There's a huge difference between refusing to cooperate and sanctioning indviduals. The latter is a fear tactic move. Mafia style.

It's not a huge difference. Without this "sanctions on individuals" they already have the law where they could "attack Netherlands, save all US citizens there and along the way kill everybody who will resist them in such a move". This shows already many things... It is "already fearful enough"...

So now you're saying attacking the netherlands is the same as not cooperating with the ICC? They don't have to attack netherland nor sanction the prosecutors to ward off the ICC, they choose to use escalation of force, because that's how they perceive the world as a constant battle ground where anyone will strike you if you don't strike first.

They passed the law in 2002 where they allowed themselves to attack the Netherlands if a US citizen was brought to the ICC. This is already "fearful enough".

Now they passed the law to sanction the individuals working at ICC.

I am saying that the new law in not a huge difference from the old law, which was already "fearful". This is all I am trying to say here.

I see. But talks of potential war and the actuality of targeting these type of individuals is different. Both are very scary, but only one, for now, is an actuality.

I'm not sure I agree. Sanctioning individuals is a pretty common tactic on the international stage.

These people are not head of states, they are not war criminals, they do no oppress their citizens, they are not building weapons of mass destruction. These are the causes for the sanctions you are talking about.

Come on. That's bird logic.

This is just nonsense with an offensive remark on top. The EU and USA regularly sanction people who do none of the things you mentioned, just to punish their respective governments.

For example: https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/33/lists?search=%...

https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main/details/member?search=%7B...

"press photographer in Germany"

Did you read the allegations? These are people accused of stealing money from the tunisian population. For me it falls under oppression of citizens. Even if you don't agree, they are criminals. Not war crime prosecutors, whose crime is investigating war crimes.

So what if the guy also works as a press photographer? Does that give him immunity from being a criminal?

> These are people accused of stealing money from the tunisian population. For me it falls under oppression of citizens.

Sure, you can redefine everything as it suits you. "Stealing money fron the Tunisian population" is similar to tax fraud. You turn it into a war crime or being dictators.

Lacking recognition of legitimacy, a court is just a kidnapping gang.

It's just a modern day siege.

I don't get the downvotes. This is true. The US rejedct the authority of the ICC. See another comment in this thread, the law was passed in 2002.