US threatens to arrest ICC judges if they pursue Americans for Afghan war crimes

While German's Olaf Scholz commented that "No one can be above the law" when he reacted that ICC had pushed an arrest warrent for Putin and Russian goverment.
Clearly still trying to hold their push for a regime change in Russia and install another Boris Yeltsin style type of goverment.

In 2018

The US had threaten to arrest ICC judges if they pursue Americans for Afghan war crimes by the same logic. America had being acting above the law when it comes to war in Iraq and Afghan war.



US threatens to arrest ICC judges if they pursue Americans for Afghan war crimes

White House National Security Advisor John Bolton called the Hague-based rights body "unaccountable" and "outright dangerous" to the United States, Israel and other allies, and said any probe of US service members would be "an utterly unfounded, unjustifiable investigation."

John Bolton had threaten ICC not to pursue Americans, nor Israel for committing for what they are doing in Gaza.


When it comes to military invasions, occupations, conflicts only America seems to be the one that has a right to act above the law above all else.

a reply to: vNex92

Wonder what would happen if the ICC decides to put a warrant on those who threaten them? After all that's a crime to.. Make threats on a judge, after all. By threatening to "arrest" a judge, or harm them in any way you make a mockery of the system you put/voted on into place. So with that said, if they do NOTHING then it only show's they have no rights to issue a warrant for Putin.

You can't have it both ways, either they can or can't issue warrants for public figures - and then that means the US isn't immune..

www.icc-cpi.int...

The US constitution supersedes all foreign laws and treaties.

The ICC is not the US.

Germany is not in the US.

By smearing the US, you, are also smearing Mother Russia and the Great Putin.

Your handlers will be informed shortly.

a reply to: Jason79

Your handlers will be informed shortly.

Imagine to be foolish supporting your hero zelensky and his cronies. If you only take a look at Zelesnky's government inner circle...

The ICC is not the US.

Is that why the US has no issues using the ICC for its geopolitical interests?

a reply to: vNex92

You still love to use Western Technology to spout your anti-western bile.

How hypocritical.

originally posted by: BlackArrow
a reply to: vNex92

Wonder what would happen if the ICC decides to put a warrant on those who threaten them? After all that's a crime to.. Make threats on a judge, after all. By threatening to "arrest" a judge, or harm them in any way you make a mockery of the system you put/voted on into place. So with that said, if they do NOTHING then it only show's they have no rights to issue a warrant for Putin.

You can't have it both ways, either they can or can't issue warrants for public figures - and then that means the US isn't immune..

www.icc-cpi.int...

To bring up legal action against someone is not considered a threat .

a reply to: vNex92

Bolton is a POS.

a reply to: vNex92

Honestly I started reading 'why' the ICC issued a Warrant for Putin, and Honestly, unless the war ends I see no problem with him having put those CHILDREN from ORPHANAGES in the FRONT LINES, up for temporary adoption to Russian Families. As it gets them out of the battlefield, which should of been done early on while Russia waited for the mass amount of people to flee the country before the initial invasion.
(In ww2, europe did the same damn thing, they sent their children to other countries via train to get them out of the warzone).

No child belongs on a battlefield, and they are charging him for deporting children and expediting the adoption process to get those kids off the front lines. Word for word, that is his charge. read on it on the icc website here


I think that this warrant is actually unjustified in that aspect. That as long as the war is there, those kids are better off in a 'family setting' instead of an orphanage on the front lines hearing gunfire and risk getting blown to bits as bombs get thrown back and forth. The only problem I would actually have with it, is once the war is over to ensure the children are returned (which hasn't happened yet: keep in mind these aren't kids from families, these are children in an orphanage, left behind because they DID NOT HAVE PARENTS, aka no one wanted or even cared to relocate them!).

But those 'caretakers' didn't do those kids any real justice leaving them on the front lines where they could of been hurt.

So the entire Warrant for Putin is kinda bs, imo. Not because i'm a supporter, but because I think he did the right thing providing those kids a safe place to be which is NOT in a warzone.

I mean hell OBAMA drone striked weddings, and parties killing thousands and thousands of kids. I would of rather had them save those children before blowing the hell out of those places.. So I suppose if you support the murder of children on the front line because of 'accidental' fire.. you'd support this warrant. If you rather see the children taken out of the warzone and moved into a safe location, then you straight up don't support it. Doesn't matter who the aggressor is. Those kids are alive because he relocated them out of those front line shelters.

