As the USA minister of defence, he is in all likelihood responsible for crimes against humanity/war crimes, for instance, the killing of people on small boats in the Caribbean, and the hundreds of school girls in Iran, to name just two cases. But who could sue him; it seems it is usually countries that do this, but could eg an organization of international lawyers do this? What would it take for an individual to get him sued? (Asking for a friend).

  • Malica@lemmy.zip
    3·
    5 hours ago

    The USA never joined and if their citizens are ever taken by the court, they will invade to retrieve them. See, monsters the whole time.

  • Pratai@piefed.caEnglish
    61·
    12 hours ago

    He could be, and what it will look like is absolutely nothing. The MAGA cabal is untouchable. They are above the law. And since no one is willing to do what is necessary in these situations, they will remain so.

  • Arcanepotato@crazypeople.onlineEnglish
    36·
    18 hours ago

    The US is not a member state of the ICC. In fact, when the ICC was being formed the US passed a law giving the president the right to “to use all means necessary and appropriate” to free certain people from the ICC and prohibits cooperation with the courts.

    In addition to US politicians, the law explicitly names the government of Israel (and several other countries) as people covered under this law. I am always surprised when people act shocked that the US will not arrest Bibi.

    So when the other person mentioned invading the Hauge if he is arrested, they were being quite literal.

    Eta: the ICC will still announce charges against individuals from non member states if the charges stem from actions with member states. That is why they have made charges against Putin and Bibi.

    • radix@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      16 hours ago

      Not a lawyer, but the President being “authorized” to act doesn’t sound like they must. The next Democratic president could simply look the other way.

      Besides, we’re in the era of Presidents being allowed to just ignore any inconvenient laws. Not that I think any plausible near-term Democrat president has the will to actually do this, but I’m willing to be surprised.

      • Arcanepotato@crazypeople.onlineEnglish
        3·
        14 hours ago

        Whether or not a president is compelled to enforce it doesn’t change my stance.

        The rule of law is a construct. People who control the use of force or access to resources can do whatever they want, whenever they want.

        That said, the reason that it is significant to me that this law exists is two fold:

        1. Putting things in law and leaving it there is a public statement about the priorities and values of a government.

        2. I find it shocking that people hold out hope that some foreign body is going to stop or punish the US government for their atrocities when the USA has made it clear, from the beginning, that they oppose the ICC.

        Trump’s vocal opposition is not new. Obama invoked the law in 2014. Part of the law is that the US will not participate in activities that put their soldiers at risk, which requires countries to agree to not prosecute or surrender US troops if they want the support of the US military.

        Further to that, obama’s government launched a review of the law and decided to keep it.

        Biden removed some of the trump sanctions from his first term.

        The removal was because they thought there were more effective ways to object:

        We continue to disagree strongly with the ICC’s actions relating to the Afghanistan and Palestinian situations. We maintain our longstanding objection to the Court’s efforts to assert jurisdiction over personnel of non-States Parties such as the United States and Israel. We believe, however, that our concerns about these cases would be better addressed through engagement with all stakeholders in the ICC process rather than through the imposition of sanctions.

  • D_C@sh.itjust.works
    11·
    16 hours ago

    Should he? Undoubtedly.

    Will he? No.
    Why? No fucker in charge has the spine to do anything about it.

    Plus the us doesn’t recognise the ICC etc etc.

    So let’s ask another question, should he face consequences of the deaths and treachery he’s done inside the us? YES!
    Will he? Very doubtful.

    Even once the obese orange child raping sack of gonorrhoea dies there are still the people running things in the background who won’t want the coconspirator, the enablers, and helpers to face any consequences.
    Also once again there’s no one with any spine to go after them on the other side.

    The fact is the usa is mainly just a country of corruption upon corruption upon corruption.
    And only the us population has the power to do anything about it. But I highly, highly, hiiiiighly doubt they’ll do anything either. They are either too scared, too complacent, or just too plain evil to get out there and do the world a favour.

    • Arcanepotato@crazypeople.onlineEnglish
      6·
      17 hours ago

      I find it upsetting that people see this comment as hyperbole when it has been the stated position of the US government, enshrined in law, since 2002.

      Literally begging americans to learn about their own country instead of accusing everyone who opposes them as being paid by the russian government to interfere in their elections.

      • remon@ani.social
        7·
        19 hours ago

        Right, but that’s where the ICC is. And they will invade where ever it is held, so changing the location doesn’t matter (except if you’re in the Hague I guess).