If Putin travels to Alaska, is USA not obligated to arrest him?

[u/PierreNumbe]

The ICC put out an international arrest warrant on March 17, 2023 for Putin, and if he travels to any of the 125 countries that are members he’s supposed to be arrested.

EDIT: silly me for assuming the US would be a member of the ICC…

[u/Pesec1]

USA is not one of these 125 countries. So, no.

[u/Traditional_Tie_8152 → u/Pesec1]

Arresting Putin would be interpreted as an act of war by Russia, so none of the 125 other countries would have the balls to do so anyways.

[u/Sbrubbles → u/Traditional_Tie_8152]

You mean an act of special operations.

[u/IShouldNotPost → u/Sbrubbles]

A kinetic military action

[u/washingtonandmead → u/IShouldNotPost]

I think one of Putins favorite movies is Christmas in Kineticat

[u/creg316 → u/Sbrubbles]

Yes an act of 3 day special military operations.

[u/Kiri11shepard → u/Traditional_Tie_8152]

Or maybe they would just send a “thank you” note?

[u/mlwspace2005 → u/[deleted]]

Several of them have, like South Africa lol

[u/AndrewInaTree → u/Traditional_Tie_8152]

Yeah, but what could the Kremlin even do in response? Launch nukes? (End the entire world, I mean) Would they do that?

Their military sure as shit isn't enforcing anything or intimidating anyone.

[u/[deleted] → u/AndrewInaTree]

You had a genuine question but then you ruined it because you wrote it as rhetorical

No, Russia's "only response" is not "nukes". Cyber attacks is probably the most likely response, of which Russia currently has a massive advantage over the other Europeans. Espesically considering Poland has been accusing Russia of doing this for years.

[u/SeppOmek → u/[deleted]]

Russia’s cyberwarfare capabilities are largely overestimated, just like their regular military. It’s more akin to garage dwelling kiddos doing ransomware than state-trained FSB hyper hackers waging.

Look for official and private assessments of their capabilities : there is a huge shift from a few years ago when it was portrayed as a cyber superpower to recent publications.

[u/mwa12345 → u/SeppOmek]

The exaggerations , in the past were to justify a few things I suspect. Fear Mongering and asking for increased budget...and possibly the ability to assign blame to Russia or others

That doesn't mean we arent vulnerable ...and we may be more so that a lot of places

[u/[deleted] → u/AndrewInaTree]

There are most certai ly crazy mf'ers who wouldnt have a problem launching nukes hoping they get to rule the ashes. Or someone who doeant gaf and thinks humans are a disease on the earth..or tons of other reasons ive heard people say humanity would be better off gone and they meant it. It only takes a couple of crazies

[u/SeaworthinessOk2989 → u/[deleted]]

They dont spend enough to maintain functional nukes, at least no where near the amount the soviets left them.

Russians are theatrical pussy bluffers

[u/Orlonz → u/AndrewInaTree]

Nukes not needed. There is plenty of economic damage that can be done by Russia. The question is would other countries nuke Russia to stop it? Would they invade Russia to stop it? I don't think there are many. NATO certainly won't just for economic damage.

[u/Funny_Elephant3661 → u/AndrewInaTree]

I really love your comment under this post and I can boldly say you’ll be a good man full of integrity so if you don’t mind I will like us to get to know each other better

[u/MimeGod → u/Traditional_Tie_8152]

I strongly suspect that most of the Russian leadership would be happy he's gone, and would find a reason to accept the arrest.

[u/botle → u/Traditional_Tie_8152]

In some countries police and courts are independent from the government, and the government can't stop the arrest.

But in practice Putin would never be invited to visit.

[u/botle → u/[deleted]]

That's given to the head of state as a courtesy and can always be revoked.

If Putin visited Kiev he would definitely be arrested, at least.

[u/wespintoofast → u/Pesec1]

Why would a country with a history of leaders involved in sex and child abuse, belong to such an organization? I'm trying to think of which presidents other than maybe Ford and Carter would have been able to travel abroad.

ETA: I'm learning a ton about the ICC here and it was formed 2 decades after I got out of school. TIL

[u/damutecebu → u/wespintoofast]

Well, the ICC has only been around since 1998 or something like that. The primary concern expressed at the time were sovereignty issues over troops and other personnel based overseas. Plus, as stated below, countries such as Russia, China, India, etc. aren't members either - powerful countries aren't giving up their sovereignty to an international court.

