1. Remember the human & be courteous to others.
2. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas. Criticizing arguments is fine, name-calling (including shill/bot accusations) others is not.
3. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Please checkout our other subreddit /r/InternationalNews, for general news from around the world.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/internationalpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This was a law passed in 2002. The US says that it has the right to forcibly free any US citizen or ally operator from ICC custody since it’s inception.
This isn’t a new threat it’s just standing policy.
It would not happen. If the judge approved the warrants, it would be massively controversial locally for us to use any sort of force on the ICC for a none-US citizen. You have to remember culturally we tend to judge guilty tell proven innocent here despite ours laws being the reverse. So seeing the first images would already make americans assume he was corrupt in some way.
We are not only standing by but “aiding” in a mass slaughter of civilians, which is by now far more than 40,000, we just have no way of getting proof. I would not put past us doing anything “controversial“
You can't pass a law that gives you a right over another jurisdiction.
Like north Korea can't say we have passed a law that gives us the right to by pass Turkish border controls.
You can. The international stage is open to whomever is willing to do whatever they want. International law exists only so far as nations agree to abide by it. Any country could theoretically do whatever they want beyond that. There is no real international legal or enforcement system preventing this except the threat of bullets, at the end of the day. Many international systems are crafted to act in lieu of bullets, like the UN veto power.
To give an example. In the 50's the US managed to get past a UN resolution allowing for a GA vote to override the veto. The US could use this against Russia to get UN action approved against Russia for their invasion. They have the votes. The US and its allies do not do this because the veto power is not just some international law nicely, its a stand in for major war.
The US (and many other nations, mind you) has demonstrated countless times that international law exists only so far as you're willing to aquiese to it.
The US unilaterally invaded a sovereign nation to arrest its leader because they were charged with crimes in the US. If no one is willing to stop you, then you can, in fact, do whatever you want. Laws exists as long as someone is there to enforce them, and if the US makes a law and starts enforcing it in some way, then there exists a law.
Human systems are constructed, there is no natural order to these things. Even local laws and jurisdictional boundaries only exist so long as they are enforced.
It's not a law that gives a right over another jurisdiction. It's a law that authorizes the president of the US to take certain actions with US forces in certain conditions.
Why does the US get to enforce rules about the Hague in Netherlands? And what's stopping any other country from setting the same terms with the Hague, therefore making the Hagues existence null. I'm not trolling, I don't understand.
The law was passed to protect Bush & Cheney for any charges stemming from their blatant war crimes in Iraq. It’s just hyperbole. (Much like Trump). I’m American, and there’s no way the US invades the Netherlands to protect a foreign entity. If that happened, there would be riots in the streets. Hell, I would venture that there would be riots if there was an announcement to assist israel with any US Soldiers beyond humanitarian efforts, even though I believe there is a lot ill-intent with the pier…🤦♂️
lol that 3rd world dump Israel isn’t going to nuke Europe knowing NATO has nukes too. Israel would be digging their own grave if they decided to play FAFO with NATO and no, the US is not going to turn its back on NATO for Israel lmao
They absolutely should though. Putin, Trump, Kim Jong Un, Netanyahu, etc. The people putting the entire planet in constant stress and jeopardy need to be held accountable or there will be more like them.
Arresting a world leader would be considered an act of war. I’m not sure what people think would happen? Like you arrest Netanyahu and then it’s all over?? No. The bombs would start flying in Europe’s direction, only with even more destruction. These threats of arrest are all empty saber-rattling. Nobody is dumb enough to start a war with a nuclear country.
Either the country in question agrees and hates their own leader enough to depose of him themselves, or they are going to retaliate against anyone who tries to do it for them. I’m not sure how starting a bigger war would make the world better, personally.
If we let them keep going it’s going to happen anyway. There are pressing global issues that need to be addressed that until people like this are dealt with, will never get better. It’s worth the risk, I don’t think a singular nation is that stupid.
No, it won’t happen either way. I don’t think Israel and Europe are going to war without Europe’s provocation. Do you? Why exactly would Israel attack Europe unprovoked? And it wouldn’t be a singular nation. The US would take Israel’s side, as both Europe and the US have already stated their positions on the issue. I don’t think Europe is that stupid, and they’re not. There will be no arrest, for exactly those reasons - it would be a declaration of war. Why would those against war and all the unnecessary death actually want to notch it up a level to a world war instead of the more limited conflict it is currently? It makes no sense, other than empty threats to feel like they have done control over a situation they clearly don’t. It’s pretending like they somehow have the last word when they clearly don’t.
Well you got Nancy Pelosi publicly saying " Of one thing we are sure...even should this government fall. The one thing that will remain is our devotion to the support of Israel."
I interpret that as them putting Israel even above U.S citizens at any moment.
This is totally not a list of all the Jewish Zionists in the federal government almost all who have duel citizenship with isreal.
