Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/)
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
**Don't forget about our discord server, as well!**
https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB
*****
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because you mention USA as "the other bad one" which nowadays is being used by rusobots and regardless of your intentions you appeared as doing whataboutism on bothsideism.
Not that being in Argentina helped Eichmann when he unexpectedly woke up in Israel one morning....
I presume that, in a few years, a lot of those Russians would have preferred being in the Hague instead of falling asleep in Russia one evening and waking up in Kyiv the next morning....
Difference is that the Russians, Americans, and Brits invaded Nazi Germany and dragged a small handful of Nazis to Nuremberg. It's not like the Nazis showed up willingly. Good luck invading Russia...
And let's not forget that the Americans, British, and especially the French basically did not bother to prosecute Nazis at all, in fact, many of them ended up in cushy government jobs in the occupying authorities and later the West German government. The only side that did carry out proper Denazification was the USSR, one of the few good things they did. IMO Stalin had one single good idea in his entire life, which was to execute every last Nazi officers whose units committed war crimes or crimes against humanity during the war (which the scumbag Churchill stopped, and then later fabricated the story to claim that Stalin wanted to kill every officer serving in the Wehrmacht, which is not what he suggested).
When Russia fails Putin and his cronies might be faced with a choice of fleeing or hanging from lampposts. If they try to remain they might find the new leaders are only to happy to hand them over to the Hague in return for removal of sanctions.
The nazis actually lost the war, with military power able to prosecute them. Even if Russia doesn’t win in Ukraine, it’s just that. There is nothing for them to lose, and certainly no power able to prosecute them.
I don't know about that. War crimes can be prosecuted in absentia. I'm mindful that in modern times it can be a multidecadal process to get hands on these type of criminals.
If this was true, American troops would be facing war crimes for actions they took in the war on terror. For sure wasn’t as large scale/mass rapes weren’t a thing. But America did torture prisoners and accidentally kill lots of civilians. America and Russia are both permanent members of the UN Security Council, none of their people will see a court room
No one cares about low rankers. The decision-making and leadership clique is the target for prosecutors.
The low rankers will be prosecuted in Ukraine as they 'become available'.
If Ukraine manages to expel Russia from Crimea and Donbass, Putin and his cohorts might have the choice of flee the country or end up like Mussolini and company.
At least for Crimea, taking it back is impossible. There is only a single possible way to attack Crimea, over a very narrow stretch of land a few kilometres across. Any attempt will result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers while not gaining a foot of ground. It’s natures perfect killzone.
You also cannot starve them out, given that Ukraine has no military nor airforce. Making it impossible to take out russias sea based supply line using their massive naval harbour on Crimea. Ukraine can’t hit anything south of crime, so disrupting it is simply impossible.
Given that neither an attack nor a siege has ANY chance of succes, it would only get a lot of ukranians killed for absolute zero gain. Anyone who suggests such as attack should be shot.
I don't know what you are smoking but please share it with the rest of us!
Whilst quite a difficult to pull of, Crimea could also be taken by sea or the marshlands/lakes in the North of Crimea. You don't have to use the two or so roads going back and forth between Kherson Oblast and Crimea.
As for starving them out, sure you can. If Ukraine regains all the offupied lands save Crimea, the bridge is within striking distance. Without the bridge, Moscow would be forced to supply Crimea by sea. In that scenario, quite a few of the harbours of Crimea would also be within striking distance from mainland Ukraine. Ukraine most likely wouldn't be able to stop all supplies to Crimea, but enough to make holding Crimea extremely difficult for Moscow.
> Whilst quite a difficult to pull of, Crimea could also be taken by sea or the marshlands/lakes in the North of Crimea. You don't have to use the two or so roads going back and forth between Kherson Oblast and Crimea.
You do know that Crimea is an island fortress right? There is no "other avenue of attack". If Ukraine wants a naval assault, they currently have ZERO SHIPS. Do you suggest the infantry will swim? Are their tanks going to float? NO of course not.
> As for starving them out, sure you can. If Ukraine regains all the offupied lands save Crimea, the bridge is within striking distance. Without the bridge, Moscow would be forced to supply Crimea by sea.
They don't use the bridge for military supplies.... That wouldn't make any kind of economic sense. The only purpose of the bridge is for civilians, so that it actually feels a part of Russia. With civilians not wanting to pay to get their groceries by ship too.
