Mamdani is doing the right thing

 

Trump hates the ICC - "his" judges aren't on the bench

The Trump administration is slapping sanctions on four judges at the International Criminal Court over the tribunal’s investigation into alleged war crimes by Israel in its war against Hamas in Gaza and in the West Bank.

The State Department said [...] that it would freeze any assets that the ICC judges, who come from Benin, Peru, Slovenia and Uganda, have in U.S. jurisdictions.

[...]

The new sanctions target ICC Judge Reine Alapini-Gansou, who is from the West African country of Benin and was part of the pre-trial chamber of judges who issued the arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year. She also served on the bench that originally greenlit the investigation into alleged Israeli crimes in the Palestinian territories in 2021.

The 69-year-old was also part of the panel of judges who issued the arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2023. Last year, a court in Moscow issued a warrant for her arrest.

[...]

From Slovenia, Beti Hohler was elected as a judge in 2023. She previously worked in the prosecutor’s office at the court, leading Israel to object to her participation in the proceedings involving Israeli officials. Hohler said in a statement last year that she had never worked on the Palestinian territories investigation during her eight years as a prosecutor.

Bouth Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza, from Peru, and Solomy Balungi Bossa, from Uganda, are appeals judges at the ICC. Each woman has worked on cases involving Israel.

  AP

All women. Huh.

    

    

And, here's your "national emergency"...

I am willing to bet Trump never read this whole thing (or probably any part of it), but if you would like to read it, click here.

We've been here before.  It's not just Trump who hates the court.

The United States never joined the ICC and has consistently opposed the empowerment of an international court that could try U.S. military and political leaders under international law.

That's largely because of concerns that U.S. soldiers and civilian leaders might be put on trial, without U.S. constitutional protections, by an anti-American prosecutor in a court with non-American judges.

  Radio Free Europe

To be perfectly clear, there are very real concerns as regards US soldiers and civilian leaders being put on trial. After all, they have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in more than one or two countries.

During the 1990s, before the ICC was established, negotiators from U.S. President Bill Clinton's administration sought to give the UN Security Council the power to screen ICC cases. Such a safeguard in the Rome Statute would have given the United States and other permanent Security Council members the ability to veto cases they opposed.

But other countries refused to agree to those measures.

[...]

President George W. Bush's administration actively sought to keep the ICC from attaining jurisdiction over the United States or its citizens.

It did so by negotiating bilateral agreements with about 100 other countries to ensure U.S. citizens would have immunity from prosecution by the ICC.

President Barack Obama's administration took steps to engage with the ICC by participating with that court's governing bodies and providing support for its ongoing prosecutions.

In Trump's first term, John Bolton threatened sanctions on the court if it proceeded with an investigation into US war crimes in Afghanistan.

The ICC in 2016 said members of the U.S. military and the CIA may have committed war crimes by torturing detainees in Afghanistan.

In November 2017, ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda announced she would request authorization from ICC judges for an investigation into the situation in Afghanistan.

Since Afghanistan is a state party of the ICC, the court can claim jurisdiction over any war crimes, genocide, or crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan after May 1, 2003.

[...]

But the government in Kabul has not asked for such an investigation, nor has the UN Security Council.

That means the only way for a formal probe to go ahead is for the ICC prosecutor to receive authorization from the ICC's pretrial chamber.

[...]

Alex Whiting, a Harvard Law School professor who worked in the ICC prosecutor's office in 2010-13, says the ICC has "extremely limited investigative powers and is almost entirely dependent on cooperation" from member states to gather information. In his Just Security blog, Whiting says ICC investigators will receive "no cooperation from the Afghan government, the Taliban, or the United States."

So, what happened at that time?

Under ICC rules, the court can open an investigation if a member country requests it, if the United Nations Security Council refers a case, or if it believes that one of the crimes that fall under its jurisdiction were committed within the territory of a member state or by nationals of a member state operating in another country. It was under that third category that the court claimed authority over the conduct of U.S. nationals in Afghanistan, as well as in Romania, Lithuania, and Poland, where the CIA operated black sites.

[...]

But U.S. officials unequivocally warned the court that opposition to the investigation of American crimes was bipartisan. With political opposition from the strongest party to the conflict, the preliminary inquiry in Afghanistan dragged along for a decade. In 2017, with President Donald Trump newly in office, Bensouda finally moved to formally request the court’s permission to launch an official investigation. In 2019, the ICC’s pretrial chamber, the body tasked with authorizing a formal investigation, denied such authorization — an unprecedented decision that cited, among other things, the “political climate” surrounding the probe.

[...]

ICC prosecutors and representatives of victims successfully appealed the denial from pretrial chambers, and the ICC’s appeals chambers authorized a formal investigation in Afghanistan on March 5, 2020. In response, the Trump administration issued an executive order condemning the ICC and imposed sanctions [...] the first time the U.S. had ever taken such action against officials of an international body.