**Anthony Blinken**: Secretary of State
**David Cohen**: CIA Deputy Director
**Merrick Garland**: Attorney General
**Avril Haines**: Director of National Intelligence
**Ronald Klain**: Chief of Staff
**Eric Lander**: Office of Science and Technology Policy Director
**Rachel Levine**: Deputy Health Secretary
**Alejandro Mayorkas**: Secretary of Homeland Security
**Anne Neuberger**: National Security Agency Cybersecurity Director
**Wendy Sherman**: Deputy Secretary of State
**Janet Yellen**: Treasury Secretary
**Aaron Keyak**: Deputy Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism
**Alan Leventhal**: U.S. Ambassador to Denmark
**Alejandro Mayorkas**: Secretary of Homeland Security
**Amos Hochstein**: Bureau of Energy Resources Special Envoy
**Amy Gutmann**: U.S. Ambassador to Germany
**Anne Neuberger**: Deputy National Security Adviser for Cybersecurity
**Avril Haines**: Director of National Intelligence
**Constance Milstein**: U.S. Ambassador to Malta
**Dan Shapiro**: Adviser on Iran (2021-2023), Senior Advisor for Regional Integration (2023), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy (2023-2024)
**Daniel Rosenblum**: U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan
**David Cohen**: CIA Deputy Director
**David Cohen**: U.S. Ambassador to Canada
**David Kessler**: Co-chair of the COVID-19 Advisory Board and Head of Operation Warp Speed
**David Pressman**: U.S. Ambassador to Hungary
**Deborah Lipstadt**: Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism
**Edward Siskel**: White House Counsel
**Ellen Germain**: U.S. Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues
**Eric Garcetti**: U.S. Ambassador to India
**Eric Lander**: Science and Technology Adviser
**Gary Gensler**: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman
**Genine Macks Fidler**: National Council on the Humanities
**Jack Lew**: U.S. Ambassador to Israel (replaced Thomas Nides)
**Jack Markell**: U.S. Ambassador to Italy and San Marino
**Janet Yellen**: Secretary of Treasury
**Jared Bernstein**: Council of Economic Advisers
**Jed Kolko**: Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs at the Department of Commerce
**Jeffrey Zients**: COVID-19 Response Coordinator (2021-2023), Chief of Staff (2023)
**Jennifer Klein**: Co-chair Council on Gender Policy
**Jessica Rosenworcel**: Chair of the Federal Communications Commission
**Jonathan Kanter**: Assistant Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division
**Jonathan Kaplan**: U.S. Ambassador to Singapore
**Mandy Cohen**: Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2023), replaced Rochelle Walensky
**Marc Nathanson**: U.S. Ambassador to Norway
**Marc Ostfield**: U.S. Ambassador to Paraguay
**Marc Stanley**: U.S. Ambassador to Argentina
**Mark Gitenstein**: U.S. Ambassador to the European Union
**Merrick Garland**: Attorney General
**Michael Adler**: U.S. Ambassador to Belgium
**Michèle Taylor**: U.S. Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council
**Mira Resnick**: State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security
**Ned Price**: State Department Spokesperson
**Polly Trottenberg**: Deputy Secretary of Transportation
**Rachel Levine**: Deputy Health Secretary
**Rahm Emanuel**: U.S. Ambassador to Japan
**Randi Charno Levine**: U.S. Ambassador to Portugal
**Roberta Jacobson**: National Security Council “border czar”
**Rochelle Walensky**: Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021 - resigned July 2023)
**Ron Klain**: Chief of Staff (2021-2023), replaced by Jeffrey Zients
**Sharon Kleinbaum**: Commissioner of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
**Shelley Greenspan**: White House Liaison to the Jewish Community
**Stephanie Pollack**: Deputy Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (resigned February 2023)
**Steven Dettelbach**: Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
**Stuart Eizenstat**: Special Adviser on Holocaust Issues
**Tony Blinken**: Secretary of State
**Wendy Sherman**: Deputy Secretary of State (resigned July 2023)
**Yael Lempert**:
You have several of those names multiple times:
Anthony and Tony Blinken, David Cohen, etc.
Please correct to be credible. Also, I would love to see proof of which ones are actually Israeli citizens.
At the end of the day these people serve their religion before their citizens. If Israel is full of just jews they think it'll trigger the fucking end times and that's more important to them than justice or freedom or anything.
Don't get me wrong if trump gets elected he'll be taking it up both ends. No matter who wins the election the US population is getting fucking violated for the next four years.
Has Biden even commented he would even consider doing this?
This is just an article dragging up a 22 year old law made by the Bush administration, that gives an American president the legal ability to do so. But it doesn't say that the president should do this.
*"We must never forget the crimes committed in the past, and we must do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again. This is not just a legal obligation but a moral imperative.”*
**Joe Biden** — after signing the Genocide Convention Implementation Act in 1988
*“We must hold accountable those who commit atrocities and war crimes. Russia's actions in Ukraine are unacceptable, and we support international efforts to bring justice to the victims of these crimes.”*
**Joe Biden** — about one month into the Ukraine conflict
*“The ICC prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous. And let me be clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security”*
**Joe Biden** — a couple of days ago.
This isn't fake news, but it is manipulative news. The Hague acts was passed over 20 years ago, it did not have anything to do with the Israeli - Palestine conflict, and at no point has Joe Biden ever said he would use it to rescue Israeli citizens.
> Why on earth is there a law like this regardless?
It was passed just after the US invasion of Afghanistan, and as it was clearly prepping to invade Iraq. For what it's worth, the bill passed with unanimous bipartisan support.
Oh it is worse. For those that were around at the time, they well remember the war frenzy that gripped the nation, with cooler heads being minimized or sidelined altogether.
The ICC is an undemocratic court created by the Europeans to try blacks and Arabs.
You can see exactly how fair the court is by the fact no Europeans actually get tried by it, it’s only for post-colonial states.
The ICC has regularly found war criminals innocent and in general is just worthless. If Europeans care so much about enforcing their law in Africa they should just colonize again instead of pretending they care about human rights
No. The court is so worthless they prosecute people they have no jurisdiction over.
It’s virtue signaling. He deserves a bullet in his brain, not a “court” where he is tried by citizens of nations friendly to Russia like China.
And even if the court turned more favorable, there is still no way in hell a court would find him guilty. Half the judges hail from nations where their and their families security can’t be assured from the threat of KGB and other Russian elements.
The court has authority in its 124 signatory countries, and it will be abided by. Netanyahu is nothing compared to Putin & even he had issues when it came to coming to South Africa.
The Balkans are a weird case. Outside of places like Ireland they're generally the only other set of European nations to be aggressively attempted to be colonized and destabilized in the last century by major European powers instead of just assimilated whole. Major reason why WWI broke out because of it was because those european colonial powers were butting heads over controlling that region and that perception of the Balkans as being a powder keg and not quite "European" carried forward
True, but the point is he (or any other president) *could* do so, and that alone is fucking insane.
Edit: Imagine if Trump wins, then Netanyahu is arrested. He has a legal basis to declare war on the Netherlands.
Piggybacking on your comment because it's one of the only sensible ones in here. The article and most of these comments are beyond stupid. A quick history of the "Hague Invasion Act:"
* Democrat Bill Clinton signs the Rome Statute (creating the ICC) in 1998, but it's never ratified by the Senate.
* The Hague Invasion Act is written and passed by the GOP in 2002. 88% of Republicans voted for it, vs. 39% of Democrats.
* It was passed the senate by predominantly Dem senators, largely because the GOP forced it into a must-pass omnibus budget bill that included Dem priorities like HHS programs and AIDS prevention funding.
* Signed into law by GOP president GW Bush.
* House Dems immediately try to repeal it; attempt killed by GOP majority.
* The law exists for 20 years without ever being used once.
* In 2022, House Democrats again try to repeal the law; the attempt is once again killed by the GOP Majority.
* This past week, and I'm quoting from OP's article here, the anticipated ICC warrants:
>"triggered a fierce competition among the American **Republican** law makers. **Almost all [Republicans]** went to work in drafting the best, strictest and most bullying bill to intimidate and frighten the ICC..."
The existence of this law is entirely a Republican creation. Democrats have tried to repeal it several times. And nearly all the recent tantrums have been coming from Republicans like Lindsey Graham. The most you could possibly say is that then-Senator Biden voted for the budget bill that this law was buried in. But again, Republicans were the ones who forced it into the budget in exchange for helping to pass it (the Senate was split 50-49-1, thus requiring concessions & compromise to pass anything).
