Trump administration to take tough stance against International Criminal Court

By Steve Holland

 

FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to speak at a Republican Party fundraiser in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, U.S., September 7, 2018. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Monday will adopt an aggressive posture against the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, threatening sanctions against its judges if they proceed with an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Americans in Afghanistan.

 

President Donald Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, is to make the announcement in a midday speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative group, in Washington. It will be his first major address since joining the Trump White House.

 

"The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," Bolton will say, according to a draft of his speech seen by Reuters.

 

Bolton will also say that the State Department will announce the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) office in Washington out of concern about Palestinian attempts to prompt an ICC investigation of Israel.

 

The PLO office in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

"The United States will always stand with our friend and ally, Israel," says Bolton's draft text.

 

The draft speech says the Trump administration "will fight back" if the International Criminal Court formally proceeds with opening an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by U.S. service members and intelligence professionals during the war in Afghanistan.

 

If such a probe proceeds, the Trump administration will consider banning judges and prosecutors from entering the United States, put sanctions on any funds they have in the U.S. financial system and prosecute them in the American court system.

 

"We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us," says Bolton's draft text.

 

In addition, the United States may negotiate more binding, bilateral agreements to prohibit nations from surrendering Americans to the Hague court, says the text.

 

The court's aim is to bring to justice the perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

 

The United States did not ratify the Rome treaty that established the International Criminal Court in 2002, with then-President George W. Bush opposed to the court. President Barack Obama took some steps to cooperate with the organisation.

 

"We will consider taking steps in the U.N. Security Council to constrain the court’s sweeping powers, including to ensure that the ICC does not exercise jurisdiction over Americans and the nationals of our allies that have not ratified the Rome Statute," says Bolton's draft text.

 

(Reporting By Steve Holland; Editing by Michael Perry)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-09-10

I am sure Trump would support that court under the condition that he could hand pick all the judges and they have to guarantee him that they follow his orders - just like home.

 

The USA is of course above the law.

 

I suggest the USA keeps within its own borders. Problem solved.

Time to build a dome around the USA and keep them all inside there.

6 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Time to build a dome around the USA and keep them all inside there.

Excellent idea!

 

A cloche! 

24 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Time to build a dome around the USA and keep them all inside there.

 

Time to post more inane wide brush, knee jerk rubbish.

bolton kind of sounds like duterte.

It's disappointing the US cannot find a legal path to permit the function of the ICC applying to US citizens. However, Trump and Bolton's OTT aggressive response is shameful. For those interestested, a link below of the matters at issue between the ICC and the USA which surely can be resolved by negotiation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court#Incompatibility_with_the_U.S._Constitution

1 hour ago, FritsSikkink said:

Time to build a dome around the USA and keep them all inside there.

Easy, just change 'the wall' to be a complete dome. 

Trump really does have a problem with investigations.

Trump really does have a problem.

OP..

"threatening sanctions against its judges"

"The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," Bolton will say, according to a draft of his speech seen by Reuters.

 

These are respected international jurists he is talking about.

 

Sound more like mafia tactics and blackmail.

 

One would expect the leader of the free world would be interested in seeing evidence and witnesses presented in open court, examined by prosecution and defense lawyers, justice seen to be done etc.

 

Sounds more like the USA and its special friends have something to hide, and Trump will do his darndest to keep it hidden.

 

But like his other attempts at cover ups, it will be unsuccessful.

Edited September 10, 20187 yr by dexterm

Trump administration to take tough stance against International Criminal Court

 

 

The man-child is probably afraid he will be prosecuted by the court in the future.

 

 

Next time they get caught for committing any war crimes, during the legal process we might hear the words:

"Do you know who my President is?"

Edited September 10, 20187 yr by Lupatria

42 minutes ago, Becker said:

Trump administration to take tough stance against International Criminal Court

 

 

The man-child is probably afraid he will be prosecuted by the court in the future.

 

 

One needs to commit big crimes to be prosecuted..... Oh my God! 

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

The USA is of course above the law.

 

I suggest the USA keeps within its own borders. Problem solved.

Kinda not easy to do when the US is forking out billions in aids to countries and institutions that in a cynical ways despise and abhor the US and for all it stand for but that never stops them from reaching out for more aid and protection....

 investigation into alleged war crimes  

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

It's disappointing the US cannot find a legal path to permit the function of the ICC applying to US citizens. However, Trump and Bolton's OTT aggressive response is shameful. For those interestested, a link below of the matters at issue between the ICC and the USA which surely can be resolved by negotiation.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court#Incompatibility_with_the_U.S._Constitution

Trump has already negotiated with two words '<deleted> off''

19 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Kinda not easy to do when the US is forking out billions in aids to countries and institutions that in a cynical ways despise and abhor the US and for all it stand for but that never stops them from reaching out for more aid and protection....

I’ve lived and worked in many of the places the US send aid and aid money to.

 

By and large the people I’ve met there express very favourable views of the US, many choosing to study at American colleges and universities, very many more choosing to buy American cars and other American goods and services.

28 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Kinda not easy to do when the US is forking out billions in aids to countries and institutions that in a cynical ways despise and abhor the US and for all it stand for but that never stops them from reaching out for more aid and protection....

Simple.. don't pay for them.

 

Anyway American's supporting this action  of Thrump are condemning war crimes, because that is what this is about. Soldiers committing ar crimes.. why protect scum like that ?

Could backfire... 

 

Edited September 10, 20187 yr by Basil B

1 hour ago, wombat said:

 investigation into alleged war crimes  

Trump has already negotiated with two words <deleted> off''

Without collaboration from nation states it makes the work of the ICC extremely difficult. Have a read of the ICC mandate below, then explain why and you too Boon Mee, believe the US completely reject the ICC investigations into whether War Crimes were committed by US military or not. I do understand  US cooperation would require an amendment to the US Constitution. However, would it not be better for the US be open to, rather than blocking War Crimes investigations into its citizens. Under Trump the US is pushing very hard to undermine the international Rule of Law and other institutions. IMO, in the longer term, the Trump Administration deliberately destroying domestic and international Institutions will not be of net benefit to the US.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

Speaking as an American, a bad but predictable response from disreputable people like Trump and Bolton.

 

Countries and the U.N. can debate over what is the proper jurisdiction of the ICC.

 

But for Bolton to be talking about the U.S. personally sanctioning ICC judges if they want to pursue U.S. related cases is just a typical abuse of power by the current U.S. admin.

 

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

OP..

"threatening sanctions against its judges"

"The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," Bolton will say, according to a draft of his speech seen by Reuters.

 

These are respected international jurists he is talking about.

 

Sound more like mafia tactics and blackmail.

 

One would expect the leader of the free world would be interested in seeing evidence and witnesses presented in open court, examined by prosecution and defense lawyers, justice seen to be done etc.

 

Sounds more like the USA and its special friends have something to hide, and Trump will do his darndest to keep it hidden.

 

But like his other attempts at cover ups, it will be unsuccessful.

The whole "leader of the free world" is BS, the president leads the USA, nothing else. He likes to bully the rest of the world but that is a different thing. 

45 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Without collaboration from nation states it makes the work of the ICC extremely difficult. Have a read of the ICC mandate below, then explain why and you too Boon Mee, believe the US completely reject the ICC investigations into whether War Crimes were committed by US military or not. I do understand  US cooperation would require an amendment to the US Constitution. However, would it not be better for the US be open to, rather than blocking War Crimes investigations into its citizens. Under Trump the US is pushing very hard to undermine the international Rule of Law and other institutions. IMO, in the longer term, the Trump Administration deliberately destroying domestic and international Institutions will not be of net benefit to the US. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

 

The US, being the prime super-power, is militarily (and otherwise) involved in numerous conflicts and hot-spots. The "even-handed" and "informed" manner in which even the enlightened membership of this forum often reacts to related issues, may give a clue as to the value of to reasons to refrain.

 

The ICC is a nice idea, with a problematic application.

 

I agree with comments made regarding the Trump administration manner of addressing the issue.

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Simple.. don't pay for them.

 

Anyway American's supporting this action  of Thrump are condemning war crimes, because that is what this is about. Soldiers committing ar crimes.. why protect scum like that ?

 

Who gets to decide if war crimes were committed? Who's got the authority to apply punishments? Do all countries subscribe to this? Do all get treated in the same manner?

 

 

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Who gets to decide if war crimes were committed? Who's got the authority to apply punishments? Do all countries subscribe to this? Do all get treated in the same manner?

 

 

The whole point is to get an independent body to check.. do you honestly believe the US is not a bit bias towards his soldiers ? The US is just afraid that their bad deeds get exposed that is it nothing more nothing less. 

 

If they are so afraid.. then don't start wars and don't commit war crimes. The US just shows again they don't care about anyone but themselves even if war crimes are committed. Stupid stance of course from a country that is supposed to be "good"

 

Not all countries subscribe to this.. usually countries with something to hide.. less desirable countries and such don't like this. So the US is in good company. 

 

This is NOT an anti US rant.. just an anti US policy rant. 

As an American- both Trump and Bolton are way out of bounds on this issue. Sanctioning judges- freezing monies is an absurd reaction.

 

However, as a sovereign country- I would never surrender jurisdiction of my countrymen to an International Court. However, I would co-operate with the court if they wanted to investigate a 'crime such as genocide such as what is happening in Burma.  

 

If the court wants to investigate the actions of individual soldiers in Afghanistan- I would not co-operate. If there is evidence, it needs to be turned over to the United States as  US Military must adhere to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.  If the International Court has evidence of a policy of genocide carried out by US Military under orders of the US Government- present your evidence to the World and let public opinion dictate action.  I might add that all US military officers take extensive training in the rule of War  and I know no officer that would engage in killing of civilians. They simply wouldn't follow the order if given.

16 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

As an American- both Trump and Bolton are way out of bounds on this issue. Sanctioning judges- freezing monies is an absurd reaction.

 

However, as a sovereign country- I would never surrender jurisdiction of my countrymen to an International Court. However, I would co-operate with the court if they wanted to investigate a 'crime such as genocide such as what is happening in Burma.  

 

If the court wants to investigate the actions of individual soldiers in Afghanistan- I would not co-operate. If there is evidence, it needs to be turned over to the United States as  US Military must adhere to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice.  If the International Court has evidence of a policy of genocide carried out by US Military under orders of the US Government- present your evidence to the World and let public opinion dictate action.  I might add that all US military officers take extensive training in the rule of War  and I know no officer that would engage in killing of civilians. They simply wouldn't follow the order if given.

Right.. US commits war crimes on foreign soil but wants to keep the right to prosecute on their own soil.. crazy of course. Just an other way to cover up crimes.. you expect something like that from Russia.. Cambodia.. Thailand.. not from a country that is supposedly a good country. (I am talking about imaginary war crimes here as an example)

 

If you want to keep sovereignty then keep your crimes on your own soil, once committed on foreign soil you should bend to the rules of the international court. Its good that there is such an institute.. because otherwise countries can hide their crimes. Besides what law applies.. the law of the country invaded.. or that of the US.. plus bias judges.. an independent organisation is the solution for these things. At least then you know all is above board. 

 

I would not trust US judges judging their own (to be honest I would not trust any judges to judge their own in a conflict situation). A third party is a great solution for this then everyone knows its trusted.

2 hours ago, Lupatria said:

Next time they get caught for committing any war crimes, during the legal process we might hear the words:

"Do you know who my President is?"

Oh,..Man..This is good !!!

One point I'd note here just in general, and not specific to the U.S.

 

Civilians and innocents do get injured and killed in war and conflict zones. That is inevitable. But there are different ways that can happen.

 

1. By sheer unavoidable accident

2. By neglect or incompetence

3. By deliberate, intentional action (genocide, human shields, crimes against civilians like rape, etc etc.)

 

If the ICC is going to play a role in the world, IMHO, it ought to be focusing first on crimes against humanity or innocents/civilians where those occurred by deliberate action.

 

I think the cases of #3 by the U.S. military in conflicts abroad are relatively rare, but where they occur, they certainly should be prosecuted, and I'd believe normally would be by the U.S. justice system.

 

However, there are other countries and forces where the #3 mode is their norm and where there is little or no internal enforcement of laws and legal norms against their forces, or they're actually following the policy of their government/leaders. Myanmar's ethnic cleansing, Duterte's drug war, the terrorist groups and others come to mind.

 

Personally, I wouldn't put those latter kinds of crimes in the same basket as a U.S. drone strike in Afghanistan where the U.S. is seeking to take out some terrorists and ends up, despite precautions, inadvertently killing civilians as collateral damage.

 

 

Edited September 10, 20187 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK