Hacker News Reader

Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

> To USA not recognizing the court has always shown that they don't care about the crimes they commit.

I'd nitpick the "don't care" part. To me, it's that they do care precisely because they know they are guilty. I think Trump is guilty for the boats being shot. Obama guilty for the drone strikes. W guilty for well, the whole shit show. Didn't really pay attention to Biden, but I'd assume drone strikes continued there too. From Clinton on back, I admit I just wasn't paying attention to those kinds of issues.

View on HN

My understanding is that most of the post-cold-war targeted killings of dubious legality happened after 9/11; wikipedia claims that there were US norms against "targeted killings" from '76 to '01. Certainly the CIA did some shady stuff post 1976, but the President at least maintained the appearance of not knowing about them.

Pragmatically what does the US gain from joining? From a US perspective it would just be ceding power no?

Only a year after Clinton signed the statute 9/11 was perpetrated. I can’t imagine any of the most powerful countries would have ratified it if they were in the midst of prosecuting a war.

Since then the US has softened on the ICC as it benefits them to maintain a relationship but, at this point why sign other than for ideological reasons.

And even if there was an intent to join there would likely be stipulations from the US. And it would have to pass the divided senate, after which it would likely go to the Supreme Court who with the current bench would certainly strike it down, meaning a constitutional amendment would be needed. It’s less feasible to join now than it ever has been unfortunately.

> Pragmatically what does the US gain from joining? From a US perspective it would just be ceding power no?

From any country's perspective this means ceding power. They just do it for the greater good and for justice. Deferring the right to bear arms to the state also means ceding power, but you gain a peacefuller society. Most people have more important and aspiring things to do, than fighting with their neighbors.

> Pragmatically what does the US gain from joining? From a US perspective it would just be ceding power no?

It could have created momentum for other major powers to join (e.g. Russia) and given the ICC broad authority to prosecute the crimes it has jurisdiction over.

That might have created a world where leaders act differently. What, for example, would have happened in if Syria and Russia had both been members?

It’s easy to be cynical about ideas like the ICC - the logic of power is hard to avoid - but the US working against it is definitely a major reason for its weakness.

I am in support of the ICC largely and would prefer that the US were a member. Maybe we wouldn’t be living with the shame of crimes like abu ghraib if we had ratified.

Historical counterfactuals are tricky and I’m not an expert on Russia’s consideration of Rome statute ratification. I find it hard to believe that they would have ratified or not withdrawn the moment a warrant was issued for putin’s arrest.

> Pragmatically what does the US gain from joining? From a US perspective it would just be ceding power no?

Then why bother with anything?

Why does France join? From a French perspective it would just be ceding power no? Why does South Korea join? From a Korean perspective it would just be ceding power no? Why...

None of those countries are the preeminent military and political power in the world. Most stand to lose significantly less as signatories. The US does not need to be a member of the ICC to influence it, and they can largely operate with impunity as a non-party state that has permanent UNSC veto powers. Is South Korea in similar circumstances?

Laws for thee but not for me

Reply on news.ycombinator.com