• SoupBrick@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Ya know what, I think I am ok with punishing people leading war crime efforts. I sure do wonder what the party of “tough on crime” thinks about the ongoing genocide?

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      They’re coveres by one of the commandments of their lord and saviour:

      “Rules for thee, but not for me” — Supply Side Jesus

    • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      I wonder what mister crime bill, lock the S.O.B up, thinks of it… Oh wait I don’t have to wonder he just told us!

      In 1989 […] Mr. Biden lamented that the Republican president, George H. W. Bush, was not doing enough to put “violent thugs” in prison. In 1993, he warned of “predators on our streets.” And in a 1994 Senate floor speech, he likened himself to another Republican president: “Every time Richard Nixon, when he was running in 1972, would say, ‘Law and order,’ the Democratic match or response was, ‘Law and order with justice’ — whatever that meant. And I would say, ‘Lock the S.O.B.s up.’”

      • SoupBrick@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        I really hope we eventually get to a government that unanimously agrees that all life has value.

        • Philote
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          They do, it’s a monetary value. 200,000 dead Palestinians = Lockheed Martin line go up.

          • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            As seen on TV, until used on the press.

            9 out of 10 fascists choose Lockheed Martin to cleanse their regions of targeted scapegoats and the media.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      They don’t mean in terms of aid.

      The US has refused to submit themselves or their soldiers to international criminal law for a long time now, for plenty of other reasons.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    7 months ago

    Well to be fair, our government has done some war crimes. Maybe we should hear the ICC out on this one.

    • filister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      7 months ago

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act

      Because your government has laws that would shield its citizens from ICC persecutions. Because you know, your government feels above international humanitarian law.

      When those arrest warrants are against your rivals (Putin) it is all fine and commendable, but when it is against you and your allies it is a despicable act. You see the double standards here?

      War crimes are war crimes no matter the side that commits them. And trying to undermine international laws and institutions created with the whole idea to prevent humanity from making the same mistakes like in the past should be preserved and protected.

      • arquebus_x@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes but also no. The U.S. isn’t a party to the ICC. It’s not under ICC jurisdiction regardless of the ASMPA. The function of the ASMPA is mostly to serve as political theater.

        The U.S. should be a party to the ICC, but it’s not and it likely never will be.

  • Rottcodd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    So basically the US government is a gigantic Trump - rising up in self-righteous fury at the very idea that anyone might dare to charge them for the crimes they’ve brazenly committed.

  • kerrigan778@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    7 months ago

    What’s this “we” business. I haven’t committed any warcrimes but I would like anyone who commits them in my name to face justice.

  • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Wait… the US is currently indiscriminately bombing civilians who have nowhere to go, while denying them access to basic necessities?

  • umbrella
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    but but biden is trying so hard to save the palestinians!1!!

  • taanegl@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    7 months ago

    Ok, can we take the CIA to court? There are a couple of executives in old folks homes that arguably deserve to be rolled into an active volcano.

  • Maeve@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    7 months ago

    There would be a lot of war crimes the USA can be charged for, retroactively. I think this is not just about Israel.

  • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The US is not a signatory to the ICC, is it?

    In fact, I believe the planned response to such an arrest is to actually storm the Hague and retrieve the American.

    Point is, I don’t think the US government is too worried about it.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      neither is israel… the ICC decided that it has jurisdiction if a crime was committed in a country(area? because palestine is a signatory but not a country) that is a signatory

      so it’s charged israelis because palestine is a signatory

      afghanistan is also a signatory, so AFAIK the ICC believes it has jurisdiction to charge US citizens for any war crimes that may have occurred during… that… whole… thing

      the US disagrees of course, but IDK it kinda makes sense. if you assasinate someone in, say, the UK and then flee to… like… Russia for example <_< then the UK isn’t just going to say well i guess they’re Russian so we don’t have jurisdiction

    • Enoril@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      They are worried about their holidays in the countries who apply ICC juridiction (a lot of good holidays places…). Can you imagine ? The audacity of ruining my holidays because i did (or supported by providing weapons, veto, etc) a little genocide ! Poor me, bad ICC.

  • arquebus_x@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Except the U.S. is not a party to the ICC and therefore not subject to its jurisdiction. It should be, but it’s not. This is bullshit fear-mongering over something that literally cannot happen, in order to distract people from the thing that will and should be happening.

    • FriendBesto
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Neither is Israel. But even just the optics of the ICC ruling on Israel is good for the rest of the world to see. Honestly, same for the case of the USA. Most USA Presidents are textbook case war criminals. Only because their military operations help the USA itself geopolitically it does not make it generally ethnical. Most Americans in this perspective ate very biased. But the rest of the world sees it.

      Over 1 million Iraqis are dead because of Bush Jr. actions and their downstream, Obama ordered drone kills above any other previous President, many of those killing civilians, USA has destabilised dozens of governments over the course of the 20th century, Project Condor is a perfect example.