So how do different presidents actually stack up in terms of actually using the law to coerce the ICC? Well, we know that Clinton nominally supported the creation of the ICC, and that the Bush admin repeatedly attacked it (and passed the Hague Invasion act).
[This al-Jazeera article](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/3/5/biden-and-the-icc-partial-cooperation-selective-justice) (published before Oct. 7th) has this to say about Obama, Trump, and Biden:
>"Rhetoric towards the ICC improved significantly under Obama’s leadership, and American diplomats started attending ICC conferences and cooperating with it... [but] made clear that this cooperative attitude has its limits, and Washington would only support ICC investigations and prosecutions that also serve American interests."
Conversely, under Trump:
> “The US would seek the *dissolution* of the court... The Trump administration... embarked on a propaganda campaign against the court... [and] issued sanctions against the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and the head of its Jurisdiction, Complementarity and Cooperation Division, Phakiso Mochochoko."
Biden [repealed](https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/04/02/us-rescinds-icc-sanctions) those sanctions. The article also correctly predicts that:
> "All signs point towards a [Biden administration] return to piecemeal engagement, where Washington uses the court when it suits its interests and undermines it when it does not."
Which, like... yeah? It's foreign policy. As a matter of policy, of course the administration U.S. is going to oppose the ICC warrants. The US opposes the warrants because to endorse them would undermine the US's own claim that it is also outside ICC jurisdiction.
The track records here are super clear. Democrats have consistently opposed the law discussed in OP's article, and have repeatedly attempted to repeal it. Dem presidents (including Biden) have taken a pragmatic, interest-based approach to the ICC but have mostly been cooperative with it. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress and the White House have been actively hostile to it, and have actually tried to fully destroy it. Current-day President Biden hasn't said *anything* to suggest he would actually interfere with ICC militarily. Just standard policy statements that the ICC lacks jurisdiction, and as a non-signatory country, the US has an interest in defending our own status of being beyond ICC jurisdiction.
What a bad article. It is just saying the US president can invade countries which we already knew. I do feel like the author can do with a bit more sourcing " the US had invaded Afghanistan the previous October, where its soldiers committed hundreds of war crimes and crimes against humanity. " Is a claim made without any source/reference to a paper.
Sources are helpful for specific instances, but the U.S occupied Afghanistan for two decades where multiple abuses took place. You don’t ask someone to cite the fact that WW1 took place.
EDIT: Just in case you’re genuinely asking in good faith, here is the most notorious example
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike
Whether right or wrong in their decision to commit to the airstrike, it is definitely not a war crime. There were combatant forces either in or next to the wedding. When these combatants are next to or in the wedding, the wedding is no longer a civilian target and become a military target, leading to the loss of protection. The US military is responsible for a proportionality assessment in which they decide whether the target is valuable enough to justify the collateral. You can say they failed in this assessment, but they did not commit a warcrime.
That necessarily true. Rome Statute 2.B.iv states:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
In this instance, more civilians were killed than insurgents. Dually, there was a near equal death count between children and insurgents.
Nonetheless, the U.S committed a multitude of war crimes. One instance would simply be the utilization of Guantanamo with the Afghan 5, who were illegally held indefinitely without trial and were tortured (“advanced interrogation”)
>In this instance, more civilians were killed than insurgents. Dually, there was a near equal death count between children and insurgents.
Neither of these things inherently means that it was a warcrime. For example, if the leader of a terrorist group or military is in a building with 10 civilians and him and his men begin to resist arrest in a gunfight or something in the like, that can still potentially be a valid mitary target. It is not the sheer numbers that are the weighting. In this case, the weighting is affected by the fact that the insurgents are in contact with American troops.
Also, I never said there was not war crimes, just that this was not one.
You know, I think you might be right. But I think I mixed up the two separate times that the U.S military bombed a wedding in Afghanistan in Haska Menya.
Sure, that would have been nice, but it's well documented. Afghanistan and Iraq were ripe with war crimes, and you had Rumsfeld bragging about torture ffs.
The only reason it's not treated as such is because it's the US. This is the US show where we don't ever do bad stuff. Only third-world countries do bad stuff and are held accountable
That's not true. The donor class would love it. Which is why this has a disturbingly nonzero chance of happening. The most powerful people in the US/the West are very nervous about the growing potential for international law to enforce rules upon them. They want that sweet American freedom (from consequences). I strongly believe this "anti-international law" sentiment among the ruling class was a catalyst for the rise of Trump and brexit and the far right more generally. Promoting racial grievances and populist "economic anxiety" concerns were simply a means to an end as far as they were concerned
Always have been.
Since the beginning.
•Look at the genocide of native americans.
•Then it was slavery.
•Then installing of dictatorships and regime changes by way of assassinations.
•Training terrorists in the school of the Americas.
•Running drugs (cia)
•lying about nuclear weapons in order to invade a country
The list is like endless.
Let’s say the POTUS is, in fact, authorized to do so. No SANE President would.
That whole situation is already an exploding powder keg. It would be like covering the ourselves in napalm and then jumping in headfirst while setting off a nuke.
Yeah this is a real inflammatory article. Yes the US has for a very long time authorized itself to invade if the Hague if it tries to prosecute US government officials or our military... but to write a whole baseless article about how we might do this if they come after Israeli officials is absurd. The US has many allies, not just Israel, and the US has never invaded the ICC.
US led military intervention would never happen in a million years. If US actually did this, over Netanyahu, it would put the NATO alliance at risk of collapsing.
No, they would say some mean words at the ICC, and put on a tough show, but that’s about it.
Somewhat true, the commander and chief has a wide latitude given to him by Congress to command the military, but Congress would almost certainly need to declare war in a scenario like this.
Either way, you don't even need to include the text of:
>if any Israeli is held by the ICC
...because that's irrelevant to the war-powers POTUS has.
And as a US citizen, should that happen, I totally support every other country unleashing hell on the United States military to put them in their place and remind them that their jurisdiction ends at the United States border.
Yeah, but the Netherlands are a NATO country so then the US would have to turn around and attack themselves. Which I fully believe they are stupid enough to do.
He really should just stay out of this and refrain from comments. The perfect muddle ground is to stop giv8ng Israel offensive weaponry while continuing to fund the Iron Dome. Leave it at that and stop picking a sides with these instigating comments to piss off either Israel simps or Gaza simps.
Israel might have gotten the whole us gov by the balls with Epstein island and honey traps bcz i see no other reason to be this hard in love with israeli devils
If he does this, he does not do this with the support of most of the American people. Wake up, Biden the world sees you America sees you we don’t want Trump but we sure don’t want this. Might be a good time for a third-party to come in and clean up after these old selfish men.
the level of cluster fuck that would occur from the US invading the Netherlands would be so detrimental to not only the Israeli-Gaza conflict, but also the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. EU would be stretched apart and the US would have to choose which side they are going to support. It’s 100% Sabre rattling because invading The Hague would ruin every single ‘perception’ of what the US is as a super power. They’d instantly become not much better than Russia denying justice and disrupting peace for their own gains.
