other international crimes, and to prepare the groundwork for any number of things that might take place later on that don t have to be u.s.-led. although the u.s. can play a key role guiding some of these processes and gathering information and keeping the term around to help clarify what s going on. daniel rothenburg, thank you so much for being with us this weekend. this holiday weekend. happy easter and passover. thank you so much. all right. still ahead president zelenskyy is asking president biden to come to ukraine. will biden consider going? we go live to the white house, next. we believe there s an innovovator in all of us. that s why we build technology that makes it possible for every business. and every person. to come to the table and do more incredible things.
determined by the u.s.? a good question. most important using it now is as a frame for understanding russian intentions in the aggressive war on ukraine. well, the international criminal court would well, number one says it s investigating, and that would be one body that would make the determination of genocide. what can the u.s. do that the international criminal court cannot? a good point. there s a number of different ways to use the term and to process it and even to take it to you know to some sort of prosecution. the icc is one body. also special tribunals created for special circumstances, cambodia and national prosecutions that could take place some have led to successful genocide prosecutions even of heads of state. usually prosecution is one part of a genocide claim.
still, though, the making a claim of genocide using the term strategically as a way of understanding what s going on is something a little different than formally determining whether or not genocide is going on. your point how much evidence is required and demonstrating intent which is the trickiest part of genocide, those are very real. added to this discussion, the u.s. has quite a bit of information what s going on behind the scenes through rather intelligent intelligence information. and gathering. that might provide insight to underlying intentions of the russians. but the process is not determining whether or not it s genocide it s using the term of a better sense of genocide. what do you think the u.s. should be doing witts information? good question. some of it obviously has to remain classified. i think useful to archive this material, to create a special body within the u.s. government to look into genocide as well as
what s important is, we want to try to figure out what s the underlying intentions of this wa war? and genocide might make sense of what s going on. and i wonder the premise of your article is the u.s. needs to be more involved. without coming across as sounding sarcastic, the u.s. can t get to the bottom of the january 6th investigation, regardless of videotape everyone has been able to see and injuries documented. so how is it the u.s. might have better success in involving stirring in making a determination about genocide and what kind of penalties besides sanctions that should be imposed on russia following all of these atrocities? the u.s. singularly as opposed to a global body? it s true actual prosecutions for genocide often take many, many years, complicated and one of the hallmarks of the national judicial process is its time.
talk further bring in daniel rothenburg co-directs or of the arizona state of war and at the school of global politics and studies and wrote an op-ed for cnn last week arguing the u.n. should invest gays this as russian aggression quoting from your op-ed, definition of a genocide in ukraine would be appropriate if there was enough evidence to demonstrate russia s atrocities express a purposeful effort to deny existence of the ukrainian people. so let s talk further about that, professor, because, while either president biden and zelenskyy have useds the term jean gene genocide, that is very complicated. it cannot sin singularly be