Pretty sure even a lot of the current President's voters are slowly coming to this same realization. I predict soon in casual conversation almost no one will have voted for this man.
You have UNDER HALF of Americans forcing MORE THAN HALF of Americans to pay steep tariffs to trade with their universally well-regarded neighbour across the US's northern border. Between the two groups, the more-than-half are the ones most impacted by the tariffs against Canada. Given how libertarian many Americans claim to be, a break-up of the US is now imminent. The world will end up better.
It’s a travesty but I think “never going to come back from this” is a stretch. There is no immediate replacement for the position the US holds in global politics. China has no interest in being the guarantor of freedom of transit in international waterways, to pick one example.
Well really most of the consumers of the goodness that the US represented in international politics, including your example, are just being lazy and hoping the US will cover their arses. The sudden, stark realisation that they have been exposed by the instability of the US really kicked off the sovereign initiatives.
It's not just this administration. The US helped create this court and pushed other countries to join, but never joined themselves and always threatened the court if they indicted or judged American people.
There's an US law that says the US will invade Belgium if the court wanted to investigate an American (???)
I remember Hillary Clinton, in the Obama administration, saying the US is an exceptional country that deserves exceptional conditions regarding this issue
It's worse than an embarrassment - it is an indictment of democracy itself. It is difficult to imagine a people - on paper the richest, most educated and healthiest in the history of the world - intentionally choosing a real villain as their duly-elected leader. They elected a man whose outrages, corruptions, selfishness, malice and outright crimes are so egregious and obvious that the problem becomes organizing so long a list into a workable taxonomy. But he's not done this alone - SCOTUS is in his pocket and truly made him above the law. The Republicans have enabled him by staying silent and riding on his coattails - the most "principled" of them have retired. Media is consolidated and owned by the oligarchs he calls friends. He has a personal paramilitary force (ICE) roaming the streets, killing people, and who will be "observing" the mid-term elections.
The root of the problem is in the collective mind of Americans. We are the problem - we've been hacked to be both stupid and proud of that stupidity, to cease recognizing "character" or "virtue" as a signal, to cease caring about reality that doesn't support opinions that were installed on us, like malware, or anything really except entertainment. Because that's the ONE thing we do get out of all this - we get to be entertained. How funny when he says outlandish things like immigrants are eating the cats, eating the dogs! How hilarious (and macho!) when he brags about grabbing women. How wonderful it is to see the discomfiture of the libs when he parrots Nazi propaganda or when he encouraged the Proud Boys to storm the capital to overturn his loss, and then his lackeys claimed it either didn't happen or was a false flag. "Hang Mike Pence!" is what an obese, fentanyl- and TikTok-addicted mind thinks is doing something! And hey, you can say "retard" again without getting canceled.
We'll see how the midterm civil war goes, but I'm guessing you should take your kids out of that place if only to offer them a future where this is no longer an option.
Sometimes you need to touch the stove and get burned to learn that its hot. This is something that tends to be repeated once people forget about the last time they (as a collective nation) touched the stove.
Sometimes it can be learned with a simple first degree burn. Sometimes you get blisters. Sometimes the government in power is determined to hold their hand to it and get third degree burns.
Hopefully the pain from this round of burns can be remembered for a while longer before its repeated again.
The International Criminal Court is a farce. How can you tell other sovereign nation what is a "crime" or what "is not a crime"? It has literally zero authority to decide such matters.
You appear to be confused. Anyone can decide anything, the question is whether it is in their power to enforce their decisions.
Saying that they don't have authority to make a decision implies that there's some universal set of rules that internationally lays down what anyone's authority is - precisely the kind of thing you appear to be opposed to, because such a set of rules would likely need a court!
Seems to be a rather silly, pedantic point if it even passes. GP was clearly talking about sovereignty etc. which is exactly the caveat that you granted - that ICC may have no enforcement power over non-treaty countries. For the record I have no axe to grind with the ICC, but you and GP literally agree on the main difficulty facing the institution.
This is exactly the kind of discussion where the difference is important. Your reading of the point they were trying to make is impressively charitable. I shall try to learn from it.
If the point is that anyone can tell anyone else anything, that's vacuously true but a court typically wields the power of a state and its code of laws. For treaty countries ICC is perfectly unproblematic but for nontreaty countries there's a strong difficulty in calling it a court as it bears no legal legitimacy.
National courts routinely issue arrest warrants for persons of other nationalities, which could currently be located anywhere on the world. The ICC is not special in that regard.
Well a lot of international diplomacy depends on trade and associated meetings. If someone is sanctioned by the ICC then they can't move money or visit any member countries.
It has as much if not more authority to judge crimes commited in the member countries that gave it that authority than Trump has to sanction them in the first place.
