Transcripts For ALJAZ Inside Story 2020 Ep 164 20240712 : co

And. We will not stand by as our people are threatened by a Kangaroo Court. The u. S. Imposes sanctions against the International Criminal court targeting its lawyers investigated suspected would crimes in afghanistan whats behind president Donald Trumps move this is inside story. Hello and welcome to the program im iran can the United States is facing criticism around the world for its latest threats against the International Criminal Court President donald trump has signed an executive order sanctioning the i. C. C. Staff and their families the u. S. Which is not a member of the hague based tribunal is angry at investigations into suspected war crimes in afghanistan that could implicate its soldiers the i. C. C. Called the sanctions and unprecedented attack Rights Groups are worried about the potential impact on International Justice will bring in our guest in a moment but 1st roslyn jordan has this report from washington d. C. The United States has never been a party to the International Criminal court in the hague it says the court does not have the right to put u. S. Citizens on trial for alleged crimes against humanity war crimes or genocide but the trumpet ministration has gone further calling the i. C. C. Corrupt ineffective and biased we cannot we will not stand by as our people are threatened by a Kangaroo Court. On thursday it imposed new sanctions on all i. C. C. Officials investigating the behavior of us forces and cia operatives in afghanistan it gives us no joy to punish them but we cannot allow i. C. C. Officials and their families to come the United States to shop travel and otherwise or joy american freedoms as these same officials seek to prosecute the defender of those very freedoms the United States maintains the sovereign right and obligation to properly investigate and address any of our personnels allegedly violations of the laws of war the new sanctions follow washingtons decision last year to revoke the travel vsa of the i. C. C. Chief prosecutor found to bensouda shes been pushing for the investigation and possible trial of u. S. Forces since 2017 bensouda is also trying to prosecute the former sudanese leader Omar Al Bashir for atrocities committed in darfur and shes investigating alleged israeli war crimes in the occupied west bank and gaza something the u. S. Opposes i think its the culmination of our evolution from the republic to an empire that believes that we live by our standards and are alone i dont think that we should look at this particular act of mr trump in isolation by targeting bensouda colleagues the new u. S. Sanctions raise questions about whether the court can actually do its job effectively. Weve taken note with concern or its an executive order authorizing sanctions against certain individuals at the International Criminal court will obviously continue to follow very closely any developments on this issue human Rights Groups say the trumpet ministrations decision could harm their ability to help the most vulnerable in war zones but for now the us has declared a cant trust the i. C. C. To do the right thing which is to carry out just as an american terms rosalyn shorten aljazeera washington. Lets introduce the panel invents in southeastern france counsel at the International Criminal court and legal representative of victims in afghanistan and in washington d. C. Brett schaefer j. K. And fellow at the Heritage Foundation and in london toby cadman an International Human rights lawyer and cofounder of the going to 37 the International Justice chamber is welcome to all we will not stand by as all people of threaten by a Kangaroo Court incredibly strong words that from my pump air from the white house lets bring in Brett Schaefer in washington d. C. Right now bret what is behind this move things this is an extraordinary statement well its a consistent u. S. Policy if you go back to 9 198. 00 when the roast actually was being negotiated the United States was deeply involved in those negotiations it voices objections to certain powers in terms of that treaty that were going to be placed upon the court and it decided to vote against the rather the approval that treaty is one of a handful of countries that did that the Clinton Administration refused to sign the rome statute until the very last day possible in what it did sign it it read it recommended that the Bush Administration that followed not seek ratification because of serious flaws in that treaty the Bush Administration for 2 years tried to get some of those flaws addressed unsuccessfully when the International Criminal Court Finally stood up in 2002 the u. S. Unsigned the rome statute which clearly mr asian signed to remove any vestigial legal obligations underneath that treaty and then took specific actions to shield the United States from the power and authority in reach of the court including passing the American Service members protection act which. Constrained u. S. Cooperation with the i. C. C. It also entered into article 98. 00 agreements with of over 100. 