545 pts · January 17, 2017
Most countries have rules against double jeopardy and they are still party to the ICC. Also, jurisdictions rules and Art 20 of the Rome statute are designed to prevent double jeopardy. The bipartisan consensus not to join the ICC is surely based on the fact that many democrat and republican US politicians alike would be at risk for being tried, while they do not face that risk at home. The ICC’s jurisdiction just does not mix well with US foreign policy.
He most definitely did not suffer a loss on the agency case. Fact check your posts and provide sources! Supreme Court strengthens Trump's hold on key levers of government power - https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/supreme-court-strengthens-trumps-hold-key-levers-government-power-2026-06-30/
He also held much more sway over the IRGC than his son does
Partially true. We are actually a lot less transparent and communicative about that other genocide Germans committed about 35-40 years earlier. We have admitted to it yes - but too little too late in my view and we still don’t talk about it much, including in education. I guess almost no country is very honest about their colonial past but it is quite remarkable, in the worst possible way, that we have two genocides to our name within the same century.
The daily released a podcast episode about palantir and Karp (his history, his “way of thinking I guess) in December and it was quite a fascinating study of narcissism and paranoia.
Who said it was?
*on this site
That is such a weird response. We should all be transparent about our sources. There is so much misinformation out there and ostensible progressives on this side are increasingly spreading it too where it fits into existing narratives. Be better. If people are not able to find a source and you have one, provide it. It’s very hard to impossible to prove a negative. https://www.snopes.com/news/2026/01/14/one-of-ours-all-of-yours-noem-podium/The trump admin is already running with this.
Don’t even try - I’ve been downvoted for the same question/ Observation already.
I don’t think you can compare Libya to Iraq then or Venezuela now. Libya was more complex - Gaddafi did most likely commit crimes against humanity - and at least the intervention had a legal basis. The impacts were catastrophic of course and there were of course also profit and regime change motives involved. But a different case then the other two nonetheless.
But international law has rules for determining when the laws of war apply. In this context the US actually argued that they were in an armed conflict to justify the indiscriminate targeting and killing of those people. But they weren’t and aren’t.
But you do. International law has rules for determining when international humanitarian law applies and what war crimes are. One necessary element of a war crime is the context of armed conflict. Doesn’t mean what they did wasn’t illegal.
As with any news our outlet - stay critical. Politico has been a fixture for swift and salient coverage since my law studies across the EU. At the same time they have been owned by Axel Springer for a while now - which is the worst of the worst the German news media landscape has to offer. They still publish really good articles. But you gotta be aware of the potential interests in the back rooms.
the case about Tate is clear. Just questioning that DeMoor wore pink gloves to represent victims. I could not find any first hand info on that anywhere
There is no evidence for this. You really have to Start fact checking allegations that fit too comfortably into existing narratives. I see so much false info on Imgur. Otherwise you are no better than the other side.
Source?
Pretty much half the US government is people without political experience or education right now. I don’t think it’s going that well.
I mean I don’t like the guy but that’s not at all how that works. Trump was criminally indicted and appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. He didn’t open a legal case against his own government. The government opened a criminal case against him. The v. United States signals that the other party to the case is the US government cause it’s a criminal case.
Very helpful to spread unfounded mistrust and disinformation these days and in this particular situation.
You really have no idea how the EU works huh?
Also international criminal law does not apply (to this situation, for now).
You can scratch the extrajudicial. Murder is always extrajudicial. It’s just straight up murder.
While I understand the sentiment, it’s not a war crime though. Saying it is follows the argument of the us government claiming that they are in an armed conflict with drug trafficking cartels - which they are not. These are extrajudicial killings under international law. Which are of course also illegal and a violation of international human rights law. Or murder/ conspiracy to commit. So US criminal law applies as well.
In international criminal law you actually have to prove the intent to destroy. It’s not necessary for the destruction of the population to have been carried out (fully) but the intent is necessary. It’s a very high mens rea standard and incredibly difficult to argue/ proof.
Lol
Wtf. I think you are much more of an incel if you call women “thots” on the internet.
She is also the founding chair of the international advisory network of the business and human rights resource center. Her and the organization also lead a fantastic annual speaker series: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/from-us/mary-robinson-speaker-series/
Yo. We’re on the same side here. And I’ve spent a lot of time and energy and sanity working for justice. But I think it’s also important to understand the rules of the game. And I’m not only talking about the UN system. I’m talking about the very fundamental rules of IL that have existed for centuries. They can enable change but they can also make it very difficult. Especially when paired with the material conditions of our capitalist system.I support all your sentiments. And free Palestine!
I mean again, legally speaking: you join treaties voluntarily. On paper, the international legal system is based on consent and sovereign equality. But following your logic in practice: if the US cannot be compelled due to its veto power, why are non UNSC permanent members not compelled to ratify the Geneva conventions? And by whom would they be compelled?
If this is the case, then your presentation of your argument was misleading in my view. Or I misunderstood it. Also possible. If you’re not interested in the legal argument though and you are talking social conditions, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how your claim will become reality.