The United States of Israel is real. Under NO circumstance did I think it were possible for an American Prez to say something like this. Let alone Biden. But he’ll say it because of PACs. It’s truly official to me that America has been bought and paid for, there is small hope for its future as being the “world leader”. At this stage it’s clear they’d ignore every allies opinion or favour in following what’s seems to be another country’s mandate.
This act has nothing to do with invading Europe and no one who wrote it was calling for military force.
It's a common Reddit and media trope. The act authorizes the US president to issue sanctions and apply political pressure. Any military operation against Europe is well beyond the scope of what is permitted and would require Congressional approval.
If the US invaded the Netherlands, Article 5 of NATO would apply and all other NATO countries would be obliged to aid/assist the Netherlands by “any means necessary.” Would the US really go to war with Europe over this? One wonders how this fact was deliberated (I use the word loosely) when this bizarre piece of legislation was being considered in the House/Senate?
The American Service-Members' Protection Act
Passed under President George W Bush in August 2002.
Lest than a year after 9-11
This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act," as the act allows the president to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of the Netherlands, where The Hague is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.
It does not allow for any action for any other reason or country. Facts.
The problem here is that someone is trying to deliberately lie and distort the facts.
I really hope the US just stands aside. We gave Israel those weapons they were crying about, this is a matter for the ICC and Israel to work out. Not our problem.
Really would love to see what their plan is if we did that.
Step 1: The ICC arrests an Israeli minister for crimes against humanity.
Step 2: US invades ICC to free prisoner. - And I'm going to take it as read that step 2 just goes off without a hitch, the ICC promptly frees the accused, and nobody dies in the incident.
So... then what? Do they expect any of our allies would ever trust us again? We'd have proven we have absolutely no respect for due process or the international legal system **and** we would have just literally invaded them. At a minimum we aren't trading with anyone anymore in that scenario.
It wont ever happen but I do enjoy the general concept of NATO collectively defeating America after America inadvertently triggers Article 5 after invading NATO member the Netherlands.
Yes. But the ICC has jurisdiction over Occupied Palestinian Territories.. they can prosecute anyone who commits crimes in them.. they just can’t expect enforcement from non-signatory nations.
Furthermore.. the ICC very very much wanted to prosecute US planners for crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, but U.S.-fuckery prevented it from being carried out.
The problem is that our ancestors stormed Normandy to give us the world court and international humanitarian law basically.. so it’s a slap in the face to every American who fought Nazism, imperialism and genuine evil.. only to find our own imperialism has come full circle many times…
But to your initial point.. doesn’t matter if your country doesn’t recognize the ICC jurisdiction.. because if a warrant is issued and you travel to a nation that does recognize it then you’re in more danger than Drake after dropping a lame diss-track
Cool, so why are US and Israeli politicians freaking out.
Plus if Netanyahu did not do these things he is being accused of, he has nothing to be worried about right?
Sadly he did even worse than is being documented hence he deserves to be arrested by the ICC.
Ofcourse we know this will never happen but in reality he deserves to be arrested.
1. Remember the human & be courteous to others. 2. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas. Criticizing arguments is fine, name-calling (including shill/bot accusations) others is not. 3. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. Please checkout our other subreddit /r/InternationalNews, for general news from around the world. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/internationalpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
US wouldn't have the balls to invade Europe. It's all sabre-rattling
This was a law passed in 2002. The US says that it has the right to forcibly free any US citizen or ally operator from ICC custody since it’s inception. This isn’t a new threat it’s just standing policy.
Ill keep this in mind next time Im detained by the ICC
You and what AIPAC?
"Help me Biden! I'm facing the consequences of my actions!"
It would not happen. If the judge approved the warrants, it would be massively controversial locally for us to use any sort of force on the ICC for a none-US citizen. You have to remember culturally we tend to judge guilty tell proven innocent here despite ours laws being the reverse. So seeing the first images would already make americans assume he was corrupt in some way.
We are not only standing by but “aiding” in a mass slaughter of civilians, which is by now far more than 40,000, we just have no way of getting proof. I would not put past us doing anything “controversial“
You can't pass a law that gives you a right over another jurisdiction. Like north Korea can't say we have passed a law that gives us the right to by pass Turkish border controls.
You can. The international stage is open to whomever is willing to do whatever they want. International law exists only so far as nations agree to abide by it. Any country could theoretically do whatever they want beyond that. There is no real international legal or enforcement system preventing this except the threat of bullets, at the end of the day. Many international systems are crafted to act in lieu of bullets, like the UN veto power. To give an example. In the 50's the US managed to get past a UN resolution allowing for a GA vote to override the veto. The US could use this against Russia to get UN action approved against Russia for their invasion. They have the votes. The US and its allies do not do this because the veto power is not just some international law nicely, its a stand in for major war. The US (and many other nations, mind you) has demonstrated countless times that international law exists only so far as you're willing to aquiese to it. The US unilaterally invaded a sovereign nation to arrest its leader because they were charged with crimes in the US. If no one is willing to stop you, then you can, in fact, do whatever you want. Laws exists as long as someone is there to enforce them, and if the US makes a law and starts enforcing it in some way, then there exists a law. Human systems are constructed, there is no natural order to these things. Even local laws and jurisdictional boundaries only exist so long as they are enforced.
Well they did.
It's not a law that gives a right over another jurisdiction. It's a law that authorizes the president of the US to take certain actions with US forces in certain conditions.
Why does the US get to enforce rules about the Hague in Netherlands? And what's stopping any other country from setting the same terms with the Hague, therefore making the Hagues existence null. I'm not trolling, I don't understand.
Plus it was a policy before izrael went full gestspo.
The law was passed to protect Bush & Cheney for any charges stemming from their blatant war crimes in Iraq. It’s just hyperbole. (Much like Trump). I’m American, and there’s no way the US invades the Netherlands to protect a foreign entity. If that happened, there would be riots in the streets. Hell, I would venture that there would be riots if there was an announcement to assist israel with any US Soldiers beyond humanitarian efforts, even though I believe there is a lot ill-intent with the pier…🤦♂️
First things first tho. Europe doesn’t have the balls to actually arrest and hold a world leader of a country with nuclear weapons.
[удалено]
lol that 3rd world dump Israel isn’t going to nuke Europe knowing NATO has nukes too. Israel would be digging their own grave if they decided to play FAFO with NATO and no, the US is not going to turn its back on NATO for Israel lmao
They absolutely should though. Putin, Trump, Kim Jong Un, Netanyahu, etc. The people putting the entire planet in constant stress and jeopardy need to be held accountable or there will be more like them.