00 countries around the world which those countries agreed not to turn u. S. Persons over to the Court Without u. S. Consent and then the United States signal over and over and over again through statements through its actions that it did not recognize the courts jurisdiction over the United States and this is just a continuation of that policy that is extended through the Clinton Administration the Bush Administration the Obama Administration and now the transfer ministry it without all of that is a negotiation with the i. C. C. It was the american saying well this is the problems with what we think is the i. C. C. The rome statute they say is sanctions this is an extraordinary one sided done we are done with this call completely and its also calling it a Kangaroo Court theres no talking anymore right well this is than action that the court initiated the United States worked for years with the court when there was a preliminary examination and then the announced investigation it gave investigate all of the allegations that the Us Government received in terms of crimes alleged to have been committed by u. S. Persons in afghanistan the us reported over 600 different investigations over 250 individuals who were held to account and punished in some way for allegations or for abuse of prisoners that were found to be credible and sustained that the idea that the United States is not willing to hold people to account in the United States is not willing to have investigate these investigations is just pat nonsense the United States has taken a number of different actions here in fact if you look at the prosecutors investigation report. All of the evidence that she provides is actually based on u. S. Sources its based on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee its based on. Department of defense reports of defense its based on an Inspector General report to spaced on cia Inspector General report all the evidence that she has is actually based on u. S. Reports and u. S. Transparent efforts to actually hold people accountable and to be as cooperative apart as possible in the investigation efforts of these matters the idea that she would come in and 2nd guess this this matter after the u. S. Has gone through so much effort to try and hold individuals accountable is just nonsense well lets bring in for going ahead hes a counsel for the International Criminal court you heard what brush had to say that effectively saying were investigating ourselves we dont need you whats your reaction oh yeah and i just like to point out a couple things 1st of all the u. S. Engagement with the i. C. C. Has been little more nuanced perhaps and mr schaffer said lets not forget that domenic on when was delivered to the court with the assistance of the u. S. Government was going to get and was delivered to the court with the assistance of the u. S. Government the United States cosponsored the referral of libya to the i. C. C. The United States advocated for a referral of syria to the i. C. C. And in many parts and many situations for example the Central African republic the democratic republic of congo northern uganda and myanmar what the i. C. C. Is trying to achieve broadly aligns with u. S. Interests so the notion that the United States has been always opposed to the i. C. C. Every quarter some some correction there has been a policy of constructive engagement particularly during the Obama Administration now more recently yes the policy of the United States government has been a little more obstructive now in the the office of the prosecutors request. The United States never abrogated its article 98 agreements under the obama destruction aska the American Servicemen members protection act still existed and still was applied to the us u. S. Cooperation with the i. C. C. Was still restricted by u. S. Statute and the United States also even though it was werent willing to work with the i. C. C. In certain instances that was all before the announcement of an official investigation that was announced in november of 2017 the 1st year of the Trump Administration so to say that the United States was acting in a prior inconsistent lean with its previous actions i think is is wrong but 2nd it was also instigated by the decision of the court itself. 3rd place. Yes yes well the obama policy of constructive engagement or with the i. C. C. Is is very well documented now another thing to keep in mind is that the United States has plenty of legal remedies which are set out in the rome statute to challenge the jurisdiction of the court on the basis that the United States is investigating and prosecuting the crimes at issue it can make that challenge at any stage that it wants it could have filed a challenge within the 1st month after the investigation was authorized but it also retains the right to challenge the courts jurisdiction on the very for the very reasons that were put forward earlier that the court that the u. S. Is investigating and prosecuting but furthermore we have to keep in mind that not only the office of the prosecutor but also 3 judges of the Pretrial Chamber will beers all 5 judges of the Appeals Chamber have all come to the conclusion that the steps which have been taken by the United States to date to investigation prosecute the crimes is you have not in fact been sufficient so the but that still do even that fighting is still open to challenge by the u. S. So what the u. S. Can do under the statute is continue to maintain its jurisdictional objections to the court but to show the court about all of the trials which have taken place or are taking place or about to take place the crimes for which people were convicted the sentences to which those convicted were required to serve and then having done all of that the court is actually required to cease investigation thats the principle of complimentarity which appears interim statute ill bring in toby cadman in london here in just a moment i want to ask is this a case of ok well work with the i. C. C. What is in our interest but as long as the u. S. Is ring fence as long as you dont investigate the u. S. Then the i. C. C. Is kind of something an institution we will work with is this consistent with President Donald Trump just not wanting any International Agreements not wanting to be part of any International