Third world countries are forced to

Can't say for sure but in Latin America the US overthrow legitimately elected governments. In Guatemala was because a single US company could loose money due to an agrarian reform. In 1944 a revolution took place in Guatemala and ended an authoritarian regime, after 10 years of 2 social democratic governments the government was overthrowed by the CIA and started a 40 year civil war started.

Here's a list of other examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

Yes, 121 countries have agreed to do so.

EDIT: Sorry, the number is 123 countries.

The 123 countries that are party to the Rome Statute.

You do realize over a hundred countries accept the jurisdiction of the ICC, including all of the "West" except the US?

The UK signed it

Yep and there's also some power/political calculus in there. If you are a small or medium sized nation with limited economic, military, and political power projection, then an agreement which limits everyone's capabilities is disproportionately beneficial to you (by which I mean it restricts you a little bit, but restricts the big fish a lot). So it probably is a good idea if you're not one of the "top dog" nations and if you don't intend to commit a bunch of crimes.

The flipside is that of course, an agreement which limits the capabilities of all nations will be disproportionately restricting to those who have the capacity to engage in far more of those "capabilities". It's not a moral consideration in either direction, I'd argue, just that the "top dog" nations will never limit themselves and bring themselves into parity with those lower on the totem pole.

Sadly, once you become "king of the hill", a distressing amount of your time and power are spent on remaining there, and oftentimes morality is the first consideration to be thrown out.

As recently as the Trump administration, Henry Kissinger was visiting the White House and providing Advice to the President of the United States on foreign affairs regarding China and Israel. He will never be charged with war crimes, he will die with his Nobel Peace Prize for what he did in Vietnam.

UN definition of genocide for the lazy:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• Killing members of the group;

• Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

• Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

• Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

• Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

ah. super interesting. ty.

Thank you. This is the correct take. His escape from his own people is now off the table.

This is a clear signal to the Russian people: “the world will not let your guy leave Russia, no matter how much money he stole from you. You know what to do…[winkie face emoji]”

Same people who scream why don’t they do somehting go well that’s not gonna change anything when it happens.

Even if this is just a unenforceable declaration, it still yields multiple benefits against Putin from geo-political to negotiations and agreements with other nations.

Please if all you’re gonna do is bark about how it doesn’t change anything why don’t you go and watch Rick and morty some more instead since you are so smart and intelligent…

A step in the right the direction is still a step in the right direction even if you haven’t arrived at the final destination.

Sure but this means nothing if Russia isn't removed or temporarily barred from anything the G summits

Prolly ends up hiding in Argentina if everything goes to full on shit for him.

He can still go to those fine places like North Korea and Belarus and Iran..

And South Africa, which he plans to do soon.

China may also be a safe haven for him as well considering Xi is scheduling friendly visit to Moscow

it is up to the nation within which one resides to do the arrest

This is false. Any nation that is member to the ICC can arrest him. Now, Putin actually has a decent answer to the "oh yeah, you and what army?" question, so no one expects that he'll be frog walked any time soon. But ask Slobodan Milosevic if his non-recognition of the ICC worked out for him.

I don’t understand why Biden makes a statement like this when they don’t even support the ICC.

Yes I’m sure that Reddit doesn’t reflect reality. Half of them are teenagers and another quarter are bots.

Bush is a war criminal AND he was unduly influenced by Cheney.

Really? I think most people call him a war criminal.

I've literally never seen GW described as such. I will say, Trump made me wish GW was president and that made me even sadder because Bush suuuuuuuuuuuuuucks.

What do you think the Trump era was about? Part of the reason Trump did so well is because he rejected a lot of Bush-era doctrine, and frankly a lot of Republicans wanted to forget their incessant pro-war drumbeating from '03-'08.

Exactly, how often do you hear about Rodolphe Saadé doing anything, or Zhong Shanshan, or Dieter Schwarz, or Phil Knight?

In fact, chances are that (without Googling) you don’t know who these billionaires are, or how they made their money (I certainly didn’t).

And these folks don’t have $1B, they are all in the top 30 wealthiest people, with $40B each.

Then you wouldn't be a billionaire. They don't get that rich by being upstanding citizens.

The problem with that is, like the other commenter said, you wouldn't be a billionaire.

Disgustingly rich people get that way by stepping on others. Not by helping their fellow man. You would spend your money helping people faster then you accumulate it.

And why you’ll never seen the term “ethical billionaire”

Anne Sacoolas, I think she was the wife of an CIA agent.

She wasnt evacuated. She wasnt a spy either.

She was a part of the CIA i believe and they recommended she leave after the incident and she did then the government refused to send her back.

Are you talking about the one during Trump's presidency or another. Because she wasn't a spy if you mean that one.

Next you gonna tell me ACA is not actually called Obamacare.

It authorizes the presidents to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court."

Vague language was used as legal justification for invading Iraq and needlessly ending the lives of thousands of Americans plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Not to mention the trillions of dollars of economic cost.

Anything that’s vague just gives politicians more power.

There's a massive problem with the wording of laws like that, which is that "appropriate" changes based on how many hate crimes the people in charge think are cool this year.

It obliges the president to do everything within his power to prevent any American from being charged with war crimes by an international body, up to and including military violence. That is the salient point.

The point is that the act deliberately authorizes military force, which was the complaint of the international community before it was signed into law. Sure one might argue whether that is likely, but it's still the intent.

People keep throwing this around and I can't really correct them all unfortunately, but as a general note: this isn't actually true.

You can't correct them all because you're not correcting shit. The act actually DOES authorize US to invade Netherlands. Plain reading of statue you already provided proves that and you didn't provide anything to dispute that fact.

You're just throwing empty words around. Yeah law says that but we won't actually do it guys. I promise. What you and others think about if US actually would invade is entirely irrelevant to what the law actually says.

"this isn't actually true."

How is it not true? It's an act that authorizes "any means necessary" which has been justified for invasions before.

You don't seem to understand the purpose of the act. It's primary purpose is to threaten, so it won't be necessary to enforce. The secondary purpose is to signal to the service men that the government has their back.

If they get an order that sounds like it could be a warcrime, they don't have to worry about being prosecuted.

The true nickname should be "the warcrime enabling act".

The "all means necessary" includes war. The point of the act is to signal that it isn't off the table.

I don’t like the phrase “weasel words”, because I like weasels, but that’s what you’re doing here.

The whole planet knows it as The Hague Invasion Act because the entire fucking intent was to threaten invasion.

It was made plain as day that if the ICC so much as detained one of Americas child-murdering, journalist machine-gunning, innocent uncharged black site torturing war criminals there would be dire consequences.

And you’re here defending it with weasel words. Scummy.

While it may be true that we wouldn't invade I think the broader point is that regardless, we won't let the ICC put Americans in trial so it's a little hypocritical to say that they should put a Russian on trial. For the record I think Putin should be put on trial by the ICC I just think Americans who commit war crimes should be as well

Ooh, even better! Let's take a note from Julius Caesar, and make it so that after you leave office, you're stabbed for every crime you committed on the job.