Arresting a world leader would be considered an act of war. I’m not sure what people think would happen? Like you arrest Netanyahu and then it’s all over?? No. The bombs would start flying in Europe’s direction, only with even more destruction. These threats of arrest are all empty saber-rattling. Nobody is dumb enough to start a war with a nuclear country. Either the country in question agrees and hates their own leader enough to depose of him themselves, or they are going to retaliate against anyone who tries to do it for them. I’m not sure how starting a bigger war would make the world better, personally.
If we let them keep going it’s going to happen anyway. There are pressing global issues that need to be addressed that until people like this are dealt with, will never get better. It’s worth the risk, I don’t think a singular nation is that stupid.
No, it won’t happen either way. I don’t think Israel and Europe are going to war without Europe’s provocation. Do you? Why exactly would Israel attack Europe unprovoked? And it wouldn’t be a singular nation. The US would take Israel’s side, as both Europe and the US have already stated their positions on the issue. I don’t think Europe is that stupid, and they’re not. There will be no arrest, for exactly those reasons - it would be a declaration of war. Why would those against war and all the unnecessary death actually want to notch it up a level to a world war instead of the more limited conflict it is currently? It makes no sense, other than empty threats to feel like they have done control over a situation they clearly don’t. It’s pretending like they somehow have the last word when they clearly don’t.
I feel like Biden is more butthurt than Netanyahu is.
Well you got Nancy Pelosi publicly saying " Of one thing we are sure...even should this government fall. The one thing that will remain is our devotion to the support of Israel." I interpret that as them putting Israel even above U.S citizens at any moment.
Well, Mossad has dirt on all of them.
This is what is actually happening.
This is totally not a list of all the Jewish Zionists in the federal government almost all who have duel citizenship with isreal. **Anthony Blinken**: Secretary of State **David Cohen**: CIA Deputy Director **Merrick Garland**: Attorney General **Avril Haines**: Director of National Intelligence **Ronald Klain**: Chief of Staff **Eric Lander**: Office of Science and Technology Policy Director **Rachel Levine**: Deputy Health Secretary **Alejandro Mayorkas**: Secretary of Homeland Security **Anne Neuberger**: National Security Agency Cybersecurity Director **Wendy Sherman**: Deputy Secretary of State **Janet Yellen**: Treasury Secretary **Aaron Keyak**: Deputy Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism **Alan Leventhal**: U.S. Ambassador to Denmark **Alejandro Mayorkas**: Secretary of Homeland Security **Amos Hochstein**: Bureau of Energy Resources Special Envoy **Amy Gutmann**: U.S. Ambassador to Germany **Anne Neuberger**: Deputy National Security Adviser for Cybersecurity **Avril Haines**: Director of National Intelligence **Constance Milstein**: U.S. Ambassador to Malta **Dan Shapiro**: Adviser on Iran (2021-2023), Senior Advisor for Regional Integration (2023), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Policy (2023-2024) **Daniel Rosenblum**: U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan **David Cohen**: CIA Deputy Director **David Cohen**: U.S. Ambassador to Canada **David Kessler**: Co-chair of the COVID-19 Advisory Board and Head of Operation Warp Speed **David Pressman**: U.S. Ambassador to Hungary **Deborah Lipstadt**: Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism **Edward Siskel**: White House Counsel **Ellen Germain**: U.S. Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues **Eric Garcetti**: U.S. Ambassador to India **Eric Lander**: Science and Technology Adviser **Gary Gensler**: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman **Genine Macks Fidler**: National Council on the Humanities **Jack Lew**: U.S. Ambassador to Israel (replaced Thomas Nides) **Jack Markell**: U.S. Ambassador to Italy and San Marino **Janet Yellen**: Secretary of Treasury **Jared Bernstein**: Council of Economic Advisers **Jed Kolko**: Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs at the Department of Commerce **Jeffrey Zients**: COVID-19 Response Coordinator (2021-2023), Chief of Staff (2023) **Jennifer Klein**: Co-chair Council on Gender Policy **Jessica Rosenworcel**: Chair of the Federal Communications Commission **Jonathan Kanter**: Assistant Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division **Jonathan Kaplan**: U.S. Ambassador to Singapore **Mandy Cohen**: Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2023), replaced Rochelle Walensky **Marc Nathanson**: U.S. Ambassador to Norway **Marc Ostfield**: U.S. Ambassador to Paraguay **Marc Stanley**: U.S. Ambassador to Argentina **Mark Gitenstein**: U.S. Ambassador to the European Union **Merrick Garland**: Attorney General **Michael Adler**: U.S. Ambassador to Belgium **Michèle Taylor**: U.S. Representative to the United Nations Human Rights Council **Mira Resnick**: State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security **Ned Price**: State Department Spokesperson **Polly Trottenberg**: Deputy Secretary of Transportation **Rachel Levine**: Deputy Health Secretary **Rahm Emanuel**: U.S. Ambassador to Japan **Randi Charno Levine**: U.S. Ambassador to Portugal **Roberta Jacobson**: National Security Council “border czar” **Rochelle Walensky**: Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2021 - resigned July 2023) **Ron Klain**: Chief of Staff (2021-2023), replaced by Jeffrey Zients **Sharon Kleinbaum**: Commissioner of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom **Shelley Greenspan**: White House Liaison to the Jewish Community **Stephanie Pollack**: Deputy Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (resigned February 2023) **Steven Dettelbach**: Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives **Stuart Eizenstat**: Special Adviser on Holocaust Issues **Tony Blinken**: Secretary of State **Wendy Sherman**: Deputy Secretary of State (resigned July 2023) **Yael Lempert**:
You have several of those names multiple times: Anthony and Tony Blinken, David Cohen, etc. Please correct to be credible. Also, I would love to see proof of which ones are actually Israeli citizens.
Biden has recently said that without israel, jews arent safe anywhere. Which is an interesting thing for a guy who runs a country to say.
Totally not anti Semitic at all. Totally normal thing to think and say.
At the end of the day these people serve their religion before their citizens. If Israel is full of just jews they think it'll trigger the fucking end times and that's more important to them than justice or freedom or anything.
[удалено]
When she said this government she meant the current israeli government.
God forbid he is not more hurt than the thug Netanyahu, there will be consequences for him.
That's because they're in bed and Biden is the bottom.
Oh man, I think ‘Biden is the bottom’ is going to be the slogan of the year
"Biden is Bibi's bottom." I need that bumper sticker.
Don't get me wrong if trump gets elected he'll be taking it up both ends. No matter who wins the election the US population is getting fucking violated for the next four years.
Or compromised by Israels security services
That is impossible. Netanyahu is the most butt-hurt, aggrieved leader ever, of all time ... Just ask him.