Agreement that encroaches on the u. S. And serenity. No i dont think so and actually. In response to the previous speakers comments the United States is not a party to the rome statute the United States has decided not to ratify the rome statute is not a party to the core and therefore it has no legal obligation whatsoever to cooperate with this investigation nor to cooperate or pure speed in the procedures outlined by the court the idea that the United States should submit itself to the courts procedures just because the court exists in essence would be a tacit recognition of the courts of authority over the United States in the situation which the u. S. Has over and over and over again rejected me cadman in london is that any legal basis for these sanctions can present trouble actually do this. A legal basis though. I mean i think the best point to recognize. Who has already mentioned that there are legal routes that could have been taken to the trump ministration has decided to ignore all despite all the guest in washington said they could and still trash and excise there is legal challenges to the jurisdiction that decided not to simply say that the us is has not sought refuge it respects use it so it doesnt fall within its jurisdiction and unfortunately thats thats a very narrow reading of the statue of course if crimes occur on the state. Of a state policy that i. C. C. Has jurisdiction that irrespective of whether those crimes are committed by taliban afghani or or u. S. Service or senator so the i. C. C. Center stage and of course they refuse to cooperate that makes it more difficult for the i. C. C. To do its job but it doesnt change the fact an investigation will go forward but what we heard yesterday im we really have to look at this is unprecedented they have tacked on and on an International Court in such a way. And that is the response of r. C. C. And it has made clear that they consider this to be an attack on the ministers of justice you know we havent seen this with the philippines we havent seen this venezuelan mind of all these countries that are also under investigation and in which challenges have been made for the u. S. To do this i think is is truly astonishing and a bit wary because its its not just what will happen the matter of the i. C. C. Personnel and all those human Rights Groups the support work but its going to empower dictatorships and talk of cities around the world to act in a similar way. In terms of in social justice and that is that is. I dont think the us press the right to to court so i respect the rule of law what makes such a decision such as this it is it is very broad let me bring in you hit its not just against the i. C. C. Stuff themselves but their families as well i mean toby makes a good point that you know the u. S. Should be seen to be upholding the rule of law and this is a an attack effectively not just on the i. C. C. But their families as well you should understand this from the perspective of the United States this is an attack of the court on the u. S. Itself this isnt a set temp by the court to assert jurisdiction where the United States has specifically said that we reject that jurisdiction this is an instance of the United States upholding International Law which says that the united. Is only legally bound by treaties that it is actually agreed to be bound by through the ratification process that is not the case here in fact afghanistan itself hasnt invited the court to exercise its jurisdiction in this case the court itself has asserted itself through the prosecutors powers under the treaty to launch an investigation of her own authority that is the process this is the court itself launching investigation not at the behest of the United States not at the behest of the Afghanistan Government of its own authority in this is also a case where Kangaroo Court<\/a>. The u. S. Imposes sanctions against the International Criminal<\/a> court targeting its lawyers investigated suspected would crimes in afghanistan whats behind president Donald Trumps<\/a> move this is inside story. Hello and welcome to the program im iran can the United States<\/a> is facing criticism around the world for its latest threats against the International Criminal<\/a> Court President<\/a> donald trump has signed an executive order sanctioning the i. C. C. Staff and their families the u. S. Which is not a member of the hague based tribunal is angry at investigations into suspected war crimes in afghanistan that could implicate its soldiers the i. C. C. Called the sanctions and unprecedented attack Rights Groups<\/a> are worried about the potential impact on International Justice<\/a> will bring in our guest in a moment but 1st roslyn jordan has this report from washington d. C. The United States<\/a> has never been a party to the International Criminal<\/a> court in the hague it says the court does not have the right to put u. S. Citizens on trial for alleged crimes against humanity war crimes or genocide but the trumpet ministration has gone further calling the i. C. C. Corrupt ineffective and biased we cannot we will not stand by as our people are threatened by a Kangaroo Court<\/a>. On thursday it imposed new sanctions on all i. C. C. Officials investigating the behavior of us forces and cia operatives in afghanistan it gives us no joy to punish them but we cannot allow i. C. C. Officials and their families to come the United States<\/a> to shop travel and otherwise or joy american freedoms as these same officials seek to prosecute the defender of those very freedoms the United States<\/a> maintains the sovereign right and obligation to properly investigate and address any of our personnels allegedly violations of the laws of war the new sanctions follow washingtons decision last year to revoke the travel vsa of the i. C. C. Chief prosecutor found to bensouda shes been pushing for the investigation and possible trial of u. S. Forces since 2017 bensouda is also trying to prosecute the former sudanese leader Omar Al Bashir<\/a> for atrocities committed in darfur and shes investigating alleged israeli war crimes in the occupied west bank and gaza something the u. S. Opposes i think its the culmination of our evolution from the republic to an empire that believes that we live by our standards and are alone i dont think that we should look at this particular act of mr trump in isolation by targeting bensouda colleagues the new u. S. Sanctions raise questions about whether the court can actually do its job effectively. Weve taken note with concern or its an executive order authorizing sanctions against certain individuals at the International Criminal<\/a> court will obviously continue to follow very closely any developments on this issue human Rights Groups<\/a> say the trumpet ministrations decision could harm their ability to help the most vulnerable in war zones but for now the us has declared a cant trust the i. C. C. To do the right thing which is to carry out just as an american terms rosalyn shorten aljazeera washington. Lets introduce the panel invents in southeastern france counsel at the International Criminal<\/a> court and legal representative of victims in afghanistan and in washington d. C. Brett schaefer j. K. And fellow at the Heritage Foundation<\/a> and in london toby cadman an International Human<\/a> rights lawyer and cofounder of the going to 37 the International Justice<\/a> chamber is welcome to all we will not stand by as all people of threaten by a Kangaroo Court<\/a> incredibly strong words that from my pump air from the white house lets bring in Brett Schaefer<\/a> in washington d. C. Right now bret what is behind this move things this is an extraordinary statement well its a consistent u. S. Policy if you go back to 9 198. 00 when the roast actually was being negotiated the United States<\/a> was deeply involved in those negotiations it voices objections to certain powers in terms of that treaty that were going to be placed upon the court and it decided to vote against the rather the approval that treaty is one of a handful of countries that did that the Clinton Administration<\/a> refused to sign the rome statute until the very last day possible in what it did sign it it read it recommended that the Bush Administration<\/a> that followed not seek ratification because of serious flaws in that treaty the Bush Administration<\/a> for 2 years tried to get some of those flaws addressed unsuccessfully when the International Criminal<\/a> Court Finally<\/a> stood up in 2002 the u. S. Unsigned the rome statute which clearly mr asian signed to remove any vestigial legal obligations underneath that treaty and then took specific actions to shield the United States<\/a> from the power and authority in reach of the court including passing the American Service<\/a> members protection act which. Constrained u. S. Cooperation with the i. C. C. It also entered into article 98. 00 agreements with of over 100. 00 countries around the world which those countries agreed not to turn u. S. Persons over to the Court Without<\/a> u. S. Consent and then the United States<\/a> signal over and over and over again through statements through its actions that it did not recognize the courts jurisdiction over the United States<\/a> and this is just a continuation of that policy that is extended through the Clinton Administration<\/a> the Bush Administration<\/a> the Obama Administration<\/a> and now the transfer ministry it without all of that is a negotiation with the i. C. C. It was the american saying well this is the problems with what we think is the i. C. C. The rome statute they say is sanctions this is an extraordinary one sided done we are done with this call completely and its also calling it a Kangaroo Court<\/a> theres no talking anymore right well this is than action that the court initiated the United States<\/a> worked for years with the court when there was a preliminary examination and then the announced investigation it gave investigate all of the allegations that the Us Government<\/a> received in terms of crimes alleged to have been committed by u. S. Persons in afghanistan the us reported over 600 different investigations over 250 individuals who were held to account and punished in some way for allegations or for abuse of prisoners that were found to be credible and sustained that the idea that the United States<\/a> is not willing to hold people to account in the United States<\/a> is not willing to have investigate these investigations is just pat nonsense the United States<\/a> has taken a number of different actions here in fact if you look at the prosecutors investigation report. All of the evidence that she provides is actually based on u. S. Sources its based on the Senate Select<\/a> Intelligence Committee<\/a> its based on. Department of defense reports of defense its based on an Inspector General<\/a> report to spaced on cia Inspector General<\/a> report all the evidence that she has is actually based on u. S. Reports and u. S. Transparent efforts to actually hold people accountable and to be as cooperative apart as possible in the investigation efforts of these matters the idea that she would come in and 2nd guess this this matter after the u. S. Has gone through so much effort to try and hold individuals accountable is just nonsense well lets bring in for going ahead hes a counsel for the International Criminal<\/a> court