They're coveres by one of the commandments of their lord and saviour:

"Rules for thee, but not for me" — Supply Side Jesus

I wonder what mister crime bill, lock the S.O.B up, thinks of it... Oh wait I don't have to wonder he just told us!

In 1989 [...] Mr. Biden lamented that the Republican president, George H. W. Bush, was not doing enough to put “violent thugs” in prison. In 1993, he warned of “predators on our streets.” And in a 1994 Senate floor speech, he likened himself to another Republican president: “Every time Richard Nixon, when he was running in 1972, would say, ‘Law and order,’ the Democratic match or response was, ‘Law and order with justice’ — whatever that meant. And I would say, ‘Lock the S.O.B.s up.’”

They don't mean in terms of aid.

The US has refused to submit themselves or their soldiers to international criminal law for a long time now, for plenty of other reasons.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act

Because your government has laws that would shield its citizens from ICC persecutions. Because you know, your government feels above international humanitarian law.

When those arrest warrants are against your rivals (Putin) it is all fine and commendable, but when it is against you and your allies it is a despicable act. You see the double standards here?

War crimes are war crimes no matter the side that commits them. And trying to undermine international laws and institutions created with the whole idea to prevent humanity from making the same mistakes like in the past should be preserved and protected.

Always was

Maybe not actively but there’s a lot of past presidents that should be charged if the world was fair. Most obvious example is Bush.

This just reminded me Kissinger is dead, my sincere gratitude for that

Only by proxy, so no blood on their hands. It's a psychopathological reasoning, but here we are

Yes but bad man is worse so it's all ok, nothing to see here

Not would. Remember when the ICC tried to investigate US war crimes in Afghanistan?

neither is israel… the ICC decided that it has jurisdiction if a crime was committed in a country(area? because palestine is a signatory but not a country) that is a signatory

so it’s charged israelis because palestine is a signatory

afghanistan is also a signatory, so AFAIK the ICC believes it has jurisdiction to charge US citizens for any war crimes that may have occurred during… that… whole… thing

the US disagrees of course, but IDK it kinda makes sense. if you assasinate someone in, say, the UK and then flee to… like… Russia for example <_< then the UK isn’t just going to say well i guess they’re Russian so we don’t have jurisdiction

They are worried about their holidays in the countries who apply ICC juridiction (a lot of good holidays places...). Can you imagine ? The audacity of ruining my holidays because i did (or supported by providing weapons, veto, etc) a little genocide ! Poor me, bad ICC.

Neither is Israel. But even just the optics of the ICC ruling on Israel is good for the rest of the world to see. Honestly, same for the case of the USA. Most USA Presidents are textbook case war criminals. Only because their military operations help the USA itself geopolitically it does not make it generally ethnical. Most Americans in this perspective ate very biased. But the rest of the world sees it.

Over 1 million Iraqis are dead because of Bush Jr. actions and their downstream, Obama ordered drone kills above any other previous President, many of those killing civilians, USA has destabilised dozens of governments over the course of the 20th century, Project Condor is a perfect example.