Most countries have rules against double jeopardy and they are still party to the ICC. Also, jurisdictions rules and Art 20 of the Rome statute are designed to prevent double jeopardy.
The bipartisan consensus not to join the ICC is surely based on the fact that many democrat and republican US politicians alike would be at risk for being tried, while they do not face that risk at home.
The ICC’s jurisdiction just does not mix well with US foreign policy.
He most definitely did not suffer a loss on the agency case. Fact check your posts and provide sources!
Supreme Court strengthens Trump's hold on key levers of government power - https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/supreme-court-strengthens-trumps-hold-key-levers-government-power-2026-06-30/
He also held much more sway over the IRGC than his son does
Partially true. We are actually a lot less transparent and communicative about that other genocide Germans committed about 35-40 years earlier. We have admitted to it yes - but too little too late in my view and we still don’t talk about it much, including in education.
I guess almost no country is very honest about their colonial past but it is quite remarkable, in the worst possible way, that we have two genocides to our name within the same century.
The daily released a podcast episode about palantir and Karp (his history, his “way of thinking I guess) in December and it was quite a fascinating study of narcissism and paranoia.
Who said it was?
*on this site
That is such a weird response. We should all be transparent about our sources. There is so much misinformation out there and ostensible progressives on this side are increasingly spreading it too where it fits into existing narratives.
Be better.
If people are not able to find a source and you have one, provide it. It’s very hard to impossible to prove a negative.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2026/01/14/one-of-ours-all-of-yours-noem-podium/
The trump admin is already running with this.
Don’t even try - I’ve been downvoted for the same question/ Observation already.
I don’t think you can compare Libya to Iraq then or Venezuela now.
Libya was more complex - Gaddafi did most likely commit crimes against humanity - and at least the intervention had a legal basis.
The impacts were catastrophic of course and there were of course also profit and regime change motives involved.
But a different case then the other two nonetheless.
But international law has rules for determining when the laws of war apply.
In this context the US actually argued that they were in an armed conflict to justify the indiscriminate targeting and killing of those people. But they weren’t and aren’t.
But you do. International law has rules for determining when international humanitarian law applies and what war crimes are. One necessary element of a war crime is the context of armed conflict.
Doesn’t mean what they did wasn’t illegal.
As with any news our outlet - stay critical. Politico has been a fixture for swift and salient coverage since my law studies across the EU. At the same time they have been owned by Axel Springer for a while now - which is the worst of the worst the German news media landscape has to offer.
They still publish really good articles. But you gotta be aware of the potential interests in the back rooms.
the case about Tate is clear.
Just questioning that DeMoor wore pink gloves to represent victims. I could not find any first hand info on that anywhere
There is no evidence for this. You really have to Start fact checking allegations that fit too comfortably into existing narratives. I see so much false info on Imgur. Otherwise you are no better than the other side.
Source?
Pretty much half the US government is people without political experience or education right now. I don’t think it’s going that well.
I mean I don’t like the guy but that’s not at all how that works. Trump was criminally indicted and appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. He didn’t open a legal case against his own government. The government opened a criminal case against him.
The v. United States signals that the other party to the case is the US government cause it’s a criminal case.
Very helpful to spread unfounded mistrust and disinformation these days and in this particular situation.
You really have no idea how the EU works huh?
Also international criminal law does not apply (to this situation, for now).
You can scratch the extrajudicial. Murder is always extrajudicial. It’s just straight up murder.
While I understand the sentiment, it’s not a war crime though.
Saying it is follows the argument of the us government claiming that they are in an armed conflict with drug trafficking cartels - which they are not.
These are extrajudicial killings under international law. Which are of course also illegal and a violation of international human rights law. Or murder/ conspiracy to commit. So US criminal law applies as well.
In international criminal law you actually have to prove the intent to destroy. It’s not necessary for the destruction of the population to have been carried out (fully) but the intent is necessary. It’s a very high mens rea standard and incredibly difficult to argue/ proof.
Lol
Wtf. I think you are much more of an incel if you call women “thots” on the internet.
She is also the founding chair of the international advisory network of the business and human rights resource center.
Her and the organization also lead a fantastic annual speaker series: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/from-us/mary-robinson-speaker-series/
Yo. We’re on the same side here. And I’ve spent a lot of time and energy and sanity working for justice.
But I think it’s also important to understand the rules of the game. And I’m not only talking about the UN system. I’m talking about the very fundamental rules of IL that have existed for centuries. They can enable change but they can also make it very difficult. Especially when paired with the material conditions of our capitalist system.
I support all your sentiments. And free Palestine!
I mean again, legally speaking: you join treaties voluntarily. On paper, the international legal system is based on consent and sovereign equality.
But following your logic in practice: if the US cannot be compelled due to its veto power, why are non UNSC permanent members not compelled to ratify the Geneva conventions?
And by whom would they be compelled?
If this is the case, then your presentation of your argument was misleading in my view. Or I misunderstood it. Also possible.
If you’re not interested in the legal argument though and you are talking social conditions, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how your claim will become reality.