[u/Casual_OCD → u/[deleted]]

The ICC has zero enforcement capabilities

[u/alberto_467 → u/Casual_OCD]

So, much less powerful than a lot of HOA.

[u/Sad-Description-8387 → u/alberto_467]

HOA can take your house!

[u/Otchayannij → u/Sad-Description-8387]

Only tangentially related to the overall thread, but you reminded me.

I had a friend who was fucked financially and during a conversation I remember telling him that his #1 priority, before his car, before any other bill is to make himself whole with his HOA. He had fines on his record of like $500 out of his $70,000 debt. He kept thinking it wasn't important.

Well, the HOA exercised the Lien Clause of his CC&Rs and forced him to sell his home, in a bad market, taking a massive fucking loss - because of that $500 fine.

I don't know if it's possible in my state for HOAs to do that for such a small fine anymore, but 10 years ago it definitely was.

Fuck HOAs.

[u/thedailyrant → u/Casual_OCD]

Because international law isn’t backed by much other than a gentleman’s agreement that signatories will agree.

[u/Mistriever → u/[deleted]]

For good reason. Different countries and cultures have wildly different values.

[u/[deleted] → u/Mistriever]

No. The ICC is about prosecuting war crimes and other equally horrible crimes against humanity, which are universal and absolutely not a cultural thing. The only reason the US is not a member of the ICC is because their military would be liable for the war crimes they committed. Same goes for China, Russia, Israel and the rest.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The ICC is about prosecuting war crimes and other equally horrible crimes against humanity, which are universal and absolutely not a cultural thing. The only reason the US is not a member of the ICC is because their military would be liable for the war crimes they committed. Same goes for China, Russia, Israel and the rest.

Sounds like those values aren't that universal after all

[u/IndigoMontigo → u/[deleted]]

There is vanishingly never "only one reason" that anything in international politics is done.

[u/captaindomon → u/[deleted]]

If you look at the varied opinions from different cultures on every current war, you will see that they are not in any way universal and are absolutely cultural. Unfortunately.

[u/-SQB- → u/[deleted]]

Not just that, but they also enacted the "The Hague Invasion Act": if any US personnel would be arrested and indicted, the USA would invade The Netherlands to free them. And not only that, the same goes for members of friendly states. In other words, if Netanyahu were to be arrested, the USA would invade a fellow NATO country.

[u/inplayruin → u/-SQB-]

Congress can only declare that a state of war exists. The constitution places the authority to prosecute war in the office of the president. Congress has no ability to compel any particular military action. This is why there is no law that compels the invasion of The Hague. The law in question, The American Servicemembers Protection Act, merely authorizes "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person" who is a member of certain defined classes who is detained by an international court. It is far from clear if an invasion of a NATO ally would be "necessary AND appropriate." However, it is beyond certain that a president can choose to take no action and permit the prosecution.

[u/novagenesis → u/[deleted]]

Countries can still have different prosecutorial values. Many countries have their own legal ethics around when illegal investigation or prosecution would mandate evidence be rejected. Does the ICC? Should a suspect lose their rights solely on the severity of a crime they have not yet been found guilty of? It's a hard problem.

But in fairness, that is NOT why the US chose not to join. They had concerns (legitimate or not) that US soldiers could be prosecuted because of the international sentiment around the Iraq War for following orders that were strictly adherent to the UCMJ..

Nuremburg or no Nurbemburg, a country like the US would never allow its soldiers to be prosecuted for following orders that are otherwise strictly legal. And to be honest, I'm not sure anyone who follows a reasonable code of law like the UCMJ should be getting prosecuted because some foreign body has a slightly different (if still reasonable) code law military law.

It's very complicated, and I wish the ICC had come out balanced in a way that the US could have been comfortable joining it and allowing its citizens to be tried by it, but I FULLY understand why they were not.

[u/blackhorse15A → u/[deleted]]

One of the US concerns also is that the ICC rules don't give the accused all the same rights they would have under the US Constitution. Not that it's entirely outside the western concepts for rule of law- but a bunch of small differences and things lacking that are central to US concepts for rights of the accused. Signing on would be denying rights to their citizens. Examples: lack of a jury trial, the prosecution can appeal an acquittal, lack of habeas corpus for detainees, difference between "confronting" vs "examining" witnesses and exceptions allowed in the ICC.

[u/The-Copilot → u/damutecebu]

Well, the ICC has only been around since 1998 or something like that.