you heard what brush had to say that effectively saying were investigating ourselves we dont need you whats your reaction oh yeah and i just like to point out a couple things 1st of all the u. S. Engagement with the i. C. C. Has been little more nuanced perhaps and mr schaffer said lets not forget that domenic on when was delivered to the court with the assistance of the u. S. Government was going to get and was delivered to the court with the assistance of the u. S. Government the United States<\/a> cosponsored the referral of libya to the i. C. C. The United States<\/a> advocated for a referral of syria to the i. C. C. And in many parts and many situations for example the Central African<\/a> republic the democratic republic of congo northern uganda and myanmar what the i. C. C. Is trying to achieve broadly aligns with u. S. Interests so the notion that the United States<\/a> has been always opposed to the i. C. C. Every quarter some some correction there has been a policy of constructive engagement particularly during the Obama Administration<\/a> now more recently yes the policy of the United States<\/a> government has been a little more obstructive now in the the office of the prosecutors request. The United States<\/a> never abrogated its article 98 agreements under the obama destruction aska the American Service<\/a>men members protection act still existed and still was applied to the us u. S. Cooperation with the i. C. C. Was still restricted by u. S. Statute and the United States<\/a> also even though it was werent willing to work with the i. C. C. In certain instances that was all before the announcement of an official investigation that was announced in november of 2017 the 1st year of the Trump Administration<\/a> so to say that the United States<\/a> was acting in a prior inconsistent lean with its previous actions i think is is wrong but 2nd it was also instigated by the decision of the court itself. 3rd place. Yes yes well the obama policy of constructive engagement or with the i. C. C. Is is very well documented now another thing to keep in mind is that the United States<\/a> has plenty of legal remedies which are set out in the rome statute to challenge the jurisdiction of the court on the basis that the United States<\/a> is investigating and prosecuting the crimes at issue it can make that challenge at any stage that it wants it could have filed a challenge within the 1st month after the investigation was authorized but it also retains the right to challenge the courts jurisdiction on the very for the very reasons that were put forward earlier that the court that the u. S. Is investigating and prosecuting but furthermore we have to keep in mind that not only the office of the prosecutor but also 3 judges of the Pretrial Chamber<\/a> will beers all 5 judges of the Appeals Chamber<\/a> have all come to the conclusion that the steps which have been taken by the United States<\/a> to date to investigation prosecute the crimes is you have not in fact been sufficient so the but that still do even that fighting is still open to challenge by the u. S. So what the u. S. Can do under the statute is continue to maintain its jurisdictional objections to the court but to show the court about all of the trials which have taken place or are taking place or about to take place the crimes for which people were convicted the sentences to which those convicted were required to serve and then having done all of that the court is actually required to cease investigation thats the principle of complimentarity which appears interim statute ill bring in toby cadman in london here in just a moment i want to ask is this a case of ok well work with the i. C. C. What is in our interest but as long as the u. S. Is ring fence as long as you dont investigate the u. S. Then the i. C. C. Is kind of something an institution we will work with is this consistent with President Donald Trump<\/a> just not wanting any International Agreements<\/a> not wanting to be part of any International Agreement<\/a> that encroaches on the u. S. And serenity. No i dont think so and actually. In response to the previous speakers comments the United States<\/a> is not a party to the rome statute the United States<\/a> has decided not to ratify the rome statute is not a party to the core and therefore it has no legal obligation whatsoever to cooperate with this investigation nor to cooperate or pure speed in the procedures outlined by the court the idea that the United States<\/a> should submit itself to the courts procedures just because the court exists in essence would be a tacit recognition of the courts of authority over the United States<\/a> in the situation which the u. S. Has over and over and over again rejected me cadman in london is that any legal basis for these sanctions can present trouble actually do this. A legal basis though. I mean i think the best point to recognize. Who has already mentioned that there are legal routes that could have been taken to the trump ministration has decided to ignore all despite all the guest in washington said they could and still trash and excise there is legal challenges to the jurisdiction that decided not to simply say that the us is has not sought refuge it respects use it so it doesnt fall within its jurisdiction and unfortunately thats thats a very narrow reading of the statue of course if crimes occur on the state. Of a state policy that i. C. C. Has jurisdiction that irrespective of whether those crimes are committed by taliban afghani or or u. S. Service or senator so the i. C. C. Center stage and of course they refuse to cooperate that makes it more difficult for the i. C. C. To do its job but it doesnt