18 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

That is a classic straw man argument.

Challenging the jurisdiction of an unelected foreign tribunal is not the same as saying war crimes shouldn't be prosecuted—and pretending otherwise only proves you've run out of legal arguments.

Sovereign nations prosecute crimes every day under their own constitutional court systems. The issue isn't whether atrocities should be punished; it’s whether an international court can unilaterally override a non-member nation's domestic judiciary and constitutional rights without its consent.

Claiming non-signatories can travel 'without any problems' completely ignores history and international law.

Universal jurisdiction, ad-hoc tribunals, and bilateral extradition treaties existed long before the ICC and continue to hold perpetrators accountable.

Refusing to hand sovereign authority over to an unelected tribunal isn't a free pass for war criminals; it's a defense of constitutional rule of law.

As I already have wrote, it's your right to have this oppinion. The attempt to portray the ICC as an "illegally operating institution" that shouldn't even exist is your personal oppinion.

And your repetition of an "unelected foreign tribunal" is bs.

If Trump, Putin and BB don't want to belong to ICC they have no rights in electing.

I think you as an "proud american" voter wouldn't want that foreigners from other countries would be allowed to vote in the US...

So Trump can go on ranting that the ICC is not allowed to exist. It doesen't matter, as the USA aren't members.

End of the story...

16 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

As I already have wrote, it's your right to have this oppinion. The attempt to portray the ICC as an "illegally operating institution" that shouldn't even exist is your personal oppinion.

And your repetition of an "unelected foreign tribunal" is bs.

If Trump, Putin and BB don't want to belong to ICC they have no rights in electing.

I think you as an "proud american" voter wouldn't want that foreigners from other countries would be allowed to vote in the US...

So Trump can go on ranting that the ICC is not allowed to exist. It doesen't matter, as the USA aren't members.

End of the story...

Calling basic principles of treaty law 'bs' doesn't magically make them disappear.

Pointing out that an international court is unelected and lacks authority over non-members isn't an 'opinion'—it is a fundamental rule of international law enshrined in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention, which explicitly dictates that treaties cannot create obligations or delegate authority over non-consenting third parties.

Your voting analogy actually proves my exact point.

Just as foreigners cannot vote in US elections to dictate American laws, an international court that Americans never voted for, ratified, or consented to cannot claim legal jurisdiction over American citizens.

The US, India, China, and dozens of other nations didn't just 'refuse to vote'—they explicitly rejected the treaty itself.

Under standard public international law, a court cannot grant itself power over people who never gave their consent to be ruled by it.

The REAL end of story.

On 7/27/2026 at 8:51 AM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Clearly Marco Rubio understands the law better than you do, there again he does actually have a law degree and was an attorney!

Indeed, it seems there are many people in this forum who pretend to know what they are talking about.

This thread is a great example!🤣

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Calling basic principles of treaty law 'bs' doesn't magically make them disappear.

Pointing out that an international court is unelected and lacks authority over non-members isn't an 'opinion'—it is a fundamental rule of international law enshrined in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention, which explicitly dictates that treaties cannot create obligations or delegate authority over non-consenting third parties.

Your voting analogy actually proves my exact point.

Just as foreigners cannot vote in US elections to dictate American laws, an international court that Americans never voted for, ratified, or consented to cannot claim legal jurisdiction over American citizens.

The US, India, China, and dozens of other nations didn't just 'refuse to vote'—they explicitly rejected the treaty itself.

Under standard public international law, a court cannot grant itself power over people who never gave their consent to be ruled by it.

The REAL end of story.

To keep it very simple:

If you have been charged with and convicted of genocide by the ICC - regardless of where you committed the crime - you will not be arrested as long as you are not in a country that recognizes the ICC.

Trump, Putin, BB, Kim jong un can rant about it as long as they want to, it doesen't change anything.

But if you (and Trump) enjoy trying to change a jurisdiction located outside the USA, go ahead :-)).

3 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said:

To keep it very simple:

If you have been charged with and convicted of genocide by the ICC - regardless of where you committed the crime - you will not be arrested as long as you are not in a country that recognizes the ICC.

Trump, Putin, BB, Kim jong un can rant about it as long as they want to, it doesen't change anything.

But if you (and Trump) enjoy trying to change a jurisdiction located outside the USA, go ahead :-)).

Nobody is trying to "change jurisdiction outside the USA." The point i am making is basic international law.