How can a nation decide what is and isn't a crime? It's all made up, a "farce" to use your diction. We just choose to go along and build these institutions because living in lawlessness is worse.
Why should we believe in the fantasy of the nation state, but not in the fantasy of international law? It's all just social constructs to create an ordered society that stops the worst excesses.
The sanctions announcement coincided with a former ICC judge, Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her contributions to enlarging the scope and impact of international law. -- https://thehill.com/policy/international/6138693-rubio-impos...
The American Service-Members' Protection Act has been US law since 2002, and was nicknamed "the Hague Invasion Act, since the act would allow the president to order military action in The Hague, the seat of the ICC, to prevent U.S. or allied officials and military personnel from being prosecuted or detained by the ICC." The sanctions are new, but the posture is old and bipartisan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
I know there's a lot of (deserved) hate for the current administration, but the ICC situation is somewhat nuanced. You can argue that international law doesn't / shouldn't exist because each country has the right to self-determination, and any disputes on that line are always decided by who has more economic sway or military strength. There's no world police that a smaller and less powerful country can send to arrest the leaders of a more powerful neighbor, unless they find enough friends with fighter jets.
Now, as it happens, the US is one of the most economically and militarily powerful states out there, so they're the closest we have to an actual world police - but again, that police doesn't follow "international law", they act in what they think is the best interest of the West (or the US specifically). That's how all regional powers roll, albeit on a smaller scale. Russia and China make claims to neighboring states, Germany unceremoniously protects its economic interests in the EU, Iran bankrolls terrorists in neighboring states who in turn bomb Iran, and so on.
The ICC is a bit unusual in that it's an initiative of some Western states trying to get the most powerful state to play by their rules. It's a nice try, but also... obviously doomed?
And it's not something the US can ignore, because the court does assert the authority to arrest and try US servicemen and politicians. So this was kinda inevitable, and if you think the sanctions are bad, consider the bipartisan Hague Invasion Act of 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
One can also argue that, exactly because there is the right to self-determination, there is a huge need for a inter-national and super-national organism to ensure that a right of some country doesn't jeopardise the rights of others.
Is the ICC the right organism? Maybe, maybe not; we can argue about that.
I was getting rather tired of SV opinions shaping all of our daily lives far outside the SV, but I did not expect that this would be how that would slowly end.
Not a week passes without the US giving other nations very good reasons to cut out any dependencies on anything under their jurisdiction.
Is California now panicking and exiting the United states? That would be really funny.
Why stop there? Let's do all other collaborative groups that don't put the US and their corrupted agenda first. You wanna be left alone and we don't want to have you so just make the calls.
Regardless - I think it's safe to assume this isn't happening in a vacuum - there are a number of world players who profit from the collapse of the U.S. And all this trouble started the moment they could use the internet to feed stupid Americans their stupid propaganda.
Europe is getting the same firehose of stupid propaganda and is looking a little shaky. Education and history give Europe an advantage but not immunity. There are stupid people everywhere eager to get their hate on.
Does this mean that Microsoft or Google can no longer offer services (like mail/office/search etc..) to the ICC? Similar to what happened with the ICC prosecutor last year?
Scope of the sanctions is unclear, but it seems unlikely to me. This appears more like "US companies can't do direct business with the ICC organization."
E.g., the ICC ditched Microsoft last year, likely foreseeing this type of action.
This is not a perfect analogy: when I choose not to join a club, I have a reasonable expectation of that club not declaring me its member, and not fighting me for failing to follow the rules that the club established.
If you go to someone else's house who is a member of that club and has agreed to follow its rules, it's not crazy to think you'd be held to them there.
Which is all the ICC can do to nations that aren't signatories to the Rome statute.
> it's not crazy to think you'd be held to them there.
It's not crazy to think that I won't be served meat if I'm going to a house of a vegetarian. It is however crazy to think that I will be stoned in that house for having eaten meat in the past.
It's really not complicated. You can be prosecuted for crimes committed inside another state even if you were not physically present in that state. When that state has ratified the Rome Statute then you can be prosecuted by the ICC because that state lends its jurisdiction to the ICC.
Some context per the below articles, and as a general IR nerd.
The proximal cause of the sanctions appears to be that the Nobel Peace Prize was won by a former ICC judge, and Trump covets it.
The distal cause is that the US never joined the ICC, arguing that US political & military leaders should not be subject to a binding foreign jurisdiction. This is a longstanding disagreement, with bipartisan consensus in DC.
Putting pressure on this disagreement, the ICC has a warrants out for Netanyahu and others that the current administration views as a political & military ally.
My interpretation is basically: this is a petty move about the Nobel, which builds on a long-simmering disagreement about the role of international law.
I'd say that the longstanding disagreement is used as a pretext today. Hence the need to stress twice the "bipartisan" nature of it, implying, the article suggests, the bipartisan support to this new move.
