Trump’s sanctions on ICC prosecutor said to have halted tribunal’s work

toomuchtime_

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
20,979
Reaction score
5,700
Points
280
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — 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 US they risk arrest.

Some non-governmental 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 US President Donald Trump in February slapped sanctions on its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, according to interviews with current and former ICC officials, international lawyers and human rights advocates.



The ICC was a bad idea from the start and now it doesn't even follow its own rules. Time's up.


00:00 / 23:33
 
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — 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 US they risk arrest.

Some non-governmental 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 US President Donald Trump in February slapped sanctions on its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, according to interviews with current and former ICC officials, international lawyers and human rights advocates.



The ICC was a bad idea from the start and now it doesn't even follow its own rules. Time's up.


00:00 / 23:33
Why would any U.S. staffers of the ICC be facing arrest if they return to the United States?

What’s the basis for THAT claim?
 
Why would any U.S. staffers of the ICC be facing arrest if they return to the United States?

What’s the basis for THAT claim?
I'm not sure, but I imagine it has something to do with the American Service Members Protection Act, which was passed to protect US service members and service members of allied nations from the ICC.

 
I'm not sure, but I imagine it has something to do with the American Service Members Protection Act, which was passed to protect US service members and service members of allied nations from the ICC.

I oppose the ICC. The protection act is perfectly appropriate.

But that doesn’t mean anyone from the USA should be arrested just for working with or for the ICC.

For ISIS or Hamas, maybe. But for the ICC? Not seeing it.
 
I oppose the ICC. The protection act is perfectly appropriate.

But that doesn’t mean anyone from the USA should be arrested just for working with or for the ICC.

For ISIS or Hamas, maybe. But for the ICC? Not seeing it.
If the ICC is attacking US or allied service members and you are an American facilitating that attack, it seems to me to be reasonable you be held accountable.
 
If the ICC is attacking US or allied service members and you are an American facilitating that attack, it seems to me to be reasonable you be held accountable.
When and if that happens, they should be held accountable. I don’t trust the ICC any more than I trust the UN (which is not at all).
 
When and if that happens, they should be held accountable. I don’t trust the ICC any more than I trust the UN (which is not at all).
It happened and that's why they might be arrested if they return to the US.
 
No. It didn’t happen.
The act protects US allies, also, so facilitating the issuance of the arrest warrants would give cause to hold these Americans accountable. The ICC is the enemy.
 
The act protects US allies, also, so facilitating the issuance of the arrest warrants would give cause to hold these Americans accountable. The ICC is the enemy.
It wouldn’t protect any ally who is a signatory to the Rome Treaty.

That Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Treaty simply means that the ICC has no true jurisdiction over Israel or Netanyahu.
 
It wouldn’t protect any ally who is a signatory to the Rome Treaty.

That Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Treaty simply means that the ICC has no true jurisdiction over Israel or Netanyahu.
It certainly shouldn't have jurisdiction over Israel, and yet it claims it does and by its own rules it doesn't have jurisdiction over any issue if the country under investigation has a responsible legal system, yet the ICC claims jurisdiction without considering Israel's legal system. The ICC is clearly beyond redemption.
 
It certainly shouldn't have jurisdiction over Israel, and yet it claims it does and by its own rules it doesn't have jurisdiction over any issue if the country under investigation has a responsible legal system, yet the ICC claims jurisdiction without considering Israel's legal system. The ICC is clearly beyond redemption.
Agreed.
 
Back
Top Bottom