The administration also stepped up its pressure on the Afghan government, which was eager to maintain U.S. support and made a last-minute request to testify before the ICC in opposition to the appeal. When that effort failed, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo flew to Kabul; a day after his visit, the Afghan government petitioned to “defer” the ICC investigation in Afghanistan in order to allow a national investigation to take place instead. As a court of last resort, the ICC is required to give precedence to national processes — but it’s unclear whether the Afghan government was actively pursuing one. (The deferral also meant a pause of ICC investigations into U.S. torture at CIA black sites across Eastern Europe, even though those were crimes that the Afghan government was not in a position to investigate.)

[...]

The deferral essentially put a stop to the ICC investigation in Afghanistan before it could start. It also relieved ICC prosecutors of their pledge to push through with an investigation that faced powerful opposition without having to publicly capitulate to the U.S. When the administration of President Joe Biden lifted the sanctions on the ICC officials[...], it did so with the tacit understanding that the court’s probe on U.S. crimes wouldn’t resume.

[...]

[T]he new chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court — the only international body with the authority to prosecute individuals over genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes — sought to reopen a previously suspended investigation in Afghanistan but with a caveat. The probe would not include conduct by the United States and its allies, including the U.S.-backed former Afghan government, all of which have committed crimes that fall squarely within the court’s jurisdiction.

The court’s prosecutor, Karim Khan, who has been on the job for just over three months, wrote in a statement that his office would focus exclusively on crimes committed by the Taliban and by the Islamic State Khorasan Province, or IS-K, the Islamic State group’s affiliate in Afghanistan.

[...]

The announcement dealt a blow to victims, human rights advocates, and those who had placed in the ICC their last hope to see the crimes committed by U.S. personnel and officials prosecuted in a court of law.

[...]

“This decision reinforces the perception that these institutions set up in the West and by the West are just instruments for the West’s political agenda.”

[...]

The International Criminal Court, which is based in the Netherlands, began operating in 2002, just as the U.S.-led war on terror was ramping up. Afghanistan ratified the Rome Statute, the ICC’s founding treaty, in 2003, shortly after the U.S. defeated the Taliban and installed a transitional government.

[...]

In 2002, one month after the court began operating, the U.S. enacted the American Service-Members’ Protection Act, which sought to protect U.S. personnel from international prosecution. U.S. officials also pursued dozens of bilateral agreements to pressure other countries not to collaborate with the court.

“From the very beginning, they were trying to shield themselves from responsibility,” Raquel Vázquez Llorente, the International Federation for Human Rights’ permanent representative to the ICC, told The Intercept. “They were very scared that the court would bring their people to the Hague.”

  The Intercept

Trump's attack on the ICC

The International Criminal Court ’s chief prosecutor has lost access to his email, and his bank accounts have been frozen.

The Hague-based court’s American staffers have been told that if they travel to the U.S. they risk arrest.

Some nongovernmental organizations have stopped working with the ICC and the leaders of one won’t even reply to emails from court officials.

Those are just some of the hurdles facing court staff since U.S. President Donald Trump in February slapped sanctions on its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan.

[...]

Trump sanctioned the court after a panel of ICC judges in November issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant.

Judges found there was reason to believe that the pair may have committed war crimes by restricting humanitarian aid and intentionally targeting civilians in Israel’s campaign against Hamas in Gaza — charges Israeli officials deny.

  AP

But which we can see daily in reports coming out of Gaza.

And, btw, American staffers may be arrested if they return home?

Staffers and allies of the ICC said the sanctions have made it increasingly difficult for the tribunal to conduct basic tasks, let alone seek justice for victims of war crimes or genocide.

A spokesperson for the ICC and for Khan declined to comment. In February, ICC President Judge Tomoko Akane said that the sanctions “constitute serious attacks against the Court’s States Parties, the rule of law based international order and millions of victims.”

[...]

The sanctions will “prevent victims from getting access to justice,” said Liz Evenson, international justice director at Human Rights Watch.

[...]

The February order bans Khan and other non-Americans among the ICC’s 900 staff members from entering the U.S., which is not a member of the court. It also threatens any person, institution or company with fines and prison time if they provide Khan with “financial, material, or technological support.”

[...]

The ICC had been investigating atrocities in Sudan and had issued arrest warrants for former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on charges that include genocide. That probe has ground to a halt even as reports mount of new atrocities in Sudan, according to an attorney representing ICC prosecutor Eric Iverson, who is fighting the sanctions in U.S. courts. Iverson filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking protection from the sanctions.

[...]

American staffers at the organization, like Iverson, have been warned by its attorneys that they risk arrest if they return home to visit family, according to ICC officials. Six senior officials have left the court over concerns about sanctions.

One reason the the court has been hamstrung is that it relies heavily on contractors and non-governmental organizations. Those businesses and groups have curtailed work on behalf of the court because they were concerned about being targeted by U.S. authorities, according to current and former ICC staffers.

Microsoft, for example, cancelled Khan’s email address, forcing the prosecutor to move to Proton Mail, a Swiss email provider, ICC staffers said. His bank accounts in his home country of the U.K. have been blocked.

This is all outrageous. But, I don't see people talking about it.

Staffers at an NGO that plays an integral role in the court’s efforts to gather evidence and find witnesses said the group has transferred money out of U.S. bank accounts because they fear it might be seized by the Trump administration.

Senior leadership at two other U.S.-based human rights organizations told the AP that their groups have stopped working with the ICC. A senior staffer at one told the AP that employees have stopped replying to emails from court officials out of fear of triggering a response from the Trump administration.

[...]

This is not the first time the ICC has drawn Trump’s ire. In 2020, the former Trump administration sanctioned Khan’s predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, and one of her deputies over the court’s investigation into alleged crimes committed in Afghanistan while the U.S. military was operating in the country.

President Joe Biden rescinded the sanctions when he took office several months later.

Three lawsuits are now pending from U.S. court staff and consultants against the Trump administration arguing that the sanctions infringe on their freedom of expression. Earlier this week Iverson, the lawyer investigating genocide in Sudan, won temporary protection from prosecution.

[...]

Meanwhile, the court is facing a lack of cooperation from countries normally considered to be its staunchest supporters.

The ICC has no enforcement apparatus of its own and relies on member states. In the last year, three countries – including two in the European Union – have refused to execute warrants issued by the court.

Et tu, Cory?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Does the US even acknowledge the ICC any more?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 07:27 am:

This country lost the path around 1980. 

Vlad the War Criminal

The international criminal court in The Hague has issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and his children’s rights commissioner Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, for the “unlawful deportation” of Ukrainian children.

The court’s pre-trial judges assessed there were “reasonable grounds to believe that each suspect bears responsibility for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population and that of unlawful transfer of population from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, in prejudice of Ukrainian children”.

  Guardian

Yes. Of course. But what about the intentional bombing of civilian structures? Or maybe even the invasion itself.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

War Crimes investigation

The prosecutor of the international criminal court has announced that her office will open a formal investigation into war crimes in Palestine that will examine both sides in the conflict.

The court ruled on 5 February that it had jurisdiction in the case, a move that prompted swift rejection from the US and Israel.

  Guardian

Doesn't she know Israel is above the law?

“The decision to open an investigation followed a painstaking preliminary examination undertaken by my office that lasted close to five years,” the outgoing prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, said in a statement.

Bensouda said in December 2019 that “war crimes have been or are being committed in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip”. She named both the Israel Defence Forces and armed Palestinian groups such as Hamas as possible perpetrators.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

The Biden administration opposes and is disappointed with the decision by the International Criminal Court to pursue an investigation into alleged Israeli war crimes in the Palestinian territories, State Department spokesperson Ned Price said on Wednesday.

  The Hill

Well, that's a shocker.

Price said the ICC has “no jurisdiction over this matter," which he said "unfairly" targets the Jewish State.

“Israel is not a party to the ICC, and it has not consented to the court's jurisdiction and we have serious concerns about the ICC's attempts to exercise its jurisdiction over Israeli personnel,” Price said, and echoed the U.S. view that the Palestinians do not meet the qualifications for a sovereign state required for the ICC’s involvement.

[...]

Price further said that the Biden administration is reviewing an executive order from former President Trump that imposed sanctions on the ICC’s chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and her top deputies over efforts investigating alleged war crimes by the U.S. in Afghanistan.

The sanctions, where Bensouda was added to the Specially Designated Nationals And Blocked Persons List, are typically used for terrorists and drug traffickers.

“Much as we disagree with the ICC's actions relating to the Palestinian situation, and of course to Afghanistan… we are thoroughly reviewing sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13928, as we determine our next steps,” he said.

[...]

The Palestinian Foreign Ministry welcomed the decision by the ICC, saying in a statement that “this is a long-awaited step that serves Palestine’s tireless pursuit of justice and accountability, which are indispensable pillars of the peace the Palestinian people seek and deserve.”

But it was rejected by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling the announcement “absurd.”

“It's undiluted antisemitism and the height of hypocrisy,” he tweeted.

Ass.

ICC ruling on Palestine

The international criminal court has announced that it has jurisdiction in Palestine, clearing its chief prosecutor to investigate alleged atrocities despite fierce Israeli objections.

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, condemned the ruling and said the country would “protect our citizens and soldiers in every way from legal persecution”.

Fatou Bensouda, the ICC chief prosecutor, has previously announced she intends to open a formal inquiry into alleged war crimes in the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

However, due to Palestine’s status as an occupied territory rather than a sovereign country, she had waited for judges to “confirm” if the court, headquartered in The Hague, had the authority.

  Guardian