Thread by @kiphale

1)The comment thread from one of my fav sparring partners, @multilateralist, to this #ICC tweet deserves some pushback. To be frank, this article & other recent events (e.g. ICC Prosecutor's visit to #Sudan) lay waste to negative narratives about the Ct that are w/out firm basis.

https://twitter.com/IntlCrimCourt/status/1317898895373045764

2)It is not a hard question, David. It is only made hard by DC policy insiders who consistently want to magically thread an impossibly small needle. At the very least, US should state its case&litigate per procedures available to all states(e.g. art. 18).

https://twitter.com/multilateralist/status/1317901412446121984?s=20

3)Both GOP & some Dem policy thinkers do a disservice to vital American interests by habitually thinking the #US has special rights to evade or otherwise not comply w/ procedures in place; other states w/grievances have utilized them.#RuleOfLaw esp. applies in such circumstances.

4)More importantly, no policy thinker has yet to conjure up a course of action with a more certain outcome that allows both US and ICC to benefit than this suggestion: investigate, and where warranted, prosecute according to US law and procedures.

5)Regardless of how fanciful or idealistic such guidance may be portrayed, it has a definite outcome that allows the US to maintain its "sovereignty", demonstrate its capacity to "take care of its own", reap the benefits of doing so,&the ICC walks away willingly. #MatterOver

6)&to be clear, surely your point is not saying that #Trump's sanctions on #ICC are justifiable? Attacking the Ct like human traffickers, drug lords,& mass human rights violators,& in the process undermine the #RomeStatute&alienate allies/key stakeholders, is anything but wise.

7)Important context is missing here. #Pentagon's objections to ICC are based upon a) antiquated talking points w/out basis, b) notion that Pentagon choices can/should never be questioned by int'l bodies,&c.)false idea that engaging #ICC is zero-sum game.

https://twitter.com/multilateralist/status/1317902668522717187?s=20

8)The position laid out by Gen.Clark is one that most apolitical members of US military believe: individual accountability for #atrocitycrimes (preferably by US military or civilian system) is critically important for many reasons to US national security.
foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/02/the…

9)As such, #Pentagon opposition to ICC comes from a very conservative political bent as opposed to some existential threat posed by the Ct. Are we really going to believe that #Pentagon could not exist&thrive w/ a robust ICC operating as well, even one scrutinizing its actions?

10) And let us not forget that alleged US military abuses of detainees are starkly diff than alleged #torture by US intelligence officers. You would be hard-pressed to find an American military leader/policy thinker that would not welcome accountability for the latter.

10)To this point, need to define political. If you mean "partisan" or similar, then please put forward such evidence.

https://twitter.com/multilateralist/status/1317903132664487938?s=20

11)The ICC does not operate in a vacuum, so surely their actions may be politically cognizant/savvy (hence, acceptable) yet there is little to no evidence that partisanship has animated legal decisions, as you note.

https://twitter.com/multilateralist/status/1317904552922927105?s=20

12)It is an incredibly important distinction that needs to be made abundantly clear (esp in the time of social media) so that there is no misunderstanding or misconception that the ICC acts in some impermissible or inadvisable way.

unroll @threadreaderapp