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
lloyd austin
Rights Group Urges ICC to Probe Biden for 'Aiding and Abetting' Israeli Crimes in Gaza
A veteran war crimes lawyer argues that "there are solid grounds to investigate Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, and Lloyd Austin for complicity in Israel's crimes."
Feb 24, 2025
A human rights group revealed Monday that on the last full day of U.S. President Joe Biden's term, it encouraged the International Criminal Court to investigate him and two of his Cabinet members for "aiding and abetting" Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Gaza Strip.
U.S.-based Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) announced that on January 19, it submitted to the ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan a 172-page communication detailing why the tribunal should probe Biden and his former secretaries of defense and state, Lloyd Austin and Anthony Blinken.
Although a fragile cease-fire took effect in Gaza last month, Israel—backed by the Biden administration and Congress—responded to the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack with a 15-month blockade and military assault that killed tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of Palestinians and left the territory in ruins.
"There are solid grounds to investigate Joe Biden, Antony Blinken and Lloyd Austin for complicity in Israel's crimes," DAWN board member and veteran war crimes lawyer Reed Brody said in a Monday statement. "The bombs dropped on Palestinian hospitals, schools, and homes are American bombs, the campaign of murder and persecution has been carried out with American support. U.S. officials have been aware of exactly what Israel is doing, and yet their support never stopped."
"By investigating and prosecuting U.S. officials, the ICC can deter and discourage further international support for Israeli crimes in Gaza and demonstrate that no one is above the law."
DAWN's document lays out how the United States, under Biden, "provided unwavering direct military and political support to Israel, even after it became manifest that Israel continued to carry out severe violations of international humanitarian law and human rights." That includes at least $17.9 billion in taxpayer-funded military assistance since October 2023, a 381% increase from the around $3.8 billion a year before Hamas' attack.
"In addition to new arms transfers and sales authorizations, the U.S. used pre-existing contracts and additional emergency military aid measures to expedite the delivery of major arms," the submission continues, also noting "the deployment of U.S.-operated military intelligence and active military operations targeting groups posing threats to Israel on other fronts."
Israel—like the United States—is not a party to the Hague-based ICC, but Palestine is. The court in November issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, also known as Mohammed Deif, who is dead.
DAWN's submission makes the case that "by continuously and unconditionally providing political support and military
support to Israel while being fully aware of the specific crimes committed by Netanyahu, Gallant, and their subordinates, President Biden, Secretary Blinken, and Secretary Austin contributed intentionally to the commission of those crimes while at least knowing the intention of the group to commit the Israeli crimes, if not aiming of furthering such criminal activity."
The group's executive director, Sarah Leah Whitson, said Monday that "not only did Biden, Blinken, and Secretary Austin ignore and justify the overwhelming evidence of Israel's grotesque and deliberate crimes, overruling their own staff recommendations to halt weapons transfers to Israel, they doubled down by providing Israel with unconditional military and political support to ensure it could carry out its atrocities."
"They provided Israel with not only essential military support but equally essential political support by vetoing multiple cease-fire resolutions at the U.N. Security Council to ensure Israel could continue its crimes," Whitson highlighted. She argued that "by investigating and prosecuting U.S. officials, the ICC can deter and discourage further international support for Israeli crimes in Gaza and demonstrate that no one is above the law."
DAWN also recommended that the ICC consider looking into half a dozen other Biden officials including Jake Sullivan, national security adviser; Gina Raimondo, secretary of commerce; Bonnie Jenkins, under secretary of arms control and international security; Stanley L. Brown, acting assistant secretary for the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; Amanda Dory, acting under secretary of defense for policy; and Mike Miller, acting director of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
"It is important for the international community, and Palestinians in particular, to know that the American people do not support the crimes their elected officials committed in Palestine and that American organizations are doing their part to hold these officials accountable," said Whitson. "We have a duty, not just a right, as American civil society, to exercise our free speech to serve truth and seek justice."
So far, efforts to hold Biden and other U.S. leaders accountable for enabling what many experts around the world have called Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza via the U.S. court system have been unsuccessful. That includes a December lawsuit against Blinken backed by DAWN—which was founded by assassinated Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"We have tried every available avenue within the U.S. to stop our government's complicity in the outrageous crimes we've witnessed since October 2023 in Gaza," said Raed Jarrar, DAWN's advocacy director. "When domestic institutions fail to uphold black-letter laws prohibiting military support to commit war crimes, we have a particular responsibility as Americans to hold American officials accountable for their roles in those crimes."
