No kidding. Mr. "Best money we ever spent" can go to you know where for all I care. I'd love to see him branded as a war criminal. They can include his butt buddy McStain posthumously too.
Well if you are gong to be on the defensive, you might as well throw a few offensive actions, so why not sanction the ICC, who the USA have not even subscribed to?
Talk about sticking noses where they do not belong.
In any case, ICC sanctioned Putin, and Russia has not signed up to that institution either. Neither has Israel. Sanctions Schmanctions, I say.
Do you honestly think it's a good idea to let an international (globalist) body, like the ICC, have the final say in justice? Isn't that kind of like letting the WHO have the final say on your health, or letting the UN have the final say on your ability to defend your borders? Remember Milosevic? These international progressive democrats are like your domestic ones. They never prosecute the guilty, only the ones who stand in their way.
A great question that demands I consider the situation in more detail.
Firstly, although we are not a party to the ICC, Afghanistan & Palestine are. So if they choose to defer to this global body, is that not their national choice? And if the ICC has demonstrated the gumption to go after citizens of the world's most powerful countries on your behalf, for (alleged) crimes within your nation, is that not a justifiable choice?
Prompted me to review the EO where Trump pulled us out of it:
So I don't know about you, but I tend to believe Biden is the POTATUS of Trump, and that the politically impossible choices Trump needed to make get done under Biden.
So although Trump recognizes we can't be a part of the court (having the strongest military--why would we need to?), he seems to believe there are some competent people working there. And the alleged criminals they pursue seem to have a very nice overlap with cabal members.
Another fun fact, Ukraine seems to have teed up their use...
Ukraine, a non-ratifying signatory, has accepted the Court's jurisdiction for a period starting in 2013
What if Biden's recision of Trump's sanctions on ICC resolve with his corrupt family being investigated and tried?
Also worth reviewing is how the court reacted after Trump's EO.
“I believe that the future of the court depends on its willingness to prosecute the ‘hard cases’ involving powerful countries like the United States, Israel, Russia and the United Kingdom,” William Schabas, international criminal law professor at Leiden University, told AFP.
“For too long its work has been directed at developing countries and pariah states. Delivering equal justice for all means that it can tackle the strong as well as the weak.”
Maybe during that time the court was transforming from a system used to bully small countries into a system that allowed small countries to unite & defend themselves from larger powers?
My followup question for you: would that be a bad thing?
Who's "we", Lady Graham? Don't look at me, pal.
lol, its a club we are not invited into, and we are happy for that.
No kidding. Mr. "Best money we ever spent" can go to you know where for all I care. I'd love to see him branded as a war criminal. They can include his butt buddy McStain posthumously too.
Soft disclosure (that we - the congress - are the traitors of the country)?
Ole lady bug never does anything.
Well if you are gong to be on the defensive, you might as well throw a few offensive actions, so why not sanction the ICC, who the USA have not even subscribed to?
Talk about sticking noses where they do not belong.
In any case, ICC sanctioned Putin, and Russia has not signed up to that institution either. Neither has Israel. Sanctions Schmanctions, I say.
The deluded senator is rattling a toy sabre.
Et tu Gramnesty...
Somebody seems very nervous
I have zero problems with it. Go ICC.
Do you honestly think it's a good idea to let an international (globalist) body, like the ICC, have the final say in justice? Isn't that kind of like letting the WHO have the final say on your health, or letting the UN have the final say on your ability to defend your borders? Remember Milosevic? These international progressive democrats are like your domestic ones. They never prosecute the guilty, only the ones who stand in their way.
A great question that demands I consider the situation in more detail.
Firstly, although we are not a party to the ICC, Afghanistan & Palestine are. So if they choose to defer to this global body, is that not their national choice? And if the ICC has demonstrated the gumption to go after citizens of the world's most powerful countries on your behalf, for (alleged) crimes within your nation, is that not a justifiable choice?
Prompted me to review the EO where Trump pulled us out of it:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/15/2020-12953/blocking-property-of-certain-persons-associated-with-the-international-criminal-court
And ok, this is interesting, our current "President" decides not to fully rejoin the court, but to lift the sanctions that Trump had over it?
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2024/05/20/biden-reversed-trump-policy-against-icc-leaving-the-u-s-and-israel-vulnerable/
So I don't know about you, but I tend to believe Biden is the POTATUS of Trump, and that the politically impossible choices Trump needed to make get done under Biden.
So although Trump recognizes we can't be a part of the court (having the strongest military--why would we need to?), he seems to believe there are some competent people working there. And the alleged criminals they pursue seem to have a very nice overlap with cabal members.
Another fun fact, Ukraine seems to have teed up their use...
What if Biden's recision of Trump's sanctions on ICC resolve with his corrupt family being investigated and tried?
Also worth reviewing is how the court reacted after Trump's EO.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/icc-must-up-its-game-to-survive-after-us-onslaught-activists-say/
https://www.leidenlawblog.nl/articles/a-blessing-in-disguise-for-the-icc-trumps-executive-order-13928
Maybe during that time the court was transforming from a system used to bully small countries into a system that allowed small countries to unite & defend themselves from larger powers?
My followup question for you: would that be a bad thing?
"...like letting the WHO"...or the CDC..."have the final say on your health"
Some have FA and now are boomerang FO. What a great show. Pass the popcorn.