Not just "above"; US law explicitly gives the President the power to invade The Hague if they get their hands on American officials or military personnel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

> The Act gives the President power 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".

So what? Many countries do not recognize the ICC, not just the US. We don’t want a Global World Order; that’s a European fantasy Europe can keep. We don’t share all the same values or laws and never will.

I’m glad for The Hague Invasion Act.

Doesn't the Hague only do war crimes? It's not much of a Global World Order if they only process heinous stuff. Is this a slippery slope argument? Or do you disagree with how the Hague does things?

am not well educated on it, for context

American money has "NEW WORLD ORDER" written in Latin on it. I'm sure that's where people might get the idea that America does want a Global World Order.

No, it doesn't. "Seclorum" means something like "of the ages" or "for the ages"; it's from the same root as "secular".

If you're going to propagate conspiracy theories, at least try to do so in such fashion as avoids making you look as if you can't be bothered to read.

"Do not recognize" and "explicitly threatens to invade a NATO ally" are not quite the same thing.

"International war crimes courts" do not prosecute treason.

And it isn't about the personnel being "above" anything. It's simply that the ICC is not a court and does not respect due process, so we do not subject American citizens to it (and indeed it would be an interesting Constitutional question as to whether that's even truly possible).

From a more pragmatic perspective, as long as Russia and China don't recognize the ICC's authority, it would be a major global strategic blunder to impose checks and balances only on the United States.

Were some of the comments up-thread edited or something? I don’t see any mention of treason in this specific chain until this post (but it is weird because hammock’s post, at this same level, also mentions treason).

Of course there are other threads that bring up the possibility of treason. But I don’t see why there’s a need to explain the (obvious, right?) fact that the ICC wouldn’t prosecute treason.

The post I was responding to asked:

> “If he was a "war criminal" as many here claim, why wasn't he ever prosecuted or convicted?”

Which, I guess I just meant, prosecuted by whom? He was the US government at the highest levels and there is no international body with jurisdiction. It doesn’t seem like nobody being able to press charges means a man is innocent.

Sure I just mean, “how come nobody prosecuted him for it” doesn’t really prove innocence here.

This position is not unique to the US and stems from the potential for politically motivated prosecutions and the need to protect military personnel. Other countries (India, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, etc) are also cautious about subjecting their citizens to the jurisdiction of international courts.

If Kissinger committed treason, there was nothing stopping the US government from pursuing charges

> If Kissinger committed treason, there was nothing stopping the US government from pursuing charges

Except the optics and power that his party holds (politics), which is what keeps many congress critters in positions of power. The power that the US wields (economically and militarily) kept the other countries at bay.

People pretending, that the reasons are unclear, are being disingenuous.

Is there any country that is more powerful than the counterparty that will submit to the decision of an international court?