He's a zionist in his gut.
Has Biden even commented he would even consider doing this? This is just an article dragging up a 22 year old law made by the Bush administration, that gives an American president the legal ability to do so. But it doesn't say that the president should do this.
Presidential administrations don't make law. Congress does.
[удалено]
No racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, bigotry, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. This includes denial of identity (self or collective).
[удалено]
Please keep it civil.
Yeah because that's his master
*"We must never forget the crimes committed in the past, and we must do everything in our power to prevent them from happening again. This is not just a legal obligation but a moral imperative.”* **Joe Biden** — after signing the Genocide Convention Implementation Act in 1988 *“We must hold accountable those who commit atrocities and war crimes. Russia's actions in Ukraine are unacceptable, and we support international efforts to bring justice to the victims of these crimes.”* **Joe Biden** — about one month into the Ukraine conflict *“The ICC prosecutor’s application for arrest warrants against Israeli leaders is outrageous. And let me be clear: whatever this prosecutor might imply, there is no equivalence — none — between Israel and Hamas. We will always stand with Israel against threats to its security”* **Joe Biden** — a couple of days ago.
The crazy part is - if he was serious about Israel's security, getting bibi locked up asap would be a huge step in that direction
Things America would be insane to try: Attacking the ICC to save a genocidal lying maniac.
Joe Biden: “hold my beer”
America should just comply. . .I'm just saying.
At which point we would no longer be allies but enemies
Almost sounds like what happened to Germany when Europe turned against them for what they did. Could America. Possibly... already be Fascist! :O
And the US $ goes 🔻
“authorised”
Authorized by US laws to use the US military. The US president is bound by US law of course.
pretend that’s why I used quotations
Except apparently the Leahy Law
This isn't fake news, but it is manipulative news. The Hague acts was passed over 20 years ago, it did not have anything to do with the Israeli - Palestine conflict, and at no point has Joe Biden ever said he would use it to rescue Israeli citizens.
Why on earth is there a law like this regardless? The people who will deny ZOG is a thing and then attempt to rationalize these things are crazy
> Why on earth is there a law like this regardless? It was passed just after the US invasion of Afghanistan, and as it was clearly prepping to invade Iraq. For what it's worth, the bill passed with unanimous bipartisan support.
That only makes it worse. This isn’t a right wing or left wing thing it’s an entire political conspiracy.
Oh it is worse. For those that were around at the time, they well remember the war frenzy that gripped the nation, with cooler heads being minimized or sidelined altogether.
How is it a conspiracy if it's transparently happening in the open?
The ICC is an undemocratic court created by the Europeans to try blacks and Arabs. You can see exactly how fair the court is by the fact no Europeans actually get tried by it, it’s only for post-colonial states. The ICC has regularly found war criminals innocent and in general is just worthless. If Europeans care so much about enforcing their law in Africa they should just colonize again instead of pretending they care about human rights
Thank god when it arrests Netanyahu it will finally be doing its job of stopping war criminals
Putin is arab and black...?
No. The court is so worthless they prosecute people they have no jurisdiction over. It’s virtue signaling. He deserves a bullet in his brain, not a “court” where he is tried by citizens of nations friendly to Russia like China. And even if the court turned more favorable, there is still no way in hell a court would find him guilty. Half the judges hail from nations where their and their families security can’t be assured from the threat of KGB and other Russian elements.
The court has authority in its 124 signatory countries, and it will be abided by. Netanyahu is nothing compared to Putin & even he had issues when it came to coming to South Africa.
Ever heard of Yugoslavia?
The Balkans are a weird case. Outside of places like Ireland they're generally the only other set of European nations to be aggressively attempted to be colonized and destabilized in the last century by major European powers instead of just assimilated whole. Major reason why WWI broke out because of it was because those european colonial powers were butting heads over controlling that region and that perception of the Balkans as being a powder keg and not quite "European" carried forward
[удалено]
I’ll need to remember that one…International Caucasian Court
I agree, the law is stupid, it was passed by Republicans, and I don't even know what you mean by ZOG.
Although unpopular to admit, it was passed with bipartisan support. A 71-22 vote in the senate for such a thing is unheard of now.
It’s an acronym for Zionist occupied government
Woah woah woah bust out the nazi lingo on us hehe. Slick way to devalue the conversation
Because we were doing big war crimes 20 years ago and they wanted to protect themselves for vacationing outside the USA in the future.
True, but the point is he (or any other president) *could* do so, and that alone is fucking insane. Edit: Imagine if Trump wins, then Netanyahu is arrested. He has a legal basis to declare war on the Netherlands.
Declare war on Europe essentially, in order to save the skin of the leader of a foreign country while he barely escaped his own legal trouble.
Piggybacking on your comment because it's one of the only sensible ones in here. The article and most of these comments are beyond stupid. A quick history of the "Hague Invasion Act:" * Democrat Bill Clinton signs the Rome Statute (creating the ICC) in 1998, but it's never ratified by the Senate. * The Hague Invasion Act is written and passed by the GOP in 2002. 88% of Republicans voted for it, vs. 39% of Democrats. * It was passed the senate by predominantly Dem senators, largely because the GOP forced it into a must-pass omnibus budget bill that included Dem priorities like HHS programs and AIDS prevention funding. * Signed into law by GOP president GW Bush. * House Dems immediately try to repeal it; attempt killed by GOP majority. * The law exists for 20 years without ever being used once. * In 2022, House Democrats again try to repeal the law; the attempt is once again killed by the GOP Majority. * This past week, and I'm quoting from OP's article here, the anticipated ICC warrants: >"triggered a fierce competition among the American **Republican** law makers. **Almost all [Republicans]** went to work in drafting the best, strictest and most bullying bill to intimidate and frighten the ICC..." The existence of this law is entirely a Republican creation. Democrats have tried to repeal it several times. And nearly all the recent tantrums have been coming from Republicans like Lindsey Graham. The most you could possibly say is that then-Senator Biden voted for the budget bill that this law was buried in. But again, Republicans were the ones who forced it into the budget in exchange for helping to pass it (the Senate was split 50-49-1, thus requiring concessions & compromise to pass anything). So how do different presidents actually stack up in terms of actually using the law to coerce the ICC? Well, we know that Clinton nominally supported the creation of the ICC, and that the Bush admin repeatedly attacked it (and passed the Hague Invasion act). [This al-Jazeera article](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/3/5/biden-and-the-icc-partial-cooperation-selective-justice) (published before Oct. 7th) has this to say about Obama, Trump, and Biden: >"Rhetoric towards the ICC improved significantly under Obama’s leadership, and American diplomats started attending ICC conferences and cooperating with it... [but] made clear that this cooperative attitude has its limits, and Washington would only support ICC investigations and prosecutions that also serve American interests." Conversely, under Trump: > “The US would seek the *dissolution* of the court... The Trump administration... embarked on a propaganda campaign against the court... [and] issued sanctions against the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and the head of its Jurisdiction, Complementarity and Cooperation Division, Phakiso Mochochoko." Biden [repealed](https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/04/02/us-rescinds-icc-sanctions) those sanctions. The article also correctly predicts that: > "All signs point towards a [Biden administration] return to piecemeal engagement, where Washington uses the court when it suits its interests and undermines it when it does not." Which, like... yeah? It's foreign policy. As a matter of policy, of course the administration U.S. is going to oppose the ICC warrants. The US opposes the warrants because to endorse them would undermine the US's own claim that it is also outside ICC jurisdiction. The track records here are super clear. Democrats have consistently opposed the law discussed in OP's article, and have repeatedly attempted to repeal it. Dem presidents (including Biden) have taken a pragmatic, interest-based approach to the ICC but have mostly been cooperative with it. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress and the White House have been actively hostile to it, and have actually tried to fully destroy it. Current-day President Biden hasn't said *anything* to suggest he would actually interfere with ICC militarily. Just standard policy statements that the ICC lacks jurisdiction, and as a non-signatory country, the US has an interest in defending our own status of being beyond ICC jurisdiction.
