This is a good point and may well be the case, we'd have to look at the exact rules of jurisdiction.

But even if it's true, that's not something that obligates the US to play ball. They don't have any obligations to the Court.

You are equating right with might and dressing this up in pseudo-legalism.

Exactly. The dominant global superpower has no interest in international tribunals, since it has the power to enforce its will directly. They are above the law because they don't need the law as leverage against anybody else.

Joining the ICC has no upside for this country since it simply enforces its will upon the world directly. Why would the empire limit its own ability to commit war crimes for nothing in return? The US government can label any action it disagrees with as terrorism and act unilaterally.

I think that's an uncharitable interpretation of what the parent said (they did not pass any judgment for or against the current state of affairs), and there's nothing "pseudo" about it; the US has no legal obligation toward the ICC whatsoever.

For the record, I think the US should be a member of the ICC, but we're not, and the US Congress passed a law many years ago instructing the executive branch to protect US servicemembers from the ICC. That's just the legal reality.

I am not any kind of lawyer, but here's my interpretation:

The usage of "legal" in this thread is highly misleading: partly erroneous and partly just a red herring. You are right about the USA national law, but that's the red herring part, because it is irrelevant in this international context with sovereign states and the ICC as parties. As far as the ICC is concerned (or rather international law and the treaty, the Rome Statute, which established the ICC) the suspected crimes were committed on party territory (Afghanistan; but also Poland, Romania and Lithuania; the latter three hosted the CIA black sites where prisoners were taken) and the USA government is not willing to prosecute themselves; so the ICC's purpose is to prosecute them.

That's why I called Llimos' position pseudo-legalist. (And also because the ICC is not a "private court" any more than the SCOTUS is a "private court".)

On the other hand, the USA is a sovereign state and its government is presumably in a position to ignore the international tribunal. This is the might part, which some are equating with a legally nonexistent right.

I don't know what exactly makes the USA different in this regard to some other relatively democratic state that finds its military and government under investigation by an international tribunal. It's surely got to do something with USA's might (power the US government is able to project across the world, e.g. sanctions) and worldwide reputation; but I think public opinion within the (democratic) country in conflict with the ICC is also hugely relevant in such cases, thus I'd say the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this, or pass the relevant laws).

For a comparison, I doubt there is currently an European internationally recognized state besides Russia and, maybe, Belarus whose governing politicians would dare defy something like the ICC; and sanctions by any state other than the USA would also carry much less weight.

Taking another look at the top-level comment, another thing that is visible in it apart from fake legalism is the "if it is legal, it is right", or, alternatively, "if it is within my might, it is right" point of view. That, too, is horrible; I guess I just didn't notice it consciously before.

That's fair; "legality" doesn't really matter much on the international stage. A country can do whatever it wants up to the point where it gets crippled by sanctions, or loses a war.

But I think it's still correct to say that the US is not legally beholden to the ICC, just as any other country not party to the Rome Statute is not. It's a voluntary thing, and there are plenty of countries in the world with less might than the US that are non ICC members. If Rome Statute signatories could just flat-out decide what and what is not legal for everyone, that wouldn't be a great outcome for the concept of sovereignty.

> I'd say the US voters don't care about democracy or justice enough (otherwise the US politicians wouldn't dare do this, or pass the relevant laws).

I think that's an uncharitable view that paints with a way-too-broad brush. Mine is that US citizens do generally care about these things, but don't trust the idea of a foreign body having oversight in criminal matters. Sure, there almost certainly is some subset that believes that "those terrorists deserve what they get", and believe that due process should go out the window whenever someone utters the magic phrase "national security", and that's shameful.

> the suspected crimes were committed on party territory (Afghanistan; but also Poland, Romania and Lithuania; the latter three hosted the CIA black sites where prisoners were taken)

This is also interesting, though: has the ICC been investigating, and potentially prosecuting individuals in, Poland, Romania, and Lithuania for their part in allowing this stuff to happen on their soil? If not, why not? Seems like it would make sense for them to concentrate where the targets of potential prosecution are actually within their jurisdiction, no?

I agree that "if it is within my might, it is right" is reprehensible, but I don't think that explains the situation fully. I think it's reasonable to disagree with the ICC's implementation, and to want nothing to do with it, even if its intended mission is an honorable one.

> They don't have any obligations to the Court.

While this is true they certainly also don't have an obligation to attack individuals, who happen to work for the court.

That's just a totally underhanded shit move of a bully and, I strongly suspect, it's red meat for a certain segment of voters.

No matter how you look at it. This move is fucking disgusting.

Criminals rarely have any obligation to the courts in which they are prosecuted.

So what?

They do. If they live in a country where the court has jurisdiction, they have obligations. (To show up, to cooperate, etc.) They may choose not to fulfil those obligations, in which case they can be punished (legitimately).