Since Biden left office last month, U.S. President Donald Trump has already welcomed Netanyahu to the White House, responded to the warrants by targeting the ICC with sanctions, and promoted a U.S. takeover of Gaza that would involve ethnically cleansing the territory of Palestinians.
"Trump isn't just obstructing justice; he's trying to burn down the courthouse to prevent anyone from holding Israeli criminals accountable," said Jarrar. "His plan to forcibly displace all Palestinians from Gaza should also merit ICC investigation—not just for aiding and abetting Israeli crimes but for ordering forcible transfer, a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Guantánamo: the Forever Mistake
Once you violate both fair treatment of prisoners and the basic principles of law, finding an unchallenged resolution to such cases is essentially inconceivable.
Jan 31, 2025
On January 10, one day before the 23rd anniversary of its opening, a much-anticipated hearing was set to take place at the Guantánamo Bay Detention Facility on the island of Cuba. After nearly 17 years of pretrial litigation, the prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or (KSM), the “mastermind” of the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001, seemed poised to achieve its ever-elusive goal of bringing his case to a conclusion. After three years of negotiations, the Pentagon had finally arranged a plea deal in the most significant case at Guantánamo. Along with two others accused of conspiring in the attacks of 9/11, KSM had agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the government replacing the death penalty with a life sentence.
After more than 50 pre-trial hearings and other related proceedings, Americans–and the victims’ families—would finally see closure for those three individuals who stood at the center of this country’s attempt to reckon legally with the 9/11 attacks.
More than 23 years after the 9/11 attacks, here we are in the very same place we’ve been for endless years—on pause again, despite the endless charade of forward steps that go nowhere.
Because of the fact that the defendants had been tortured at notorious CIA “black sites” before arriving at Guantánamo, the case had long been endlessly stalled. After all, so much of the evidence against them came from torture confessions. As it happens, such evidence is not admissible in court under U.S. or international law, or even under the rules of Guantánamo’s military commissions. For obvious reasons, it’s considered tainted information, “the fruit of the poisonous tree,” and so inadmissible in court. Although military commission prosecutors tried repeatedly over the years to find ways to introduce that all too tainted evidence at trial, attempts to do so failed time and again, repeatedly pushing potential trial dates years into the future. As a recently compiled Center on National Security chart shows, the forever delays in those hearings led to calendars of such length as to defy comprehension. In Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s case, for example, such delays have so far amounted to 870.7 weeks.
With the plea deal now set to come before Judge Matthew McCall, who had agreed to delay his retirement in an effort to see this case to its conclusion, attorneys, journalists, and victims’ family members boarded planes, preparing to witness the longed-for conclusion to a case that had seemed endless. Perhaps you won’t be surprised to learn, however, that the hearing never took place. Delay was again the name of the game. As it turned out, from the moment the plea deal was announced, it became the centerpiece of an intense battle launched by then-Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
What Happened
Two days after the August 2024 announcement of the plea deal by the “convening authority,” Brigadier General (Ret.) Susan Escallier, the Pentagon official in charge of the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Austin summarily overruled her, revoking the plea deal with little explanation and leaving experts and observers alike confused and disappointed. Had the secretary of defense not been consulted on the plea arrangement? That seemed unlikely. Had political pressure caused him to take such a drastic act? If so, then perhaps after the election he would change his mind and restore it. No such luck.
Whatever Austin’s motivation, Judge McCall refused to take “no” for an answer, declaring his revocation invalid.
McCall made it clear, instead, that he was moving forward. As the judge explained, in the memo that Austin had long ago issued appointing Escallier, he had attested to her independent authority. “Ms. Escallier shall exercise her independent legal discretion with regard to judicial acts and other duties of the Convening Authority.” But even as McCall prepared to go forward, Austin appealed to the Court of Military Commissions Review, asking it to rule that he did indeed have the authority to revoke the plea deal. However, that court then ruled that the secretary had improperly rescinded the deal after it had taken effect.
Still, he refused to give up, seeking help elsewhere. And he found it. On the eve of the scheduled hearing, the Department of Justice filed papers asking the D.C. Circuit Court to prohibit the Gitmo court from moving ahead and to stay proceedings while it contemplated the decision. Those who had flown to Guantánamo then returned home, and a new hearing was set for January 28th at the D.C. Circuit Court. At issue was both Austin’s authority to take over the plea deal and whether he had the right to withdraw from it, as lawyers argue that the dependents had already started performing their part of the deal. Of course, in the second age of Trump, it is no longer Austin but Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth who will decide what happens next.
