FIFA did, in fact, award the official FIFA Peace Prize – Football Unites the World™ to Trump.
The fact that this rogue organization thinks it can undermine the official FIFA Peace Prize – Football Unites the World™ by being associated with someone who received this fake prize is probably why they are now being justly sanctioned.
it's not really what we wanted, it's what we were taught. decades of defunding education and not modernizing the system that was originally based on apartheid, the creation of media conglomerates that advocate for anti-intellectualism, all of it just run rampant and increasingly unchecked, the large scale smearing of academic institutions from the outside and the insidious internal replacement of academics by administrators
the current version of the US was orchestrated deliberately by our wealthiest elites (eg Koch, Murdoch, etc) - the pleebs were becoming too powerful and now they're over-correcting
The U.S. wants to retain the right to commit war crimes without someone charging U.S. officials or soldiers with them, they have the sovereign right to commit war crimes. Russia doesn't, Iraq doesn't. The U.S. does, Israel does.
That is the 'International rules-based order' as opposed to the U.N. international law order.
> I guess what he is saying is that work of International Criminal Court is a threat to US sovereignty ? Can someone make that make sense?
Why do you need help? It's obvious. The dictionary definition of sovereignty is "supreme power especially over a body politic" and "freedom from external control : autonomy sense 1." If the ICC has power over the US government or can externally control it (for instance by arresting its leaders), it is a straightforwardly impinges on US sovereignty.
I'm not sure if I buy that argument. I understand what they mean, but the US has sovereignty over what happens within its borders. The ICC isn't entering the US and arresting anyone.
By your logic, every other country "impinges on US sovereignty" because they can arrest US citizens within their own borders.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the US govt has no power outside its territory. If some US citizen commits a crime abroad, he/she can be prosecuted outside the US. This does not interfere with US sovereignty.
and in what sense is it doing that at all? unlike the US, the signatories arent parachuting into other sovereign countries to effect their laws. they are enforcing their laws within their own borders.
for some reason that's offended the US, who then proceeds to extra-judiciously impose their will on citizens of other sovereign nations who aren't even in the US.
> "President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement, first published by Reuters.
Can't think of a more flagrant and succinct declaration that the US believes itself "above the law."
All countries are above the law. When was the last time you saw a country in jail or meaningfully punished? The only one who can punish a country is another country if they are powerful and violent enough.
Who should be responsible for enforcing the Geneva Conventions and other international humanitarian law? Or are we finally admitting that the only "international law" we officially recognize is Might Makes Right?
All signatories to the Geneva Conventions are responsible for enforcing it. The USA never ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and thus has no responsibility to enforce it.
We're repeating old social tropes the 50+ year old leadership lived through.
It's sad and pathetic. The youth reliance on old leadership and putting that on them is elder abuse. McConnell and Feinstein handlers should be prosecuted for such.
This is 100% on lazy, low-skilled, younger American public that doesn't need Depends expecting the generation glazing over live on TV and vanishing from office only to be found months later in an institution
The censored for TV era propped such olds up on screen for decades and refused to challenge their speculations and bullshit; everyone actually believes the elders are cogent and capable but they never were. Just puppets of a bygone era of televised circuses beamed to the Wonder Bread eating masses
I mean... just about every 'enforcement' of international norms has been by american hard and soft power. Might has always made right, it's just that the guy with the biggest gun happened to have western liberal values.
Seems like that changed a little in the last decade. Hopefully it's not forever, but who knows.
Which is why the ICC was established by several countries as part of an international agreement. It's literally other countries collaborating to punish bad actor countries.
> Which is why the ICC was established by several countries as part of an international agreement. It's literally other countries collaborating to punish bad actor countries.
What would you think of an agreement by ten guys that they'll work together to beat you up if they decide you're a "bad actor"? Is it somehow solemn and respectable merely because they came to an agreement? Even if you don't agree their self-declaration should give them power over you?
I think the way you've presented things is misleading. International relations is literally anarchy, and different groups have different points of view. Mere collaboration is only that.
> International relations is only literally anarchy if you take the realist school of thought as representing IR.
It's literally the state of things: "there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In international relations, anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_(international_relatio...).
If you know of such an authority, please point it out. The UN is not it.
Anarchy doesn't mean constant conflict or power politics or anything like that.
The USA isn't a party to the Rome Statute, and above and beyond that, reactively passed domestic legislation to thwart any attempt to prosecute crimes committed by its military, including in countries that are party to the Rome Statute -- more than 20 years ago. This is not a recent phenomenon.
