SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
lindsey graham
ICC President Warns Attacks on Court Threaten 'Future of Humanity'
The judge pointed to Russian arrest warrants for court leadership and U.S. threats of "draconian economic sanctions."
Dec 02, 2024
Less than two weeks after the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli and Hamas leaders, the ICC president on Monday warned that the tribunal faces "existential" threats—taking aim at Russia and the United States without naming either.
Judge Tomoko Akane's comments came at the start of the 23rd session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, set to run through Saturday in The Hague, the Netherlands. Established in 2002, the treaty-based ICC prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression.
"We are at a turning point in history. Regretfully, this is not rhetorical," the ICC president said. "International law and international justice are under threat. So is the future of humanity. The International Criminal Court will continue to carry out its lawful mandate, independently and impartially, without giving in to any outside interference."
"The court has been subjected to attacks seeking to undermine its legitimacy and ability to administer justice and realize international law and fundamental rights; coercive measures, threats, pressure, and acts of sabotage."
Akane shared examples of what the ICC has faced while pursuing justice "as atrocities continue to plague the world," detailing how "the court has been subjected to attacks seeking to undermine its legitimacy and ability to administer justice and realize international law and fundamental rights; coercive measures, threats, pressure, and acts of sabotage."
Rather than naming Russia or the U.S., she called them out as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
"Several elected officials are being severely threatened and are subjected to arrest warrants from a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, merely for having faithfully and diligently carried out their judicial mandate per the statutory framework and international law," she said, referring to Russia, which launched a full-blown invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
As Human Rights Watch (HRW) summarized Monday: "Arrest warrants issued by Russia against the ICC prosecutor and six of the court's current and former judges in retaliation to the court's March 2023 warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin, remain pending, and a law criminalizing cooperation with the ICC remains in force in the country. In September 2023, the court was the target of a serious cyberattack."
In addition to Putin, the ICC last year issued a warrant for Russian Commissioner for Children's Rights Maria Lvova-Belova for allegedly abducting Ukrainian children and transporting them to Russia. At the time, neither Russia nor Ukraine was a party to the Rome Statute, but as Akane noted, Ukraine has since ratified the treaty that established the court and will be a state party beginning next year.
Highlighting U.S. attacks on the ICC, Akane said that "the court is being threatened with draconian economic sanctions from institutions of another permanent member of the Security Council as if it was a terrorist organization. These measures would rapidly undermine the court's operations in all situations and cases and jeopardize its very existence."
The ICC issued warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri last month despite pressure from the United States. Neither the U.S. nor Israel is a party to the ICC, but Palestine is.
As Palestine Chronicle editor Ramzy Baroud noted in a Monday opinion piece for Common Dreams, the November decision was significant in part because "historically, the vast majority of arrest warrants, and actual detention of accused war criminals seemed to target the Global South, and Africa, in particular."
The outgoing Biden administration and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's pick for national security adviser have criticized the warrants for the leaders from Israel, which also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice over its assault on the people of Gaza.
Responding to the warrants on Fox News last month, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)—a key ally of Trump in the upper chamber that will soon be controlled by Republicans—said: "So to any ally, Canada, Britain, Germany, France, if you try to help the ICC, we're gonna sanction you... We should crush your economy, because we're next."
While Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last week that "we will abide by all the regulations and rulings of the international court" as a party to the Rome Statute, France has flip-flopped on warrant enforcement. Just a day after French Prime Minister Michel Barnier told Parliament that the government would fulfill its obligations, the Foreign Ministry announced it would not detain Netanyahu and Gallant, claiming they have "immunities" because Israel is not a party to the treaty.
The Associated Pressexplained Monday that "Graham's threat isn't seen as just empty words," considering that as president, Trump "sanctioned the court's previous prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, with a travel ban and asset freeze for investigating American troops and intelligence officials in Afghanistan."
Graham isn't alone in making threats. U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) targeted the court's current prosecutor in response to the warrants, writing on social media: "The ICC is a kangaroo court and Karim Khan is a deranged fanatic. Woe to him and anyone who tries to enforce these outlaw warrants. Let me give them all a friendly reminder: The American law on the ICC is known as the Hague Invasion Act for a reason. Think about it."
Officially titled the American Service Members' Protection Act, the 2002 law enables the president to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court."
Akane said Monday that "we firmly reject any attempt to influence the independence and the impartiality of the court. We resolutely dismiss efforts to politicize our function. We have and always will comply only with the law, under all circumstances."
"There isn't such a thing as selective sanctions or coercive measures. If the court collapses, this will inevitably imply the collapse of all situations and cases," she stressed. "The fall of the court would imply the fall of the rule of law in the international community and a final defeat of the fight against impunity."
Still, the judge concluded that "the court can continue to provide what for humanity is the most essential sentiment: hope," a sentiment echoed by Khan, who spoke after her at the opening of the conference.
The prosecutor said that "history will judge whether or not the promise of the Rome Statute is vindicated in practice in the maelstrom that we see around us, not only the storm we face but winds that are perhaps to come. But despite that, really the focus of my remarks today is that we don't have the luxury, nor do we need to give in to despondency and despair."
As the conference got underway, Human Rights Watch released a 24-page report with recommendations to ensure the court has everything it needs to advance cases and called on state parties to support the ICC in the face of global attacks.
"ICC warrants, whether against Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu, send a critical message that no one is above the law," said Liz Evenson, HRW's international justice director. "ICC member countries should make a commitment during their annual meeting to take all necessary steps to ensure that the ICC's crucial work for justice can continue without obstruction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'More Unhinged by the Minute': Senior Israeli Lawmaker Suggests Nuclear Attack on Iran
"It is not possible anymore to stop the Iranian nuclear program with conventional means," the hardline Knesset member and former Israeli defense minister said.
Jul 04, 2024
A longtime Israeli lawmaker and former defense minister took to the airwaves and social media on Wednesday to suggest his country should do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
"It is not possible anymore to stop the Iranian nuclear program with conventional means," Avigdor Liberman of the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party said during a Channel 12 interview. "And we will have to use all the means that are available to us."
"We will have to stop with the deliberate policy of ambiguity, and it needs to be clear what is at stake here," Liberman continued, apparently referring to Israel's refusal to say whether it has nuclear weapons. "What is at stake here is the future of this nation, the future of the state of Israel, and we will not take any risks."
Member of Knesset and former Minister of Defense, Avigdor Liberman, live on Channel 12, openly calls to use nuclear weapon against Iran, in order to prevent it from reaching weaponization of its nuclear program. What a fuckin' psycho. pic.twitter.com/NYGfQ1zqVp
— B.M. (@ireallyhateyou) July 4, 2024
When pressed on what he meant by stopping Iran with non-conventional means, Liberman said, "I said it very clearly."
"Right now there is no time to stop the Iranian nuclear program, their weaponization, by using conventional means," he added.
Liberman made similar comments on social media, where his remarks sparked alarm and condemnation. The lawmaker's hardline call comes amid powder keg tensions between Tel Aviv and Tehran, which warned last week that any Israeli invasion of Lebanon—from which Iranian ally Hezbollah is resisting Israel's annihilation of Gaza—would trigger an "obliterating war."
According to the Arms Control Association (ACA), a U.S.-based advocacy group, Iran is a "threshold state," meaning "it has developed the necessary capacities to build nuclear weapons."
However, a February 2024 threat assessment report authored by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence stated that "Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities necessary to produce a testable nuclear device."
"Since 2020, however, Tehran has stated that it is no longer constrained by any JCPOA limits," the report says, a reference to so-called Iran Nuclear Deal from which the U.S. unilaterally withdrew in 2018 under former President Donald Trump. "Iran has greatly expanded its nuclear program, reduced [International Atomic Energy Agency] monitoring, and undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so."
Iran maintains its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, although Kamal Kharazi, a foreign policy advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
told the Financial Times earlier this week that his country would "have to change our doctrine" if faced with an existential threat.
The ACA and others estimate that Israel has around 90 nuclear warheads and fissile material for approximately 200 more.
Liberman isn't the first Israeli lawmaker to suggest nuclear war against Iran. Far-right Deputy Knesset Speaker Nissim Vaturi—who sparked outrage by saying Israeli forces are "too humane" in Gaza and should "burn" the Palestinian territory—said in April that "in the event of a conflict with Iran, if we do not receive American ammunition, we will have to use everything we have."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lindsey Graham Blocks Democrats' Attempt to Pass Supreme Court Ethics Bill
"Senate Republicans just showed how out of touch they are with what most Americans want—a Supreme Court free of corruption."
Jun 13, 2024
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham on Wednesday blocked an attempt by Senate Democrats to pass Supreme Court reform legislation by unanimous consent, thwarting efforts to establish a binding ethics code for the nation's top court as two of its right-wing justices come under fire for taking billionaire-funded luxury vacations and flying flags associated with the January 6 insurrection.
The Democratic legislation—titled the the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act—advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee nearly a year ago without any GOP support. The bill would give the high court 180 days to adopt a binding code of ethics and establish new recusal requirements surrounding justices' acceptance of gifts.
Supreme Court justices are currently the only federal judges in the U.S. not bound by an ethics code. Last year, under massive pressure following revelations of Justice Clarence Thomas' undisclosed luxury trips, the Supreme Court announced an ethics code with no enforcement mechanism, effectively rendering it toothless.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the lead sponsor of the SCERT Act, said Wednesday that he was "not surprised" Republicans blocked the attempt to pass his bill.
"The highest court shouldn't have the lowest ethics standards," Whitehouse wrote on social media. "What's controversial about that?"
"Both Justice Thomas and Justice Alito have failed to disclose gifts they have accepted—in clear violation of financial disclosure requirements under federal law."
The chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), spearheaded Democrats' attempt Wednesday to pass the SCERT Act by unanimous consent, process under which just one objection is enough to block legislation. Given Democrats' narrow control of the Senate and the continued existence of the legislative filibuster, the bill almost certainly would have failed had it gone to a full vote.
"For more than a year, the Supreme Court has been embroiled in an ethical crisis of its own design," Durbin said in a floor speech Wednesday. "Story after story about ethical misconduct by sitting Supreme Court justices has led the news for months. For decades, however, Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted lavish gifts and luxury trips from a gaggle of fawning billionaires. The total dollar value of these gifts is in the millions. One Supreme Court justice—millions of dollars worth of gifts."
"Justice [Samuel] Alito, as well, went on a luxury fishing trip that should have cost him over $100,000—but it didn't cost him a dime, because the trip was funded by a billionaire and organized by rightwing kingpin Leonard Leo. Both Justice Thomas and Justice Alito have failed to disclose gifts they have accepted—in clear violation of financial disclosure requirements under federal law. But it isn't only this shameless conduct that has cast a dark shadow over the court. Time and again, these justices' actions have cast doubt on their impartiality in cases before the court."
Graham's obstruction of the ethics bill came as the Supreme Court is weighing a slew of high-stakes cases, including one on whether former President Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution.
Thomas, whose wife supported efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, and Alito, who blamed his wife for flying pro-insurrection flags at two of their homes, have both rejected calls to recuse themselves from the case.
"The Supreme Court clearly can't and won't police itself," Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America, said in a statement Wednesday. "Time and again, the right-wing majority on the court has shown that it is unwilling to abide by basic rules of ethics. Passing the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Actwas an opportunity to guarantee basic ethics standards and restore some trust in the highest court in our country."
"Eighty percent of voters want Congress to pass a binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court," Harvey added. "Senate Republicans just showed how out of touch they are with what most Americans want—a Supreme Court free of corruption—when they refused to hold our Supreme Court justices accountable to the same ethical standards that apply to members of Congress and public servants across the country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular