670
Mamdani Says He Is Examining Whether His Government Can Arrest Netanyahu During NYC Visit
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
670 points (99.3% liked)
politics
30486 readers
2757 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There are two reasons he can't do anything.
First is the idea that when the UN chose to place its HQ in New York, the US likely had to agree to safe passage for all diplomats and officials going to the General Assembly. That just makes sense. The UN can't function if the Host Nation gets to control who goes to the meetings.
Second, the US isn't a party to the ICC in the first place, and doesn't formally recognize its jurisdiction. IMO, this is actually the correct position, because the ICC as it is currently run does not guarantee all the protections that US courts grant its citizens, so the US could not subject its citizens to it. (Even Bill Clinton, who signed the treaty at first, acknowledged this and did not send the treaty to the Senate for ratification. George W Bush "un-signed" the treaty a few years later).
So, it really would be impossible for a local police force to arrest a foreign leader with diplomatic immunity on the warrant of a court which is not recognized by the government.
The USA doesn’t recognise the ICC because they do not want their citizens to be subjected to it. There are quotes from senior officials and diplomats essentially saying that the USA agrees with the concept of the ICC but only for lawless countries where people who violate international law are unlikely to be held to account. Essentially it is a humdinger of an example of “rules for thee but not for me” creedo. The US hides behind its UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) as a panacea excusing it from subjecting itself to the rules it wants to enforce on the rest of the world. The argument is that the UCMJ is sufficient to enforce accountability and international law, and that the ICC is superfluous. It’s a tenuous argument at best and ultimately shelters the USDF from international accountability for their actions.
There are legitimate concerns about American participation in the ICC:
the US Constitution guarantees jury trials for major offenses, and the ICC doesn't use them
the US Constitution states that the US Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over all other courts, and there is no room for an international court to fit in that structure
US courts claim jurisdiction over US citizens who commit crimes on US soil, and there is no mechanism to insert the ICC into that.
So it's not just that the US doesn't want to play nice, there are things in the structure of the ICC that violate the US Constitution. Those contradictions would have to be resolved before the US can join, either by changing the ICC or changing the US Constitution.
I'm pretty sure that's the same in most other countries, at the very least the highest court jurisdiction, yet somehow they were able to still be part of the ICC