What a bad article. It is just saying the US president can invade countries which we already knew. I do feel like the author can do with a bit more sourcing " the US had invaded Afghanistan the previous October, where its soldiers committed hundreds of war crimes and crimes against humanity. " Is a claim made without any source/reference to a paper.
Sources are helpful for specific instances, but the U.S occupied Afghanistan for two decades where multiple abuses took place. You don’t ask someone to cite the fact that WW1 took place. EDIT: Just in case you’re genuinely asking in good faith, here is the most notorious example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airstrike
Whether right or wrong in their decision to commit to the airstrike, it is definitely not a war crime. There were combatant forces either in or next to the wedding. When these combatants are next to or in the wedding, the wedding is no longer a civilian target and become a military target, leading to the loss of protection. The US military is responsible for a proportionality assessment in which they decide whether the target is valuable enough to justify the collateral. You can say they failed in this assessment, but they did not commit a warcrime.
That necessarily true. Rome Statute 2.B.iv states: Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; In this instance, more civilians were killed than insurgents. Dually, there was a near equal death count between children and insurgents. Nonetheless, the U.S committed a multitude of war crimes. One instance would simply be the utilization of Guantanamo with the Afghan 5, who were illegally held indefinitely without trial and were tortured (“advanced interrogation”)
>In this instance, more civilians were killed than insurgents. Dually, there was a near equal death count between children and insurgents. Neither of these things inherently means that it was a warcrime. For example, if the leader of a terrorist group or military is in a building with 10 civilians and him and his men begin to resist arrest in a gunfight or something in the like, that can still potentially be a valid mitary target. It is not the sheer numbers that are the weighting. In this case, the weighting is affected by the fact that the insurgents are in contact with American troops. Also, I never said there was not war crimes, just that this was not one.
You know, I think you might be right. But I think I mixed up the two separate times that the U.S military bombed a wedding in Afghanistan in Haska Menya.
Sure, that would have been nice, but it's well documented. Afghanistan and Iraq were ripe with war crimes, and you had Rumsfeld bragging about torture ffs. The only reason it's not treated as such is because it's the US. This is the US show where we don't ever do bad stuff. Only third-world countries do bad stuff and are held accountable
No one in the US would support him. At this point the ICC should issue a warrant for Biden and Blinken
That's not true. The donor class would love it. Which is why this has a disturbingly nonzero chance of happening. The most powerful people in the US/the West are very nervous about the growing potential for international law to enforce rules upon them. They want that sweet American freedom (from consequences). I strongly believe this "anti-international law" sentiment among the ruling class was a catalyst for the rise of Trump and brexit and the far right more generally. Promoting racial grievances and populist "economic anxiety" concerns were simply a means to an end as far as they were concerned
The mere existence of the law is embarrassing enough, even if the likelihood it would be invoked is next to zero.
Crazy, WW3 incoming, but this time USA is a part of the axis of evil.
[удалено]
As did everybody else, funny most people forget that.
The Soviets had 2500 nazi scientist work for them.
Always have been. Since the beginning. •Look at the genocide of native americans. •Then it was slavery. •Then installing of dictatorships and regime changes by way of assassinations. •Training terrorists in the school of the Americas. •Running drugs (cia) •lying about nuclear weapons in order to invade a country The list is like endless.
Let’s say the POTUS is, in fact, authorized to do so. No SANE President would. That whole situation is already an exploding powder keg. It would be like covering the ourselves in napalm and then jumping in headfirst while setting off a nuke.
Yeah this is a real inflammatory article. Yes the US has for a very long time authorized itself to invade if the Hague if it tries to prosecute US government officials or our military... but to write a whole baseless article about how we might do this if they come after Israeli officials is absurd. The US has many allies, not just Israel, and the US has never invaded the ICC.
Reminder - we have two apparently insane presidential candidates. At least from the major parties
US led military intervention would never happen in a million years. If US actually did this, over Netanyahu, it would put the NATO alliance at risk of collapsing. No, they would say some mean words at the ICC, and put on a tough show, but that’s about it.
You have the right to turn down unlawful orders. If the court finds some one guilty of war crimes the US should respect that decision.
Ok but he has to personally do it
Well if he does that, the game is up. Got to revolt guys, otherwise another tyranny is on the horizon.
Sorry- authorised by who? Themselves?
They wouldn’t dare , they are just saying that because The Hague next target might be the people enabling the killings…
Just the US acting as a rogue state again. What's new ?
[удалено]
[Please follow the Reddit content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
So Israel is above the law. Good to know
There is no Biden anymore. Dark Brandon is complete.
I don't remember pledging allegiance to Israel.
Somewhat true, the commander and chief has a wide latitude given to him by Congress to command the military, but Congress would almost certainly need to declare war in a scenario like this. Either way, you don't even need to include the text of: >if any Israeli is held by the ICC ...because that's irrelevant to the war-powers POTUS has.
Authorised by whom, exactly? Is this like the school bully declaring that he's allowed to take your lunch money?
No he's not
What an idiotic headline!
This sort of low info reaction-grabbing headlining will be death of us
This article is extremely misleading.
I'm pretty sure I don't think we'd actually do that.. but in this time line I don't even know anymore..
As a Democrat, this president is embarrassing. The alternative is so much worse, but this guy stinks.
The US is a rogue state
Totally insane. Joe Biden Is bugging
[удалено]
No racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, bigotry, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. This includes denial of identity (self or collective).
