# Us To Deny Visas For Icc Members Investigating Alleged War Crimes



## LaFaraona (Apr 5, 2019)

If it is good for the goose it is good for the gander
My critic of the International court was and is that it works as a prosecuting hand of Western countries to be used solely against Developing nations.

Washington also threatened economic sanctions if war crimes court goes ahead with inquiry into US troops in Afghanistan






The United States has announced it will revoke or deny visas to members of the International Criminal Court involved in investigating the actions of US troops in Afghanistan or other countries.

The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, said Washington was prepared to take further steps, including economic sanctions, if the war crimes court goes ahead with any investigations of US or allied personnel.

“The ICC is attacking America’s rule of law,” Pompeo told reporters. “It’s not too late for the court to change course and we urge that it do so immediately.”

The United States has never joined the ICC, where a prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, asked judges in November 2017 for authorization to open an investigation into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.

Pompeo’s announcement of visa restrictions was the first concrete action taken by the US against the ICC since the White House threatened reprisals against the Hague-based body in September.

“I’m announcing a policy of US visa restrictions on those individuals directly responsible for any ICC investigation of US personnel,” he said.

This would include anyone who takes, or has taken, action to request or further an investigation, he told reporters.

“If you’re responsible for the proposed ICC investigation of US personnel in connection with the situation in Afghanistan you should not assume that you still have, or will get, a visa or that you will permitted to enter the United States,” Pompeo added.

The secretary of state said visas could also be withheld from ICC personnel involved in conducting probes of US allies, specifically Israel.

Pompeo said “implementation” of the policy has already begun but he did not provide any details, citing confidentiality surrounding visa applications.

“These visa restrictions will not be the end of our efforts,” Pompeo said. “We’re prepared to take additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.”

The secretary of state said the US had declined to join the ICC “because of its broad unaccountable prosecutorial powers” and the threat it proposes to American national sovereignty.






“We are determined to protect American and allied civilian personnel from living in fear of unjust prosecution for actions taken to defend our great nation,” he said.

Pompeo said the US government was obliged to protect its citizens and procedures were already in place to deal with members of the US armed forces who engage in misconduct.

“The US government, where possible, takes legal action against those responsible for international crimes,” he added, noting that it has supported prosecution of war crimes in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere.

The ICC and human rights groups reacted swiftly to Pompeo’s remarks.

“The ICC, as a court of law, will continue to do its independent work, undeterred, in accordance with its mandate and the overarching principle of the rule of law,” the ICC said.

Richard Dicker, the international justice director at Human Rights Watch, said the US move “is a naked attempt to bully judges and impede justice for victims in Afghanistan” and “blatant contempt for the rule of law”.

James Goldston, the executive director of the Open Society Justice Initiative, said Pompeo’s remarks reflected the administration’s view that international law matters “only when it is aligned with US national interests”.

“Attacking international judicial actors for doing their jobs undermines global efforts to hold to account those most responsible for atrocity crimes such as torture and mass murder,” Goldston said.

The ICC was established in 2002 under the Rome Statute and joined by 123 countries.

But ICC membership was never ratified by the US Senate and the “America First” administration of Donald Trump has been a particularly virulent opponent.


----------



## Transformer (Apr 5, 2019)

Another step lower for the U.S. and the majority of their citizens approve.


----------



## Ms. Tarabotti (Apr 5, 2019)

But I bet they want war crimes against the United States investigated.


----------



## Laela (Apr 6, 2019)

oh? I didn't know America had a rule of law... I can't tell these days.


----------



## Laela (Apr 11, 2019)

Surprise..surprise...surprise.. ICC will continue probe despite US objections and threats...


*US Visa Ban: A Blow or Unlikely Win for the ICC?*
April 11, 2019 3:28 PM

Lisa Bryant





FILE - Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda (C) and Deputy Prosecutor James Stewart (R) attend the first audience with the chief of Central African Republic's soccer federation Patrice-Edouard Ngaissona at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, the Netherlands, Jan. 25, 2019.
See comments


PARIS —  Since taking office in 2012, International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda has spent a lot of time on the road, pursuing potential cases in countries as disparate as Mali, Colombia and the conflict-torn Central African Republic. The one place she may not be visiting anytime soon is the United States.

After warning of overreach months before, Washington acted last week in response to the ICC prosecutor's initial examination into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan involving U.S. personnel.




"The ICC is attacking America's rule of law," said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as he announced visa restrictions on those connected to ICC investigations involving U.S. citizens, and urged the court in The Hague to "change course" or face the threat of further sanctions.

