong point.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/03/17/remarks-by-president-biden-before-marine-one-departure-32/

27

u/eepos96 4d ago

Biden: icc is a good thing

Everyone: so usa will join icc?

Biden: no since our soldiers do bit make war crimes.

261

u/6_67408_ 4d ago edited 4d ago All-Seeing Upvote

I hate putin and all but this is rich coming from the us.

Edit: For those downvoting me, you need to read this:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law

71

u/i_agree_but_ 4d ago

They know they just don't want to accept

→ More replies
→ More replies

8

u/Sub__Finem 4d ago

Lol, we’re not members of the ICC

10

u/harrymfa 4d ago

While I agree, I think the US, the country of George W Bush, has little high ground to stand on.

12

u/Falcon416 4d ago

Awesome! Now do Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Netanyahu, etc.

11

u/Astronaut_64 4d ago

How about george bush, obama then?

12

u/Xpmonkey 4d ago

Can we charge all the former presidents with war crimes to. I have receipts.

6

u/boredrl 4d ago

Until the US joins the ICC and our war criminal presidents are prosecuted this is just inflaming tensions. You can't pretend to be the good guy global policeman, commit war crimes, and then say the other sides should be prosecuted for committing war crimes while George W. Bush and Dick Cheney get off scot-free for the millions of lives they destroyed in Iraq. The Pentagon literally blocked the president from releasing details about Russian war crimes earlier this month because they were concerned that American politicians would be held to a similar standard if Russian politicians are prosecuted. I'm not a Russian bot, I just want global terror to end and the US, like Russia, are sponsors of it.

8

u/bridymurphy 4d ago

I thought the US ignores the ICC.

7

u/iShakeMyHeadAtYou 4d ago

Does this mean The US just recognised the ICC?

39

u/Mausy5043 4d ago

Biden recognises the ICC!!!?

30

u/BloodAria 4d ago

Sure it they prosecute other countries lol.

91

u/evasive_dendrite 4d ago All-Seeing Upvote

Biden has absolutely no right to say this. It's insufferable hypocrisy. The US has consitently fought against the ICC whenever it tried to investigate any war crimes commited by the US. Going so far as to pass an act that says they will invade the Netherlands, their military ally, if the ICC arrests an American. Fuck you Biden. Either recognise the court or shut your mouth about it, you don't get to do both.

→ More replies

29

u/thescoobymike 4d ago

Putin deserves it. But also, why is their no warrant for George Bush?

12

u/TacosWhyNot 4d ago

And every member of Congress that authorized Bush's use of force, just about everyone was on board in the post 911 orgy of revenge

3

u/BlessedTacoDevourer 4d ago

Biden himself supported the invasion lmfao.

→ More replies

3

u/Hourslikeminutes47 3d ago

He needs to be captured and hands and feet bound using iron shackles.

Putin needs to face justice for the crimes he committed

3

u/PerfectChicken6 3d ago

I am calling, Dog the bounty hunter.

→ More replies

3

u/FrigOffR1cky 3d ago

Interesting. I’d love to hear his thoughts on Bush and Cheney.

3

u/Sarcarean 3d ago

Friendly reminder that the ICC was totally cool with Obama bombing a hospital full of kids.

9

u/ChadicusMeridius 4d ago

Putin charged with war crimes, Trump going to prison. The world is healing.

→ More replies

8

u/colonel_itchyballs 4d ago

yes its justified but where is bush's charges?

7

u/youngestOG 4d ago

Obama commited war crimes too

→ More replies

6

u/JasonEAltMTG 4d ago

War crimes are bad when America isn't the one doing them

4

u/Callen_Fields 4d ago

Finally, you're getting it. Now give us your oil.

→ More replies