Military wannabes fully unprepared: “Dumb and Dumber”
UPDATE ON THE ICC AND TRUMP-BOLTON STANCE AND IMPACT:
THE HAGUE (NY
TIMES via MSN) — In a city that symbolizes international peace and
justice, the ambassador from Burundi has
had a lonely job. As her government faces accusations of murder, rape and
torture, she has made the unpopul
The ambassador, Vestine Nahimana, says the court is a
politicized, unchecked intrusion on Burundi’s sovereignty, adding: “It’s difficult. In a way, we’ve been
isolated.”
But, no longer.
Nahimana’s critiques
echo those of warlords and despots whose arguments have long been dismissed by
the West. But Burundi’s position got a powerful voice of support this week from
Trump and his National Security Adviser, John Bolton, who declared the
international court ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed, outright dangerous and
threatened sanctions against the court’s prosecutors and judges who pursued
cases against Americans.
Nahimana further said: “We can only rejoice that another
country has seen the same wrong. Perhaps this will be a message that the
sovereignty of a country must be respected, in the U.S. and in other countries.
That’s also what the White House asks.”
I note: See more on this below in the
original post.
For the
Trump administration Bolton’s speech was the latest example of disdain for
global organizations (the Trump “hate list” as it were: NATO, the EU, TPP,
NAFTA, Iran Nuclear deal, the WTO, Paris Climate Accord, UNESCO, and recently withdrawing
from the UN Human Rights Council).
The so-called bottom line: Trump is taking the same side as strongmen and dictators. But for the ICC, a relatively young institution,
the new White House policy of open hostility comes at a perilous time.
========================================================
Original
post follows from here:
The
Trump-Bolton stance on the International Criminal Court (ICC) reported
on here from CNN – it is a pretty damn sad story – to wit:
Trump’s
NSC Adviser, John Bolton (in a speech to the Federalist Society in Washington,
DC) said in part that the U.S. would use any means necessary to protect its
citizens and allies from prosecution by the ICC.
Bolton said: “The United States will use any means necessary to
protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this
illegitimate court, including tariffs and prosecution.”
Bolton then blasted the ICC as: “Ineffective, unaccountable, outright dangerous, and contrary
to American principles,” adding: “We will respond against the ICC and its
personnel to the extent permitted by US law. We will ban its financial system
and we will prosecute them in the US criminal system. We will do the same for
any company or state that assists an ICC investigation of Americans.”
Bolton concluded saying: said the U.S. would “take note of other countries'
cooperation with the ICC and [we] will remember that cooperation when settling
U.S. foreign assistance, military assistance, and intelligence sharing levels.”
My 2 cents: What an evil, despicable, sick, sick man Bolton is and Trump in lock-step with him apparently.
Bolton and Trump both seem to not even know the history of the ICC – that is the facts
and background, seen below: The U.S. is not a State Party to the Rome Statute which founded the ICC in 2002 as the
permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) for the purpose of “bringing
justice the perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humankind, e.g., war crimes, crimes
against humanity, and genocide when national courts would not pursue them.”
FYI: As of November 2016, 124
states were members of the ICC. Other states not parties to the Rome Statute include India, Indonesia,
and China.
Background:
On May 6, 2002, the U.S. in a position shared with both Israel and Sudan that previously
signed the Rome Statute formally withdrew their signatures and indicated they did
not intend to ratify the agreement.
1. Bill Clinton signed off on the Rome
Statute in 2000, but did not submit it to the Senate for formal ratification.
2. George W. Bush, at the time of ICC's founding, stated the U.S. would not join
the ICC.
3. Obama re-established a working relationship with the ICC but only
as an observer.
Now with this series of threats we see once again how disjointed and out
of touch the Trump administration is with their raw threats.
Why can’t someone approach Trump and say: “Mr. President, we are not a
member of the ICC, we have no treaty or agreement with them, so we have no
legal foundation to threaten or penalize or punish them for anything they
legally do, act on, or propose, so what do you say?”
Trump: “I don’t give a damn, punish them bigly. Where’s an EO I can
sign to do that?”
So, stay tuned.
Thanks for stopping by.
No comments:
Post a Comment