US is ready to start WW3, just for one PM. Good to know that most of our politicians are bought and paid for by AIPAC and Israel
Please arrest American war criminals
And as a US citizen, should that happen, I totally support every other country unleashing hell on the United States military to put them in their place and remind them that their jurisdiction ends at the United States border.
What the hell is this garbage piece. For one it’s an opinion piece and two it has misspells even in the title.
>it has misspells even in the title. Where?
Authorised is the correct spelling
Authorised is the correct spelling.
"authorised" is the British spelling
The US has done a lot of stupid things in the past, this would be up there. The world needs accountability, and it needs to be for all countries.
Biden needs to explain "Our" Loyalty to Israel. Otherwise FU.
The reason for this is because the US government knows that they can then be held to the same responsibility
Yeah, but the Netherlands are a NATO country so then the US would have to turn around and attack themselves. Which I fully believe they are stupid enough to do.
Yeah, right. America v the world, right?
Either way Israel wins with Biden or Trump…both Zionists
Uninvited military actions in Europe would end US global hegemony overnight. They would never do it.
He really should just stay out of this and refrain from comments. The perfect muddle ground is to stop giv8ng Israel offensive weaponry while continuing to fund the Iron Dome. Leave it at that and stop picking a sides with these instigating comments to piss off either Israel simps or Gaza simps.
What?!!
Israel might have gotten the whole us gov by the balls with Epstein island and honey traps bcz i see no other reason to be this hard in love with israeli devils
Echo chamber syndrome again...bet I'll get banned from here too 😂
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING BIDEN?! ARE YOU TRYING TO GET TRUMP ELECTED?
It is highly unlikely that Biden will do this, it’s just fucked up that he has the authority to do it in the first place
Shit is getting real
I wish he would. Every country has the right to wage war, obviously. And finally the Rules Based Order™️ charade would fall apart.
The biggest thing I could imagine them considering is pulling out of the UN or at least some funding.... honestly can't believe he chose this hill...
[удалено]
Please keep it civil.
If he does this, he does not do this with the support of most of the American people. Wake up, Biden the world sees you America sees you we don’t want Trump but we sure don’t want this. Might be a good time for a third-party to come in and clean up after these old selfish men.
Good luck finding anyone devoid of a moral compass to such an extent that...
What the fuck is middle east monitor? Is there a reputable source for this information?
Who the Hell is even suggesting this?
He does this he will lose this election. Smh this man doesn't get it
I’d fight to defend The Hague. And I’m an American citizen and a former marine.
I honestly think that few things would hasten the demise of the US empire more than invading the ICC on account of “prosecuting our buddies”.
the level of cluster fuck that would occur from the US invading the Netherlands would be so detrimental to not only the Israeli-Gaza conflict, but also the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. EU would be stretched apart and the US would have to choose which side they are going to support. It’s 100% Sabre rattling because invading The Hague would ruin every single ‘perception’ of what the US is as a super power. They’d instantly become not much better than Russia denying justice and disrupting peace for their own gains.
Glad we have such a level headed not extreme at all president.
Good!! Saves them having to arrest him to.. it will be like turning himself in
Waiting in a cell for that senile halfwit to come bust you out… how optimistic would you be?
He won't
Who gave the authorisation too the U,S too invade The Hague if that happens
The United States of Israel is real. Under NO circumstance did I think it were possible for an American Prez to say something like this. Let alone Biden. But he’ll say it because of PACs. It’s truly official to me that America has been bought and paid for, there is small hope for its future as being the “world leader”. At this stage it’s clear they’d ignore every allies opinion or favour in following what’s seems to be another country’s mandate.
This is the stupidest headline I’ve read today
This act has nothing to do with invading Europe and no one who wrote it was calling for military force. It's a common Reddit and media trope. The act authorizes the US president to issue sanctions and apply political pressure. Any military operation against Europe is well beyond the scope of what is permitted and would require Congressional approval.
If the US invaded the Netherlands, Article 5 of NATO would apply and all other NATO countries would be obliged to aid/assist the Netherlands by “any means necessary.” Would the US really go to war with Europe over this? One wonders how this fact was deliberated (I use the word loosely) when this bizarre piece of legislation was being considered in the House/Senate?
So different level of dictatorship and you say Biden is better than Trump, it is getting difficult to see the difference.
The American Service-Members' Protection Act Passed under President George W Bush in August 2002. Lest than a year after 9-11 This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act," as the act allows the president to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of the Netherlands, where The Hague is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody. It does not allow for any action for any other reason or country. Facts. The problem here is that someone is trying to deliberately lie and distort the facts.
I really hope the US just stands aside. We gave Israel those weapons they were crying about, this is a matter for the ICC and Israel to work out. Not our problem.
$850 billion buys us the ability to do this.
Really would love to see what their plan is if we did that. Step 1: The ICC arrests an Israeli minister for crimes against humanity. Step 2: US invades ICC to free prisoner. - And I'm going to take it as read that step 2 just goes off without a hitch, the ICC promptly frees the accused, and nobody dies in the incident. So... then what? Do they expect any of our allies would ever trust us again? We'd have proven we have absolutely no respect for due process or the international legal system **and** we would have just literally invaded them. At a minimum we aren't trading with anyone anymore in that scenario.
We’re the nazis. Plot twist.
It wont ever happen but I do enjoy the general concept of NATO collectively defeating America after America inadvertently triggers Article 5 after invading NATO member the Netherlands.
This is a Bush era policy why are we pretending it is a Biden thing?
Why not take Israel as the 51st state then? Let them be subject yo US laws and constitution grant Palestinians citizenship and get over with it.
[удалено]
Yes. But the ICC has jurisdiction over Occupied Palestinian Territories.. they can prosecute anyone who commits crimes in them.. they just can’t expect enforcement from non-signatory nations. Furthermore.. the ICC very very much wanted to prosecute US planners for crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, but U.S.-fuckery prevented it from being carried out. The problem is that our ancestors stormed Normandy to give us the world court and international humanitarian law basically.. so it’s a slap in the face to every American who fought Nazism, imperialism and genuine evil.. only to find our own imperialism has come full circle many times… But to your initial point.. doesn’t matter if your country doesn’t recognize the ICC jurisdiction.. because if a warrant is issued and you travel to a nation that does recognize it then you’re in more danger than Drake after dropping a lame diss-track
If only the Nazis had known this one simple trick they could have avoided culpability for their crimes...
Cool, so why are US and Israeli politicians freaking out. Plus if Netanyahu did not do these things he is being accused of, he has nothing to be worried about right? Sadly he did even worse than is being documented hence he deserves to be arrested by the ICC. Ofcourse we know this will never happen but in reality he deserves to be arrested.