this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
282 points (98.0% liked)

politics

20396 readers
4181 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
282
Trump risks ICC arrest warrant being issued for him, says human rights lawyer (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 10 hours ago by Sunshine to c/[email protected]
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 hours ago

As said by others in the comments, there are quite a few things that come into play here, which all would be true regardless of who the actual sitting President is.

  • The Constitution of the US is seen as the Supreme Law of the Land. The US being subservient to the ICC would be a direct violation of that. The ICC does not and cannot carry any legal weight in this country.
  • There are already laws in place saying that the US can and will use military force in order to extract a US citizen held by the ICC.
  • The US is, by far, the most powerful military in the world, and it isn't even close.
  • The US is also the cornerstone of the global economy. Any attempt at enforcing sanctions against the US in order to force compliance with any kind of international law would likely simply be ignored, and would probably do more damage to the sanctioning country than to the US anyway.
  • The US is host to the United Nations. I don't think I have to say what kind of shitshow would happen if the UN tried to arrest the leader of the country that's hosting it.

The ICC could issue a warrant for Trump's arrest as a symbolic gesture, but it would have about as much practical effect as if I had issued it.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 6 hours ago

I wish they would arrest President Musk.

[–] [email protected] 76 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

In what world does this matter, at all ?

Are they in some alternate universe where the ICC police will swoop and arrest the president of the United States, and everything will be alright ?

[–] [email protected] 80 points 10 hours ago (5 children)

It’ll severely limit his ability to travel internationally. Plus sometimes it’s just about making a statement.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

They have already not done this with Putin or Netanyahu.

There is a less than zero chance they will do this with a sitting American president. No one's coming to save us from him we're going to have to do it ourselves.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 hours ago

Have Putin or Netanyahu been to the EU since they had ICC arrest warrants issued for them? No they have not. Whats your point?

The US is irrelevant in that regard, they have never honored the ICC. But the US cant survive alone if they sever all connections to the rest of the western world.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 hours ago

To countries which will be able to fend off a US invasion? It would be interesting to see which country would defy the Hague Invasion Act.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Arresting the US President will be interpreted as an act of war and the US will retaliate militarily.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

To go further, the US has never recognized the ICC. That's not a Trump (or even a Republican) thing, either. Clinton signed it but never submitted the treaty to the Senate, Bush did nothing with it, Obama sent observers but made no move toward ratification either.

The standard arguments against joining are that the ICC doesn't fit in with the structure of the judicial branch in the US, and that it doesn't guarantee a trial by jury like the Constitution does. So the ICC, as it is currently structured, contradicts the Constitution so there would have to be further Constitutional changes before the US can join.

As a result, the US does not formally recognize its authority over US citizens, and should any US citizen be detained by it, we would probably dispatch some Special Forces to get them out. The countries that are part of the ICC know this, so are unlikely to push things that far.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

How does it “severely limit his ability to travel “ ?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

Presumably, if he lands in any country that actually respects international law (which is a fair few) he will be arrested.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

lol yeah that's not happening.

The potential host country could decline not to host the President and that's about it. Countries can do that right now and I wouldn't blame him, although I doubt Trump will be traveling much.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 hours ago

The set of countries that would enforce an ICC warrant against Trump is a subset of the set of those that would enforce one against Netanyahu. None of the countries the POTUS would actually go to belong to the latter.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I doubt any respects the law that much, but I hope I'm wrong.

[–] ryper 16 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

At this point, Canada and Mexico are probably in the mood to do it. His handling of Ukraine and Russia might have parts of Europe on board too.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

In the mood? From what I see rn, that would simply be grounds for a landwar.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

The US is literally already trying to use a trade ware to threaten our sovereignty and they even keep saying that’s exactly why they’re doing it. The war has literally already started, if less overtly violently.

I’d love to put him in cuffs, and give him fair warning that if he steps off the plane that’s what’s going to happen. That’s if we don’t say “sorry, we don’t have a policy that allows for leaders of enemy states to land without express permission. Say yea, you flew here, what happens next is up to you.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 hours ago

That’s if we don’t say “sorry, we don’y have a policy that allows for leaders of enemy states to land without express permission.

This is actually the most likely outcome. Nobody would want to deal with the absolute shitstorm arresting the orange turd would cause so instead they'll just deny him entry.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago

I can’t believe you wrote that

Be real.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 hours ago

Hmmm what would the Secret Service do if Trump were to be arrested while on a diplomatic trip? Yeah, Trump would not be taken into custody, I’d bet my Legos on it.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

It matters, just not in as much as one might hope. It is mostly a symbolic step, true, because no one will arrest a sitting president. But it shows that the court is observing and condemning the actions. Think of what might come after: Trump couldn't enter quite a few countries without fear of arrest once he is no longer president. Same with Putin, or Netanyahu. It makes international action so much easier if you can just say "well, there is a warrant out for you, so you better not show up". Become a refugee? Better not go to a country that might uphold the warrant. Regime change in your current country of residence? Better think fast, the new administration might just need a reason to take you in.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Couldn't this be used by courts in other countries to seize his foreign assets abroad and justify sanctions?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 10 hours ago

And then other countries won't do anything about it, same as with Putin and Netanyahu

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Let’s stop fucking about with such nonsense. There are far more tangible, executable solutions to the trump problem.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I’m sorry but all I got out of that was “let’s stop fucking about…executable…trump.”

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

Hello, I like to post dictionary definitions with no ulterior motives:

execution

noun

ex·​e·​cu·​tion ˌek-si-ˈkyü-shən 

Synonyms of execution

: a putting to death especially as a legal penalty