change the fact an investigation will go forward but what we heard yesterday im we really have to look at this is unprecedented they have tacked on and on an International Court<\/a> in such a way. And that is the response of r. C. C. And it has made clear that they consider this to be an attack on the ministers of justice you know we havent seen this with the philippines we havent seen this venezuelan mind of all these countries that are also under investigation and in which challenges have been made for the u. S. To do this i think is is truly astonishing and a bit wary because its its not just what will happen the matter of the i. C. C. Personnel and all those human Rights Groups<\/a> the support work but its going to empower dictatorships and talk of cities around the world to act in a similar way. In terms of in social justice and that is that is. I dont think the us press the right to to court so i respect the rule of law what makes such a decision such as this it is it is very broad let me bring in you hit its not just against the i. C. C. Stuff themselves but their families as well i mean toby makes a good point that you know the u. S. Should be seen to be upholding the rule of law and this is a an attack effectively not just on the i. C. C. But their families as well you should understand this from the perspective of the United States<\/a> this is an attack of the court on the u. S. Itself this isnt a set temp by the court to assert jurisdiction where the United States<\/a> has specifically said that we reject that jurisdiction this is an instance of the United States<\/a> upholding International Law<\/a> which says that the united. Is only legally bound by treaties that it is actually agreed to be bound by through the ratification process that is not the case here in fact afghanistan itself hasnt invited the court to exercise its jurisdiction in this case the court itself has asserted itself through the prosecutors powers under the treaty to launch an investigation of her own authority that is the process this is the court itself launching investigation not at the behest of the United States<\/a> not at the behest of the Afghanistan Government<\/a> of its own authority in this is also a case where International Law<\/a> is far from clear the afghanistan ratified the un the rome statute to the i. C. C. But prior to that the United States<\/a> had secured a treaty a status of forces agreement with afghanistan that granted exclusive jurisdiction over u. S. Military personnel in that country and this is a preexisting agreement in the i. C. C. And the rome statute itself and visions at these preexisting agreements should not be abrogated just by the ratification the i. C. C. Thats the exact. Understanding because in International Law<\/a> treaties are equal in afghanistan has the authority to grant or extend its jurisdiction these matters to courts like the i. C. C. But it is already done so in the case of the United States<\/a> and the other members of nato who are fighting in that country lets bring in fergal going ahead what you heard from washington d. C. Is this is an attack on the us is the i. C. C. Attacking us. No the i. C. Is certainly not attacking the us no no hes suggesting that United States<\/a> is required to cooperate with the i. C. C. Its not a state party but it would be the constructive way forward now just started question of preexisting treaty obligations yes afghanistan has preexisting treaty obligations with respect to the u. S. And other nato countries and their own study does explicit express provision for consideration of preexisting treaty obligations it certainly does not state that preexisting treaty obligations somehow robs the rome statute of any effect whatsoever a preexisting treaty obligation does not trump the rome statute what should happen in the case of a preexisting treaty obligations for the country in question in this case afghanistan because at least it is a state party should bring its legal arguments before the court concerning the effect of a status of forces agreement or article 98. 00 agreement or whatever grievance wishes to rely upon and then the matter can be can the rules of arm but certainly what i would encourage is for this entire dispute to be resolved through legal means which are set out in the rome statute which as mr schaeffer. Pointed out was in fact. Brought to conclusion with a very strong american involvement and america the i state of america also joined consensus in concluding the rules of procedure and evidence and the elements of crimes of the court so the the the fingerprints of the american negotiators are all over the rome statute and now its time for the u. S. To use the actual mechanisms which are set out in the room started in defense of its own legitimate interests lets bring in toby cadman here in london what can the i. C. C. Do next in order to resolve the situation and will the americans listen. Well i think you know if they got those items that you know were not were not too far away from an election and so there may be. Motives for doing this nag that are not solely related to to the going to send destination. I think what weve seen is that the i. C. C. Will continue to do its work it will continue to move forward and it is a considered is that anyone should be charged whether they are kind of an Afghan Military<\/a> or what u. S. Military then and then they charge there. And i think as an independent and possibly situation it will proceed in that way. Of course there will be a period of diplomatic sessions between. Cities see it in their states and probably a number of states will get involved as well to try to convince the trumpet an assertion to back out of i dont think the trauma surgeon would back data that made that point very clear were also going to want to send the allegations that have been made against the prosecutor particular on all the most serious nature they have affected it used to prosecute an International Tribunal<\/a> of being corrupt because they have sex there they have credible evidence of corruption at the highest level while the prosecutor is the highest level so thats what they are suggesting so i think its going to be very very difficult step down from this whether we challenge in the United States<\/a> whether there will be any kind of action through congress and this is not a matter that i can answer but certainly i dont see that it will have an impact on the investigation go forward and just comment on what the last 2 spaces say in terms of the senator grievance and im one of a kind of tree sort of force the time were talking about torture were talking about war crimes. So back to. Those crimes are all the most serious of the greatest speeches of course there is im sure that he wants to challenge this in. Legal proceedings but we have to consider these are allegations of the most Serious Court<\/a> so the u. S. We sure are doing any good potential suspect prosecution for the most serious allegations that in itself. Gentlemen we are running out of time but i do want to just get will more from Brett Schaefer<\/a> head brets Kangaroo Court<\/a>s corruption at the highest levels sanctions against not only stuff but families as well these are unprecedented steps to t. J. Plea do you think the u. S. Is playing this the right way is pompei or is the donald trump playing this the right way or is this simply an over a state of a step actually i dont know anything about what theyre the specifics about the allegations of corruption at the highest levels of the court are there wasnt any elaboration on that during the. The press comment last yesterday or the press. Session yesterday and in the subsequent statements there hasnt been anything either. But i think its fair to note that this would not be on precedent for the International Criminal<\/a> court. Luis Moreno Ocampo<\/a> has been charged with all sorts of questionable ethical behavior in regards to his actions after leaving the office of the prosecutor and during in a fight in fact i think a prosecutor been sued actually had to issue a statement of either condemnation or censure or just criticism of him in the aftermath of several of those allegations so the idea that the that the i. C. C. Or that high level i. C. C. Fishel might be in. To temptation of corruption or. Are above. Taking any ethical ethically course question will actions i think is. Is certainly not the case we are running out of time i do have to say that there have been no charges of corruption brought against the i. C. C. Just made that clear thanks to all our guests fergal gaina schaffer and toby cadman and thank you to forging you can see the program again anytime by visiting a website aljazeera dot com and for further discussion go to our Facebook Page<\/a> thats facebook dot com forward slash a. J. Inside story and you can also join the conversation on twitter where at a. J. Inside story for me and ron card and the entire team head by now. I. As countries begin easing coronavirus restrictions scientists warn of a 2nd wave of infections in the last few days after the fall of the name and many fear the economy is being prioritized about for human life until fall of people get clean to focus on the outfield what spike and put it like to face we bring you the latest developments from across the globe coronavirus fundament special coverage on a. White supremacy is on the rise in the u. S. Its an undercurrent that is bubbling up has mainstream extreme ideas this is the 1st step toward taking america back. Faultlines examines the doctrines feeding hay treat that one too often deadly consequences what are you telling your congregations about safety we have to be concerned conspiracy to massacre anti semitism in america on aljazeera. They collaborate with bollywood in an unlikely place. You know its another inventor. I can tell me what my mother here she was very impressed with him again its just theres a lot of love but affection and respect over the world people a world away from a nation has taken indian cinema to its heart aljazeera well reveals the color and passion of moroccos bollywood jury as a protest rage over Police Brutality<\/a> and coronavirus grips the nation campaigning on the election trail has been forced to take a back seat will the president ial candidates ever hit the road and sell their brand of politics to americans before the fault follow the us elections on a just understand the differences and similarities of cultures across the sentimental way. With the news and Current Affairs<\/a> that matter to you. But im a clock and the top stories here on aljazeera and a lot don has been reimposed in parts of chinas capital after 45 people at a wholesale market tested positive for a current of our whats being called a wartime emergency in beijing as for schools to delay reopening following 2 months of no infections contribute his ball from beijing. Over what we know is that this new cluster of cases centers around a wholesale market in beijing called sion foggy market now this is the biggest wholesale market in the city its located in the south","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia803207.us.archive.org\/24\/items\/ALJAZ_20200613_113200_Inside_Story_2020_Ep_164\/ALJAZ_20200613_113200_Inside_Story_2020_Ep_164.thumbs\/ALJAZ_20200613_113200_Inside_Story_2020_Ep_164_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}