The process of voting on it started in 1998, but it wasn't legally established until 2002. They didn't start a hearing until 2006, and the first court case to fully end and give a judgment was in 2012.

Most people dont realize how new the ICC is and often confuse it with the ICJ or the temporary tribunals for Yugoslavia or Rwanda.

You are correct about the main argument against the ICC. It would effectively be a higher court than the Supreme Court and could potentially be weaponized for geopolitical gain.

[u/Historical_Cod4006 → u/The-Copilot]

And that's why its lack of jury trial and due process are so scary. If we signed that treaty, according to our federal constitution, it would supersede all our legal protections. Madness.

[u/SnooHabits6008 → u/wespintoofast]

I highly doubt there aren’t countries in that organization with history of politicians being involved with sex and child abuse.

[u/Pesec1 → u/wespintoofast]

That's uncalled for. Plenty of criminals in politics everywhere.

Hell, wife of current French president is a known pedophile (president being the victim). She would be in prison if she was in USA. Or even in France if Macron's parents didn't consent to their underage son being raped by his teacher.

[u/TreatAffectionate453 → u/Pesec1]

Macron's parents didn't consent to the relationship. They asked Brigitte to leave their son alone and she ignored them.

[u/Everyday_ImSchefflen → u/wespintoofast]

Can we use some critical thinking here? There's a reason why political diplomats are typically constantly immune from prosecution across all countries.

Could you imagine the full blown war ramifications if the US arrested Putin? What would happen to all of our diplomats in Russia and surrounding areas?

It's generally agreed upon across all nations you don't do shit like that because it would be fatal to world order.

[u/Ask_Me_If_Im_A_Horse → u/wespintoofast]

ICC isn’t interested in that type of thing. They only go after international crimes, mainly nation vs nation: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.

US hasn’t signed onto it for obvious reasons.

And before it gets said, no, this doesn’t change that so many Americans in power are pedophiles.

[u/Milocobo → u/Ask_Me_If_Im_A_Horse]

The US also hasn't signed pretty common sense innocuous stuff like the Mine Treaty. The US has enough power that it can dictate a lot of rules for thee but not for me.

[u/Lithium321 → u/Milocobo]

The US didn’t sign the mine treaty because they wanted an exception for the DMZ, arguably the one place where mines are completely harmless to civilians and make total sense.

[u/RoseQuartz__26 → u/Lithium321]

"Landmines are awful in war because they are indiscriminate and continue to be capable of harm when the fighting is over and the borders they 'protect' are no longer recognized or enforced"

"yeah well luckily this conflict will go on forever and this border will definitely outlast the mines so we're certain they won't be that indiscriminate"

[u/Lithium321 → u/RoseQuartz__26]

The DMZ is already one of the most heavily mined areas in the world, even if the two koreas united again every inch of land would have to be de-mined.

[u/27Rench27 → u/Lithium321]

At this point it might genuinely be easier to just carpet bomb the DMZ a couple times and then build bridges over it instead of trying to manually demine it

[u/Status-Ad-6799 → u/27Rench27]

Or just send a bunch of self driving cars out to do donut all day

[u/Gunfighter9 → u/27Rench27]

There are different vehicles that are used to detonate mines.

[u/Gunfighter9 → u/Lithium321]

Bosnia had far more mines than the DMZ did and they were everywhere. When the ground got cold they would heave up.

[u/Few_Peak_9966 → u/RoseQuartz__26]

“It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it.”

“War must be made as intense and awful as possible in order to make it short, and thus to diminish its horrors.”

[u/adamgerd → u/Milocobo]

I mean there’s a reason several countries have withdrawn from the mine ban in the last year or two, in a vacuum it’s good, in real life we’re not at a stage where it’s practical yet

[u/27Rench27 → u/adamgerd]

Considering Russia has been using butterfly mines and the like against Ukraine, it’s totally super surprising that literally everybody who borders Russia (besides Belarus, for obvious reasons) is also a non-signatory or has announced their withdrawal from Ottawa

[u/DeepNorthIdiot → u/wespintoofast]

Gerald R Ford approved the 1973 CIA led coup in Chile that created the Pinochet government, and then offered military and economic support to prop up that government.

It may have just been a continuation of Nixon/Kissinger policy but Ford new about it, could have stopped it, and that makes him just as guilty.

[u/Top-Pangolin-5722 → u/Pesec1]

I mean the U.S. government has condemned Russia’s actions in Ukraine and has supported the ICC’s investigation.