If there's no jurisdiction there's no obligation to start with.

Case in point: China has made it illegal worldwide to criticize what they're doing in Hong Kong[1]. That doesn't mean you have to listen to them if you're in a country that doesn't care.

[1]: https://www.axios.com/china-hong-kong-law-global-activism-ff...

I will disagree. Jurisdiction is in the eye of the beholder. Truth is that nobody has any obligations or anyone or anything, all the courts get their authority by the guns that back them up.

Wouldn't a US citizen still have those obligations if they, for example, had committed crimes in Germany but just happened to fly back to the US before being arrested?

Yes, but only because the US and Germany have an extradition treaty[0]. And even then, I assume the US government could still refuse to extradite for various reasons.

The US has no such treaty with Afghanistan, and is not a party to the ICC.

Whether or not the US should cooperate with the ICC is another matter, but the US has no legal or diplomatic obligation to do so. And in fact the US executive branch is required by US law to actively thwart ICC action against US servicemembers[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradit...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Internat...

You misunderstood: the US government is the suspected "criminal" in this case.

If I, living in, say, the UK, criticize China's handling of Hong Kong, I am also a suspected criminal in their eyes. Do I have to care about that if I don't recognize their court's jurisdiction over me?

Criminals abrogate themselves from that responsibility by committing the crime. Their obligations are no longer relevant until the use of force is applied to make them fulfil that obligation - i.e. they are arrested and prosecuted. It is innocent civilians (i.e. non-criminals) who are fulfilling their responsibility to NOT commit crime - criminals are beyond that point.

America is getting away with its war crimes and crimes against humanity, simply because there isn't a system by which it can have its obligations not to murder millions of people enforced by external force. Yet. That day may change, one can only hope ..

Nations may of course enforce their own laws while foreign nationals are on in their jurisdiction, but once they are outside that jurisdiction, they are at the mercy of the foreigners' home country for extradition. If that country doesn't care to extradite, they're out of luck (barring extraordinary rendition). Delegating the investigation to an international body doesn't change that (not to mention that the US is not a part of and has been actively hostile toward the ICC).

The fact that the ICC counts many nations as members certainly makes it feel like the US should cooperate on moral/ethical grounds, but it has no legal requirement to do so.

At the end there is no real difference between moral and law. Laws are just something people have decided to judge each other by. Laws and jurisdiction are just the implementation, which might change, the specs seem well defined (when it comes to war crimes).

The US had the power to establish before committing war crimes, that it does not want to be investigated (acting lawfully but immorally), while any other criminal would not have the power to plan ahead and could only try to escape justice after having committed a crime (acting immorally and unlawfully).

So what I am saying is: Nobody cares about acting lawfully when it comes to war crimes. Especially not, when you base your dominance on your fantasy of a moral high ground.

> At the end there is no real difference between moral and law.

That's demonstrably incorrect, and we're talking about this exact counterexample. You're saying that the US has acted immorally (which I agree with!) while simultaneously saying the US is legally responsible, which it is not. That right there suggests that morality and law are not aligned, and that there is sometimes quite a big difference between the two.

And yet, the US don't hesitate to go after individuals in other countries where they could kidnap and bring them to US to be judged by "law". Haha

Pretty sure I covered that with my original comment. Never said it was a good thing, and expressly pointed out that I don't believe it is.

Have you read the rest of my comment and what I wanted to say? Of course there is a difference. I am saying, the difference does not really matter, because "being lawful" does not really matter when it comes to war crimes.

The Nazis acted "lawfully" under their jurisdiction, but because the laws themself were unjust, it is widely recognized that they in fact did not act lawfully and so they have been trialed for it. It's called "legal positivism". The concept means, that there is in fact no difference between "law" and "moral", when it comes to war crimes. Ironically, it was the US, which established that concept.

I guess I'm just not understanding what the point is, then? Obviously morality and legality are not the same thing; the law can be immoral, and the law can also allow people to do immoral things.

And I absolutely agree that we can say that some countries do things that are entirely consistent with their own laws, that we will nevertheless judge to be immoral. The US is sadly no stranger to this phenomenon.

But again... what's the point? My original comment was simply addressing the legality of the situation. The US has no legal requirement to cooperate with the ICC, and has enough clout on the international stage to maintain that position. When it comes to international relations, "law" isn't the same thing as what it is between a government and its citizens. International "law" can only be enforced either through the consent of those who are party to it, or through economic or military might.

I guess, we are not really disagreeing then. I just wanted to voice the thought that judging your own war crimes under your own jurisdiction and finding out they are legal is kind of a pointless mental excercise. So I am not saying you are wrong, it's more of a: "Yes, true. But so what?"