Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by luckylion 2115 days ago
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.
1 comments
fit2rule 2115 days ago
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.

link
gambiting 2115 days ago
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.
link
luckylion 2115 days ago
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.

link
sofixa 2102 days ago
> 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.

link
_y5hn 2115 days ago
Such oppression goes against the Founding Fathers and Constitution.
link