[jchb]

I think this is less about wanting to protect criminals, and more about US sovereignty at all costs. And clearly upholding this sovereignty was one of Trumps election promises.

Under this philosophy (or doctrine, if you will) of sovereignty, US will never accept that the ICC - an entity that the US citizens have not explicitly delegated their sovereign power to - are trying to prosecute US nationals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty_in_the_Uni...

[caf]

US nationals get prosecuted by entities that US citizens have not explicitly delegated their sovereign power to all the time.

[Reelin]

> US nationals get prosecuted by entities that US citizens have not explicitly delegated their sovereign power to all the time.

How so?

If you visit a foreign country, you are making an explicit choice to enter their jurisdiction.

If you are extradited from the US, it means the government (your representatives) explicitly chose to cooperate with another jurisdiction in some manner.

The current case is somewhat confusing to me. The US doesn't participate in the ICC. The matter to be investigated apparently occurred in a country that does participate though. But the suspects were part of an active military operation. Unlike a tourist, it doesn't really seem like armed forces are usually subject to the laws of a jurisdiction they might "visit" during combat (typically quite the opposite in fact).

If someone from outside your jurisdiction threatens your citizens, isn't any capable government supposed to take actions to protect them? To me, the real question here is why the US isn't part of an international effort to prevent war crimes.

[watwut]

War crimes tend to be comited by active military. The prosecution of war crime focusing on active military members should not be confusing. Prosecuting soldiers is the whole point.

[Reelin]

> The prosecution of war crime focusing on active military members should not be confusing.

That's not the part that's confusing to me. (I'm really not clear how you could possibly come away with that from what I wrote?)

The confusing part is the jurisdiction. In what capacity were the soldiers present in the other country? (It obviously wasn't voluntarily for leisure.) Based on the answer to the former, were they subject to the laws of the other jurisdiction at the time of their actions? Or do they instead fall under US jurisdiction? The US government's stance on this seems quite clear at least.

[watwut]

Afghanistan participate in ICC, presumably to get some protection against foreign soldiers. The US government's systematic stance used to be that war crimes performed by US soldiers or officials dont matter and definitely did not happened.

Current US government's stance is that war crimes by US soldiers are good celebration worthy thing.

US army itself is actually better then what that implies and does not have soldiers on the loose. But, we are talking about government here.

[luckylion]

I believe it's not really a sovereignty issue, but primarily just a matter of practicality. If your soldiers must fear repercussions for their actions, they will be much less effective. They won't "move fast and break things".

The worst of the worst war crimes will be prosecuted in the US as well, but generally, soldiers have little to fear. A non-US court wouldn't have the same perspective.

Essentially: if you want people to do whatever it takes to get your mission done, make sure they're not liable for anything they break while doing so. That goes for the military as much as for tech companies. Tech companies just don't have armies to back up their stances, yet.

[fit2rule]

The US does NOT prosecute its own war crimes.

That is the point of the ICC in the first place: you cannot trust the war criminals to bring justice to their society.

[gambiting]

The president pardoned a war criminal who stabbed a captive while he was being given medical aid by American medics and took a selfie which he then sent to his friends saying "Good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife". This is an exemplary soldier in the eyes of the American president. The fact that his administration wouldn't give a shit about prosecuting war crimes they are involved in doesn't surprise anybody.

[luckylion]

They don't prosecute them as war criminals by building a case against themselves, but they will still prosecute individual soldiers when they feel like it, e.g. Graner and England for Abu Ghraib, but obviously not for war crimes.

We might be able to trust countries to judge their soldiers' behavior when these soldiers act on their own. The problem, and the reason, I believe, why the US won't voluntarily accept the ICC is when they don't, e.g. when drone operators bomb a wedding reception, because it's not going to be those individual operators on the hook - it's the mission and the larger policy that are going to be implicated. And a military doesn't want their officers to ask themselves "wait, can I do this? Will I be prosecuted for this?" when told to do something, they want them to say "Sir, yes, Sir" and mean it.

[sofixa]

> but they will still prosecute individual soldiers when they feel like it, e.g. Graner and England for Abu Ghraib, but obviously not for war crimes

And were they brought to justice and sentenced for their crimes? No. A sham trial isn't sufficient for war crimes.

[_y5hn]

Such oppression goes against the Founding Fathers and Constitution.