6 ms·
I was referring to the requirements imposed on us. When it comes to sanctions, we do not block anything more than what is required by law.
by jaas 3mo ago
I was referring to the requirements imposed on us. When it comes to sanctions, we do not block anything more than what is required by law.
- marcus_holmes 3mo agoThe current US government sanctions political enemies [0]. Wouldn't the more rational response to this legal situation be to leave the USA and move somewhere more willing to respect international law? [0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/impo...
- JuniperMesos 3mo agoWhy would other countries be less likely to impose sanctions on their political enemies?
- fc417fc802 3mo agoI can't answer why or why not but just in terms of track record the US is fairly egregious. The executive attempts to coerce individual UN officials via sanctions. While it may not be strictly illegal it is clearly flagrantly unethical.
- bawolff 3mo ago> move somewhere more willing to respect international law? Some of these sanctions are required by international law (i.e. sanctions imposed by UNSC). For the other ones, international law generally lets countries have whatever trade policy they see fit including sanctions, unless they violate some other rule of international law or treaty obligation.
- marcus_holmes 3mo agoSanctioning the ICC obviously has nothing to do with trade policy. The USA signed the Rome Statute but never ratified it, and then withdrew its signatory status. There's an argument to be made that there was a treaty obligation there, but it's pretty weak.
- bawolff 3mo agoI personally think sanctioning the ICC judges is a disgusting act. However ultimately all sanctions are decisions to refrain from trading with someone, so it is in a sense a trade policy. I think what you're getting at is that usa is implementing that policy to obtain a political/diplomatic goal, which is true, but you could say the same about most trade policies. I think article 18(a) of the vienna convention of the law of treaties means that once you withdraw your signature, you no longer have any obligations in regards to the treaty. Maybe you could make some sort of argument that the sanctions violate the purpose of the geneva convention as they are designed to prevent bringing to justice people accused of grave breaches of the geneva convention. Like its an attempt to frustrate the application of article 49 of the first geneva convention [Ianal]
- BLKNSLVR 3mo agoAccording to the current administration, almost half of the US is considered a political enemy of the current administration. Soon they might be pushing for Operating Systems to gather political party preference information, so they can know who should be restricted from the use of strong encryption. The options being: 1. I love america 2. Radical left looney 3. Neither male nor female. 4. Those that tremble as if they were mad[0] [0]: https://thewhippet.org/the-whippet-134-those-that-tremble/#celestial-emporium-of-benevolent-knowledge https://thewhippet.org/the-whippet-134-those-that-tremble/#c...
- marcus_holmes 3mo agoIt'll be interesting when/if they sanction Antifa. Since it doesn't exist, you can't prove that you're not a member of it. So they get to sanction anyone.
- ndsipa_pomu 3mo agoProof has no relevance if you are prevented from accessing the legal system (e.g. thrown into a concentration camp for immigrants)
- hdgvhicv 3mo agoBy whose law? Thailand? China? Germany? Afghanistan?