International Criminal Court

The name says it all. It sums up what the court is. An international criminal. A court that is mandated to uphold the fundamental pillars of the international legal order set up by the winners of World War II, to control the new world disorder they created. An order that is totally irrelevant in the new world order of the Internet and social media.

I say this as a lawyer who was a member of the International Law Society when I practiced law.

Lawyers and judges have replaced military leaders in deciding how and where conflicts, domestic and international, should be fought and decided.

Lawyers and judges are miring the world in legal motions and technicalities without any significant results to speak of, while those ignoring the law and resorting to good old-fashioned military might, achieve their objectives.

Russia is a prime example in its brutal domestic suppression and assassination of political opponents to President Vladimir Putin, military takeovers of Georgia and parts of Ukraine, not to mention poisoning of British citizens on sovereign British soil. And, oh yeah, let’s not forget its military support to the Assad regime in Syria’s civil war that has slaughtered more than 400,000 of its own people and given the world more than 10 million refugees.

Oh, and Iran, with its unwavering military support of the Assad regime as well, in addition to Iran’s active support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, Houtis in Yemen and Shiite brigades and political parties in Iraq.  Let’s not forget the Muslim Rohingyas and what the Myanmar military leaders did to them. What has the ICC done about any of those crimes? Nada. Nothing. Indictments and judgments don’t stop military aggression or human rights violations in any of their ugly forms.

Fighting with legal troops to get judges to rule in one’s favor, while armed forces led by military commanders without lawyers, kill innocents, seize sovereign territory, depriving people of their basic human rights, do as they please with minimum, if any, penalties or punishment, is a new world disorder way of handling political conflicts and disputes. For those fighting with their legal teams, it’s like going to a gunfight with a knife.

Courts hand down judgments that in most cases are unenforceable. Meanwhile, back on the battle fields, armed forces rule.

The court was set up in 1998 with the signing of the Rome Treaty. President Bill Clinton signed the treaty establishing the court. As an aside, should the court be investigating the Clinton Foundation?

The treaty was never ratified by Congress and the U.S. claims it is not subject to its jurisdiction. America has always viewed the court with suspicion, fearing it would be used against American troops to subvert Washington’s foreign policy decisions.

Two-thirds of the world’s nations have joined the court and subjected themselves to its jurisdiction. In 2007, in Custom Maid Knowledge for New World Disorder, I wrote:

The U.N. Security Council referred to the International
Criminal Court in The Hague for prosecution a case of
mass rape and other crimes against two senior Sudanese
officials, …

Both the U.S., a strident opponent of the ICC, and China
abstained on the vote. The Sudanese government protested
violently and threatened to “cut the throat of any international
official… who tries to jail a Sudanese official in order to present
him to justice.”

A lot of time and money spent on lawyers and judges arguing legal new world disorder mumbo-jumbo.

In Custom Maid War for New World Disorder, published in 2005, I wrote:

Today the U.S. military and its lawyers impose too many
politically driven regulations and legal clearances that aid
and abet America’s enemies. “Everyone’s trying to sanitize
war too much, to make it bloodless,” said Chief Warrant
Officer George Huseman, a Vietnam vet and UC-35 National
Guard Cessna pilot in Iraq. “Our guards have seen people
setting up rockets, but by the time they get permission to fire,
the rockets have already gone off,” he told reporters in Iraq.
The fundamentals of national security have to be re-prioritized
in the New World Order.

Now I didn’t agree with most of President George W. Bush and his Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s policies and their execution. In fact, I don’t think I agreed with any that I can think of except one. The Bush Doctrine — The National Security Strategy of pre-emptive strikes.

In fact I dedicated a chapter to the subject in Custom Maid War for New World Disorder with a memorable General Omar Bradley opening quote. In war there is no second chance for the runner-up.

I went on to add:

Countries are allowed to pre-empt where necessary
under the U.N. Charter, which gives the right of self-
defense to every country. Deterrence — the promise
of massive retaliation against nations — means nothing
against borderless terrorists. Terrorists cannot be deterred.
They have to be killed or disarmed before they attack. Terrorists
have sown the seeds of their own destruction and that of their
families and communities.

The 9/11 Commission indirectly endorsed pre-emptive strikes
when it accused the U.S. government of “failure of imagination,
policy, capability and management.” Pre-emption is a tool that
was always available but not used. Why not destroy terrorists
before they strike first?

The same holds true for governments that behave like terrorist organizations against their own people and support terrorist organization elsewhere.

It is time America again reconsider the practicality of targeting and killing its enemies based on legal advice and must target and kill in a manner no different than its enemies. The age of “asymmetric” warfare is upon us and America will lose this war if it does not adjust its military tactics and get rid of the legal ones.

There is no room for justice in a Court of International Criminals run by lawyers and judges in a world of asymmetric warfare fought by political and religious  extremists, who, ignore the law and use their military forces to violate it.