[FirmwareBurner]

I hate it that most people are missing the forest form the trees in this case, and see the Microsoft cutting email access as being the main newsworthy issue here, while form my PoV, the gigantic issue of planetary scale is that the US government (not just the Orange one) sees itself and acts above the international law, dismissing the ICC rulings whenever it feels like it, making the ICC a pointless "rules for thee but not for me" type of org at the end of the day.

I feel like the infamous "League of nations" keeps repeating itself since nations only act in self interest, and all these intergovernmental organizations, are just temporary gentlemens' agreements, not worth the paper they're written on, and at the end of the day the rules are still decided and enforced by who has the biggest military like in the past infinity years of human history.

So the current Microsoft issue is just the effect, but not the root cause of this. The root cause is US government becoming more and more of an unaccountable bully, and we need to address that instead of Microsoft since if it's not Microsoft who does something, it will be Google, Apple, AWS, Qualcomm, etc. they all do the bidding of the US administration.

[mslansn]

What do you mean "above the law"? Why should whatever the ICC says be above what the US citizens choose for themselves?

[FirmwareBurner]

So if US chooses to "holocaust" a minority or ethnic group, or to invade and bomb innocent countries into oblivion, the rest of the world should just be OK with it because it's what the US citizens chose?

The ICC has its roots from the trials of Nazi criminals. The US government and its military has often performed similar unspeakable and inhumane acts abroad (see the war on terror leaks and scandals) without any repercussions due to legislature form George Bush saying the US will invade the Hague if its military personnel are ever trialed for war crimes.

So if one country sees itself above the law, what do you think that does to the other countries?

[JumpCrisscross]

> ICC has its roots from the trials of Nazi criminals

You’re mixing up the ICC and ICJ.

The ICC was formed in 2002 [1]. The U.S. is not a treaty party to its founding document, the Rome Statute. The ICJ was founded because of the Nazis; it has jurisdiction over America [2].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justi...

[carlosjobim]

The rest of the world can do nothing about it. See: Soviet Union, China.

There's biting hypothetical about it.

[FirmwareBurner]

>The rest of the world can do nothing about it. See: Soviet Union, China.

Of course it can. During the cold war, most US aligned countries had massive trade restrictions with the USSR. The fix is easy on paper: reduce trade with countries that break the rules. Of course, that's easier said than done, but it is doable and effective.

Imagine what can be achieved if Europe, Canada, UK, AUNZ, Korea, Japan, BRICS, would collectively put restrictions on the US whoever the US decides to fling its dick around the world stage. The problem is getting countries to cooperate so it's never gonna happen. Would make a cool novel though.

[carlosjobim]

Doable and effective? It didn't stop the systemized murder and enslavement of millions in the USSR nor China.

[mslansn]

> So if US chooses to "holocaust" a minority or ethnic group, or to invade and bomb innocent countries into oblivion, the rest of the world should just be OK with it because it's what the US citizens chose?

That’s not what I said. But yes, the opposite of “might is right” is an aberration. The only reason Nuremberg occurred is because it was for the Jews. This is the opposite case.

[JumpCrisscross]

> The only reason Nuremberg occurred is because it was for the Jews

This is entirely ahistoric.

[bestouff]

Because it's the international law. For you USians, it's the same thing when federal law preempts local law.

[ensignavenger]

Thats not what international law is, and the US isn't part of the ICC treaty.

[WrongAssumption]

No it isn’t.

[philistine]

It’s the international court because more than one nation agrees to its existence. Not because all nations respect it.

[raxxorraxor]

To be fair, that is exactly what the ICC is or has become. The head is already compromised with the allegations of sexual assault and the polarizing Israel thing was shaky at best.

It was a bad judgement call to indict Israel government after they were attacked. I think we don't see ICC ruling as something to be taken seriously anymore.

[diggan]

> US government sees itself and acts above the international law, dismissing the ICC rulings whenever it feels like it, making the ICC a pointless "rules for thee but not for me" type of org at the end of the day.

People don't talk about that because it's been obvious for a long time. How is it surprising a country who invades basically any country on a whim, based on false premises, also sees itself as being above international law?

Meanwhile, the cutting of email access is new, and hasn't happened before, so it is quite literally "news", while the other stuff you mention is basically an opinion-piece and not new information.

[JumpCrisscross]

> How is it surprising a country who invades basically any country on a whim, based on false premises, also sees itself as being above international law?

One, international law hasn’t ever constrained any of the great powers. (China annexed Tibet in 1951, for example.)

Two, the U.S. isn’t a treaty partner to the Rome Statute [1]. The ICC doesn’t have jurisdiction in America. One of the founding principles of the post-war system was treaty-based law—countries cede their sovereignty by agreement, not force.

America generally sees itself as being above international law. But it is far from alone in this. And the ICC isn’t an example of it.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute

[FirmwareBurner]

>People don't talk about that because it's been obvious for a long time. How is it surprising a country who invades basically any country on a whim, based on false premises, also sees itself as being above international law?

Nations chose to ally with the US post-WW2 since it was the least worst option at the time. Much better to be a US ally than a USSR ally. The US was a lot more trustworthy at the time and less s.

But this situation has changed now. China is the new second superpower, and trust in the US has hit an all time low. In the past during the cold war, the US would make concessions with its allies so that everyone is happy. Now, the US foreign policy is, "America first, everyone suck our star spangled dick bitches! MAGA!", and has no issues screwing its closest allies and partners over in order to squeeze them, acting more like a mob shakedown.

Given this, it's normal to see the US as much more dangerous ally now than in the past, and try to remove dependency on them.

>Meanwhile, the cutting of email access is new, and hasn't happened before, so it is quite literally "news", while the other stuff you mention is basically an opinion-piece and not new information.

This only happened because the US gov got too comfy doing whatever it wanted and never facing any consequences for it. It's the natural evolution of things. "Spare the rod, spoil the child", as they say.