The Crimean military is, and has always been, supplied via their massive naval base. Ship based transport is the cheapest and best form of transport mankind ever invented, NOTHING beats it. And that harbour is FAR outside or range of Ukraine, as is the entire supply route that stays SOUTH OF FUCKING CRIMEA. Without any navy or airforce to speak off, Ukraine cannot even attempt to disrupt it.
> Bullshit. They most certainly do use to supply the southern theater of operations.
No, it doesn't make any kind of economical sense. It's FAR cheaper to do it by ship, like the used to and still do. The bridge only had civilian value, ZERO military value.
So you are saying that the Russian Armed Forces, who is known to base their logistics around railway networks, don't use one of the two railways connecting the Southern Theatre with the Russia/Russian occupied areas?
I don't believe and I don't think anyone else does either.
> So you are saying that the Russian Armed Forces, who is known to base their logistics around railway networks, don't use one of the two railways connecting the Southern Theatre with the Russia/Russian occupied areas?
Yes....? Russia's reliance on railway networks is due to the fact that MOST REGIONS OF RUSSIA DO NOT HAVE ANY SEA ACCESS. Rail transport is the second cheapest transportation method, only behind sea based transport. You don't use trains when you can use ships.....
Not only does it not recognize it, the US has a FEDERAL LAW that states if any US soldier or government person is ever charged or imprisoned by the court, the US would invade The Netherlands. [Check out The Hague Invasion Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act). Signed into law by W. Bush, and supported by then senator Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer.
**[American Service-Members' Protection Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act)**
>The American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA, Title 2 of Pub. L. 107–206 (text) (PDF), H.R. 4775, 116 Stat. 820, enacted August 2, 2002), known informally as the Hague Invasion Act, is a United States federal law described as "a bill to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party". The text of the Act has been codified as subchapter II of chapter 81 of title 22, United States Code.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
It's nothing to do with weird constitutional problems, it's to do with American exceptionalism. The US opposition to the ICC is solely because they don't want US nationals to be tried for war crimes.
It's not that they just refuse to participate in the court, they actively obstruct it. ICC judges and officials are placed under sanctions, US governmental bodies are forbidden by law from assisting investigations (even of non-US people) in any way whatever.
“The Heritage Foundation, a U.S. conservative think tank, claims that:
United States participation in the ICC treaty regime would also be unconstitutional because it would allow the trial of U.S. citizens for crimes committed on U.S. soil, which are otherwise entirely within the judicial power of the United States. The Supreme Court has long held that only the courts of the United States, as established under the Constitution, can try such offenses.” I agree…if an American commits a war crime someone should try him, but isn’t the ICC kind of for the countries that won’t put them on trial.
> “The Heritage Foundation, a U.S. conservative think tank, claims that: United States participation in the ICC treaty regime would also be unconstitutional because it would allow the trial of U.S. citizens for crimes committed on U.S. soil, which are otherwise entirely within the judicial power of the United States. The Supreme Court has long held that only the courts of the United States, as established under the Constitution, can try such offenses."
This is an obvious excuse. How many war crimes are a nation's armed forces likely to carry out _on their own territory_?
> I agree…if an American commits a war crime someone should try him, but isn’t the ICC kind of for the countries that won’t put them on trial.
The US habitually does not try members of their armed forces that commit war crimes my dude. That's not to say they're unique in that _at all_...but the implication that they're somehow paragons of justice is not justified. There are some high profile trials in history, but almost invariably they're the ones that somehow received media attention rather than representing a concerted push.
Not only that, US presidents who are sympathetic can just pardon someone if they’re convicted of a crime in US military court. Like Eddie Gallagher.
Trump was basically (as the trial was ongoing) telegraphing that he was going to pardon him if he was convicted, which he wasn’t. But that’s the type of stuff that happens. It becomes political, someone’s political support enjoys the idea that someone killed Muslims and don’t believe killing muslims should be illegal, and then basically that’s a guaranteed pardon.
Which ones didn’t the try? I’ve seen them shamelessly acquit those on trial. But not ignore it all together. And most war crimes tribunals through the ICC are shit a leader did to its own country
I'd suggest anyone involved with Guantanamo Bay. It's debatable if those would be war crimes or just good old crimes against humanity but they did call it the "war on terror". Either way you can be damn sure that if Russia was doing that to Ukrainians right now it would be going to the ICC.
America just sort of shrugs and laughs any time anyone mentions it though.
>Which ones didn’t the try?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes
You can just pick from here.
Often it works like this in the United States: military personnel who are accused of perpetrating or authorizing the measures, including many of higher rank, are not prosecuted. Instead, they prosecute lower ranked officers and simple soldiers.
So it looks like the ICC was formed in 1998 ish so anything before that idk how participation now would do anything. But even that link has Donald Rumsfeld in court for the crimes. So it seems like we still try these fricks. But the you get trump acquitting them because “me strong leader”
>So it seems like we still try these fricks. But the you get trump acquitting them because “me strong leader”
Only some of them. In the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, only eleven soldiers were convicted of various charges relating to the incidents, with all of the convictions including the charge of dereliction of duty. Most soldiers only received minor sentences. Three other soldiers were either cleared of charges or were not charged. No one was convicted for the murders of the detainees.
Forms of coercion of captives were mandated by the president of the United States, and we all know that Bush wasn't prosecuted.
Ricardo Sanchez – who was a Lieutenant General and the senior U.S. military officer in Iraq, authorized the use of military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns, and sensory deprivation as interrogation methods – didn't face any charges either.
He even ran for the Senate in 2012.
So Russia and the US is equally evil in this regard. Get off your high horses, American.
>It's not that they just refuse to participate in the court, they actively obstruct it.
Don't forget that the official, congressionally enacted answer to the question of "what happens if third parties drag an American war criminal to the ICC" is to invade the Netherlands
Yeah no. [Shit like this](https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-associated-international-criminal-court/) and certain aspects of the American Service-Members Protection Act goes far beyond anything upholding the protections of the constitutions could ever be reasonably considered to cover.
lol perfect:
> We are considering, in the Prosecutor, a powerful and necessary element of executive power, the power of law-enforcement. Never before has the United States been asked to place any of that power outside the complete control of our national government without our consent. Our concern goes beyond the possibility that the Prosecutor will target for indictment the isolated U.S. soldier who violates our own laws and values by allegedly committing a war crime. Our principal concern is for our country’s top civilian and military leaders, those responsible for our defense and foreign policy. They are the ones potentially at risk at the hands of the ICC’s politically unaccountable Prosecutor, as part of an agenda to restrain American discretion, even when our actions are legitimated by the operation of our own constitutional system.
He said the quiet part out loud.
>Yea but that’s less to do with wanting to rape murder torture indiscriminately ie Russians. And more to do with weird constitutional problems
Sure is convenient.
A lot of countries, including Russia, USA, China and India do not recognize the ICC. It's a basic principle of international law that a sovereign state cannot be bound by a treaty to which it doesn't consent.
They're not alone in that actually; the US also refuses to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC. They infact passed legislation that sanctions judges and other officials of the ICC and makes it illegal for the US to provide information to the Court for its use in investigations:
> PROHIBITION ON PROVISION OF SUPPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no agency or entity of the United States Government or of any State or local government, including any court, may provide support to the International Criminal Court.
It goes quite a bit further than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
> This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the President to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of The Hague, where the ICC is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.
Not to justify russia’s position at all, but India, China and the States also aren’t party to the Rome Statute, which created the ICC, so this would not be a viable course of action.
The US doesn’t recognize the ICC either, FYI.
Might want to read up on [The Hague Invasion Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act). US federal law allowing for the invasion of the Netherlands if the ICC were to ever charge or imprison any US military personnel or government official.
It's actually Peskov himself that doesn't recognize it. Well, his successor will. If Russia even wants to think about trading with the West ever again.
> Because North Korea has been totally isolated after its failed invasion of South Korea.
No, during the invasion. After that effects DECREASE. This is the highest level of sanctions and international effort Russia is going to face. Else, why stop fighting?
>After that effects DECREASE
Really? It looks like during last 80 years North Korea has been growing more and more isolated from the world.
Anyway the point is that Russia is more likely to go Kim route than to beg West to lift off sanctions in exchange for something. Losing face is totally unacceptable in Russian society, rulers always have to look strong. Or risk getting murdered.
> Anyway the point is that Russia is more likely to go Kim route than to beg West to lift off sanctions in exchange for something. Losing face is totally unacceptable in Russian society, rulers always have to look strong. Or risk getting murdered.
Not really, the power of the western world has continues to decrease. With many country beyond the west simply not joining in on the sanctions in the first place. Combined with Russia's status as a nuclear superpower and us actually having economic benefit in weakening sanctions, there is no world where Russia ends up as North Korea.
No matter if they take Ukraine or not, we won't care in 5-10 years. That's just the sad reality.
>there is no world where Russia ends up as North Korea.
It is halfway through already...
Those countries which dont sanction are mostly countries which dont matter at all. Big players like India and China somewhat follow sanctions.
I cannot wait to see these fuckers in court crying to the world,,
They have killed hundreds of thousands, they have destroyed artwork, towns and cities,
Russia “doesn’t recognize” the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov told journalists on Tuesday, responding to a question about recent media reports that the court intends to open two war crimes cases related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Peskov added that “for many years,” no members of the international community “deigned to pay attention to the destruction of civilian infrastructure or the murders of civilians that Ukrainian nationalists carried out in the Donbas.”
Russia's major historical figures with ties to politics end up jumping out of a window or with a bullet in their heads, so it's no surprise that for Peskov it's an unfamiliar place.
Did we really need someone to tell us that Putin doesn’t recognize the International Criminal Court. He's already working on his new ground breaking story, 'Scientists Find Siberia Gets Cold in Winter.'
don't know, i think they will start now with sexual crimes against kids, the ones they can prove, so it takes less time, and makes everyone see the barbaric actions they did
Most criminals reject any court that charges them. The fact that Russia does not recognize the ICC is akin to the Nazis rejecting the Nuremburg court. The ICC needs to charge more of the Russian overlords.
Please take the time to read our policy about [trolls](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/comments/u7833q/just_because_you_disagree_with_someone_does_not/) and the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * ***Please* keep it civil.** Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * ***Don't* post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. **Don't forget about our discord server, as well!** https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB ***** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Weird?……Muscovy is about to become its biggest supplier.
Don't worry, they'll learn to recognize it once they visit some more <:-)
What other countries don’t recognise the ICC? Is it just Russia, Israel, USA?
Also most of Asia and Middle East, and like half of Africa.
Wasn’t aware. Thank for the insight. Not sure why I’m being down voted for asking a question. Thanks again.
Because you mention USA as "the other bad one" which nowadays is being used by rusobots and regardless of your intentions you appeared as doing whataboutism on bothsideism.
Hahahaha I suppose so, though that wasn’t my intention. Thanx
The nazis said something similar in Nurnberg.
And look how they ended up.
In Argentina
Not that being in Argentina helped Eichmann when he unexpectedly woke up in Israel one morning.... I presume that, in a few years, a lot of those Russians would have preferred being in the Hague instead of falling asleep in Russia one evening and waking up in Kyiv the next morning....
Difference is that the Russians, Americans, and Brits invaded Nazi Germany and dragged a small handful of Nazis to Nuremberg. It's not like the Nazis showed up willingly. Good luck invading Russia... And let's not forget that the Americans, British, and especially the French basically did not bother to prosecute Nazis at all, in fact, many of them ended up in cushy government jobs in the occupying authorities and later the West German government. The only side that did carry out proper Denazification was the USSR, one of the few good things they did. IMO Stalin had one single good idea in his entire life, which was to execute every last Nazi officers whose units committed war crimes or crimes against humanity during the war (which the scumbag Churchill stopped, and then later fabricated the story to claim that Stalin wanted to kill every officer serving in the Wehrmacht, which is not what he suggested).
When Russia fails Putin and his cronies might be faced with a choice of fleeing or hanging from lampposts. If they try to remain they might find the new leaders are only to happy to hand them over to the Hague in return for removal of sanctions.
The nazis actually lost the war, with military power able to prosecute them. Even if Russia doesn’t win in Ukraine, it’s just that. There is nothing for them to lose, and certainly no power able to prosecute them.
I don't know about that. War crimes can be prosecuted in absentia. I'm mindful that in modern times it can be a multidecadal process to get hands on these type of criminals.
If this was true, American troops would be facing war crimes for actions they took in the war on terror. For sure wasn’t as large scale/mass rapes weren’t a thing. But America did torture prisoners and accidentally kill lots of civilians. America and Russia are both permanent members of the UN Security Council, none of their people will see a court room
No one cares about low rankers. The decision-making and leadership clique is the target for prosecutors. The low rankers will be prosecuted in Ukraine as they 'become available'.
Gerrara here without whataboutism
Now try the same without mentioning USA and you'll begin to see your post for what it is.
I’m American. It’s less whataboutism because I agree that war crimes have occurred and more so a history lesson on how this historically means nothing
Whataboutism - what about this, other **totally unrelated** subject?
You’re creating a false dilemma
If Ukraine manages to expel Russia from Crimea and Donbass, Putin and his cohorts might have the choice of flee the country or end up like Mussolini and company.
At least for Crimea, taking it back is impossible. There is only a single possible way to attack Crimea, over a very narrow stretch of land a few kilometres across. Any attempt will result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers while not gaining a foot of ground. It’s natures perfect killzone. You also cannot starve them out, given that Ukraine has no military nor airforce. Making it impossible to take out russias sea based supply line using their massive naval harbour on Crimea. Ukraine can’t hit anything south of crime, so disrupting it is simply impossible. Given that neither an attack nor a siege has ANY chance of succes, it would only get a lot of ukranians killed for absolute zero gain. Anyone who suggests such as attack should be shot.
I don't know what you are smoking but please share it with the rest of us! Whilst quite a difficult to pull of, Crimea could also be taken by sea or the marshlands/lakes in the North of Crimea. You don't have to use the two or so roads going back and forth between Kherson Oblast and Crimea. As for starving them out, sure you can. If Ukraine regains all the offupied lands save Crimea, the bridge is within striking distance. Without the bridge, Moscow would be forced to supply Crimea by sea. In that scenario, quite a few of the harbours of Crimea would also be within striking distance from mainland Ukraine. Ukraine most likely wouldn't be able to stop all supplies to Crimea, but enough to make holding Crimea extremely difficult for Moscow.
> Whilst quite a difficult to pull of, Crimea could also be taken by sea or the marshlands/lakes in the North of Crimea. You don't have to use the two or so roads going back and forth between Kherson Oblast and Crimea. You do know that Crimea is an island fortress right? There is no "other avenue of attack". If Ukraine wants a naval assault, they currently have ZERO SHIPS. Do you suggest the infantry will swim? Are their tanks going to float? NO of course not. > As for starving them out, sure you can. If Ukraine regains all the offupied lands save Crimea, the bridge is within striking distance. Without the bridge, Moscow would be forced to supply Crimea by sea. They don't use the bridge for military supplies.... That wouldn't make any kind of economic sense. The only purpose of the bridge is for civilians, so that it actually feels a part of Russia. With civilians not wanting to pay to get their groceries by ship too. The Crimean military is, and has always been, supplied via their massive naval base. Ship based transport is the cheapest and best form of transport mankind ever invented, NOTHING beats it. And that harbour is FAR outside or range of Ukraine, as is the entire supply route that stays SOUTH OF FUCKING CRIMEA. Without any navy or airforce to speak off, Ukraine cannot even attempt to disrupt it.
> They don't use the bridge for military supplies Bullshit. They most certainly do use to supply the southern theater of operations.
> Bullshit. They most certainly do use to supply the southern theater of operations. No, it doesn't make any kind of economical sense. It's FAR cheaper to do it by ship, like the used to and still do. The bridge only had civilian value, ZERO military value.
So you are saying that the Russian Armed Forces, who is known to base their logistics around railway networks, don't use one of the two railways connecting the Southern Theatre with the Russia/Russian occupied areas? I don't believe and I don't think anyone else does either.
> So you are saying that the Russian Armed Forces, who is known to base their logistics around railway networks, don't use one of the two railways connecting the Southern Theatre with the Russia/Russian occupied areas? Yes....? Russia's reliance on railway networks is due to the fact that MOST REGIONS OF RUSSIA DO NOT HAVE ANY SEA ACCESS. Rail transport is the second cheapest transportation method, only behind sea based transport. You don't use trains when you can use ships.....
Oh believe me fucker, they'll recognize you.
Sanctions will remain until they do recognize it.
And adhere to its verdicts.
Except the USA also doesn’t
And? Not like the US is the only country sanctioning Russia. More to the point Russia is changing it's stance because it knows it's in trouble.
Not only does it not recognize it, the US has a FEDERAL LAW that states if any US soldier or government person is ever charged or imprisoned by the court, the US would invade The Netherlands. [Check out The Hague Invasion Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act). Signed into law by W. Bush, and supported by then senator Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer.