An international court has zero legal authority over citizens of nations that explicitly refused to sign its treaty.

When a tribunal in The Hague, for example, claims the power to arrest citizens of non-member countries, it isn't just exercising local foreign jurisdiction—it is attempting illegal extraterritorial control over non-consenting sovereign citizens (Vienna Convention, Art. 34).

Rejecting a treaty your nation never signed isn't "ranting"; it is the fundamental principle of national sovereignty.

11 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

An international court has zero legal authority over citizens of nations that explicitly refused to sign its treaty.

Jurisdiction of ICC

The Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:

the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court;

or

the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.

So the question is, why is Trump afraid from the ICC, as the US is not part of it?

Or do you think he might be guilty for one of these?

• the crime of genocide

• crimes against humanity

• war crimes which are grave breaches of the Geneva conventions

• crime of aggression

Just because your "Leader" doesn't want the ICC, it will not change a single thing. Or maybe you hail BB and his genocide in Gaza, that would explain your posts.

2 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

Jurisdiction of ICC

The Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:

the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court;

or

the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) pursuant to a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.

So the question is, why is Trump afraid from the ICC, as the US is not part of it?

Or do you think he might be guilty for one of these?

• the crime of genocide

• crimes against humanity

• war crimes which are grave breaches of the Geneva conventions

• crime of aggression

Just because your "Leader" doesn't want the ICC, it will not change a single thing. Or maybe you hail BB and his genocide in Gaza, that would explain your posts.

Citing Article 12 of the Rome Statute misses the foundational rule of international law: a treaty cannot create legal obligations or binding authority over non-signatory third states without their explicit consent (pacta tertiis principle, codified in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

A subset of nations creating a court via a regional or multilateral treaty cannot grant that court sovereign jurisdiction over citizens of non-party states who never signed or ratified the contract.

Bipartisan U.S. policy—spanning Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden—has consistently rejected ICC authority, not out of "fear," but because the ICC lacks essential constitutional protections like jury trials and due process guaranteed to citizens under national law.

That is why Congress passed the bipartisan American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) back in 2002 to legally shield citizens from foreign judicial overreach.

Jumping to personal assumptions about "who I hail" or throwing around accusations of supporting war crimes is a classic deflection. Challenging the legal legitimacy and extra-territorial overreach of a treaty-based court is a debate over international law and state sovereignty, not an endorsement of any individual politician.

4 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Citing Article 12 of the Rome Statute misses the foundational rule of international law: a treaty cannot create legal obligations or binding authority over non-signatory third states without their explicit consent (pacta tertiis principle, codified in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

A subset of nations creating a court via a regional or multilateral treaty cannot grant that court sovereign jurisdiction over citizens of non-party states who never signed or ratified the contract.

Bipartisan U.S. policy—spanning Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden—has consistently rejected ICC authority, not out of "fear," but because the ICC lacks essential constitutional protections like jury trials and due process guaranteed to citizens under national law.

That is why Congress passed the bipartisan American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) back in 2002 to legally shield citizens from foreign judicial overreach.

Jumping to personal assumptions about "who I hail" or throwing around accusations of supporting war crimes is a classic deflection. Challenging the legal legitimacy and extra-territorial overreach of a treaty-based court is a debate over international law and state sovereignty, not an endorsement of any individual politician.

Again: It doesen't matter, as the USA aren't members.

It will not change because certain countries like Russia, North Korea, Israel and the once respected and now so called "hottest contry of the world" 💩 (USA) don't agree to it.

I can live with that. If you and autocrats / dictators can't - not my problem.

It is a damning indictment that, in this day and age - with the knowledge of the suffering caused by World War II - political leaders accept or even actively support war crimes and genocide.

45 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Citing Article 12 of the Rome Statute misses the foundational rule of international law: a treaty cannot create legal obligations or binding authority over non-signatory third states without their explicit consent (pacta tertiis principle, codified in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

A subset of nations creating a court via a regional or multilateral treaty cannot grant that court sovereign jurisdiction over citizens of non-party states who never signed or ratified the contract.

Bipartisan U.S. policy—spanning Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden—has consistently rejected ICC authority, not out of "fear," but because the ICC lacks essential constitutional protections like jury trials and due process guaranteed to citizens under national law.

That is why Congress passed the bipartisan American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) back in 2002 to legally shield citizens from foreign judicial overreach.

Jumping to personal assumptions about "who I hail" or throwing around accusations of supporting war crimes is a classic deflection. Challenging the legal legitimacy and extra-territorial overreach of a treaty-based court is a debate over international law and state sovereignty, not an endorsement of any individual politician.

ICC has indicted many wicked and evil people who have committed genocide, crime against humanity and war crimes and you are more concerned with an academic subject of jurisdiction. You have a misplaced concern.

3 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

Again: It doesen't matter, as the USA aren't members.

It will not change because certain countries like Russia, North Korea, Israel and the once respected and now so called "hottest contry of the world" 💩 (USA) don't agree to it.

I can live with that. If you and autocrats / dictators can't - not my problem.

It is a damning indictment that, in this day and age - with the knowledge of the suffering caused by World War II - political leaders accept or even actively support war crimes and genocide.

Lumping a constitutional republic in with North Korea simply because it refuses to subject its citizens to an un-elected foreign tribunal without basic jury trial protections is a masterclass in lazy moral grandstanding.

Pointing out standard international law—that a treaty cannot bind non-signatory nations without their consent —isn't "supporting war crimes"; it’s basic legal reality.

The U.S. helped write the Geneva Conventions and built the post-WWII legal order, but refusing to surrender domestic constitutional rights to an extra-judicial court with zero democratic accountability doesn't make someone a dictator—it means they understand sovereignty.

If your only move left is equating constitutional due process with endorsing genocide, you’ve run out of actual arguments.

17 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

If your only move left is equating constitutional due process with endorsing genocide, you’ve run out of actual arguments

Since you're unwilling or unable to see the real reason for this, you have had no actual arguments from the beginning.

20 hours ago, stevenl said:

Since you're unwilling or unable to see the real reason for this, you have had no actual arguments from the beginning.

Dismissing a jurisdictional argument as "no actual argument" doesn't answer the point—it avoids it, proving the original critique that when forced to address the framework of international law, the response is to bypass the facts and rely entirely on emotional appeal.

International law is not a moral cafeteria where you pick and choose when due process applies based on how strongly you feel about an outcome, and no amount of dismissiveness changes the concrete legal reality.

Non-signatories to the Rome Statute never surrendered judicial sovereignty under the Vienna Convention, the ICC's own principle of complementarity forbids it from overriding functioning democratic court systems, and constitutional guarantees like trial by jury and judicial review are non-negotiable protections that the ICC simply does not provide.

Labeling adherence to treaty jurisdiction and constitutional law as a lack of an argument is just a tactic to hide a weak position—if the ICC can unilaterally rewrite its own jurisdictional boundaries, it isn't enforcing the rule of law, it's replacing it with political grandstanding.

9 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Dismissing a jurisdictional argument as "no actual argument" doesn't answer the point—it avoids it, proving the original critique that when forced to address the framework of international law, the response is to bypass the facts and rely entirely on emotional appeal.

International law is not a moral cafeteria where you pick and choose when due process applies based on how strongly you feel about an outcome, and no amount of dismissiveness changes the concrete legal reality.

Non-signatories to the Rome Statute never surrendered judicial sovereignty under the Vienna Convention, the ICC's own principle of complementarity forbids it from overriding functioning democratic court systems, and constitutional guarantees like trial by jury and judicial review are non-negotiable protections that the ICC simply does not provide.

Labeling adherence to treaty jurisdiction and constitutional law as a lack of an argument is just a tactic to hide a weak position—if the ICC can unilaterally rewrite its own jurisdictional boundaries, it isn't enforcing the rule of law, it's replacing it with political grandstanding.

A pity you don't see the real issue here.

6 minutes ago, stevenl said:

A pity you don't see the real issue here

the real issue is socialist jew hate.

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

A pity you don't see the real issue here.

Well why don't you elucidate and say what you think the 'real issue' is?

14 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Well why don't you elucidate and say what you think the 'real issue' is?

Done that quite a few times already, with you responding as well. Each and every time avoiding the real issue the US has with the ICC.

52 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Done that quite a few times already, with you responding as well. Each and every time avoiding the real issue the US has with the ICC.

Well instead of beating about the bush just say what's on your mind, instead of obfuscating? Just say what is the 'real issue'?

Without the ICC how can we punish small things like genocide, war crimes, government sanctioned murder (Dutuerte), stealing children (Putin)?

