This. It’s to protect themselves against any potential future investigations.

I dont thimk they are that rational and planning ahead. It is reflection of their values and feelings.

It is ideological. Both of them and their close rich supporters feel ICC goals are abomination on itself, they put limits on power and they are therefore "bad" and "tyranny".

Hegseth dont plan. As evidenced by Iran war daily. Trump dont plan legal issues. They dont exist in his head at all.

Then maybe he should write off his Greenland ambitions.

This is because of the US's unwavering support of Israel no matter what they do.

You can not blame all of the worlds ills on Russia, seemingly the most powerful and least capable nation at the same time.

ICC and ICJ have different roles. The ICJ's subjects are countries whereas the ICC deals with individuals.

In this case, the ICC has jurisdiction because the alleged crimes were committed in the territory of a signatory (Palestine) and because Palestine indeed found itself unable to prosecute them.

ICC has jurisdiction in the signatory countries themselves.

Since when US requires "jurisdiction" for it's actions?

> The US withdrew its signature all the way back in 2002.

Yeah, I guess international law was rather incompatible with their ambitions at the time. Fair play to them though, they certainly made the most of it.

Well many of the countries where the war crimes happened are signatories to the ICC, so that isn't gonna be the problem you think it is.

Also: the US acting as a rouge state is not a power move it is a sign of moral decay, corruption and a critical failure to uphold the principles laid out in its own (wonderfully written!) Declaration of Independence.

It is just sad to see how hollowed out these great ideals have become.

> You've already condemned people without access to any good evidence.

And the live-streamed genocide that the world has watched over the past 3 years doesn't qualify as evidence? That's odd because I could have sworn the United Nations, The International Association of Genocide Scholars, B'Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, and Human Rights Watch had all labeled Israel's actions against Palestinians as genocide.

America's evidence against that? Israel says so.

> US defense requires the ability to do everything Israel did against Gaza

Since when does defence require killing innocent women and children indiscriminately? At what point does that sort of defence reach a level of inhumanity that you're willing to concede that it's genocidal?

As a Jewish man following true Jewish morals, I will stand by the statements of these international bodies that find Israel and its leaders guilty of committing genocide. Never again cannot mean only for jews; it can only be morally just when applied to everyone.

What are you trying to say? Are you implying there is no good evidence that Netenyahu is committing war crimes in Gaza? Whether or not their actions are justified, war crimes are not.

I've updated the language there a bit, but the meaning is the same.

>There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term benefit of powerful countries.

Yes, but it doesn't matter. The entire concept of truly sovereign states existing is the point. The second a state wants to leave the agreement, they just stop cooperating. There is no "greater sovereign" with which you can enforce these rules, and if there is -- say, a bigger country invading a smaller country to enforce the rules -- you're once again in a state of war, and none of the rules mattered in the first place.

> playing by [...] international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries.

Ah, but are the interests of their leaders aligned with the interests of the countries?

(Side note: it's so charmingly cute we now [pretend to?] care about AI alignment, when the much simpler problem of politician alignment remains unsolved.)

> There's a fairly good case to be made that playing by, and being able to set, international norms is in the long term interest of powerful countries.

There's also a fairly good case to be made that not playing by international norms is in the long term interest of powerful (and not powerful) countries.

For example, China didn't get to be the likely second superpower by respecting intellectual property rights, South China Sea territorial claims, human rights, intellectual pluralism, environmental protections, or any of the other things that the post-Cold War international order considered important, especially prior to 9/11.

The only thing that ultimately matters is if you make the right people the right amount of money at the right time. China does this through cheap labor and by setting up supply chains that the rest of the world either can't or won't, particularly with regard to workers' rights and environmental concerns.

I'd rather have no overlord, but between China and the US, the one abusing its power to force deals since the 80s us obviously the worst.

Hegseth himself literally committed a war crime already. Simply declaring no quarter is itself a war crime. On the other hand, it makes both the current SecDef and any 14 year old COD player feel REALLY badass.

Giving your own personnel or enemy personnel the impression you are pursuing a policy of no quarter is itself a war crime.