Washington's move has been described as both a blow to international justice and a win for democracy. Some see it as further weakening an already battered institution set up as a "court of last resort" to deliver justice for victims of some of the world's most horrific crimes.

Still others see Washington's reprimand as paradoxically boosting the ICC's credentials in the eyes of a broader public, including critics in Africa.

"When the Trump administration or any U.S. administration says, 'Hey, we don't want anything to do with this court because it might investigate us or our personnel,' it's signaling to the rest of the world that the court is doing the right thing," said ICC specialist and University of Toronto fellow Mark Kersten. "Rather than kowtowing to major powers, it's actually challenging them."

*Losing members*

The U.S. rebuke came the same day *Malaysia *signaled it was reversing course, announcing it would not join the court after all, following pressure from its Muslim population.

Two other countries, the *Philippines *and *Burundi*, have quit the ICC, after coming under preliminary examinations by ICC prosecutors who have pledged to continue them nonetheless. *Russia *withdrew its signature in 2016, after the court published a report classifying its annexation of Crimea as an occupation.

The court has also suffered a series of judicial setbacks, losing high-profile cases against Kenya's President Uhuru Kenyatta, ex-Congolese Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba and most recently former Ivorian leader Laurent Gbagbo.

For its part, Washington signed but never ratified the Rome Statute that founded the tribunal in 2002. Ties warmed under the Obama administration, with the U.S. assisting ICC efforts to bring Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army rebel leaders to justice.

*Trump a strong critic*

The Trump administration has been strongly critical of the ICC. With the tribunal considering whether to open a formal war crimes probe in Afghanistan, National Security Advisor John Bolton warned in September that any investigation involving American personnel threatened U.S. sovereignty and national security.

"We will not cooperate with the ICC," said Bolton, a long-time court skeptic. "For all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us," he added.

Rights groups and ICC member states have denounced Washington's stance. Foreign ministers from nearly two dozen mostly European nations endorsed a statement expressing "serious concern" about the visa revocation, and backed the ICC as part of "the rules-based international order."

"It's an outrageous attempt to bully the International Criminal Court and deter scrutiny of U.S. conduct," said Human Rights Watch Associate Director Liz Evenson, echoing similar criticism from other rights groups.

*ICC out of line?*

Some analysts, however, argue the ICC, and not the U.S., is out of line.

"Should an unaccountable United Nations court, created by a treaty to which the United States is not a signatory, and that the [U.S.] Senate has not ratified, be allowed to investigate, try and imprison American citizens?" asked _Washington Post_ columnist Marc Thiessen, a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

"By taking on the ICC, the Trump administration is not just protecting U.S. citizens and American sovereignty – it is striking a blow for democracy across the world," he wrote in _The Post_ last year. He argued the ICC also prevents peaceful democratic transitions by closing off amnesty and other options that might remove dictators from power.





FILE - Fatou Bensouda, Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), poses for pictures at the European Council in Brussels, Belgium, Jan. 26, 2017.
*For her part, Bensouda has vowed to continue with her probes. *According to reports, she will still have access to United Nations headquarters in New York.

"There will be pushback, there will be challenges, there will be accusations … all sorts of things thrown against the ICC," Bensouda said in an interview with Africanews TV this week.

She said the court had an obligation to pursue war crimes and crimes against humanity "if the state is not doing it, or not genuinely doing it."

"At the end of the day," she added, "the cases we try at the ICC are about the victims."

Evenson of Human Rights Watch argues the prosecutor has not overreached when it comes to Afghanistan, an ICC member state.

"We're talking about a situation in which there's been impunity for abuses committed to all parties in the conflict — it would be about much more than U.S. conduct," she said. "It would also allow the prosecutor to look at abuses committed by the Taliban and Afghan national forces."

*Muting critics*

The U.S. scrutiny might also help mute criticism that the court is overly focused on African cases, says the University of Toronto's Kersten. He also contrasts Washington's response with that of Britain, which also faces a preliminary ICC examination into war crimes allegations involving its soldiers in Iraq.

"The UK did not become hysterical," he said. "Instead it has sought to cooperate with the court, by and large."

More worrisome, he said, would be the message sent if the ICC did not act.

"Had the prosecutor said, 'Look, I'm closing the preliminary examination and not pursuing any investigation of these crimes in Afghanistan' — how would that make the court look right now?" Kersten said. "That would be very bad for the court and its legitimacy."


----------