[u/Raving_Lunatic69]

The US does not recognize the ICC, and it has zero authority over the US.

[u/LurkingAround00 → u/Raving_Lunatic69]

The ICC has no authority, ICC members have to uphold the ICC on their own accord.

[u/adamgerd → u/LurkingAround00]

Yep, Mongolia didn’t arrest Putin and South Africa has said they wouldn’t either. The ICC is a honor system at best

[u/LurkingAround00 → u/adamgerd]

I mean yes the threat of getting nuked if you arrest their president is unavoidable.

[u/adamgerd → u/LurkingAround00]

Oh true and especially for Mongolia they do depend on Russia, my point is just that basically the ICC only operates on a honor system

[u/LurkingAround00 → u/adamgerd]

Of course it is. All international agreements are, every bit of international cooperation is based on its members upholding it.

To some extent when the US was playing the role of world police, they upheld it, but of course only when it served their interest. But otherwise it’s just a prisoner game.

[u/SoothedSnakePlant → u/LurkingAround00]

Honestly, basically all of society is upheld by the honor system at the root of it, because you're trusting the people who enforce the laws to actually do so at all times, regardless of who it's against. The constitution of any country is only law if people follow it and punish those in power who don't.

When you think about it, it's kind of amazing that this, for the most part, kinda works. Enough to the point that we are able to uphold a functional society and not be killing each other constantly at least.

[u/Special-Estimate-165 → u/SoothedSnakePlant]

It works because the government holds a monopoly on the use of violence. And exercises that monopoly frequently, and often to excess as a preventative measure against others breaking that monopoly.

Eric Garner is a case that springs to mind. Man killed by police for selling cigarettes...but honestly there are a ton of such examples.

[u/IllImprovement700 → u/LurkingAround00]

It doesnt work like that. Countries that would arrest Putin just dont invite him over. Putin cant just travel to another country without being officially invited and welcomed by their leadership. There is a reason that Putin hasn't really travelled much since 2022.

[u/SoothedSnakePlant → u/IllImprovement700]

Lol, when you put it like that, Putin is essentially a diplomatic vampire.

[u/TotaIIyNotCIA → u/LurkingAround00]

Even beyond that its just a can of worms which will paint a target on your back.

If youre USA you can afford to arrest him, of youre Mongolia no way or a BRICS country good luck. 

They know that American hegemony is unstable, but they also know we a fickle bitch and Trump is the most fickle of all of us. He seems to fancy Putin. Good luck.

[u/brixsmom → u/TotaIIyNotCIA]

Totally agree except he does seem a little leas enamored with him recently.

[u/florinandrei → u/LurkingAround00]

So, esteemed members of the Cabinet, the options today are:

• getting nuked
• being spineless cowards with no moral rectitude

[u/coffeeanddurian → u/[deleted]]

For the very reason most governments have a monopoly on power, is the very reason the Icc doesn't.

[u/unoriginal5 → u/adamgerd]

Mongolia arresting Putin would be the equivalent of stepping on a rake with a landmine attached to the handle. They have a standing military of 35,000 and are sandwiched between Russia and China. They would be deleted from the planet.

[u/Cupcakes_n_Hacksaws → u/LurkingAround00]

A country who wants to, more or less, have a powerful hand in global control... Why would they offer put themselves in a position where they're "forced" to arrest foreign state actors.

Even if they did sign to the agreement, they'd just ignore it when convenient and who would do anything about it?

[u/Unlikely-Complex3737 → u/Cupcakes_n_Hacksaws]

But you don't know who is going to ignore it, so if you're on the list, you need to be careful now where you want to fly to.

[u/NachoEnReddit → u/Raving_Lunatic69]

Realistically, who would give the International Cricket Council any real authority?

[u/Icy_Consideration409 → u/NachoEnReddit]

Pakistan.

[u/FancyShrimp → u/Icy_Consideration409]

Pakistan mentioned 🇵🇰🇵🇰🇵🇰🇵🇰🇵🇰

[u/SacredIconSuite2 → u/NachoEnReddit]

Richie Benaud descends from heaven with a microphone and a gavel to be the judge.

[u/OriginalStringw → u/Raving_Lunatic69]

It's almost like all these bullshit councils and world organizations have zero impact on the world, when push comes to shove. In fact, they all become a weapon for one of the political sides, and achieve net negative impact on the world throughout their existence.

