• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Bolton's Speech to Federalist Society - US Will Sanction/Criminalise ICC Judges

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
11,326
Reaction score
9,322
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The International Criminal Court in The Hague (ICC) will soon be under attack by the US Government if the ICC dares to investigate or prosecute Americans or American allies for war crimes or crimes against humanity.

I have posted this thread in the I/P Forum because in the same speech in which John Bolton threatened the ICC he also discussed the Palestinian attempts to have Israel prosecuted for war crimes by the ICC and that will no doubt bleed into the discussion of this topic, despite my earnest hope that we stick to the international dimensions of this topic on criminalising the ICC.

I wish to discuss John Bolton's and the US Administration's threatened travel bans, economic sanctions and US criminal prosecutions for ICC judges, jurists and prosecutors who investigate or prosecute US or US allies for war crimes as well as any person, firm, organisation or state which aids the court (including witnesses). Mr. Bolton also threatened to extend the use of these legal tools to these third-party persons, firms, organisations and states supporting ICC judges and prosecutors in both investigations and prosecutions. Worse still Mr. Bolton threatened that the US Government would use "any and all means" to prevent US citizens and allies from being prosecuted by the ICC. What does "any and all means" mean to the US Government? Will such means include actions as strong as covert military or intelligence agency action or overt military action?

The verbatim text of John Bolton's speech to the Federalist Society (as reported by Al Jazeera English) where he laid out this new and astonishing policy on Monday, September 10th, 2018 is linked to here:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018...peech-federalist-society-180910172828633.html

It would seem that the United States of America has decided to go to near-war with the international legal system and anybody who tries to apply international law to Americans or to their close allies with respect to war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed as part of US or allied state policy is in for a great deal of trouble. Even simply investigating such accusations of alleged war crimes/crimes against humanity can now apparently lead to criminal prosecution by American authorities for ICC jurists, investigators and cooperating third-parties. Is this a wise course of action by the US? Is it setting back by decades the development of international law and the international system? Is American exceptionalism now going to be legally and forcefully imposed upon the international legal system? Should investigators and judges be sanctioned and prosecuted for investigating and prosecuting alleged crimes by Americans or American allies? This is truly extraordinary and draconian behaviour in my opinion.

Please remember this is the I/P forum and martial law rules apply.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 

Let us know when John Bolton becomes an "elected" or "appointed" member of the Federal Government, especially in a position of authority regarding this issue.

Until then, quoting the speech of one American to members of a particular "society" is nothing more than an example of American "Free Speech."

Cheers. :coffeepap:
 

Are you kidding?

John Bolton is the National Security Advisor of the United States.

Do you not remember this?

Or do you think you're setting us up for some super clever gotcha?
 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Advisor_(United_States)
 
Last edited:

Captain Adverse:

Two quotes from the speech by Mr. Bolton who was appointed as National Security Advisor by President Trump:

I am here to make a major announcement on US policy toward the International Criminal Court, or ICC.
Click to expand...


He is clearly speaking as an authorised agent of the US Government and of the Office of the President of the United States.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Why should the nation that champions the rule of law and international standards for decency and human rights not willingly and happily support an international court? The only reason I can determine is that we want to do as we please not as we say.
 
This is a preemptive maneuver to protect the US government (and its foreign allies) against prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

In concert with other recent US pronouncements, this is obviously a device to protect Israel from being brought before the ICC by Palestine, by the US threatening ICC retribution.

Quite frankly, such a methodology is disgusting. But then again, the Trump government is itself disgusting so this is par for the course as they say in Mar-a-Lago.
 
Right or wrong, the organs of international government are only as powerful as the party making the complaint.

These thing really haven't changed much since the end of WWII. The U.S. dominated their creation and to this day dominates their operation.

Trying to use it to leverage the U.S. is like a kid threatening to run away from home while they are handcuffed in the trunk of their parent's car.
 

I believe the USA could be brought before the ICC for Panama, Honduras, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, LIbya, Yemen and Syria for invasion of soveriegn Nations and chaos, death and desruction by our actions. Disgusting, but it is the truth. The USA operates as a military and economic Hegemon against International laws. The World, excepting Israel and Saudi Arabia, can see through the charade and KNOW the truth. The Sanctions amount to Economic warfare from the Economic arm of Full Spectrum Dominance. I believe it all boils down to the fact that if the USA loses economic control, the USA will have to repay its' considerabel debt and that could precipitate a bankruptcy. The USA actions absolutely do not represent the intentions of its' citizens, but do represent the Corporate/MIC arm of Fascism.
/
 
Should investigators, jurists, prosecutors and judges be prosecuted by states who do not approve or what those legal personnel are looking into? If this kind of prosecution is legitimate at the international level then can it be spring-boarded into domestic policy? Should any state be able to prosecute jurists and investigators who are looking into possible criminal behaviour by agents of the state, the investigation of which may hurt the accused state's interests at home or abroad. How does this effect the protections of a free press if that press helps the ICC indirectly by reporting on its findings and by doing investigative journalism independently which may aid ICC investigators?

Mr. Bolton seems to be describing what may be the first steps in using the legal system of the United States as a coercive tool to try to control what Americans can know and by extension what they can think. That is an alarming potential power in the hands of what is arguably the largest and most powerful security and surveillance state in the world today. After all, the ICC cannot compel Americans in America to come before its tribunals and accept its decisions. All it can really do is investigate and prosecute, thus publicly airing and publicising the allegations and supporting evidence for alleged crimes committed by America and her allies in pursuit of serving their international policies and interests. Is exposure of such information by an international body recognised by about 140 countries that toxic to US interests and policy? Or is America declaring a sort of neo-imperial privilege above all other nations and international systems as a global hegemon?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:

It has to do with the primacy of US sovereignty and the democratic supremacy of US citizens (who have a cultural aversion to subordinating their sovereign power to others.

It also relates to the selectivity of international institutions and their history of being co-opted by illiberal, undemocratic forces to be used as a bludgeon against the US and its allies. Note the reference to how ineffective the ICC has been, how many real and obvious war crimes are not going to be remedied by the ICC, and the kind of nonsense it is engaged in now "inviting submissions" relating to the poor Palestinians having suffered from losing yet another war targeting Israel's civilian population. But that the ICC could or would do anything about the Russians, the Syrians, the Iranians, etc is laughable on its face as a transparent and obvious fiction.

The US is not a member of the ICC because it is not prepared to subordinate its sovereignty for a sham organization that either already is or will invariably become corrupted by the illiberal forces that control international institutions (see, e.g., the composition of various UN bodies dealing with rights). The US has now gone on record that if the ICC or other similar institutions attempt to assert their authority over the sovereign United States that the US will take action against the individuals and groups that seek to usurp the rights and powers of the US.

I know the left doesn't get this and has an aversion to national sovereignty in general and western liberal power projection in particular, but you guys should really just try to understand it in that lens. This isn't about mind control over US citizens or any such nonsense, nor is it "imperialist privilege" bunk. It is about protecting American freedom of action and about protecting US citizens from investigation or prosecution for carrying out activities at the direction of the US government.

And in terms of the broader posture, it is about not being prepared to keep ceding sovereignty to unaccountable global institutions which have a marked propensity to be hijacked by illiberal extremists.
 
Vadinho said:
Why should the nation that champions the rule of law and international standards for decency and human rights not willingly and happily support an international court? The only reason I can determine is that we want to do as we please not as we say.
Click to expand...

Yeah, or that could be wildly off base.

An "international court" isn't worth anything. It is a moral preening institution which will attract the fun combination of western leftists interested in attacking the west for its purported sins and the illiberal states which take perverse joy out of corrupting liberal values and institutions to their own ends (see, e.g., the composition of the "Human Rights Council").

The court's track record is abysmal, it accomplishes nothing, obvious and repeated crimes by illiberal states go for decades without sanction (see, Russia, China, Iran, Syria, etc. etc.), and it starts acting like it will start busying itself looking at the Jews and the Americans? Bolton was 100% right to put them on notice that if they think they don't have better things to do than investigate and preen against the Americans (the only ones maintaining any sort of liberal world order), they should at least think about self preservation. Cause we have enough international institutions that pretend they support liberal democracy and rights when in practice they support the opposite.
 

Can you cite cases they pursued that were not violations of international law or human rights abuses?

https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works

They prosecute four types of crime; genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and lastly crimes of aggression. My bet is Bolton does not consider the Iraq war to be subject to review by the ICC nor does he believe the continued occupation of Palestinian lands and the blockade of Gaza up for debate.
 
Last edited:

Not really, because they don't investigate publicly. But they don't prosecute much, and they have no jurisdiction over countries that have not signed on.

As for your bet about Bolton, I agree with you on that. And with him, linguistic gymnastics about "Palestinian lands" aside.
 

CJ 2.0:

I don't have a problem with the United States opting to not cooperate with the ICC as they did in 2002. I do not even have a problem with the US ignoring the ICC as illegitimate from the American Government's perspective. I do have a really big problem with the US threatening to use sanctions, criminal prosecution and even force against peaceful jurists who are investigating US or US allies who are alleged to have committed war crimes and threatening to sanction, criminally prosecute or use force against any third-party person, company, organisation or state that cooperates with the ICC. Just as the USA is free to ignore international law emanating from the ICC, so should jurists, investigators and cooperating third-parties be able to ignore US law and be protected from US reprisals and threats of force while doing their duly appointed jobs. Ignore the ICC if you wish, yes. Refuse to cooperate with the ICC, fine. But threatening the ICC, its employees and all third-parties who cooperate with the ICC is international thuggery and bully-boy arrogance and thus should not be allowed to stand.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 

I understand and it is fair to disagree with the US policy. But if this sort of push is needed to ensure that the ICC keeps its focus on the worst actors in areas where there are no effective domestic mechanisms to prosecute (which is what it is supposed to do), then ultimately it is something which would actually help preserve the institution from corrupting (at least for a little bit, since corruption of these institutions is inevitable).

It is basically putting them on notice that the US will not tolerate the ICC pretending the US doesn't have an effective judicial process and unlike other weak western punching bags that suffer at the hands of corrupted international institutions (see Israel for a perfect case in point), the US will not allow itself to be used by morally preening westerners or illiberal despots to make themselves feel better.

It is a very understandable position, perhaps made much too strongly.

As for "not be allowed to stand", that is PRECISELY why the US should act this way. Cause they are the ones who keep the peace and protect the liberal order, so the rest of us who benefit from that need to watch biting the hand that feeds (protects) us. So basically the US should do almost everything that the western left or the illiberal rest of world says "shouldn't be allowed to stand".

The US isn't perfect, (obviously) but it is better than every single alternative as a protector of liberal democratic civilization. Challenging it to advance the interests of the illiberal order is not doing good, as much as the leftist obsession with intersectionality seems to result in leftists more often than not supporting repressive illiberals against the US.

Good thread, by the way.
 

I read this wondering where the crime was that you so passionately described as one the US would never submit to via the ICC. What exactly are you talking about specifically? You threw around labels in place of actual cases before the court. Has the court attempted to put our own actions on trial? Perhaps we need a watch dog or do you consider us above any law or control by the rest of humanity? At the heart of the anti-ICC argument is that of all the nations on earth, the US is the lone protector of all that is good and no one should ever question us. Does that sum it up?
 

CJ 2.0:

You correctly recognize that the US is an imperfect "protector" (I would argue "enforcer") of what you call liberal democratic civilisation. How can it be forced to become less imperfect and in American parlance "more perfect" unless its agents' actions and those of its allies are under the careful scrutiny of investigators and jurists? How will military, paramilitary and covert special forces be pushed to clean up their acts if their actions (after the fact to protect operational security) are not subject to review and examination? Secrecy and exceptionalism are a toxic combination which protects abusers and builds enduring cultures of impunity for harms done to others.

As stated before the US and its allies face no real threat from the ICC except the bad PR associated with the ICC investigation and possible substantiation of accusations regarding alleged crimes committed by agents of the US Government or its allies. So this is more about maintaining a public image which may radically differ from what is really going on in the name of "protecting liberal democratic civilisation".

Finally, how would the US Government even prosecute these investigators and jurists? As far as I know it is not illegal to collect evidence, interview witnesses, question people under oath and render judgements in US law. So what crime could these jurists be accused of and charged with? They are not US citizens so treason and sedition are off the table. They are operating openly with internationally recognised sanction so espionage is inapplicable here. They are operating outside the jurisdiction of American law so that complicates matters even more. The conclusion is that prosecution will be used to harass jurists and investigators with the full knowledge that such prosecutions could never succeeded in a US court. Furthermore prosecuting such folks would allow them to bring the very alleged war crime evidence into US courts, unless such prosecutions were held in camera - Star-Chamber justice. If these trials are to become secret then that further corrodes the rule of law. The logical conclusion is that the US will really be left with two options, sanctions to harass jurists and force to suppress them by coercion and violence. That does not sound to me like the tools of "protecting liberal democratic civilisation". That sounds like protectinting the Duartes, the El-Sisi's, the Putins, the Boltons, the Kissingers, and the Sharons of the world from accountability for their chosen actions and orders to others.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
This , imo , is just an obvious attempt at bringing about the demise of the ICC by the biggest rogue state on the planet and as such shouldn't surprise anyone.

Reading through this thread and wondering about just how people have allowed/forced themselves into such ridiculous positions about the intentions/goals/actions of the US and the selective memory needed to hold such positions. The qualifiers about it not being perfect etc are wholly risible.

As for Boltons rant and threats , well , the obvious thing to remember is that if you are the biggest rogue state on the planet why would you want to see the continuance of the ICC even if you are/were a member of it anyway ?

Threatening those that have anything to do with it is disgusting but not surprising. The MO is the US refers to international laws and conventions when they serve to provide a fig leaf for its own aggressive global assaults but demands that it , its own citizens and allies be exempted from it .

IMO good people will support the continuance of the ICC and support it if it does investigate US actions brought to it by members that have signed up to it and or international organisations concerned with international law and the protection of peoples rights etc

At present the rap sheet of the ICC is exclusively made up of black people and that is precisely why it should be compelled to broaden itsr scope and widen the net to include , shock horror , white people in powerful nations. If it fails in this endeavour then it has no legitimacy anyway and I couldn't care less if it were to sink under the weight of its own ineptness.

Those who support the words and intentions as outlined by a warmonger like Bolton should NEVER and I mean NEVER refer to any international law or rights legislation or wax lyrical with assertions of morality or justice because they evidently have no respect for any of it
 
Last edited:
Vadinho said:
Why should the nation that champions the rule of law and international standards for decency and human rights not willingly and happily support an international court? The only reason I can determine is that we want to do as we please not as we say.
Click to expand...

This has been the case for a long time and reflects political tensions within the US that go back a ways. On the one hand we set up or participate in such international institutions, our progressive side; on the other hand, we take our ball and go home when asked to live up to the standards or participate in the procedures we preach, our conservative side. Laws, including international laws and courts, are often used to strengthen the hand of the weak. We are strong. We don’t need the laws. Thus when Nicaragua a country of 3 million people tried to take us (300 million) to court for (I believe) mining their harbors, an act of war, we temporarily withdrew from the courts jurisdiction. It’s the way of empires. We just don’t call ourselves that.
 

IIRC the Iraq war , a classic case of aggression imo , was already off limits to the ICC due to chronology. Bolton being a cheerleader for it tells you all you need to know about him and his contempt for international law imo

I know quite recently the ICC was considering investigating events/alleged crimes committed by the Taliban ( cheer now ) and the US coalition forces ( boo now ) in Afghanistan , something Bolton will no doubt have had in mind when he was talking about any ICC investigations of US people.

I agree with you about the situation regarding the crimes the state of Israel visits upon the Palestinians and think that these proclamations are also attempts at laying the foundations of a new US sponsored " peace initiative " that will seek to remove existing international laws and conventions from it so as to ensure a much weaker Palestinian, much stronger Israeli position.

And , as I stated earlier , it is imperative that the court broadens its horizons to include indictments of white people living in powerful countries if it is to gain an ongoing credibility
 

Nicaragua won that case and the US ignored the decision..........used it's position and UNSC veto to negate enforcement ........ and afaik never paid the reparations awarded

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
 
Last edited:
oneworld2 said:
This , imo , is just an obvious attempt at bringing about the demise of the ICC by the biggest rogue state on the planet and as such shouldn't surprise anyone.
Click to expand...

And this right here is why the radical left can never be taken seriously. Cause when “analysis” starts at a point that detached from reality, there isn’t really anything to be gained from it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…