Those who want the ICC dismantled, perhaps you’d like to explain your solution to those crimes?

23 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Without the ICC how can we punish small things like genocide, war crimes, government sanctioned murder (Dutuerte), stealing children (Putin)?

Those who want the ICC dismantled, perhaps you’d like to explain your solution to those crimes?

The ICC doesn't actually stop or punish dictators—it produces unenforceable paper warrants while costing hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

Individuals like Putin or Duterte aren't deterred by The Hague because the court has no police force and relies entirely on state cooperation.

Real accountability for war crimes has always come from targeted national sanctions, domestic courts exercising universal jurisdiction, ad-hoc regional tribunals, and direct geopolitical leverage—not from handing over national legal sovereignty to an unelected international body with zero enforcement power?

The argument that the ICC is an essential global safety net ignores its actual track record: in nearly 24 years and after spending over €2.5 billion, the court has managed only 7 convictions for core international crimes—costing roughly €350 million per successful trial.

Lacking an enforcement branch or military power, it generates unenforceable paper warrants that tyrants freely ignore, while ad-hoc regional courts and national tribunals historically process far more cases at a fraction of the cost.

12 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Individuals like Putin or Duterte aren't deterred by The Hague

Du30 might be a little bit deterred as he's currently locked up in the Hague.

6 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Du30 might be a little bit deterred as he's currently locked up in the Hague.

Fair point to call out—former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was indeed arrested in Manila in March 2025 and transferred to ICC custody in The Hague to face trial for crimes against humanity.

However, his custody actually illustrates the very limitation being discussed: the ICC still couldn't enforce anything on its own.

Duterte wasn't "deterred" while in power: During his presidency (2016–2022), he openly mocked the ICC, withdrew the Philippines from the Rome Statute in 2018, and continued his anti-drug campaign unimpeded. The court was powerless to touch him while he held state power.

He was handed over due to local domestic politics, not ICC power: Duterte was only arrested after he left office and after his fierce political rival, sitting President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr., used the Philippine police and Interpol to execute the warrant.

3 hours ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Real accountability for war crimes has always come from targeted national sanctions, domestic courts exercising universal jurisdiction, ad-hoc regional tribunals, and direct geopolitical leverage—not from handing over national legal sovereignty to an unelected international body with zero enforcement power?

The argument that the ICC is an essential global safety net ignores its actual track record: in nearly 24 years and after spending over €2.5 billion, the court has managed only 7 convictions for core international crimes—costing roughly €350 million per successful trial.

As weak as the ICC may be but it has a set of rules and laws on which its judges have to act without prejudice and favoring any person.

Those sanctions and domestic courts and whatever you mentioned have sensationally failed when it came to protect the people of Palestine which Israel has been slaughtering for more than 1000 days now, same as Afghanistan or Iraq or all the other countries the US decided to destabilize in favor of their real masters, the Zionists.

The ICC was at least able to call a spade a spade and Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal, the same guy who went to U.S. Congress a few months earlier and got more than 50 standing ovations while lying in their faces telling them less than two dozen civilians have been killed.

A mass murderer and child slayer getting standing ovations from the leaders of the most powerful country on our planet - what a disgrace.

21 hours ago, Somjot said:

As weak as the ICC may be but it has a set of rules and laws on which its judges have to act without prejudice and favoring any person.

Those sanctions and domestic courts and whatever you mentioned have sensationally failed when it came to protect the people of Palestine which Israel has been slaughtering for more than 1000 days now, same as Afghanistan or Iraq or all the other countries the US decided to destabilize in favor of their real masters, the Zionists.

The ICC was at least able to call a spade a spade and Benjamin Netanyahu a war criminal, the same guy who went to U.S. Congress a few months earlier and got more than 50 standing ovations while lying in their faces telling them less than two dozen civilians have been killed.

A mass murderer and child slayer getting standing ovations from the leaders of the most powerful country on our planet - what a disgrace.

To argue that the ICC operates as an unbiased instrument of justice simply because it issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu ignores how deeply compromised and politically vulnerable the institution actually is.

The pursuit of high-profile targets like Netanyahu does not erase the systemic reality that the court's actions are routinely entangled in geopolitical maneuvering, intense external pressure, and severe institutional crises and they waste Billions of euros.

The integrity of the court's legal crusade against figures like Netanyahu has been severely undermined by internal corruption and scandal, culminating in the historic ousting of the ICC's own chief prosecutor following findings of serious misconduct.