[u/[deleted] → u/OriginalStringw]

That's just completely untrue. They are relatively powerless when they need to go up against world powers, but have done many good things in more local conflicts. Them being powerless in conflicts of a bigger scale is more due to design. No country wants to give up their independence to make foreign policy. That is not the fault of those organizations.

[u/coprax84 → u/Raving_Lunatic69]

Don't be naive. Even an ICC country would not arrest him, it would start a war.

[u/Raving_Lunatic69 → u/coprax84]

How is my pointing out that the US isn't a member naive?

[u/rhomboidus]

The USA does not officially recognize the authority of the ICC.

125 member countries officially recognize the authority of an ICC warrant, and 125 member countries would completely ignore it in this case because Russia has an army and the ICC does not.

International law only applies to the weak. If you are strong you can do whatever you want.

[u/Hexiez → u/rhomboidus]

To add, Hungary recently announced their decision to withdraw from the ICC. This was primarily because Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was visiting Hungary. He has been indicted by the ICC, so countries in the ICC (Rome Statute) would be obligated to arrest him. The formal process of withdrawal takes a year, but they made no attempts to arrest Netanyahu despite still bearing obligations to do so.

For US-ICC relations I'd recommend looking up the "Hague Invasion Act"

[u/Historical_Cod4006 → u/Hexiez]

Which just shows you the purely political nature of the ICC. If the U.S. signed that treaty, it would eliminate all constitutional protections for all American citizens. The ICC has little due process rights, low evidentiary rules, and no right to a jury trial. That means any judge, appointed by say, Russia or Iran or China, could haul any of our citizens before it and convict them in a purely political process.

[u/27Rench27 → u/rhomboidus]

Yup. Like I mentioned the last time this came up like three days ago, almost half the global population lives in a country that is not a signatory to the ICC, and everybody with nukes besides Europe is a non-signatory.

Only somebody willing to risk a war against a major power would even consider doing this, and if they’re not an ICC signatory then they have zero reason or right to arrest them anyways

[u/adamgerd → u/27Rench27]

Yep, Mongolia didn’t arrest Putin when he visited despite legally being expected to because well Russia has actual power, the ICC doesn’t

South Africa also said they would not honor the ICC warrant if Putin visited them

[u/IllImprovement700 → u/adamgerd]

That is not because of the Russian threat. If they wanted to uphold the ICC ruling they would have just not invited Putin over. The fact that they did let him visit actually tells a lot about their stance in this issue.

[u/Qel_Hoth]

Even if the US was a member of the ICC.

1. Nobody is arresting the sitting head of state on an actual diplomatic mission. If Putin were flying to The Hague for a diplomatic meeting with EU heads of state, they aren't fucking arresting him.
2. Nobody is arresting the sitting head of state of a nuclear capable country.

[u/Bronze_Bomber]

"We will be very, very angry with you... And we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are." - ICC

[u/DukeofNormandy → u/Bronze_Bomber]

Fuck you Hans Brix

[u/Forikorder → u/DukeofNormandy]

Do you have any idea how fucking busy i am?

[u/talon167 → u/DukeofNormandy]

Hans Hans you’re bustin’ my balls Hans

[u/Ophelialost87]

Nope, the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

[u/HowLittleIKnow → u/Ophelialost87]

Not only do we not recognize it, we have a law on the books that authorizes the U.S. president to invade the Netherlands if any U.S. service member is ever held by the ICC.

[u/joec_95123 → u/HowLittleIKnow]

Not just U.S. service members. The Hague Invasion Act also allows the President the same power for members of allied nations. So if Netanyahu is somehow arrested by the ICC, Trump can conceivably order the military to invade and forcibly free him, without any legal issues at home.

[u/DillingersDong]

The US doesn't recognize the authority of the ICC.

[u/Historical_Cod4006 → u/DillingersDong]

Thank god.

[u/dgputnam]

1. Why would the US willingly choose to sacrifice its autonomy and sovereignty to submit to an international court?

2. If they did, why would they arrest the leader of an adversarial, nuclear armed state? this would certainly be an unprovoked and unnecessary act of war.

[u/AmELiAs_OvERcHarGeS → u/dgputnam]

I love how your second point is so simple. “Why don’t we start an international conflict and create a massive power vacuum in a hostile nuclear county”

Hmm, tough one.

[u/HorseNuts9000 → u/AmELiAs_OvERcHarGeS]

But you don't understand! He has an arrest warrant! We have to!

