I thought it was FIFA the one in charge of the Peace prize now. I'm confused.
Betelbuddy 3 minutes ago [-]
FIFA is currently looking to find find 11,780 peace points...
joering2 10 minutes ago [-]
what should not confuse you is that FIFA is in charge of corruption, for decades now.
InsideOutSanta 57 seconds ago [-]
FIFA did, in fact, award the official FIFA Peace Prize – Football Unites the World™ to Trump.
The fact that this rogue organization thinks it can undermine the official FIFA Peace Prize – Football Unites the World™ by being associated with someone who received this fake prize is probably why they are now being justly sanctioned.
nxobject 18 minutes ago [-]
Given the fact that signatories to the Rome Statute outnumber countries that aren’t, I’m not quite sure who the rogue is here…
BLKNSLVR 11 minutes ago [-]
It seems that US Exceptionalism is what the US people wanted, and they're getting it in spades.
"This action should encourage our Allies within the Court to work for solutions to end this threat to U.S. sovereignty forever."
I guess what he is saying is that work of International Criminal Court is a threat to US sovereignty ? Can someone make that make sense?
palmotea 3 minutes ago [-]
> I guess what he is saying is that work of International Criminal Court is a threat to US sovereignty ? Can someone make that make sense?
Why do you need help? It's obvious. The dictionary definition of sovereignty is "supreme power especially over a body politic" and "freedom from external control : autonomy sense 1." If the ICC has power over the US government or can externally control it (for instance by arresting its leaders), it is a straightforwardly impinges on US sovereignty.
AdmiralAsshat 37 minutes ago [-]
> "President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement, first published by Reuters.
Can't think of a more flagrant and succinct declaration that the US believes itself "above the law."
abc123abc123 31 minutes ago [-]
All countries are above the law. When was the last time you saw a country in jail or meaningfully punished? The only one who can punish a country is another country if they are powerful and violent enough.
jittles 21 minutes ago [-]
Who should be responsible for enforcing the Geneva Conventions and other international humanitarian law? Or are we finally admitting that the only "international law" we officially recognize is Might Makes Right?
nradov 7 minutes ago [-]
All signatories to the Geneva Conventions are responsible for enforcing it. The USA never ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and thus has no responsibility to enforce it.
idiotsecant 13 minutes ago [-]
I mean... just about every 'enforcement' of international norms has been by american hard and soft power. Might has always made right, it's just that the guy with the biggest gun happened to have western liberal values.
Seems like that changed a little in the last decade. Hopefully it's not forever, but who knows.
kijashdkujdfhas 30 minutes ago [-]
Which is why the ICC was established by several countries as part of an international agreement. It's literally other countries collaborating to punish bad actor countries.
palmotea 8 minutes ago [-]
> Which is why the ICC was established by several countries as part of an international agreement. It's literally other countries collaborating to punish bad actor countries.
What would you think of an agreement by ten guys that they'll work together to beat you up if they decide you're a "bad actor"? Is it somehow solemn and respectable merely because they came to an agreement? Even if you don't agree their self-declaration should give them power over you?
I think the way you've presented things is misleading. International relations is literally anarchy, and different groups have different points of view. Mere collaboration is only that.
seszett 30 seconds ago [-]
> What would you think of an agreement by ten guys that they'll work together to beat you up if they decide you're a "bad actor"?
The ICC is 125 guys agreeing with each other that if one of them does bad things the others will hold them accountable.
It's not random people asking strangers to follow their rules.
sham1 6 minutes ago [-]
International relations is only literally anarchy if you take the realist school of thought as representing IR.
DANmode 28 minutes ago [-]
How’s that going ?
kijashdkujdfhas 27 minutes ago [-]
It'd be going great if a bunch of idiots hadn't voted in a bunch of fascists.
The USA isn't a party to the Rome Statute, and above and beyond that, reactively passed domestic legislation to thwart any attempt to prosecute crimes committed by its military, including in countries that are party to the Rome Statute -- more than 20 years ago. This is not a recent phenomenon.
You know what else is more than 20 years ago? Americans committing war crimes in other countries:
The USA, as a country, doesn't want to be held to account by other countries. As it outspends all the other militaries on the planet, it continues to get away with its crimes.
ndiddy 13 minutes ago [-]
This is largely consistent with historical US views on international law. In 2002 the US passed the American Service-Members' Protection Act, which states that if any US service member or elected official is criminally prosecuted by the ICC, the president can use "any means necessary" (i.e. invading the Hague) to ensure their release.
In general any idea that international law is relevant except as a tool for the West to provide moral justification for its actions when it's convenient to do so is naive. At least the Trump administration being more vulgar and crude in expressing its disregard for international law compared to previous administrations may open more people's eyes.
palmotea 18 minutes ago [-]
>> "President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement, first published by Reuters.
> Can't think of a more flagrant and succinct declaration that the US believes itself "above the law."
So would you think of yourself "above the law" if you refused to submit to my law?
Apparently the US never ratified the ICC treaty. International relations is literally an anarchy, there's no "higher authority" to impose law. Countries can only voluntarily submit to a treaty, or be violently coerced by another country.
pirate787 17 minutes ago [-]
The ICC would be unconstitutional in the United States.
Random bombings of boats in the Caribbean is another.
croes 35 minutes ago [-]
That’s a war crime confession, isn’t it?
kijashdkujdfhas 35 minutes ago [-]
"Rules for thee, but not for me!"
rainworld 15 minutes ago [-]
The US has always been “above the law.” This is about Israel and its genocide against the Palestinians.
