> Her credit cards, issued in the Netherlands and Canada, were canceled. She has managed to keep some bank accounts, but says her banking services are extremely limited and even small transfers can be blocked.
> One of the most serious examples is her health insurance. Prost receives coverage through AXA, the French company that provides insurance for the court. She says the company has refused to pay her claims even though it is not legally required to follow the U.S. sanctions.
This is beyond chilling. You could conceivably self-host some alternatives, although you could easily lose your domain name and internet access. Maybe in a fictional future some sort of crypto currency could help with the de-banking. I don't think there's a solution for losing your health insurance though.
All because the US doesn't want Israel to be held accountable in the ICC. I don't think we've ever been closer to fascism and it's in service for a foreign country (not that it would be ok if it wasn't!).
Just incredibly naked corruption.
It’s also guaranteed to backfire - no judge who by definition deeply believes in the mission and legitimacy of the ICC is going to be deterred by these tactics.
Which Americans? I think it mostly upset the Zionists and Israel(AIPAC) bought members of congress including the US presidential administration, but I imagine a large part of US voter base don't agree with this if polled.
In short, the opinion of Americans is just not relevant to America's foreign policy decisions.
Then it is high time to make the company legally required not to follow the U.S. sanctions.
Preach, it's not like the US is gagging for it when it comes to following EU laws and sanctions either.
There is some movement to reduce MS dependency in Europe, but it's not yet there. Until then, this will be a huge lever available to US.
I've written about this back in the day: https://blog.miloslavhomer.cz/microsoft-dependency-has-risks...
Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44381358
Edit: not to mention moving our allies toward not complying with US sanctions at all, reducing American soft power
That being said, I think the vast majority of Americans are ok with the ICC holding people committing genocide accountable. Most Americans also do not like the influence Israel has on our country and these sanctions are just yet more proof that we are occupied and not even operating in our government's own interests.
Do you even know what the ICC is based on?
> American law rests on a joint agreement among the governed.
No, it doesn't.
> The American people have never agreed to be governed by a foreign court.
That's the first true statement in your reply, and it means they can simply ignore the court. It doesn't mean targeting the employees of the court. That's just the US govt. being thugs.
I would hope the French gov would step in and pay her claims directly.
msdz•53m ago
For the U.S., because sanctioning an “unpleasant”, but in essence harmless individual (geopolitically speaking) is ridiculous. Falling victim to de-banking alone can really ruin one’s life.
And for the EU, because it once again showcases the dependence on U.S. systems for just about anything tech-related in everyday life and work.
wereHamster•44m ago
QDwQ1•32m ago
msdz•29m ago
If you don’t follow sanctions, other banks either with branches doing business in the U.S., or their partner banks, will refuse to continue banking with you out of fear for not following sanctions – which include banks enabling sanction-circumvention. Essentially, even if the bank doesn’t want to deal with USD (which most banks would still like to do!), you’re still bound by the sanctions. A bank won’t survive long or well if it’s cut off from a majority of other banks.
RobotToaster•12m ago
cherryteastain•10m ago
China does this via laws that say, if you do not provide services to Chinese citizens/entities citing foreign sanctions, they can send you to a gulag forever. Seems to be fairly effective, considering how heavily sanctioned Huawei is.
beached_whale•17m ago
abdullahkhalids•28m ago
The only solution would be similar to what China exercised. The EU passes an order telling all EU entities to not comply with US sanctions or face legal problems. Then it comes down to how the US responds and whether EU can take that hit.
[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/impo...
RobotToaster•11m ago
Unfortunately, the fact that they haven't done this just makes the EU look like a paper tiger.
nostrademons•28m ago
Neutrality and objectivity may be a fiction, but it's one of the most useful fictions that have been invented in the last 500 years.
jfengel•15m ago
I can't say I'm happy about that, but it's a fact now. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle. Even a change of leadership soon will not alter the realization that it can change back on a moment's notice.
So... we will find out.
laimewhisps•13m ago
MSFT_Edging•28m ago
This is especially ironic given how many Trump supporters had "de-banking" as their main issue.
IIRC most of them were "debanked" due to crypto fraud or other financial crimes.
DaSHacka•17m ago
How would you even know this? Was there a poll done across every Trump supporter where they admitted to committing financial fraud? Do you mean to say Trump's 'pundits' and not his 'supporters'?
Also, the majority of pushback to debanking that I've seen among MAGA types I know IRL is more centered around the 2022 trucker protests and the debatably unjust reaction from the Canadian government.
koolba•27m ago
> For the U.S., because sanctioning an “unpleasant”, but in essence harmless individual (geopolitically speaking) is ridiculous. Falling victim to de-banking alone can really ruin one’s life.
Not a good look sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s effective over the near term. Especially if they keep expanding this to include more of the ICC bench.
That’s the whole point of such sanctions anyway. It might feel different because it’s a Canadian judge and not a Russian oligarch. But at the core the USA wants to put pressure on something and the means is indirectly applied to an individual.
dmitrygr•25m ago
Legitimate question. Why should a third party (whom I do not respect)’s opinion of me matter to me? Do you care what my cat thinks about you?
delichon•22m ago
rwmj•20m ago
dmitrygr•17m ago
rwmj•14m ago