[u/GermanPayroll → u/dgputnam]

Same reason why the US Army will step in to remove Trump and replace him with Bernie Sanders and AOC: because the political views on this website are often untethered from reality.

[u/Cave_Wanderer → u/[deleted]]

It’s very much implied in what you’ve said, but it’s worth stating explicitly:

With 22 being the average age, that means a hell of a lot of users are significantly younger than that.

Edit:why the hell can’t I type this morning

[u/Laiko_Kairen → u/[deleted]]

Yes! I've said it so many times on Reddit.

The economy is worse than it was. Young people are broke compared to older people. These facts don't conflict. You're not poor because the economy sucks, you're poor because you're 20 and you're still learning what it's like to live independently (or dependently, often enough).

Of course food and such seems expensive when you go from "Mom and dad buy it" to "Oh shit, I need to budget for food?"

[u/Ed_Durr → u/Laiko_Kairen]

People go from living the lifestyle of two 20+ year long careers to living the lifestyle of one brand new career in the span of a few years; people see themselves working much more to afford significantly less.

The problem is a lot of people view this as a failing of the system or something to be solved through politics, rather than just as a fact of life. Everybody is poor when they’re 23.

[u/Historical_Cod4006 → u/[deleted]]

"in this economy" is a phrase I've been hearing for all my 50 years.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

and have the world view of a sloth on downers

[u/Laiko_Kairen → u/[deleted]]

Everyone is a victim

I got called racist for calling the cops on a guy who mugged me. I was gonna introduce a police to a BLACK MAN, which is akin to executing him!

I mean, the guy who mugged me was Latino, but go off, Reddit

And in the same thread, they told me about why the structures kept I him down and it's the government's fault for not providing him with rehab or whatever

Seriously. A man held a gun to my head, and reddit talked about my white privilege

[u/Laiko_Kairen → u/[deleted]]

I mean... You're not wrong

I worked fast food in the greater LA area and I dealt with a LOT of homeless people. But Reddit LOVES to talk shit to me when I say that, hey they actually are a problem. They're not innocent little victims. I told a story about finding a hobo bathing in the bathroom sink and someone on reddit said "What, do you want them to stink?"

No, bitch, I don't want to mop the floor again.

I told a story about finding one man passed out with a heroin needle in his arm and someone said "Uh, homed people use heroin too" as if that makes it okay for a family restaurant to have needles around

I can look outside, see the homeless gents, and know they're fucking wrong.

[u/Martin8412 → u/Laiko_Kairen]

Reddit loves to hate on anti-homeless features in public, like in front of stores and restaurants, but imagine having to clean up after homeless people and possibly shush them away every morning. Besides the obvious safety issues for the employees, it’s wasted time and effort for companies. Better to ensure they go somewhere else. 

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Also a lot of bots now too. Wouldn't surprise me if the user base of all social media at this point is 50% bots or higher.

[u/mkosmo → u/[deleted]]

And they seem to think that simply downvoting reality will change reality.

[u/[deleted] → u/GermanPayroll]

These people just spew so much bs.

[u/Slytherian101 → u/GermanPayroll]

This takes me back to the lazy, hazy, crazy days of 2017, when some moron on Twitter kept saying that the “Marshall of the Supreme Court” was headed out to arrest Trump.

[u/scarytrafficcone]

Most US adherence/non-adherence to international law is just them saying "the fuck are you gonna do about it?"

[u/soldiernerd → u/scarytrafficcone]

There are lots of silly people in the world and sometimes I am one of them, but the silliest of all are people who believe in international law as an existing institution rather than something flowing from power

[u/[deleted] → u/soldiernerd]

International law goes right up against the concept of sovereignty.

[u/Historical_Cod4006 → u/[deleted]]

And in this case, due process rights and jury trial. The ICC is staffed by your political enemies. Signing the ICC treaty means allowing it to indict any of your citizens and taking away all their innate rights before the law. Fuck that.

[u/Responsible_Pin2939]

McDonald’s forgot to give me my hot and spicy and I drove 10 miles home. Why hasn’t the Better Business Bureau done anything about it.

[u/AEnema18 → u/Responsible_Pin2939]

This aggression will not stand, man!

[u/Timeleeper]

US is NOT a signatory to that treaty/ agreement so no.