It only becomes a problem when the war is over and those kids aren't returned. But considering they are from a shelter, I think it should be up to each child to decide when the war is over if they want to stay with their 'newly' adopted parents or return to a ukrainian orphanage.


So this entire 'arrest' warrant is nothing more then US using the ICC as a political tool to go after Putin.

a reply to: vNex92

You're suggesting Putin should threaten the ICC?

Sure, let's see how that goes.

I'm not justifying what the Trump admin did with the threats, that's dirty, but that's why they got replaced.

a reply to: Gothmog

"You go after Americans we go after you" is a threat by definition.
Especially if those said Americans are indeed criminals that fall under their jurisdiction. When inhumane crimes happen from 1 country, in another country, and those key players return home that is International Court Jurisdiction.

Think about it this way, Serial killer kills 100's in the US and flee's to Mexico. US has no power there, so they either have to work with Mexico to get the guy if he's an American Citizen or wait until he crosses the border again - Because he went into Mexico of his own accord as a US citizen, so this falls under Mexican law not US or ICC.

However:

If he's a Natural born Mexican who came into the states and killed those people then went back to Mexico it would fall under ICC if Mexico didn't hand him over for the crimes he's committed. This prevents citizens from committing acts of terror and fleeing home and being protected by their country cause said country believes they did a 'good job'.

The ICC has it's purpose and provides a lot of checks and balances against these kinds of behaviors, which is used to prevent 'war' because of popular criminals. The ICC exists because countries AGREED to these terms, signed contracts and created it for balances, control, and protection from other countries. It all started with Genocide Convention, and slowly expanded to protect from various things like experimentation and other crimes against humanity.

The ICC is the only one who can remove a citizen from their own country for the crimes they have commited, legally.

No other country legally has that right, to force someone to give up their own citizens. So like it or not, if those American's sleep in their own beds tonight here in the US and are indeed criminals of HEINOUS(it takes more then a simple murder to wind up on this list). It is the ICC's right to collect them. There are NO foreign policies, OR the constitution rights/amendments or legislate for or against this policy, so please do not be mistaken. The founding fathers did NOT put a single thing into place to protect people like this. They had no idea a medical industry would rise up and experiment on the public in ways that they have. They had no idea people would be so cruel as to wipe out entire villages/cities of people in racial or ethnic genocides.

If the US forefathers had known enough to prepare for even the smallest hint of protection against these acts, if it was proven they did crimes that the ICC collects evidence and governs on. There would of been no trial for genocide, or public medical experimentation, public hangings would still be a thing, and these criminals would have their actions exposed to the public for punishment by the people.

This agency was created BY US and various other countries for THIS purpose. It fills in the gaps in our laws, and other country laws. While protecting countries unable to fend for themselves from genocide, medical experimentation, forced deportation, and other forms of abuse from invaders, like rape, trafficking, etc. (It has no jurisdiction for example africa doing it to africa. But if Spain invaded Africa and did those things, then ICC has jurisdiction, those rules and laws are very clear. So even our own foreign policies does not dictate these rules..)

a reply to: BlackArrow

Even if you're fine with orphans being taken, what about the rest of the children? Or what makes you think it's just orphans from war zones?

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: BlackArrow

Even if you're fine with orphans being taken, what about the rest of the children? Or what makes you think it's just orphans from war zones?

Russia saves children. Takes them out of war zone orphanages to the safety of Russia and provides them with shelter, food, medical care, toys and a safe place to sleep.

They don't do Drone strikes on children and call them Terrorists like Joe Biden did when the US was leaving Afghanistan.

www.latimes.com...

www.latimes.com... still-stuck

originally posted by: Mahogany


I'm not justifying what the Trump admin did with the threats, that's dirty, but that's why they got replaced.

The Biden administration, like the previous one led by former US president Donald Trump, maintains that the court does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case because [Insert Nation/State Here] , like the US , is not a signatory to the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court

a reply to: MisguidedAngel

I'm asking why BlackArrow only focuses on orphanages and not children taken from hospital, their parents etc. They seem to have misunderstood that ICC statement they linked.

It's perfectly possible for Russia to save some children, kidnap others and kill yet others. I don't feel the need to get into an argument over that.

a reply to: vNex92

Who in their right mind would relinquish national sovereignty to an unelected body with the power to accuse and arrest anyone for anything?

Oh, The Democrats would an then use them against their political opponents but luckily it is very difficult to pass a treaty.