ICC judges issue arrest warrant for Putin over war crimes in Ukraine
by Snejana Farberov March 17, 2023
A warrant was issued Friday by the International Criminal Court for the arrest of Russian President Vladimir Putin, accusing him of being responsible of war crimes committed by Moscow’s forces in Ukraine.
In its first warrant related to the invasion, now in its second year, the ICC called for Putin’s arrest on suspicion of unlawful deportation of children and unlawful transfer of people from the territory of Ukraine to Russia.
PLEASE CLICK ON THE ABOVE LINK TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE AND VIEW THE PHOTOS – WARNING – PHOTOS ARE EXTREMELY GRAPHIC
We don’t hear much about the International Criminal Court but it is extremely important that we do not allow it to overrule our Supreme Court and to prosecute our citizens. Nancy
By Clifford D. May Clifford D. May is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a columnist for The Washington Times. September 25, 2018
In a stern and defiant speech earlier this month, National Security Adviser John Bolton made clear that the United States will not join theInternational Criminal Court, will not cooperate with it, nor provide it assistance.
What will the United States do instead? “We will let the ICC die on its own,” Mr. Bolton said. “After all, the ICC is already dead to us.”
Denunciations were soon flying from academics, “human rights” groups and the major media.
On the front page of The New York Times, a “news” story pronounced: “On War Crimes Court, U.S. Sides with Despots, Not Allies.” In an editorial, The Washington Post charged that Mr. Bolton was harping on a “pet peeve” and “personal bugaboo,” raising issues that are “essentially irrelevant.”
These elite opinions could not be more wrong-headed.
The Trump administration has had one consistent and overriding foreign policy theme: Defending American sovereignty. In his address to the U.N. General Assembly a year ago this month, President Trump used that word — as well as “sovereign” — more than two dozen times.
Sovereignty was succinctly defined by President Lincoln in 1861. He said it implies “a political community, without a political superior.” In other words, it’s central to the question that is — and always has been — at the heart of politics everywhere: Who rules?
There are those who consider it imperative that the United States remain a political community without a political superior, that Americans rule themselves, that no institutions wield power over them without their consent, and that the U.S. Constitution be regarded as the supreme law of the land.
There also are those who believe such ideas are outmoded. They hope for change, and they’re working hard to achieve it. A fancy term for them is “transnational progressives.” A less fancy term: Globalists — proponents of global governance.
ByRowan Scarborough– The Washington Times – Thursday, October 20, 2016
Hillary Clintonhas aligned herself closely with a vision for America laid out by her benefactor — left-wing financierGeorge Soros, who talks of “international governance,” more open borders, increased Muslim immigration and diminished U.S. global power.
The phrase “American exceptionalism” is not part of his agenda. He wrote in 1998: “The sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.”
“We need some global system of political decision-making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy,”Mr. Soroswrote.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on New York City and the Pentagon, he said, “Military power is of limited use in dealing with asymmetric threats such as terrorism.”
The Clinton-Sorossymbiosis came into clearer focus this month with WikiLeaks’ release of thousands of hacked emails from John Podesta,Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman.Mr. Soros‘ name comes up nearly 60 times.
What happens when ‘Palestine’ has access to the International Criminal Court?
Jeremy Rabkin
June 20, 2011, Vol. 16, No. 38
Amidst his other pronouncements on Mideast peace in late May, President Obama warned Palestinians they couldn’t get their state by a show of hands at the United Nations. Soon after, Israeli officials predicted that the Palestinian Authority would pursue its case at the U.N. in September. It’s a safe bet that the Israeli government has a better understanding of Palestinian intentions than the Obama administration.
It’s true that the U.N. General Assembly doesn’t have the authority to settle border disputes or settle much of anything. Its resolutions are not, in themselves, binding formulations of international law. But a General Assembly resolution on Palestine will open some doors. Perhaps the most important is the door to the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court. What happens after that door swings open won’t be a problem just for Israel. (more…)
Samantha Power’s Power On the ideology of an Obama adviser
by Stanley Kurtz Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and the author of Radical-in-Chief.
A member of the president’s National Security Council who shares Noam Chomsky’s foreign-policy goals? An influential presidential adviser whom 1960s revolutionary Tom Hayden treats as a fellow radical? A White House official who wrote a book aiming to turn an anti-American, anti-Israel, Marxist-inspired, world-government-loving United Nations bureaucrat into a popular hero? Samantha Power, senior director of multilateral affairs for the National Security Council and perhaps the principal architect of our current intervention in Libya, is all of these things.
These scary-sounding tidbits might be dismissed as isolated “gotchas.” Unfortunately, when we view these radical outcroppings in the full sweep of her life’s work, Samantha Power emerges as a patriot’s nightmare — a woman determined to subordinate America’s national sovereignty to an international order largely controlled by leftist bureaucrats. Superficially, Power’s chief concern is to put a stop to genocide and “crimes against humanity.” More deeply, her goal is to use our shared horror at the worst that human beings can do in order to institute an ever-broadening regime of redistributive transnational governance.
Knowing what Samantha Power wants reveals a great deal about Barack Obama’s own ideological commitments. It’s not just a question of whether he shares Power’s long-term internationalist goals, although it’s highly likely that he does. Power’s thinking also represents a bridge of sorts between Obama’s domestic- and foreign-policy aspirations. Beyond that, Power embodies a style of pragmatic radicalism that Obama shares. Both Obama and Power are skilled at placing their ultimate ideological goals just out of sight, behind a screen of practical problem-solving. (more…)
Well, how interesting! It seems the U.S. Department of Justice has changed its website. Gone are the colorful red, white and blue U.S. flag decorations on the page,
replaced by stark black and white.
And at the top of the page, is a rather interesting quote:
“The common law is the will of mankind, issuing from the life of the people.”
Catchy, huh? Just one tiny little (too small to be relevant obviously) point — the quote is from C. Wilfred Jenks, who in the 1930’s was a leading proponent of the “international law” movement, which had as its goal to impose a global common law and which backed ‘global workers’ rights.’
Call it Marxism, call it Progressivism, call it Socialism — under any of those names it definitely makes the DOJ look corrupt in their sleek, new black website with Marxist accessories to match.
Last November, as a new round of bombings in Baghdad raised doubts about Iraqi security measures, the New York Times reported that hundreds of Iraqi checkpoints were relying on a “small hand-held wand, with a telescopic antenna on a swivel” to check for explosives. A retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force was quoted as saying the device was “nothing more than an explosives divining rod” which works “on the same principle as a Ouija board.” The head of the Iraqi Interior Ministry’s Directorate for Combating Explosives insisted that whether it was “magic or scientific,” the device was preferable to relying on bomb-sniffing dogs at all the 400 checkpoints in Baghdad: With all those dogs, “the city would be a zoo.” (more…)
Excerpt from the article: “the goal of This Is Ecocide, a new environmental campaign that seeks to outlaw serious pollution as an international “crime against peace,” akin to war crimes or genocide. Anyone indicated for ecocide would find himself in the dock at the International Criminal Court alongside such alleged mass murderers as Serbia’s Radovan Karadzic and Liberia’s Charles Taylor.”
Environmentalism is growing increasingly antihuman. Having left Teddy Roosevelt-style conservation and Earth Day consciousness-raising behind, the cutting edge of the movement is pursuing utopian “save the planet” agendas while angrily castigating mankind for supposedly sucking the life out of Gaia. (more…)