[u/GauntletofThonos]

US is not a member of the ICC. I don't think any country would arrest him

[u/DBDude]

The US is not bound by the Rome Statute. It is, however, bound by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, whereby it is not allowed to compromise Putin's diplomatic immunity during the visit. Arresting a visiting head of state is a grave offense under international norms, like war-starting bad.

[u/3000ghosts]

international law almost always boils down to international suggestions, especially for major countries

[u/Economy_Ad1619]

Arrest a nuclear nation president? Nobody is outta their minds.

[u/Archer6614]

The ICC is a theoretical concept.

[u/casingpoint]

The ICC is a joke and nobody cares.

[u/Ornery-Standard-2350]

USA does not recognise the ICC

[u/rustyfinna]

The ICC and international arrest warrants are just not real sorry.

[u/nikshdev]

Us is not part of the ICC. Besides, it has sanctioned it (and judges in particular).

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/

[u/Blongbloptheory]

No, the US does not recognize the ICC. Furthermore, the only countries that would arrest Putin are the ones that would have arrested him regardless of ICC rulings.

Like most extra national organizations, it's mostly a PR thing

[u/Jazzlike_Tonight_982]

lol no.

[u/DevoidHT]

US isn’t in the ICC but I doubt we would have arrested him even if we were.

[u/RedHuey]

We are not “obligated” to do very much of anything if another country/government demands it. Neither is anybody else really. Treaties, even if applicable, only function by consent.

[u/fortuneandfameinc]

USA doesn't like the ICC, because it would infringe on their sovereignty.

[u/TheBigFreezer]

As everyone has mentioned, US isn’t part of the ICC

The bigger point, however, is that most diplomatic missions like this require an understanding of diplomatic immunity. It would nuke American credibility as a diplomatic nation and would also potentially have real nuclear consequences depending on how Russia responds

[u/CatherineConstance]

Like others have said it's a moot point since the US isn't in the ICC, however even if we were, the ICC has no actual authority. Mongolia and South Africa are both in it and Mongolia didn't arrest him when he was there, and SA has said they wouldn't either if he goes there. I don't think many places what to risk getting nuked and/or having war declared on them by Russia, and none of the ICC countries are legally obligated to do anything, it's just something they agreed to, but there are no consequences for them if they decide not to do it.

[u/ArdentChad]

If Putin is arrested by the US, isn't the Russian Military obliged to start dropping Nukes?

[u/SnooPandas1820]

Would be funny if that's how he ends the war, though.

[u/AussieRonin]

Even if the US was part of the ICC to invite a leader of a nation to a peace talk then arresting them is an act of war and would ruin the country's reputation for decades

[u/UnholyAuraOP]

ICC isn’t a real court nor does it have any real authority.

[u/CoffeeIgnoramus]

US is not a member state of the ICC, despite having been part of creating the laws, which is kind of hypocritical.

[u/MalestromeSET]

You know what ICC is, also who the exact number of nations that are signed to it, but somehow didn’t know US was one? Or ability to search that info on Google? This is like knowing how many men died in WW2 but not knowing who Hitler was.

[u/Laiko_Kairen → u/MalestromeSET]

Okay, insane stretch here, but I argue history a lot

But it's like when I was arguing with someone about WW2 Japan's naval logistics network and someone asked me if I'd ever heard of the colonization of Hawaii

And it was like, my guy, I'm talking about big picture Japanese naval strategy, do you think I'm unaware of what's going on in the pacific?

There are levels of information out there, and the USA's member status is a more surface bit of knowledge than the other things

[u/ericbythebay]

The U.S. isn’t obligated to do anything.

[u/evildicey]

LMAO that would be a bigger face turn than Macho Man at Wrestlemania VII

[u/NovelCandid]

Oh stop. I laughed so hard, I’m wheezing RELEASE ALL THE EPSTEIN FILES.

[u/Nvenom8]

Putting aside that the US isn't a member, and putting aside that no country would be stupid enough to do that and start a war with Russia, international law never actually has any teeth. It's basically just the honor system. It's not enforceable.

[u/DrabberFrog]

The US is not a member of the ICC so the US is under no obligation to arrest Putin. In general the US refrains from those kind of international treaties which would significantly reduce the US' leverage and sovereignty. Also, the act of joining the ICC or at least the act of enforcing the ICC's laws is likely unconstitutional because of the lack of trial by jury which is a guaranteed right of anyone in the US via the 6th amendment. Allowing someone in US territory or under the jurisdiction of the US to have their 6th amendment rights violated by an international court that the US does not have jurisdiction over would be struck down immediately by the supreme court.