When the very architects of these high-profile indictments are mired in systemic misconduct and disciplinary downfall, it lays bare an institution susceptible to internal rot, casting deep doubt on the notion that it acts as a pristine moral arbiter above political and personal prejudice.

The IDF have killed civilians and children, no argument, but you are naive to think they did this out of spite or on purpose.

Hamas deliberately embeds its military infrastructure, rocket launchers, and command centers within dense civilian populations, schools, hospitals, and refugee camps precisely to exploit civilian casualties for propaganda and it works.

If the IDF chooses not to strike because civilians are present, Hamas retains its military capability to fire rockets and launch attacks with impunity. If they do strike to eliminate the military threat, the resulting civilian casualties and structural devastation are integrated directly into the adversary's information and propaganda strategy.

While is is extremely sad that any civilians get drawn into this, you are over simplifying what is going on.

BiBi is not a war criminal, he is innocent until convicted and has only been indicted, not for mass murder, which is domestic criminal offense (typically defined as killing multiple people during a single incident or short timeframe). Netanyahu has never been charged with, tried for, or convicted of domestic murder or mass murder in any court.

The ICC formally charged him as a co-perpetrator with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

To sum up the ICC is grossly inefficient, the facts speak for themselves.

Is there collateral damage in war...sadly, yes.

The "real masters" trope is flat-out false. There is no hidden cabal or group of "Zionist masters" pulling the strings of global superpowers.

Attributing complex international conflicts, military interventions, and superpower foreign policies to secret puppet masters is a baseless conspiracy theory, not political reality.

On 7/28/2026 at 10:52 AM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Citing Article 12 of the Rome Statute misses the foundational rule of international law: a treaty cannot create legal obligations or binding authority over non-signatory third states without their explicit consent (pacta tertiis principle, codified in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

A subset of nations creating a court via a regional or multilateral treaty cannot grant that court sovereign jurisdiction over citizens of non-party states who never signed or ratified the contract.

Bipartisan U.S. policy—spanning Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden—has consistently rejected ICC authority, not out of "fear," but because the ICC lacks essential constitutional protections like jury trials and due process guaranteed to citizens under national law.

That is why Congress passed the bipartisan American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA) back in 2002 to legally shield citizens from foreign judicial overreach.

Jumping to personal assumptions about "who I hail" or throwing around accusations of supporting war crimes is a classic deflection. Challenging the legal legitimacy and extra-territorial overreach of a treaty-based court is a debate over international law and state sovereignty, not an endorsement of any individual politician.

You are right that the ICC "cannot create legal obligations or binding authority over non-signatory third states without their explicit consent"

Ĥowever, it can exercise jurisdiction over individuals who are nationals of non‑member states, in two ways:

• Territorial juridiction (the most frequent way): If a crime occurs on the territory of an ICC member state, the ICC has jurisdiction even if the perpetrator is from a non‑member state.

• UN Security Council referrals, ex. Darfour and Lybia

A non-member State can also voluntarily accept ICC jurisdiction for specific events, ex. Ukraine since 2014.

1 hour ago, candide said:

You are right that the ICC "cannot create legal obligations or binding authority over non-signatory third states without their explicit consent"

Ĥowever, it can exercise jurisdiction over individuals who are nationals of non‑member states, in two ways:

• Territorial juridiction (the most frequent way): If a crime occurs on the territory of an ICC member state, the ICC has jurisdiction even if the perpetrator is from a non‑member state.

• UN Security Council referrals, ex. Darfour and Lybia

A non-member State can also voluntarily accept ICC jurisdiction for specific events, ex. Ukraine since 2014.

You are absolutely correct.

However, while this mechanism gave the court the legal right on paper to issue the warrant, it collides directly with the enforcement reality:

Netanyahu can still freely travel to non-ICC states or allied nations that refuse to honor the warrant, rendering it a restriction on his international mobility rather than a physical arrest.

On 8/2/2026 at 12:56 PM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

The IDF have killed civilians and children, no argument, but you are naive to think they did this out of spite or on purpose.

Are you serious?

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of proofs that the IDF intentionally murdered civilians and children.

They even proudly admit it.

Ever heard the name Hind Rajab?

They even openly discussed the right to rape in the Knesset.

They issued a death law only for Palestinians.