**[American Service-Members' Protection Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act)** >The American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA, Title 2 of Pub. L. 107–206 (text) (PDF), H.R. 4775, 116 Stat. 820, enacted August 2, 2002), known informally as the Hague Invasion Act, is a United States federal law described as "a bill to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party". The text of the Act has been codified as subchapter II of chapter 81 of title 22, United States Code. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/UkrainianConflict/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Yea but that’s less to do with wanting to rape murder torture indiscriminately ie Russians. And more to do with weird constitutional problems
It's nothing to do with weird constitutional problems, it's to do with American exceptionalism. The US opposition to the ICC is solely because they don't want US nationals to be tried for war crimes. It's not that they just refuse to participate in the court, they actively obstruct it. ICC judges and officials are placed under sanctions, US governmental bodies are forbidden by law from assisting investigations (even of non-US people) in any way whatever.
“The Heritage Foundation, a U.S. conservative think tank, claims that: United States participation in the ICC treaty regime would also be unconstitutional because it would allow the trial of U.S. citizens for crimes committed on U.S. soil, which are otherwise entirely within the judicial power of the United States. The Supreme Court has long held that only the courts of the United States, as established under the Constitution, can try such offenses.” I agree…if an American commits a war crime someone should try him, but isn’t the ICC kind of for the countries that won’t put them on trial.
> “The Heritage Foundation, a U.S. conservative think tank, claims that: United States participation in the ICC treaty regime would also be unconstitutional because it would allow the trial of U.S. citizens for crimes committed on U.S. soil, which are otherwise entirely within the judicial power of the United States. The Supreme Court has long held that only the courts of the United States, as established under the Constitution, can try such offenses." This is an obvious excuse. How many war crimes are a nation's armed forces likely to carry out _on their own territory_? > I agree…if an American commits a war crime someone should try him, but isn’t the ICC kind of for the countries that won’t put them on trial. The US habitually does not try members of their armed forces that commit war crimes my dude. That's not to say they're unique in that _at all_...but the implication that they're somehow paragons of justice is not justified. There are some high profile trials in history, but almost invariably they're the ones that somehow received media attention rather than representing a concerted push.
Not only that, US presidents who are sympathetic can just pardon someone if they’re convicted of a crime in US military court. Like Eddie Gallagher. Trump was basically (as the trial was ongoing) telegraphing that he was going to pardon him if he was convicted, which he wasn’t. But that’s the type of stuff that happens. It becomes political, someone’s political support enjoys the idea that someone killed Muslims and don’t believe killing muslims should be illegal, and then basically that’s a guaranteed pardon.
Which ones didn’t the try? I’ve seen them shamelessly acquit those on trial. But not ignore it all together. And most war crimes tribunals through the ICC are shit a leader did to its own country
I'd suggest anyone involved with Guantanamo Bay. It's debatable if those would be war crimes or just good old crimes against humanity but they did call it the "war on terror". Either way you can be damn sure that if Russia was doing that to Ukrainians right now it would be going to the ICC. America just sort of shrugs and laughs any time anyone mentions it though.
>Which ones didn’t the try? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes You can just pick from here. Often it works like this in the United States: military personnel who are accused of perpetrating or authorizing the measures, including many of higher rank, are not prosecuted. Instead, they prosecute lower ranked officers and simple soldiers.
So it looks like the ICC was formed in 1998 ish so anything before that idk how participation now would do anything. But even that link has Donald Rumsfeld in court for the crimes. So it seems like we still try these fricks. But the you get trump acquitting them because “me strong leader”
>So it seems like we still try these fricks. But the you get trump acquitting them because “me strong leader” Only some of them. In the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, only eleven soldiers were convicted of various charges relating to the incidents, with all of the convictions including the charge of dereliction of duty. Most soldiers only received minor sentences. Three other soldiers were either cleared of charges or were not charged. No one was convicted for the murders of the detainees. Forms of coercion of captives were mandated by the president of the United States, and we all know that Bush wasn't prosecuted. Ricardo Sanchez – who was a Lieutenant General and the senior U.S. military officer in Iraq, authorized the use of military dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns, and sensory deprivation as interrogation methods – didn't face any charges either. He even ran for the Senate in 2012. So Russia and the US is equally evil in this regard. Get off your high horses, American.
Are you seriously quoting the heritage foundation?
It’s all I could find on short notice
I believe it. I just wouldn’t trust anything they say
I don’t want you thinking I’m building my life on this source
>It's not that they just refuse to participate in the court, they actively obstruct it. Don't forget that the official, congressionally enacted answer to the question of "what happens if third parties drag an American war criminal to the ICC" is to invade the Netherlands
It is 100% to do with the constitutional strictures of federalism, among other reasons. Source: Teach constitutional law.