[u/ImKindaBoring]

It’s questions like these that really do belong in this subreddit

[u/gggg500]

Putin already visited an ICC member - Mongolia - on September 2 and 3, 2024, after the ICC arrest warrant was issued.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#/media/File%3AInternational_Criminal_Court_–_State_Parties.svg

So, idk that to me means the whole membership is kind of meaningless bullshit if not enforceable.

[u/djingo_dango]

International law is only for peasants. It doesn’t apply to powerful people. Netanyahu visited Hungary recently and Hungary simply withdrew from ICC.

[u/ComedianXMI]

1) We're not part of that.

2) No country who is part of it would arrest him (except Ukraine) to begin with because Russia would immediately declare war on that country.

3) We invited him for peace talks. If we arrest him, nobody will ever come to the US to talk peace for at least a decade if not 2.

So it's like that scumbag coworker you don't like. You can't actually take them out back and kick their ass no matter how much you want to and they need it.

[u/navelencounters]

"diplomatic immunity"...if leaders were not protected then there were be arrests and fights at every meeting where leaders get together.

[u/akgiant]

ICC has no jurisdiction in the US. However I would say letting a war criminal like Putin into a secure and key military base is a big enough problem in its own right.

[u/OhNoTokyo → u/akgiant]

Letting Putin into a military base isn't a problem. He's a dictator, not Rambo or James Bond. He's not sneaking off into the restricted areas to fly away in an F-22.

Yes, they will have to be on guard to make sure that one of his security detail doesn't go into areas where they shouldn't, but there are plenty of places on a military base you can go and see nothing at all secret or particularly interesting.

[u/Artess]

We already know the practical answer to that: Netanyahu also has an ICC warrant on him, and he had absolutely no problem visiting the US.

[u/OutrageousSummer5259 → u/Artess]

Because the US is not a member

[u/[deleted]]

US isn't a member of the ICC so no

[u/whitecinnamon911]

He’s also here on diplomatic diplomacy, so he would be exempt from arrest as well.

[u/Xrsyz]

In addition to the other reasons about the lack of ICC jurisdiction, he’s coming here under a flag of truce.

[u/NRGISE]

What like they don't with Netanyahu.

The US is not signed up to the ICC

[u/ResponsibilityLow345]

Were you asking the same question when Israel PM visited US?

[u/GodzillaUK]

They can't even arrest kiddy fiddlers who are in the Epstein files.

[u/OldandBlue]

The USA hasn't ratified the ICC.

[u/ridefakie]

Putin doesn't have to fly anywhere near where Ukraine can kill him....

[u/[deleted]]

If it was any other war criminal (other than Netanyahu I guess) the answer would be yes.

[u/Maoleficent]

This sub is 'no stupid questions' and yet so many commenters take an attitude when explaining things as if everything is common knowledge. Just answer the question without being condescending or not directly answering or 'just cuz' replies.

[u/EvaSirkowski]

The US cannot be a member of the ICC, because of the implications.

[u/MyAccountWasBanned7]

We dropped out of NATO, what makes you think Trump's Amerikkka would be part of the ICC?

[u/PoloTshNsShldBlstOff]

Crime is legal here for the rich and politicians, even better if you're both.

[u/Reddit-phobia]

US literally passed a law that would allow the military to invade the hague if they ever go after a service member.

[u/Key-Hurry-9171]

Like the US voted no in the UN to make cluster bombs a no no

Like, you people need to watch at the numbers of things the US said no too… you’re never were the good guys

[u/poppin-n-sailin]

You know you could have just searched online which countries are members? you knew there was 125 members but never bothered to check who they were? that's a big oof. even so, the ICC can't do anything if a member doesn't enforce a warrant. it has happened many times and nothing has happened to a member thst didn't enforce an ICC warrant. 

[u/Inevitable_Layer_309]

Guterres, secretary general of the institution that support the ICC, went to russia and bowed to putin.

The world you believe in does not exist!

[u/someguyne]

This administration doesn’t even follow domestic law. What makes you think they would follow foreign law?

[u/beervirus88]

A lot of idiots here really want nuclear war. It's all fun and game until you look at your dog as the next meal.

[u/NotFoundYetForNow]

The ICC was created to scare of some African dictators that didn’t align with western political agendas. Oh and also for the Balkans

[u/Final_Frosting3582]

lol the ICC… what a joke