upvote
> You as an individual are not sovereign, and when you come to the land over which the US is sovereign, you are subject to US law.

And if an american, whom ICC have found guilty on crimes, visits a country which upholds ICC rulings they should be arrested, no?

Nobody talked about kidnapping people in the US or doing anything similar. In contrast, the US is in a habit on (among others)

1. kidnapping

2. bombing

3. otherwise assassinating

4. sanctioning

5. demanding extradition (the only actual "legal" part)

foreign citizens that they do not like. We can also say that no other, non american citizen has actually agreed to these practices either, nor to US authority to be the world serif. So these arguments more like read like monopoly of global violence/authority than "sovereignty".

reply
Yes, that is correct. Any Americans who have been found guilty by the ICC of crimes wouldn't visit signatories of the ICC's establishing treaty.

All zero of them...because no Americans have been found guilty by the ICC of any crimes under its jurisdiction.

reply
Whenever the ICC has moved close to scrutinizing the U.S. or its close allies, Washington has retaliated with severe consequences.
reply
The main part of the argument is that the US is very happy to apply their laws to foreign citizens for things they have done on foreign soil and are also happy to legally or illegally extract those citizens from the foreign states. That does in fact directly violate those other states sovereignty.
reply
>foreign citizens for things they have done on foreign soil

When has this ever happened? You might be referring to Maduro's extradition, but that was due to him being charged with smuggling mass amounts of cocaine into the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Nicol%C3%A1s_Ma...

reply
During the height of the war on terror(I guess, the laws are still on the books and are being used willy nilly), USA routinely kidnapped people across the globe and put them in dungeons for years, without trial. Probably still happens, who knows.

You can't be serious.

reply
> Probably still happens, who knows.

Now they just kill them, also without a trial, judge or jury.

"American forces have conducted at least 71 strikes and killed 239 people the U.S. alleges are “narco-terrorists” since Sept. 2, 2025."

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/6132578-pentagon-drug-car...

reply
It makes a change from drone strikes on Afghan weddings, which was a thing for a while.
reply
Sanctioning ICC judges. They did nothing relevant to US citizens.
reply
Maybe the purported drug boat bombings have escaped your attention?
reply
Maybe the bombing of a school? Or destroying civilian infrastructure? Assassination of a head of state? Or kidnapping a head of state?

Limiting things to this year.

reply
The orange buffoon also attempted (either himself or his cronies) to sanction a brazilian justice for applying brazilian law correctly against the last american-backed, coup-happy president. Since a visa ban, asset freeze and travel restrictions didn't work (on part due to the far superior bank transfer infrastructure) they're now brazenly supporting the right-wing candidate.
reply
i was just going to bring this up, but a different aspect: I'm not curious about the drug charges, I'm curious about the gun charges as unlevied.
reply
I mentioned several examples of US sanctioned human rights organizations just in this comment thread. That's some US law applied to foreigners.
reply
Ever heard of extraordinary renditions?
reply
> When has this ever happened?

when has it ever not?

> Maduro

(Not an american citizen btw)

> extradition

...

reply
> The US never ratified a treaty establishing the authority of the ICC, so it has not consented to that diminution of sovereignty.

And the ICC never tried to diminish their sovereignty. Juridsiction at the icc works the same way as it does with states.

If you commit a crime on the territory of a sovereign state, that state gets to punish you. If you are a citizen of a soverign state then that state gets to punish you.

That is how it works in countries, and that is how it works at the ICC . ICC is no different from any country. The crime has to happen on the territory of a member state or be comitted by a national of a member state (im ignoring the referral from UNSC part as that is obscure)

reply
Conversely, American individuals are also not sovereign so when they come to a sovereign land where they are sought (by the state or its partners through treaties) for crimes, they are subject to the the state's laws and treaties.
reply
This would more persuasive if the US didn’t have a long history of prosecuting, even kidnapping, foreign nationals on foreign soil for violations of US law.
reply
It’s the lucky ones who get prosecuted and actually given some semblance of a fair trial. The less fortunate are just taken to torture centers and left to rot there.
reply
> The US never ratified a treaty establishing the authority of the ICC, so it has not consented to that diminution of sovereignty.

True, they could ignore the ICC, but they shouldn't go around sanctioning and punishing and threatening its judges.

reply
> a sovereign state governs itself and is not governed by others

Hence, if anyone commits a crime in another country, they fall under the jurisdiction of that country. So while the US doesn't have to recognize the ICC, listen to it, or follow its verdicts, other countries are free to do so.

But now the US is threatening the judges of the ICC, which is hypocritical to say the least. It's more of a mafia thing, really. Not surprising, given Trump's background.

reply
So it should be no surprise to USA that sovereign countries that abide to ICC rulings take actions against individual USA citizens.
reply
This isn't true, the US considers prosecution by the ICC as an act of war.
reply
The US also considers prosecution of the Epstein child rapists as unnecessary.

Point being, I don't really think that "the US considers" carries a whole lot of weight these days.

reply
Our Jimmy Saville moment.

How fun.

reply
Sure. But don’t come traveling here (Sweden) and tell us we can’t submit you to the ICC.
reply