Thanks a lot to @WalkerBragman for asking @RoKhanna the question I submitted (whether he supports joining the ICC). I must say though, I'm pretty disappointed in this answer.

It's not fair for the U.S. to only be involved in the ICC to the extent that it uses it as a weapon against countries it doesn't like, ignoring the very standards it holds others to. In the case of Barack Obama, Khanna says he doesn't support having the ICC try him. But why not?

Obama was warned by lawyers *within his own administration* that selling weapons to Saudi Arabia could implicate him in war crimes (he then proceeded to sell them anyway). When even his own lawyers admit this, surely a trial is warranted? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-us-arms-deals-yemen-war-crimes-a7355771.html

Khanna agrees that arming Saudi Arabia makes the United States complicit in war crimes - but he doesn't think the U.S. should be held legally liable? https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/1111420454609129473

Khanna should heed the words of Benjamin Ferencz, a chief Nuremberg prosecutor who since prosecuting Nazi war criminals has made the creation and continued development of the International Criminal Court his life's work. Let no nation be above the law. https://benferencz.org/articles/2005-2009/heed-the-lesson-of-nuremburg-let-no-nation-be-above-the-law/

I recognize that Khanna has worked to end U.S. support for the Saudi war on Yemen and I appreciate that. But simply opposing atrocities is not enough. Unless we hold those responsible accountable, the atrocities will continue.

I've followed @RoKhanna for a while and one thing I've observed about him is that he's very receptive to criticism, so I hope he reads this thread and reconsiders his position on joining the International Criminal Court.