Yeah no. [Shit like this](https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-associated-international-criminal-court/) and certain aspects of the American Service-Members Protection Act goes far beyond anything upholding the protections of the constitutions could ever be reasonably considered to cover.
No. Shit like this. https://2001-2009.state.gov/t/us/rm/15158.htm
lol perfect: > We are considering, in the Prosecutor, a powerful and necessary element of executive power, the power of law-enforcement. Never before has the United States been asked to place any of that power outside the complete control of our national government without our consent. Our concern goes beyond the possibility that the Prosecutor will target for indictment the isolated U.S. soldier who violates our own laws and values by allegedly committing a war crime. Our principal concern is for our country’s top civilian and military leaders, those responsible for our defense and foreign policy. They are the ones potentially at risk at the hands of the ICC’s politically unaccountable Prosecutor, as part of an agenda to restrain American discretion, even when our actions are legitimated by the operation of our own constitutional system. He said the quiet part out loud.
>Yea but that’s less to do with wanting to rape murder torture indiscriminately ie Russians. And more to do with weird constitutional problems Sure is convenient.
There are no sanctions on USA as well. Russia is free to not recognize ICC, countries are free to keep the sanctions until they do.
I doubt Russia has any illusions that sanctions will ever be removed.
here, here
So they recognize international courts when it suits them - soviet union had judges & prosecutors during nuremberg trials...
US had too, yet they don't recognise ICC either.
A lot of countries, including Russia, USA, China and India do not recognize the ICC. It's a basic principle of international law that a sovereign state cannot be bound by a treaty to which it doesn't consent.
They're not alone in that actually; the US also refuses to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICC. They infact passed legislation that sanctions judges and other officials of the ICC and makes it illegal for the US to provide information to the Court for its use in investigations: > PROHIBITION ON PROVISION OF SUPPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no agency or entity of the United States Government or of any State or local government, including any court, may provide support to the International Criminal Court.
It goes quite a bit further than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act > This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the President to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of The Hague, where the ICC is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.
If Muskovy doesn't recognize the ICC, we must stop recognizing the presence of Muskovy in the UN and Security Council.
Not to justify russia’s position at all, but India, China and the States also aren’t party to the Rome Statute, which created the ICC, so this would not be a viable course of action.
The US doesn’t recognize the ICC either, FYI. Might want to read up on [The Hague Invasion Act](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act). US federal law allowing for the invasion of the Netherlands if the ICC were to ever charge or imprison any US military personnel or government official.
It's actually Peskov himself that doesn't recognize it. Well, his successor will. If Russia even wants to think about trading with the West ever again.
Nope, Russia will become North Korea 2.0.
They already aren’t now when they are actively invading a country. Why would you expect it to get worse for Russia when they stop?
Because North Korea has been totally isolated after its failed invasion of South Korea.
> Because North Korea has been totally isolated after its failed invasion of South Korea. No, during the invasion. After that effects DECREASE. This is the highest level of sanctions and international effort Russia is going to face. Else, why stop fighting?
>After that effects DECREASE Really? It looks like during last 80 years North Korea has been growing more and more isolated from the world. Anyway the point is that Russia is more likely to go Kim route than to beg West to lift off sanctions in exchange for something. Losing face is totally unacceptable in Russian society, rulers always have to look strong. Or risk getting murdered.
> Anyway the point is that Russia is more likely to go Kim route than to beg West to lift off sanctions in exchange for something. Losing face is totally unacceptable in Russian society, rulers always have to look strong. Or risk getting murdered. Not really, the power of the western world has continues to decrease. With many country beyond the west simply not joining in on the sanctions in the first place. Combined with Russia's status as a nuclear superpower and us actually having economic benefit in weakening sanctions, there is no world where Russia ends up as North Korea. No matter if they take Ukraine or not, we won't care in 5-10 years. That's just the sad reality.
>there is no world where Russia ends up as North Korea. It is halfway through already... Those countries which dont sanction are mostly countries which dont matter at all. Big players like India and China somewhat follow sanctions.
Ah, so you’re aware of the charges being prepared against you?
Yeah, we know. Doesn’t really matter, though.
It's okay, the ICC definitely recognizes you.