So, more than 23 years after the 9/11 attacks, here we are in the very same place we’ve been for endless years—on pause again, despite the endless charade of forward steps that go nowhere.
The Mirage of the Military Commissions
At this point, it’s worth asking whether the resolution of those cases by trial was ever a priority—or even a realistic goal. A look back over the course of the military commissions and the 9/11 case suggests some answers.
The Guantánamo detention facility was set up by a presidential military order issued on November 13, 2001. It authorized the detention of war-on-terror captives and mentioned future trials. “It is necessary for individuals subject to this order… to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals.” Accordingly, the commander of the naval base at Guantánamo spent the early months of the detention operation scouring the base itself for a suitable facility in which to hold such trials. He was surprised when no one at the Pentagon approached him about the need for such a building.
So here we stand, with Donald Trump back in the White House, awaiting what this will mean for the future of the forever prison.
Fast forward six years, a year after those “high-value detainees” already tortured at CIA black sites were brought to Guantánamo. As NBC’s Bob Windrem later reported, an “Expeditionary Legal Complex was built in 2007 in the expectation it would be used for the trial of terrorists accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people with twin attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.” In 2008, the 9/11 defendants were charged. And last April, 17 years later, the Pentagon opened a second courtroom at the cost of $4 million for other cases pending before the military tribunals. Intrepid New York Times Gitmo reporter Carol Rosenberg recently summed up the costs associated with those signs of a continuing belief that actual trial proceedings were indeed in the cards this way: “The war court proceedings have cost hundreds of millions of dollars in salaries, infrastructure, and transportation. Since 2019, the Office of Military Commissions has added two new courtroom chambers, new offices and temporary housing, more lawyers, more security personnel, and more contractors.”
On the surface, it would seem as if the commitment to holding various war-on-terror trials was perfectly real. The price tag was certainly hefty enough, as were the numerous pre-trial proceedings in the 9/11 case, as well as in other cases before the military commissions, each involving charges against those accused of committing acts of terrorism—the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole destroyer with one defendant; terror bombings in Bali, Indonesia, with three defendants; and the cases of several other individuals charged with crimes of terrorism.
Yet given the failure of significant forward movement in such cases for so long, it’s hard not to wonder just how serious the commitment to resolving them ever was and whether the construction of such expensive trial buildings was either a mirage, intended to hide the fact that the cases were destined to go nowhere, or self-deception on the part of presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. (Donald Trump halted the military commissions during his first term in office, leaving them in legal limbo.)
After all this time, only two cases have ever gone to trial, one of which, that of Salim Hamdan, was later overturned. In the other, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul was convicted on three counts, two of which were eventually overturned. (At present, Mr. Bahlul is serving a life sentence at Gitmo, having arrived on its opening day 23 years ago.)
Meanwhile, there have been a grand total of nine plea deals over all these years. Of those, one convicted detainee is serving out a sentence at Guantánamo that ends in 2032, two convictions have been overturned, and two remain on appeal—a paltry record at best, especially given the grimness of those acts of terror. For all of the time, effort, and money, not to mention emotional distress, the results have been appallingly minimal.
Biden and Gitmo
To his credit, President Joe Biden, who inherited a Guantánamo with only 40 detainees left out of a total population that once stood at 790, seemed determined to make progress both in the military commissions and in releasing some of the remaining “forever prisoners” (a term originally coined by Times reporter Rosenberg to describe those living in the legal limbo of indefinite detention, neither charged nor released). Biden provided Gitmo watchers (like me) with some hope that the prison, distinctly offshore of American justice, would actually close someday.
During Biden’s years in office, the population was reduced to 15 men—six forever prisoners and nine still part of the military commissions (two of whom are already convicted). Eleven of the Biden releases, consisting of Yemenis sent to Oman, occurred amid the battle over Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s plea deal, as if he were whispering to us that we needn’t worry, the road to closure was still available. Yet even that set of transfers suffered from the same sort of one-step-forward-two steps-back shuffle that’s been the essence of Gitmo’s history. The Oman arrangement had originally been planned for October 2023, only to be put on pause once the war in Gaza erupted. One of the men released had been cleared since 2010, only to await arrangements made two presidencies later.
