I’m still patiently awaiting the day we hold those accountable for the unilaterally aggressive war that led to the unnecessary death of over 1 million Iraqis and countless Americans.
Well, the ICC has just -rightly IMO - put out a warrant for the arrest of Vladimir Putin. I’m sure the warrant for Bush Jr. is next.
Oh wait, they didn’t issue the warrant because of aggressive war, it’s due to forced deportations of children, something that AFAIK didn’t really happen in Iraq. That’s convenient.
Notably, the ICC isn’t the only organization that is involved in war crimes tribunals, nor was it the first.
The US and all allied powers, including Russia, were signatories to the Nuremberg Principles[0] which we used to prosecute the Nazis for “waging a unilaterally aggressive war.” All signatories agreed this was a war crime. What’s changed?
For the record, I think Putin should be tried for war crimes based on his invasion of Ukraine. I also believe the US should be held to the same standard.
> Well, the ICC has just -rightly IMO - put out a warrant for the arrest of Vladimir Putin. I’m sure the warrant for Bush Jr. is next.
US actions in Iraq are not subject to ICC jurisdiction because:
(1) THe US is not an ICC member, so the ICC’s jurisdiction over ICC members is not applicable,
(2) Iraq is not an ICC member, so the ICC’s jurisdiction over crimes on the territories of ICC members is not applicable,
(3) Iraq has not, as a non-member, acceded voluntarily to ICC jurisdiction over war crimes on its territory, so ICC’s jurisdiction over crimes on the territories of stats who have voluntarily acceded to its jurisdiction is not applicable.
(4) The matter was not referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council, so the ICC's jurisdiction based on Security Council referral was not applicable,
> Oh wait, they didn’t issue the warrant because of aggressive war, it’s due to forced deportations of children, something that AFAIK didn’t really happen in Iraq. That’s convenient.
Had the ICC had jurisdiction over all applicable parties and territories at the time of the US invasion of Iraq, it could not have charged anyone for aggressive war, because the definition of the crime of aggression for the purposes of ICC process was not adopted until 2010, and the provisions making it prosecutable did not go into effect until 2018.
Similarly, the ICC provisions on aggression cannot be used in Ukraine, since unlike other offenses (war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide) prosecutable by the ICC, the crime of aggression (except in cases of an UN Security Council referral, which bypasses other jurisdictional limits) is only prosecutable against State Parties to the Rome Statute who have ratified the amendments concerning the crime of aggression, and the matter in Ukraine is not subject to a Security Council referral and Russia is not a State Party to the Rome Statute. The Report of the Independent International Commission of
Inquiry on Ukraine to the UN Human Rights Council released two days ago explicitly calls out this jurisdictional issue with regard to aggression and notes [footnotes elided] “The ICC is investigating alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Ukraine. It does not have jurisdiction for the crime of aggression in Ukraine. Suggestions have been made to establish a special tribunal on aggression. Any such tribunal would have to coordinate with the ICC. Furthermore, it should have the required international legitimacy,
both with respect to its establishment and functioning. Discussions about a new tribunal should be combined with efforts to amend the ICC Statute, so that the Court’s jurisdiction over aggression is identical to the other three crimes.”
Also note that the warrants announced by the ICC in Ukraine may not be the only ones already issued; limited information about what are still technically secret warrants was published because the specific crimes appear to remain ongoing and it is hoped that the announcement of the warrants will deter further involvement in them. [1]
[1] “The Chamber considered that the warrants are secret in order to protect victims and witnesses and also to safeguard the investigation. Nevertheless, mindful that the conduct addressed in the present situation is allegedly ongoing, and that the public awareness of the warrants may contribute to the prevention of the further commission of crimes, the Chamber considered that it is in the interests of justice to authorise the Registry to publicly disclose the existence of the warrants, the name of the suspects, the crimes for which the warrants are issued, and the modes of liability as established by the Chamber.” https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-ukraine-icc-judges-is...
> Russia is not a member of the ICC either, does that pose a jurisdiction issue?