20,000 dead children, not only a few of them with bullets in their heads, chests and abdomen depending on the day of the week.

And you keep telling the fairy tale of the command centers in schools, hospitals and refugee camps.

You might want to read some of these articles to educate yourself, although I doubt they will change your mind and you will try to keep up that forever victimhood of the Israelis despite right now they are the biggest murderers on our planet.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/09/the-gaza-family-torn-apart-by-idf-snipers-from-chicago-and-munich

Two girls shot in Gaza - BBC pieces together what happene...

Layan and Mira were killed in proximity to IDF soldiers - the Israeli military says intentional harm to civilians is prohibited and their cases will be examined by the authorities.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/06/1167790

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/29/is-it-israels-aim-to-kill-our-children-west-bank-parents-implore-end-to-idfs-child-killings-with-impunity

https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/06/1167790

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/14/foreign-doctors-say-israel-systematically-targeting-gazas-children-report

https://gjia.georgetown.edu/human-rights-development/infanticide-in-the-name-of-proportionality-gaza-as-a-world-order-problem/

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/06/24/middleeast/israel-targeting-children-report-un-intl

Israel is and has been slaughtering civilians and children. Look at this report from more than 20 years ago.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1226264/

And now call me naive again.

I am not even naive enough to believe that you didn't know all of this, you just tried to hide it with the again and again repeated hasbara lies, which makes you complicit.

On 8/2/2026 at 1:56 AM, Smokey and the Bandit said:

The integrity of the court's legal crusade against figures like Netanyahu has been severely undermined by internal corruption and scandal, culminating in the historic ousting of the ICC's own chief prosecutor following findings of serious misconduct.

I can't see that this has been posted to AN:

International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan dismissed

24 July 2026 Law and Crime Prevention

Member States of the International Criminal Court dismissed its Prosecutor Karim Khan following disciplinary proceedings related to widely reported sexual misconduct allegations at an emergency session at UN Headquarters in New York on Friday.

The decision was made by simple majority during a closed-door vote among the 125-member Assembly of States Parties to dismiss Mr. Khan, who Member States had elected to serve a nine-year term as the court’s prosecutor in 2021.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/07/1168025

Apparently Khan was horny as hell and couldn't keep his hands off the women who worked in his office.

The International Criminal Court puts its house in order

But a new chief prosecutor will not end its troubles

When Karim Khan was running for the job of leading the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, the committee assigned to selecting candidates made no bones about his shortcomings. He was not among the most highly qualified, it said ...

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/07/30/the-international-criminal-court-puts-its-house-in-order

11 hours ago, Somjot said:

Are you serious?

There are literally hundreds if not thousands of proofs that the IDF intentionally murdered civilians and children.

They even proudly admit it.

Ever heard the name Hind Rajab?

They even openly discussed the right to rape in the Knesset.

They issued a death law only for Palestinians.

20,000 dead children, not only a few of them with bullets in their heads, chests and abdomen depending on the day of the week.

And you keep telling the fairy tale of the command centers in schools, hospitals and refugee camps.

You might want to read some of these articles to educate yourself, although I doubt they will change your mind and you will try to keep up that forever victimhood of the Israelis despite right now they are the biggest murderers on our planet.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/09/the-gaza-family-torn-apart-by-idf-snipers-from-chicago-and-munich

Two girls shot in Gaza - BBC pieces together what happene...

Layan and Mira were killed in proximity to IDF soldiers - the Israeli military says intentional harm to civilians is prohibited and their cases will be examined by the authorities.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/06/1167790

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/29/is-it-israels-aim-to-kill-our-children-west-bank-parents-implore-end-to-idfs-child-killings-with-impunity

https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/06/1167790

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/14/foreign-doctors-say-israel-systematically-targeting-gazas-children-report

https://gjia.georgetown.edu/human-rights-development/infanticide-in-the-name-of-proportionality-gaza-as-a-world-order-problem/

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/06/24/middleeast/israel-targeting-children-report-un-intl

Israel is and has been slaughtering civilians and children. Look at this report from more than 20 years ago.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1226264/

And now call me naive again.

I am not even naive enough to believe that you didn't know all of this, you just tried to hide it with the again and again repeated hasbara lies, which makes you complicit.

You are conflating the tragic realities of asymmetric urban warfare with a deliberate policy of intentional slaughter.

