No need to be pedantic about it. Bump stocks can do just as much damage as a full auto weapon. SC is fine with that accessory in the hands of millions of citizens. As if we didn't have enough gun violence in this country.
It's not about being held accountable at all - it's about who is holding them accountable.
The belief is that as sovereign nations, they can hold their own people accountable, and no one else should have the right to hold them accountable instead.
Is not one of the principles of the ICJ that if a nation process their own war criminal citizen, the ICJ has no jurisdiction. But if they do not properly, the ICJ does.
You are confusing ICJ & ICC. But yes, that is one of the principles of the ICC.
(ICJ = a court for countries to go to when they disagree on how to interpret a treaty. ICC = throw individual people in jail who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide)
Only if the country brings good faith cases themselves against the individuals involved in the war crimes. And it only gives them cover for the crimes they are tried for.
> Except when they can't, as in the case of senior government figures.
It is a principle of democracy that senior government figures can be held accountable.
E.g. in the US, Trump, a former president and a potential future president, is currently in several trials.
E.g. in Israel, where Netanyahu is under trial in several cases (unrelated to the ICJ) and where e.g. a former PM was convicted of several charges and served time in prison.
I could be missing something but I don’t think any of those three have ever been convicted by the ICC.
The examples are domestic crimes because the argument is that the US doesn’t need to be party to the Rome Statute because it would enforce similar penalties on servicemen and leaders using domestic jurisdiction. Others countered that the US somehow can’t do that despite the former president literally being on trial as we speak and the above commenter provided examples to the contrary.
I must be mis-remembering some Facebook memes based on the 2012 conviction in absentia by a Malaysian tribunal. Seems like the ICC never took it up; although they almost certainly should have. US sanctions and pressure on the ICC not to seems to be working.
> The belief is that as sovereign nations, they can hold their own people accountable, and no one else should have the right to hold them accountable instead.
There is no such thing as a sovereign nation in the modern age.
Even if you ignore the dependence on international trade (i.e. relying on other nations to trade with you), sovereignty requires the military ability to defend yourself against any adversary trying to impose their will on you. In the nuclear age we've effectively abolished this concept thanks to Mutually Assured Destruction. If China wants the US gone, either China "wins" (i.e. the US surrenders or offers a compromise) or the world ends (i.e. the outcome of global thermonuclear war makes "US" and "China" meaningless concepts).
So if "as sovereign nations" is no more than a meaningful flourish, the belief becomes simply this:
> they can hold their own people accountable, and no on else should have the right to hold them accountable instead
We can break this down again:
> they can hold their own people accountable
It's interesting that you say "can", which already admits that there is a difference between the ability and willingness to do so. But even if we ignore this, the important consideration here is that there can be a mismatch between what "they" think "holding their own people accountable" means and what others think.
By "they" you reference the US and Israel but legal entities don't do anything, people do things. Granted, those people exist within social systems of power but at the end of the day people within those states will be the ones holding people accountable or not. If you think of this in terms of people, a potential conflict of interest becomes apparent: the people being held accountable are the military and political leadership and legislators, the people holding them accountable are military and political investigators and courts. The victims of the alleged crimes are not represented by either of these groups as Gazans are generally not fully Israeli citizens.
This isn't to say that Israel's legal system might be unfairly biased against Gazans or that it might err on the side of ignoring crimes against them or that this might be a systemic problem. My point is merely that there's a credible reason to believe that an investigation by Israel into alleged actions by its government against Gazans might be biased simply based on an in-group/out-group distinction between the involved groups.
> no one else should have the right to hold them accountable
This is begging the question of "accountable for what". You can only hold someone accountable if there's some bar they're supposed to meet. Israel was a signatory to the Rome Statute (although it walked back from it in 2002 along with the US) and we're talking about the ICC so the bar seems to be "upholding human rights and abstaining from human rights abuses and war crimes".
You might argue that no outside state should be allowed to intervene in another state's human rights abuses as long as they are contained to that state's territory or only people who are subjects of that state. But clearly Israel doesn't believe this or otherwise the Mossad wouldn't have a history of abductions and assassinations. And it's a good thing too because otherwise we wouldn't look at events like the Rwandan genocide as a horrific failure of the international community and instead just consider it business as usual.
Legally speaking, the ICC clearly has the "right to" do what it is doing. But if you mean morally, again I don't think you believe this unless you believe interventionism is never justified. In other words that would mean you want to go back to the Peace of Westphalia and abolish the notion of universal human rights entirely and allow states to commit genocides, engage in chattel slavery or do all kinds of unspeakable horrors as long as they do so within the confines of their own territory.
I don't think you're saying any of that. I think what you're instead arguing for is nothing more than special pleading: it's different when {the US, Israel} does it.
I don't think the US govt gives a hoot for the common soldier except where their warrant would provide precedence for a senator or president to also be arrested.
It's politically embarrassing as attempted prosecutions of soldiers in Northern Ireland have shown. It all gets swept under the carpet, on a pretence it's not good for national security. If you prosecute successfully an individual there is a reasonable chance all military personnel involved could be successfully prosecuted is perhaps another reason it won't happen.
Using the military to prosecute aggressive military operations in an area the clear majority are unarmed, unprotected civilians again shows there is virtually no chance of prosecutions being taken.
Add to that the severe limits added to press freedom, to the point it's obvious the plan is there is no independent reporting, the repeated and systematic targeting of hospitals, ambulances, medical and aid workers, treatment of people detained, never mind densely packed civilian areas which in similar ongoing conflicts (Ukraine/Russia) would be directly called out as war crimes without equivocation, but are ignored, then is there even any point attempting to prosecute individual soldiers?
Seeking arrest warrants for those with most direct decision making powers is far more legitimate, necessary even. Demands for limitless, in all senses, military operations help no one longer term.
You want to talk about good faith? You just said "people who've had abortions, many regret it". Without even providing a ratio.
UCSF studies show 95% of women who went through abortion believe it was the right decision.
In another response in this thread you pretend to be neutral about the debate, but the example I mentioned above makes you dishonest and clearly opinionated one way.
Because they are hypocrites (it's a fact, not a judgement). And it's interesting because hypocrites is one of the things that Jesus specifically calls out in the Gospel and seem to have much disdain for them. As a Catholic, I practice my faith with as much common sense as I can, to not judge, and forgive, as Jesus wanted us to.
As such, I am against the death penalty, against "preemptive" wars (of course defending your territory being invaded is justified), against 2nd amendment, and support women's right for abortion. To me, this is common sense that aligns with Jesus' message.
I cannot picture the loving Christ looking at a 13 year old child pregnant because of rape/incest and go "this new life is a miracle and it was my will". I reject this notion of "every conception was God's will and is sacred".
reply