• Astroturfed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    There’s literally a standing US order to invade the Hague if a US military member is tried. I’m sure they’d use that for a president… The US isn’t capable of war crimes. They said so.

      • Astroturfed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Protection_Act#:~:text=This authorization led to the,or rescue them from custody.

        “The Act authorizes the President of the United States to use “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court”. 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.”

        We’re literally locked and loaded to invade the international court if they ever try. They passed a fucking bill to say we can if the president just gives it a thumbs up.

        • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          So that’s why Putin has to watch his step, but 'murican presidents can commit all sorts of war crimes and still say they stand for “democracy and freedom”

    • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Can’t have the US be held responsible for its actions now, can we?

      • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Even if we did send them to trial, how would it go?

        Prosecution: “So you had suspicions of known terrorist group responsible for 9/11 as well as national nuclear weapons development in the region?”

        Bush: “That’s right, my defence secretary and my appointee at the CIA brought relative documents, which we’ve submitted to the court, of the aluminum tubes assumed to be weapons technology at the time. The location of the Taliban had been tracked and went cold around there, but we did capture thousands of their fighters.”

        Prosecution: “Some time after you installed a new CIA director.”

        Bush: “Coincidently, yes, these sort of changes happen often.”

        Prosecution: “Did you have any evidence of where they might have obtained the technology?”

        Bush: “That’s right, we’ve had Russian informants about their spread of weapons throughout the middle east over the decades. Some of it is still classified but some of it has been submitted to the court.”

        Prosecution: “And is it true your nation profited greatly off the Iraqi Oilfields which was Coincidently monopolized by Exxon Mobil under the leadership of Rex Tillerson who went on to become a Secretary in the Trump Administration?”

        Bush: “Well this has nothing to do with the Trump administration, I myself don’t approve of them, and I also have no personal connections with Rex. But maybe that is true, I don’t know.”

        Judge: breaks into a sweat realizing they’ll be here listening to the questioning people over this for another 2 decades and still not have a solid case

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          You’re missing

          And is it true your nation profited greatly off the Iraqi Oilfields

          “No, that is not accurate.”