The Biden administration unfortunately never released the last prisoners held without charge or brought the accused to trial. Even in these final moments of his presidency, when he was arguably free to do whatever he wanted, including closing the prison, he chose instead, by virtue of his administration putting the deal on hold, to halt forward progress, leaving us to wonder why.
So here we stand, with Donald Trump back in the White House, awaiting what this will mean for the future of the forever prison.
Once You Break It, You Can Never Really Fix It
Sometimes, when it comes to Gitmo, it almost seems as if forces beyond the capacity of mere mortals are at play. No matter what promises are made, no matter what hope-inspiring acts are taken, no matter what progress occurs, the prison seems to have a life of its own, aided and abetted by those who continue to mount obstacles to any significant steps forward.
Of course, the biggest of the lessons learned should have been to honor the laws, both domestic and international, forbidding torture. Had the United States not authorized a program of what was euphemistically referred to by the administration of President George W. Bush as “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including beatings, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, sensory bombardment, and all too much more, those trials could have been held in a timely fashion and in federal court on the mainland.
As President Barack Obama’s attorney general, Eric Holder, had wanted, the federal courts would have been capable of handling such cases without using “evidence” produced by torture. In fact, one Guantánamo detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, was indeed transferred to the United States for trial in federal court and, though he was acquitted on 284 of 285 charges, he was found guilty on one count and sentenced to life in federal prison. Still, the hundreds of acquittals in his case chased away the idea of trying the remaining Guantánamo defendants in federal court.
From all of this, there’s a basic lesson to be learned: Once you violate both fair treatment of prisoners and the basic principles of law, finding an unchallenged resolution to such cases is essentially inconceivable.
In other words, once you break it, you can never really fix it.
Today, that long, soul-crushing, legally abhorrent story stands, at a far greater cost than we might once have imagined, where it has always stood—as a mistake that never should have happened and that, once made, never found a leader able to muster the courage to end it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As US Approves Landmines for Ukraine, Victims Demand 'Mine-Free World' at Global Summit
"Every landmine planted is a child, a civilian, a woman, who is just waiting for their legs to be blown off, for his life to be taken," said one survivor who lost a leg to a landmine in 2005.
Nov 26, 2024
"Look what anti-personnel landmines will do to your people," read a sign displayed by two of the protesters who gathered in Siem Reap, Cambodia this week to confront delegates at a conference on the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty.
The people holding the sign were among those who took part in the demonstration while using wheelchairs or crutches due to the amputations and serious injuries they have suffered from landmine attacks.
More than 100 people lined a walkway leading to the conference venue on Sunday as the Siem Reap-Angkor Summit on a Mine-Free World opened.
The conference began days after the Biden administration announced a reversal of its own policy and approved a plan to provide anti-personnel landmines to Ukraine—a decision that was condemned by the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and other human rights groups.
As Amnesty International USA advocacy direct Ben Linden said last week, the weapons are "inherently indiscriminate" because they cause explosives to scatter across a wide region, putting people at risk long after conflicts end. The majority of landmine victims are children.
In 2023, at least 5,757 people were killed or maimed by landmines, 84% of whom were civilians. Over one-third were children.
Alex Munyambabazi, who lost a leg to a landmine in 2005 in Uganda, was among those who assembled at the landmines summit.
"We don't want to see any more victims like me, we don't want to see any more suffering," he toldAgence France-Presse (AFP). "Every landmine planted is a child, a civilian, a woman, who is just waiting for their legs to be blown off, for his life to be taken. I am here to say we don't want any more victims. No excuses, no exceptions."
The U.S. and Russia are not signatories to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, but Ukraine is. According to U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Ukraine "asked" for anti-personnel landmines.
Tamar Gabelnick, director of ICBL, told AFP that Ukraine's use of U.S.-supplied landmines would signify a "blatant disregard for their obligations under the mine ban treaty."
Ukrainian delegates were present at the Siem Reap conference this week.
In a message delivered to delegates in Siem Reap, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres acknowledged the "important progress" made by the treaty, "with over 55 million anti-personnel devices destroyed across 13,000 square kilometers in over 60 countries, and thousands of people receiving lifesaving awareness education and victim assistance services."
"I call on states parties to meet their obligations and ensure compliance to the convention, while addressing humanitarian and developmental impacts through financial and technical support," he said. " I also encourage all states that have not yet acceded to the convention to join the 164 that have done so."
"A world without anti-personnel mines is not just possible," Guterres said. "It is within reach."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular