Quiet decision ends dispute within Biden administration over ICC cooperation after Pentagon had been accused of obstruction

  • roguetrick@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Any means necessary explicitly includes acts of war against a nation state, like dropping special operations teams into their territory. It was codified for that exact reason. It’s not wordplay to say its a threat to invade the Hague, it’s the intent of the bill.

    • tal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That is certainly not the case, as it’s quite possible to apply pressure via mechanisms other than waging wars.

      • roguetrick@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which the president doesn’t require Congressional authorization for. It’s explicitly a military authorization.

        • tal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Neither of these assertions are true. First, the President does have authority to take military action on his own authority, which is why he can make use of nuclear weapons. The present bound is that the President cannot maintain troops abroad for longer than two months without a Congressional approval.

          Secondly, the President certainly does not have unlimited power absent Congressional approval. The Trump administration imposed sanctions on ICC officials using Congressionally-granted authority (albeit under a different act, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act). That grant of authority was required to do so.