At least one of these four things must apply for the ICC to have jurisdiction (excluding for aggression, which is more limited):
(1) The accused party must be a national of a state party,
(2) the alleged offense must have occurred on the territory of a state party,
(3) exactly as either (1) or (2), but with “a state which has filed a declaration accepting jurisdiction as to its nationals or territory, as applicable” [in practice, this will presumably always be territory] in place of “a state party”.
(4) the matter was referred to the court by the UNSC.
Because Ukraine, while not a state party, has filed an open-ended declaration accepting ICC jurisdiction for offenses on its territory, such offenses, no matter the nationality of the accused, are subject to ICC jurisdiction.
Everything you listed is just a deflection. You realize the US supported and enabled iraq in the iraq iran war? So why bring it up as to imply it's the reason behind the invasion of 2003?
And yes sure, I guess russians that oppose the aggression war on ukraine are just indulging in self flagelation too.
It doesn't really change that because that doesn't really happen. It doesn't happen because one conflict flows into the next as they are all part of the larger game. These things don't happen in a vacuum.
One of Bin Laden's goals was to exact a huge financial cost, and he largely succeeded.
One of Bin Laden's goals was to foment distrust of America around the world. He succeeded.
The undermining of core liberties, the sullying of legal foundations to support the "war on terror", the vast increase in monitoring and other totalitarian state system, further radicalization of the right wing and division in the US, that was alllll gravy.
>In the last 5 years police in the USA have killed twice the rate of white people than black people, too.
I guess if we're going to unpack that, it's also worth noting that about 60% of the population of America is considered white and about 12% of the population in America is black, according to https://usafacts.org/data/topics/people-society/population-a...
Across the various years reported on the link you shared 46% of people shot to death by police were white, 22% were black. While that's more dead white people than dead black people, it's also disproportionate to the population.
While you're pondering what deaths we pay attention to, consider all the ways alcohol kills people, and how preventable that is, since we're just throwing things out there.
> In the last 5 years police in the USA have killed twice the rate of white people than black people
That's a misleading way to use the term "rate". If you adjust for relative population size, the rate at which police shoot black people in the USA is disproportionately higher (over 2.5 times) than the rate at which they shoot white people.
Are you just looking at raw numbers? Because the population size is different and in fact the link you posted says this:
> Additionally, the rate of fatal police shootings among Black Americans was much higher than that for any other ethnicity, standing at 5.9 fatal shootings per million of the population per year between 2015 and January 2023.
No, I'm just elaborating that the police-brutality issue in America is actually not really as impactful and scary as one might think, and especially not as skewed toward targeting the black population disproportionately as many propagandists might have you think. Attempting to dispel a myth or at least learn along the way.
The data other posters have responded to your post with show exactly the opposite. Policing in America and its potential negative outcomes are skewed toward black men. It’s undeniable. Traffic stop, arrest, incarceration, and shooting data all show the same story.
But I guess that’s not really what you’re arguing here, you’re saying “black men being killed by police at a rate 2.5 times higher than white men, but people think it’s worse than that,” and “people are making too much noise about black men being killed by police at a rate 2.5 times higher than white men, and they really ought to cut it out.”
The problem was that no country dared to stand up to America just like they would with Russia right now. (IMO, Russia was rightfully sanctioned for the invasion of Ukraine.) But when America invaded Iraq, who dared to sanction America? No one. And in the future, should America do it once more, the same thing would happen again.
Uh? The French literally convinced most of the UN members (except the United Kingdom) to NOT support the USA in invading Iraq. The French representative at the time directly confronted Colin Powell about the supposed "proofs" on WoMDs. They also predicted exactly what is happening today: increased terrorist risk, geopolitical instability, economic fallout etc. You can see the famous speech of Villepin at the UN on YouTube. This how the war on Iraq was deemed as illegal by the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the time.
Fun-fact this is also when French bashing started to rise in the US, coming from politicians but also throughout pop-culture.
Oh? Is this one of those symbolic UN votes that amounted to nothing? I was referring to actual sanctions all the western allies are putting on Russia right now. Options that have teeth. But no one dared to do that to America.