Isn't the concept of "bipartisan" anything suspicious today? Republicans turned away from most of the "movement conservative" principles in 2017. Rule of law personal responsibility, small local government, free markets, all either ignored or only paid lip service.
Previous bipartisan consensus thus means nothing. Bipartisan consensus now means everyone capitulated to Trump's whim of the day.
Bipartisan consensus means "at this moment, neither party opposes this policy"
It is indeed fragile since, as you point out, it only takes one party (or in Rs case, one person) to eliminate the consensus. Consensus comes and goes.
And yet, it's notable when through the chaos, both parties have consistently maintained lockstep agreement for 30 years.
A lot of these weird actions actually build on long-simmering disagreements. Which is weird - like if a state governor got drunk and tried to shut down immigration enforcement.
Is this a legitimate policy decision? Maybe - but it sure reads like the ranting of a drunk.
The picture is much clearer when you accept that they are never jokes.
"They're trolling" is simply a juvenile defense that provides the cult and its members with plausible deniability.
The world might be slightly better off if we'd all taken them seriously from the start, but taking clowns and the accompanying circus seriously is unintuitive to most.
The sanctions announcement coincided with a former ICC judge, Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her contributions to enlarging the scope and impact of international law. -- https://thehill.com/policy/international/6138693-rubio-impos...
The Americans got upset first because the ICC wants to take action against the Israeli genocide of the Palestinian people.
But now it just happens to be that their president didn't get the Nobel peace price. The person who did was a judge on the ICC.
It could be a complete coincidence, of course. I mean, if it isn't, it would reinforce the notion of the USA being a clown of a country, which I'm sure Americans would prevent.
He will try but even the Supreme Court has shown they are willing to place limits on his power, ruling against him in some cases. So I don't think he has a pathway to bypassing the 22nd Amendment.
It's truly bizarre. I think some of his supporters think that they are all in on the joke and that he doesn't mean half of it. But at this point there is zero evidence good faith, zero evidence of strategy. Just one odd PR stunt after another that someone can day trade on if they know about it a few hours in advance.
The last round of ICC sanctions got everyone here talking about tech sovereignty, now France and Germany are rolling their own productivity suites, the Netherlands are rolling their own NixOS distro, etc etc.
This is just going to further hurt US interests. Biting the hand that feeds, burning down their own empire out of hubris. And Americans voted for this! Twice!
It's time the EU rolls out the Blocking Statute [0] to counteract this nonsense.
There is cantillon effect happening here with respect to trust in govts. media and institutions in general. People are becoming distrustful but slowly. Those who are on internet a lot know about these topics in depth but people farther away take time to adjust to New Reality.
Pretty sure even a lot of the current President's voters are slowly coming to this same realization. I predict soon in casual conversation almost no one will have voted for this man.
Bridges are burned that will never be rebuilt.
There's an US law that says the US will invade Belgium if the court wanted to investigate an American (???)
I remember Hillary Clinton, in the Obama administration, saying the US is an exceptional country that deserves exceptional conditions regarding this issue
It's frankly ridiculous
The root of the problem is in the collective mind of Americans. We are the problem - we've been hacked to be both stupid and proud of that stupidity, to cease recognizing "character" or "virtue" as a signal, to cease caring about reality that doesn't support opinions that were installed on us, like malware, or anything really except entertainment. Because that's the ONE thing we do get out of all this - we get to be entertained. How funny when he says outlandish things like immigrants are eating the cats, eating the dogs! How hilarious (and macho!) when he brags about grabbing women. How wonderful it is to see the discomfiture of the libs when he parrots Nazi propaganda or when he encouraged the Proud Boys to storm the capital to overturn his loss, and then his lackeys claimed it either didn't happen or was a false flag. "Hang Mike Pence!" is what an obese, fentanyl- and TikTok-addicted mind thinks is doing something! And hey, you can say "retard" again without getting canceled.
I've got kids and I'm terrified for them.
(I am from the country that voted to leave the EU...)
Sometimes it can be learned with a simple first degree burn. Sometimes you get blisters. Sometimes the government in power is determined to hold their hand to it and get third degree burns.
Hopefully the pain from this round of burns can be remembered for a while longer before its repeated again.
Saying that they don't have authority to make a decision implies that there's some universal set of rules that internationally lays down what anyone's authority is - precisely the kind of thing you appear to be opposed to, because such a set of rules would likely need a court!
You seem to have arrived at a suitable definition of "authority"
Refresh my memory, what did USA choose about that?
If you equate what the Presidents of the USA want to what the USA itself wants, then the USA have decided they don't want that.
If not, then you'd need to organize a referendum and let the population itself decide on a one person, one vote basis.