Razengan 34 minutes ago [-]
We don’t have even need to imagine what would have happened if the Nazis had won
27 minutes ago [-]
stickfigure 17 minutes ago [-]
This is not "the US", this is one or two very unpopular politicians whose tenure will be short. Wait until the midterm elections before you judge the whole country.
one or two? this has been standing us law since the bush era.
BLKNSLVR 6 minutes ago [-]
That'd be nice, but it's fantasy. This, getting at the state of the world, was inevitable if Trump was voted in, and Trump was voted in.
The US has very large problems far beyond one or two politicians.
PeterCorless 7 minutes ago [-]
I am so disgusted by this current regime.
drop_star 11 minutes ago [-]
Well the GOP has gotta try and protect their guy. And Trumps a pedophile so this makes sense.
drcongo 45 minutes ago [-]
He knows they're coming for him.
arlort 24 minutes ago [-]
They're really not though
sleepyguy 38 minutes ago [-]
There are 100's of millions that hope so, not only him but the rest of the fools who are in his orbit.This has been the most disgusting and corrupt Administration since the founding of America.
Junk away snowflakes....
12 minutes ago [-]
LightBug1 35 minutes ago [-]
Sanctions ffs ... what a pathetic administration ...
17 minutes ago [-]
tamimio 34 minutes ago [-]
Another reason to fund the efforts to decouple from US companies, including payment processors. More investment in open source software and open weight models should be the priority of all governments and initiatives.
porkshoe 27 minutes ago [-]
This is probably the most short-sighted aspect of America's oligarchs decision to support the modern GOP. They just keep increasing the incentive for other countries to reduce business with America.
It's not one or two things, either. It's an endless parade of decisions, nearly all of which reward de-coupling from America.
InsideOutSanta 4 minutes ago [-]
The company I work for just removed its last dependency on any US tech service providers last month (except for Anthropic). No more Microsoft, Adobe, Cloudflare, Amazon. They still pay for Claude, but they're in talks with local inference providers.
Just a few years ago, this wouldn't even have been remotely on people's radar as something they should or could do.
8note 24 minutes ago [-]
that would happen regardless of if americas oligarchs support the GoP. its the american people that voted in trump and got him majorities in both the house and senate
porkshoe 14 minutes ago [-]
In no small part because oligarchs have spent the last 40 years shaping public perception, allowing increased concentration of media, etc.
einpoklum 26 minutes ago [-]
> "President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans"
... but his government does support the ICC prosecuting Russians, on behalf of Ukraine, even though none of the two states is a party to the Rome statute / member of the court.
saalweachter 16 minutes ago [-]
Ukraine actually did finally ratify the Rome Statute; we're down to 29 signatories who haven't ratified it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h242eDB84zY&pp=ygUSYXJlIHdlIHR...
The fact that this rogue organization thinks it can undermine the official FIFA Peace Prize – Football Unites the World™ by being associated with someone who received this fake prize is probably why they are now being justly sanctioned.
https://x.com/SecRubio/status/2108565647667904647
I guess what he is saying is that work of International Criminal Court is a threat to US sovereignty ? Can someone make that make sense?
Why do you need help? It's obvious. The dictionary definition of sovereignty is "supreme power especially over a body politic" and "freedom from external control : autonomy sense 1." If the ICC has power over the US government or can externally control it (for instance by arresting its leaders), it is a straightforwardly impinges on US sovereignty.
Can't think of a more flagrant and succinct declaration that the US believes itself "above the law."
Seems like that changed a little in the last decade. Hopefully it's not forever, but who knows.
What would you think of an agreement by ten guys that they'll work together to beat you up if they decide you're a "bad actor"? Is it somehow solemn and respectable merely because they came to an agreement? Even if you don't agree their self-declaration should give them power over you?
I think the way you've presented things is misleading. International relations is literally anarchy, and different groups have different points of view. Mere collaboration is only that.
The ICC is 125 guys agreeing with each other that if one of them does bad things the others will hold them accountable.
It's not random people asking strangers to follow their rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...
The USA isn't a party to the Rome Statute, and above and beyond that, reactively passed domestic legislation to thwart any attempt to prosecute crimes committed by its military, including in countries that are party to the Rome Statute -- more than 20 years ago. This is not a recent phenomenon.
You know what else is more than 20 years ago? Americans committing war crimes in other countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...
Remember?
The USA, as a country, doesn't want to be held to account by other countries. As it outspends all the other militaries on the planet, it continues to get away with its crimes.
In general any idea that international law is relevant except as a tool for the West to provide moral justification for its actions when it's convenient to do so is naive. At least the Trump administration being more vulgar and crude in expressing its disregard for international law compared to previous administrations may open more people's eyes.
> Can't think of a more flagrant and succinct declaration that the US believes itself "above the law."
So would you think of yourself "above the law" if you refused to submit to my law?
Apparently the US never ratified the ICC treaty. International relations is literally an anarchy, there's no "higher authority" to impose law. Countries can only voluntarily submit to a treaty, or be violently coerced by another country.
https://usunrome.usmission.gov/why-were-dismantling-the-icc/
one or two? this has been standing us law since the bush era.
The US has very large problems far beyond one or two politicians.
Junk away snowflakes....
It's not one or two things, either. It's an endless parade of decisions, nearly all of which reward de-coupling from America.
Just a few years ago, this wouldn't even have been remotely on people's radar as something they should or could do.
... but his government does support the ICC prosecuting Russians, on behalf of Ukraine, even though none of the two states is a party to the Rome statute / member of the court.