It had little to do with fear, look to the makeup of the coalition of the not exactly willing.
Australia had the sycophantic Howard Government at the time, declassified documents [0] reveal the decision to go to war was taken primarily with a view to enhancing its alliance with the United States.
Other Australian Governments (eg: Keating or Whitlam, etc.) would, I hope, have told the US to bugger the hell right off .. or they would have grudgingly gone along on the basis of having mutual treaties (that didn't strictly apply to Rambo Missions).
The UK had Blair who apparently really really believed that the UK's "special relationship" with the US could temper their excesses in a rash post 9/11 PTSD induced revenge mission [1].
The handfull of lessor players were in it for the promised carrots (with a few having a minor twist of fear of the alternatives should they not go along - but the US at the time was over promising to gain paid allies).
more like: perpetual war for perpetual profits of the military-industrial complex.
Eisenhower (who had been a five-star general before becoming president) warned about it in 1961… he saw it coming, but people didn't listen or didn't care:
> we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together
- WMDs...were a lie. An obvious and intentional lie. A lie that no one seems to remember. Maybe our collective consciousness is too embarrassed?
-Aside from the shock & awe phase, there was little media coverage. Contrast that with Russia and Ukraine. Yet another subtle example of how The Media (at least in the USA) has lost its journalistic integrity.
- Opportunity cost. Combine Iraq with Afghanistan and that's a lot of lives, time and resources gone. Forever. Imagine even half of that used to move the needle in a positive direction.
- The Military Industrial Complex - It's not a conspiracy theory. It is real. The Biden Administration has push the DOD budget over $800 BILLION and was effectively met with crickets. Money we don't have to over-spend on things that we don't need.
> There is certainly a lot to criticize about this particular boondoggle
The Iraq War was not a boondoggle. Or, rather, it was a boondoggle, but that’s not the main problem with it. The main problem with it was it was a blatantly unprovoked war of aggression, covered with what were often utterly transparently, immediately not only debunked but with receipts to show that it was impossible for the people telling them to have believed them, lies.
(The secondary problem with it is also not that it was a massive boondoggle, but rather than this completely unnecessary unprovoked war of aggression – a crime, I might note, that we hung people for at Nuremberg – was also that it was launched in the middle of and taking focus from another war, which whatever other faults it might have had, was at least reasonably arguably a defensive war targeting a force that had launched attacks on the US and those actively protecting them – by pushing that war into a holding pattern it intensified and extended chaos and suffering which could have been much shortened, and guaranteed that, if any decent end to the other war had otherwise been possible, that opportunity was pissed away.)
Sure, the best way to counter these Sino/Russo efforts is by censoring information that is actually true. That must add confidence and trust to the system right?
I am against censorship, the subject itself is perfectly worthy. These particular efforts effectively mix true(ish) information with untrue information meant to inflame tensions and divisions and demoralize people.
Feeding the trolls does not increase confidence and trust in anything. When threads don't go off the rails like that, criticize away, no objections.
I think it's really demoralizing to people who cherish free speech and the sharing of knowledge to see these inflammatory insinuations. Suggesting a moderator act to censor discussion in an attempt to limit the spread of the work of Iraqi scholars at rigorous and highly respected universities who are both in their area of expertise and speaking about their homeland does not have a charitable interpretation that I could find.
Given that you've been posting here for a decade and know or should know all the guidelines your comment is violating, I think there's a good case to be made that the community would benefit from an enforced break from your posting so that you can reflect on them.
Per the guidelines:
>Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate.
>Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. That tramples curiosity
>Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken.
>Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents.
>Please don't post shallow dismissals
I would have simply flagged your comment if I had sufficient karma to do so.
Americans looted Iraq oil, so that war wasnt that costly. They tried to do the same with Afghanistan lithium mines, but in 20 years Americans never ever able to control the land greater than 50%. So the majority of Bush war cost wjich amounts to 10-20T weigh down by Afghan humiliating defeat.
Should be any day now, right? Right?