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.