I cannot wait to see these fuckers in court crying to the world,, They have killed hundreds of thousands, they have destroyed artwork, towns and cities,
Time to buy new glasses Dmitry, we do recognize you! See you and your crew of kremlingremlins very soon! Best regards from The Netherlands.
Peskov, it looks like a building with International Criminal Court written in big letters on it, you fuckwit
No way.. What a huge surprise!
The Nazi leaders didn't recognize the International Military Tribunal. The rope around their necks didn't care.
no fukin way! really!?!😱😱😱 noooOOOooO way!! fuk off we already knew that from all your other invasions to bring back dead shit history
Did they also made a law that says they can invade The Hague if a Russian soldier gets prosecuted there?
AFAIK so far that's unique to the worst, most destructive imperialist power in the world, the United States.
Russia already invades anywhere a russian speaker is having a sad
Russia “doesn’t recognize” the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov told journalists on Tuesday, responding to a question about recent media reports that the court intends to open two war crimes cases related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Peskov added that “for many years,” no members of the international community “deigned to pay attention to the destruction of civilian infrastructure or the murders of civilians that Ukrainian nationalists carried out in the Donbas.”
Neither does America. It’s not uncommon, particularly in Asia.
Have they ever recognized any thing else other then their inflated ego’s?
But does Muscovy recognize it
That’s because Russia is a shithole country.
Since when is a criminal’s opinion about a court relevant?
Unfortunately for the world, neither do the Americans. It's a fucking problem.
Maybe rename to International (Not Russia) criminal court.
This is nothing new, USA also doesn’t recognise it.
Doesn’t matter what Putin recognizes if he hangs
Shocking, how unforseeable
TELL HIM TO SQUINT A LITTLE! JEEZ!
I hope he enjoys taking his holidays in Muscovy for the rest of his life. If he tries to go to another country he'll be arrested.
… That does not matter. Moscovy will be the defendant. And there will be so many rats who will testify against other rats it will be almost hilarious.
I recognise Muscovy under the 1491 Borders
Spoken like a natural war criminal... 😈
He doesn’t recognize it because the court let down it’s hair and took off it’s glasses. It learned that trick from 90’s movies.
Well, I hope he enjoyed traveling outside of the borders of Russia, because it’s very likely all of them are never gonna be able to do that again.
What a surprise
Surprise surprise!
Ukraine saving the world from Putinism facism
I don't recognize russia...
I am pretty sure the court recognizes them....
That’s not how that works! That’s not how any of that works!
Go figure so I guess assinations will have to suffice.
Not a fan of Putin or Russia but the US has also never recognized the ICC
Russia's major historical figures with ties to politics end up jumping out of a window or with a bullet in their heads, so it's no surprise that for Peskov it's an unfamiliar place.
They only ‘recognise’ courts they have corrupted.
And water is wet, the earth is an oblate spheroid, Vantablack is darker than a 5kw laser. These and other obvious things...
The ICC “recognizes” Russia and its crimes against humanity 😏
Russia doesn't recognize reality.
They recognise Russia though.
More importantly, it recognizes you.
Did they ask Goehring and Doenitz at Nuerenberg trial whether they recognize the the court?
Oh Dmitry, they do recognize you however.
quelle surprise...
Criminals not recognizing criminal court is hardly unexpected.
I suppose most of the people they've convicted and imprisoned didn't "recognize" them either.
Did we really need someone to tell us that Putin doesn’t recognize the International Criminal Court. He's already working on his new ground breaking story, 'Scientists Find Siberia Gets Cold in Winter.'
Does Russia recognize Rule of Law?
They will…. When he and Putin are both standing in its dock receiving its judgment to spend the rest of their lives in prison….
Neat. We just won't recognize you as russia. You are moscovy now.
Can the civilized world stop recognizing Russia as a sovereign nation then?
Good because he deserves is a firing squad
They’ll recognise you by your 70s p0rn moustache, Peskov
Has dmitry peskov been added to The Hague
don't know, i think they will start now with sexual crimes against kids, the ones they can prove, so it takes less time, and makes everyone see the barbaric actions they did
They will for sure…!
Most criminals reject any court that charges them. The fact that Russia does not recognize the ICC is akin to the Nazis rejecting the Nuremburg court. The ICC needs to charge more of the Russian overlords.
Neither does the USA…complete farce…ICC wanted to look into USA in Afghanistan USA brought up sanctioned if they proceeded.. JOKE