In high-density combat against an enemy that operates without uniforms and systematically embeds itself within civilian infrastructure, civilian casualties—however devastating—are an inevitable, tragic consequence of war.

Claiming the IDF actively targets children ignores both International Humanitarian Law and basic military strategy: Israel gains zero tactical or geopolitical advantage from civilian deaths, which only bring severe international condemnation and political isolation!

Dismissing Hamas's use of human shields as a "fairy tale" ignores mountain of independently verified evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FAQxy2-hW0

Hamas’s routine placement of command hubs, weapons caches, and tunnel networks under schools, mosques, and hospitals directly violates the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Under international law, when an insurgent group uses protected civilian sites to launch attacks, they legally compromise that site's protected status and bear primary moral and legal responsibility for the resulting civilian harm.

Furthermore, casualty statistics from Gaza make no distinction between armed combatants, teenagers recruited into militant groups, and innocent bystanders, nor do they account for thousands of misfired Palestinian rockets that fall inside Gaza.

Selective headlines and parliamentary debates do not prove a state policy of murder.

Pointing to heated Knesset debates over combatant interrogation protocols actually highlights that Israel operates as a democracy under the rule of law, where military misconduct is actively investigated—a stark contrast to Hamas, which systematically celebrates and rewards violence against civilians.

Labeling any objective analysis of urban combat as "hasbara" or calling others "complicit" is simply a rhetorical tactic to dodge uncomfortable facts and replace logical debate with emotional manipulation, which you do constantly!

Also I would point out that military historians, West Point urban warfare scholars, and former NATO/US commanders view the IDF's tactical conduct through the lens of international humanitarian law and military feasibility—whereas outlets like The Guardian or Al Jazeera view it strictly through a sensationalized human-interest lens that rewards Hamas's human-shield tactics.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/05/07/the-dangerous-failure-to-hold-hamas-accountable-for-using-human-shields/

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2021/06/23/hold-hamas-accountable-for-human-shields-use-during-the-may-2021-gaza-war/

https://jewishheartnj.org/news/israel-moved-to-prevent-civilian-casualties-more-than-any-other-nation

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

You are conflating the tragic realities of asymmetric urban warfare with a deliberate policy of intentional slaughter.

In high-density combat against an enemy that operates without uniforms and systematically embeds itself within civilian infrastructure, civilian casualties—however devastating—are an inevitable, tragic consequence of war.

Claiming the IDF actively targets children ignores both International Humanitarian Law and basic military strategy: Israel gains zero tactical or geopolitical advantage from civilian deaths, which only bring severe international condemnation and political isolation!

Dismissing Hamas's use of human shields as a "fairy tale" ignores mountain of independently verified evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FAQxy2-hW0

Hamas’s routine placement of command hubs, weapons caches, and tunnel networks under schools, mosques, and hospitals directly violates the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Under international law, when an insurgent group uses protected civilian sites to launch attacks, they legally compromise that site's protected status and bear primary moral and legal responsibility for the resulting civilian harm.

Furthermore, casualty statistics from Gaza make no distinction between armed combatants, teenagers recruited into militant groups, and innocent bystanders, nor do they account for thousands of misfired Palestinian rockets that fall inside Gaza.

Selective headlines and parliamentary debates do not prove a state policy of murder.

Pointing to heated Knesset debates over combatant interrogation protocols actually highlights that Israel operates as a democracy under the rule of law, where military misconduct is actively investigated—a stark contrast to Hamas, which systematically celebrates and rewards violence against civilians.

Labeling any objective analysis of urban combat as "hasbara" or calling others "complicit" is simply a rhetorical tactic to dodge uncomfortable facts and replace logical debate with emotional manipulation, which you do constantly!

Also I would point out that military historians, West Point urban warfare scholars, and former NATO/US commanders view the IDF's tactical conduct through the lens of international humanitarian law and military feasibility—whereas outlets like The Guardian or Al Jazeera view it strictly through a sensationalized human-interest lens that rewards Hamas's human-shield tactics.

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/05/07/the-dangerous-failure-to-hold-hamas-accountable-for-using-human-shields/

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2021/06/23/hold-hamas-accountable-for-human-shields-use-during-the-may-2021-gaza-war/

https://jewishheartnj.org/news/israel-moved-to-prevent-civilian-casualties-more-than-any-other-nation

Your selection of news sources says it all really.

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Your selection of news sources says it all really.

Really, what precisely does it say?