You know what else is more than 20 years ago? Americans committing war crimes in other countries:
The USA, as a country, doesn't want to be held to account by other countries. As it outspends all the other militaries on the planet, it continues to get away with its crimes.
A country is an abstract idea at the end of the day. How can you put Uganda in a physical jail? Or how can one country "punish" another?
If you're talking about invading and occupying the people, every person is still theoretically under the law of whatever country they are in by default.
This is largely consistent with historical US views on international law. In 2002 the US passed the American Service-Members' Protection Act, which states that if any US service member or elected official is criminally prosecuted by the ICC, the president can use "any means necessary" (i.e. invading the Hague) to ensure their release.
In general any idea that international law is relevant except as a tool for the West to provide moral justification for its actions when it's convenient to do so is naive. At least the Trump administration being more vulgar and crude in expressing its disregard for international law compared to previous administrations may open more people's eyes.
>> "President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement, first published by Reuters.
> Can't think of a more flagrant and succinct declaration that the US believes itself "above the law."
So would you think of yourself "above the law" if you refused to submit to my law?
Apparently the US never ratified the ICC treaty. International relations is literally an anarchy, there's no "higher authority" to impose law. Countries can only voluntarily submit to a treaty, or be violently coerced by another country.
This is not "the US", this is one or two very unpopular politicians whose tenure will be short. Wait until the midterm elections before you judge the whole country.
There are 100's of millions that hope so, not only him but the rest of the fools who are in his orbit.This has been the most disgusting and corrupt Administration since the founding of America.
Another reason to fund the efforts to decouple from US companies, including payment processors. More investment in open source software and open weight models should be the priority of all governments and initiatives.
This is probably the most short-sighted aspect of America's oligarchs decision to support the modern GOP. They just keep increasing the incentive for other countries to reduce business with America.
It's not one or two things, either. It's an endless parade of decisions, nearly all of which reward de-coupling from America.
The company I work for just removed its last dependency on any US tech service providers last month (except for Anthropic). No more Microsoft, Adobe, Cloudflare, Amazon. They still pay for Claude, but they're in talks with local inference providers.
Just a few years ago, this wouldn't even have been remotely on people's radar as something they should or could do.
that would happen regardless of if americas oligarchs support the GoP. its the american people that voted in trump and got him majorities in both the house and senate
Country that supports war criminals and helps genocidares and land thiefs by giving them free bombs and planes, sanctioned organization that punishes such acts. Not a big surprise.
Also directly targeting foreigners who provide evidence to the court is also pretty clear evidence of american intention here. Hide their crimes. Several such human rights organizations were targeted independently of this for cooperation with ICC, like Al-Haq, Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, and PCHR.
> "President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans"
... but his government does support the ICC prosecuting Russians, on behalf of Ukraine, even though none of the two states is a party to the Rome statute / member of the court.
For anyone who hasn't seen Mitchell and Webb's "Are We the Baddies?"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h242eDB84zY&pp=ygUSYXJlIHdlIHR...
I thought it was FIFA the one in charge of the Peace prize now. I'm confused.
FIFA is currently looking to find find 11,780 peace points...
what should not confuse you is that FIFA is in charge of corruption, for decades now.
FIFA did, in fact, award the official FIFA Peace Prize – Football Unites the World™ to Trump.
The fact that this rogue organization thinks it can undermine the official FIFA Peace Prize – Football Unites the World™ by being associated with someone who received this fake prize is probably why they are now being justly sanctioned.
It seems that US Exceptionalism is what the US people wanted, and they're getting it in spades.
it's not really what we wanted, it's what we were taught. decades of defunding education and not modernizing the system that was originally based on apartheid, the creation of media conglomerates that advocate for anti-intellectualism, all of it just run rampant and increasingly unchecked, the large scale smearing of academic institutions from the outside and the insidious internal replacement of academics by administrators
the current version of the US was orchestrated deliberately by our wealthiest elites (eg Koch, Murdoch, etc) - the pleebs were becoming too powerful and now they're over-correcting
Little Marco announcement,
https://x.com/SecRubio/status/2108565647667904647
Seems like this is Little Marco's moment to establish himself as a legit 2028 candidate.
"This action should encourage our Allies within the Court to work for solutions to end this threat to U.S. sovereignty forever."
I guess what he is saying is that work of International Criminal Court is a threat to US sovereignty ? Can someone make that make sense?
The U.S. wants to retain the right to commit war crimes without someone charging U.S. officials or soldiers with them, they have the sovereign right to commit war crimes. Russia doesn't, Iraq doesn't. The U.S. does, Israel does.
That is the 'International rules-based order' as opposed to the U.N. international law order.
> I guess what he is saying is that work of International Criminal Court is a threat to US sovereignty ? Can someone make that make sense?
Why do you need help? It's obvious. The dictionary definition of sovereignty is "supreme power especially over a body politic" and "freedom from external control : autonomy sense 1." If the ICC has power over the US government or can externally control it (for instance by arresting its leaders), it is a straightforwardly impinges on US sovereignty.
I'm not sure if I buy that argument. I understand what they mean, but the US has sovereignty over what happens within its borders. The ICC isn't entering the US and arresting anyone.
By your logic, every other country "impinges on US sovereignty" because they can arrest US citizens within their own borders.
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the US govt has no power outside its territory. If some US citizen commits a crime abroad, he/she can be prosecuted outside the US. This does not interfere with US sovereignty.
and in what sense is it doing that at all? unlike the US, the signatories arent parachuting into other sovereign countries to effect their laws. they are enforcing their laws within their own borders.
for some reason that's offended the US, who then proceeds to extra-judiciously impose their will on citizens of other sovereign nations who aren't even in the US.
so who is coloring outside the lines here?
Given the fact that signatories to the Rome Statute outnumber countries that aren’t, I’m not quite sure who the rogue is here…
> "President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement, first published by Reuters.
Can't think of a more flagrant and succinct declaration that the US believes itself "above the law."
All countries are above the law. When was the last time you saw a country in jail or meaningfully punished? The only one who can punish a country is another country if they are powerful and violent enough.
Who should be responsible for enforcing the Geneva Conventions and other international humanitarian law? Or are we finally admitting that the only "international law" we officially recognize is Might Makes Right?
> Or are we finally admitting that the only "international law" we officially recognize is Might Makes Right?
People like Trump and Hegseth have been saying that very explicitly in at least the past couple years
All signatories to the Geneva Conventions are responsible for enforcing it. The USA never ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and thus has no responsibility to enforce it.
Sure, but there is a difference between not helping and actively interfering with a court punishing international crimes.
"Finally admitting"
Google League of Nations
We're repeating old social tropes the 50+ year old leadership lived through.
It's sad and pathetic. The youth reliance on old leadership and putting that on them is elder abuse. McConnell and Feinstein handlers should be prosecuted for such.
This is 100% on lazy, low-skilled, younger American public that doesn't need Depends expecting the generation glazing over live on TV and vanishing from office only to be found months later in an institution
The censored for TV era propped such olds up on screen for decades and refused to challenge their speculations and bullshit; everyone actually believes the elders are cogent and capable but they never were. Just puppets of a bygone era of televised circuses beamed to the Wonder Bread eating masses
We're right on the cusp. The dinosaurs will all be extinct in 10 years. It will be an amazing new world the day we wake up and realize they are gone.
I mean... just about every 'enforcement' of international norms has been by american hard and soft power. Might has always made right, it's just that the guy with the biggest gun happened to have western liberal values.
Seems like that changed a little in the last decade. Hopefully it's not forever, but who knows.
Which is why the ICC was established by several countries as part of an international agreement. It's literally other countries collaborating to punish bad actor countries.
> Which is why the ICC was established by several countries as part of an international agreement. It's literally other countries collaborating to punish bad actor countries.
What would you think of an agreement by ten guys that they'll work together to beat you up if they decide you're a "bad actor"? Is it somehow solemn and respectable merely because they came to an agreement? Even if you don't agree their self-declaration should give them power over you?
I think the way you've presented things is misleading. International relations is literally anarchy, and different groups have different points of view. Mere collaboration is only that.
> What would you think of an agreement by ten guys that they'll work together to beat you up if they decide you're a "bad actor"?
FWIW, that's not how the ICC works, any more than your national legal system is "ten guys working together to beat you up if they don't like you."
> What would you think of an agreement by ten guys that they'll work together to beat you up if they decide you're a "bad actor"?
The ICC is 125 guys agreeing with each other that if one of them does bad things the others will hold them accountable.
It's not random people asking strangers to follow their rules.
International relations is only literally anarchy if you take the realist school of thought as representing IR.
> International relations is only literally anarchy if you take the realist school of thought as representing IR.
It's literally the state of things: "there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In international relations, anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_(international_relatio...).
If you know of such an authority, please point it out. The UN is not it.
Anarchy doesn't mean constant conflict or power politics or anything like that.
How’s that going ?
It'd be going great if a bunch of idiots hadn't voted in a bunch of fascists.
As I hope you're aware:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members'_Prot...
The USA isn't a party to the Rome Statute, and above and beyond that, reactively passed domestic legislation to thwart any attempt to prosecute crimes committed by its military, including in countries that are party to the Rome Statute -- more than 20 years ago. This is not a recent phenomenon.
You know what else is more than 20 years ago? Americans committing war crimes in other countries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...
Remember?
The USA, as a country, doesn't want to be held to account by other countries. As it outspends all the other militaries on the planet, it continues to get away with its crimes.
A country is an abstract idea at the end of the day. How can you put Uganda in a physical jail? Or how can one country "punish" another?
If you're talking about invading and occupying the people, every person is still theoretically under the law of whatever country they are in by default.
This is largely consistent with historical US views on international law. In 2002 the US passed the American Service-Members' Protection Act, which states that if any US service member or elected official is criminally prosecuted by the ICC, the president can use "any means necessary" (i.e. invading the Hague) to ensure their release.
In general any idea that international law is relevant except as a tool for the West to provide moral justification for its actions when it's convenient to do so is naive. At least the Trump administration being more vulgar and crude in expressing its disregard for international law compared to previous administrations may open more people's eyes.
>> "President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement, first published by Reuters.
> Can't think of a more flagrant and succinct declaration that the US believes itself "above the law."
So would you think of yourself "above the law" if you refused to submit to my law?
Apparently the US never ratified the ICC treaty. International relations is literally an anarchy, there's no "higher authority" to impose law. Countries can only voluntarily submit to a treaty, or be violently coerced by another country.
The ICC would be unconstitutional in the United States.
https://usunrome.usmission.gov/why-were-dismantling-the-icc/
Random bombings of boats in the Caribbean is another.
The US has always been “above the law.” This is about Israel and its genocide against the Palestinians.
That’s a war crime confession, isn’t it?
"Rules for thee, but not for me!"
We don’t have even need to imagine what would have happened if the Nazis had won
This is not "the US", this is one or two very unpopular politicians whose tenure will be short. Wait until the midterm elections before you judge the whole country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
one or two? this has been standing us law since the bush era.
That'd be nice, but it's fantasy. This, as I gesture at the state of the world, was inevitable if Trump was voted in, and Trump was voted in.
The US has very large problems far beyond one or two politicians.
He knows they're coming for him.
They're really not though
There are 100's of millions that hope so, not only him but the rest of the fools who are in his orbit.This has been the most disgusting and corrupt Administration since the founding of America.
Junk away snowflakes....
Well the GOP has gotta try and protect their guy. And Trumps a pedophile so this makes sense.
I am so disgusted by this current regime.
Another reason to fund the efforts to decouple from US companies, including payment processors. More investment in open source software and open weight models should be the priority of all governments and initiatives.
This is probably the most short-sighted aspect of America's oligarchs decision to support the modern GOP. They just keep increasing the incentive for other countries to reduce business with America.
It's not one or two things, either. It's an endless parade of decisions, nearly all of which reward de-coupling from America.
The company I work for just removed its last dependency on any US tech service providers last month (except for Anthropic). No more Microsoft, Adobe, Cloudflare, Amazon. They still pay for Claude, but they're in talks with local inference providers.
Just a few years ago, this wouldn't even have been remotely on people's radar as something they should or could do.
that would happen regardless of if americas oligarchs support the GoP. its the american people that voted in trump and got him majorities in both the house and senate
In no small part because oligarchs have spent the last 40 years shaping public perception, allowing increased concentration of media, etc.
Sanctions ffs ... what a pathetic administration ...
Country that supports war criminals and helps genocidares and land thiefs by giving them free bombs and planes, sanctioned organization that punishes such acts. Not a big surprise.
Also directly targeting foreigners who provide evidence to the court is also pretty clear evidence of american intention here. Hide their crimes. Several such human rights organizations were targeted independently of this for cooperation with ICC, like Al-Haq, Al-Mezan Center for Human Rights, and PCHR.
> "President Trump will never allow the International Criminal Court to prosecute Americans"
... but his government does support the ICC prosecuting Russians, on behalf of Ukraine, even though none of the two states is a party to the Rome statute / member of the court.
Ukraine actually did finally ratify the Rome Statute; we're down to 29 signatories who haven't ratified it.
Signed but not ratified:
Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Cameroon, Egypt, Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iran, Israel, Jamaica, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Monaco, Morocco, Mozambique, Oman, Russia, São Tomé and Príncipe, Solomon Islands, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United States, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Not signed: China, North Korea, India.
Burundi and The Philippines withdrew from the treaty.
Full list of the 29 signatories who have not ratified it: https://www.pgaction.org/ilhr/rome-statute/signed-but-not-ra...