Rules for thee, not for me.
That is authority if you like it or not.
The U.S., along with China, India, Russia, and many other nations, are not members and do not grant any weight to ICC rulings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#C...
Why should we believe in the fantasy of the nation state, but not in the fantasy of international law? It's all just social constructs to create an ordered society that stops the worst excesses.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2026/pillay/facts/
Wow, so tough, much decision
Now, as it happens, the US is one of the most economically and militarily powerful states out there, so they're the closest we have to an actual world police - but again, that police doesn't follow "international law", they act in what they think is the best interest of the West (or the US specifically). That's how all regional powers roll, albeit on a smaller scale. Russia and China make claims to neighboring states, Germany unceremoniously protects its economic interests in the EU, Iran bankrolls terrorists in neighboring states who in turn bomb Iran, and so on.
The ICC is a bit unusual in that it's an initiative of some Western states trying to get the most powerful state to play by their rules. It's a nice try, but also... obviously doomed? And it's not something the US can ignore, because the court does assert the authority to arrest and try US servicemen and politicians. So this was kinda inevitable, and if you think the sanctions are bad, consider the bipartisan Hague Invasion Act of 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
One can also argue that, exactly because there is the right to self-determination, there is a huge need for a inter-national and super-national organism to ensure that a right of some country doesn't jeopardise the rights of others.
Is the ICC the right organism? Maybe, maybe not; we can argue about that.
Not a week passes without the US giving other nations very good reasons to cut out any dependencies on anything under their jurisdiction.
Is California now panicking and exiting the United states? That would be really funny.
Regardless - I think it's safe to assume this isn't happening in a vacuum - there are a number of world players who profit from the collapse of the U.S. And all this trouble started the moment they could use the internet to feed stupid Americans their stupid propaganda.
Do these sanctions also affect anyone working at the ICC?
E.g., the ICC ditched Microsoft last year, likely foreseeing this type of action.
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1ommt2f/the_int...
Are the ICC already terrorists, or not yet? Asking for a friend who doesn't want to get bombed.
Which is all the ICC can do to nations that aren't signatories to the Rome statute.
It's not crazy to think that I won't be served meat if I'm going to a house of a vegetarian. It is however crazy to think that I will be stoned in that house for having eaten meat in the past.
The proximal cause of the sanctions appears to be that the Nobel Peace Prize was won by a former ICC judge, and Trump covets it.
The distal cause is that the US never joined the ICC, arguing that US political & military leaders should not be subject to a binding foreign jurisdiction. This is a longstanding disagreement, with bipartisan consensus in DC.
Putting pressure on this disagreement, the ICC has a warrants out for Netanyahu and others that the current administration views as a political & military ally.
My interpretation is basically: this is a petty move about the Nobel, which builds on a long-simmering disagreement about the role of international law.
https://apnews.com/article/us-icc-trump-rubio-4ea3555403e3c6... https://www.reuters.com/world/us-imposes-sanctions-internati...
Previous bipartisan consensus thus means nothing. Bipartisan consensus now means everyone capitulated to Trump's whim of the day.
It is indeed fragile since, as you point out, it only takes one party (or in Rs case, one person) to eliminate the consensus. Consensus comes and goes.
And yet, it's notable when through the chaos, both parties have consistently maintained lockstep agreement for 30 years.
I suspect this one was actually meant as a joke, although it is not remotely funny in my opinion.
Someone in Trump's orbit who writes them gets an immature charge out of trolling people.
So far my prediction about Trump have sadly been correct: The US is getting weaker and poorer every day.
Is this a legitimate policy decision? Maybe - but it sure reads like the ranting of a drunk.
"They're trolling" is simply a juvenile defense that provides the cult and its members with plausible deniability.
The world might be slightly better off if we'd all taken them seriously from the start, but taking clowns and the accompanying circus seriously is unintuitive to most.
That describes MAGA perfectly.
But now it just happens to be that their president didn't get the Nobel peace price. The person who did was a judge on the ICC.
It could be a complete coincidence, of course. I mean, if it isn't, it would reinforce the notion of the USA being a clown of a country, which I'm sure Americans would prevent.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/netanyahu
Even they have their limits.
Another match lighting US soft power on fire
The last round of ICC sanctions got everyone here talking about tech sovereignty, now France and Germany are rolling their own productivity suites, the Netherlands are rolling their own NixOS distro, etc etc.
This is just going to further hurt US interests. Biting the hand that feeds, burning down their own empire out of hubris. And Americans voted for this! Twice!
It's time the EU rolls out the Blocking Statute [0] to counteract this nonsense.
[0] https://finance.ec.europa.eu/eu-and-world/open-strategic-aut...
So, good news I guess. Everything is fine. Trump is the best president ever in the history of the world.
See the similarity here...?