Must Abolish the crap of Geneva Convention ASAP and Reverse all Humanity Wayangs totally.
These BS caused Earth Man and ALL LIVING THINGS to face Global Total Extinction, exhaust all global resources and ruined global environment, by over population and over consumption.
https://www.telegraphindia.com/world/trump-threatens-icc-with-sanctions-258386?ref=world-new-stry
President Trump's national security adviserJohn Bolton. (Reuters)
Washington: The Trump administration threatened the International Criminal Court with sanctions if it pursued an investigation of American troops in Afghanistan, opening a harsh new attack on an old nemesis of many on the political Right.
"The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," President Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said in a speech on Monday in Washington.
"We will ban its judges and prosecutors from entering" the United States," Bolton said. "We will sanction their funds in the US financial system, and, we will prosecute them in the US criminal system. We will do the same for any company or state that assists in an ICC investigation of Americans."
Bolton also announced that the US would shut down the Palestine Liberation Organisation's office in Washington - a decision linked to the International Criminal Court, which he said was being prodded by the Palestinians to investigate Israel.
More from Homepage
Bolton's hostile words, in what the White House has called his first major address as national security adviser, echoed the position he took as a senior official in the George W. Bush administration, when Bolton emerged as the most virulent foe of the court, which is based in The Hague.
The US declined to join the court during Bush's first term, when Bolton was an under secretary of state and later ambassador to the UN. After he left the Bush administration, the White House showed a little less resistance to the court's work, even expressing support for its investigation of atrocities in Darfur.
Under President Barack Obama, the US began helping the court in investigations and shifted to a policy of "positive engagement", according to Harold Koh, then the state department's legal adviser.
Still, the US never joined the court. And with Bolton back in power, the White House has swung back to the language of 2002 and 2003.
In his speech, he made familiar arguments against the court, saying that it infringed on American sovereignty, had unchecked power, and was "ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed, outright dangerous".
"The largely unspoken, but always central, aim of its most vigorous supporters was to constrain the US," Bolton said. "The objective was not limited to targeting individual US service members, but rather America's senior political leadership, and its relentless determination to keep our country secure."
New York Times News Service
https://www.rt.com/news/392635-mosul-raqqa-us-white-phosphorus/
#MosulSOS
US-led coalition’s white phosphorus use in Mosul ‘not within int’l legal framework’ – rights groups
The use of white phosphorus by the US-led coalition in Mosul is “not within the international legal framework,” the UN coordinator for rights group Salam for Democracy and Human Rights told RT, adding that Baghdad should launch an independent investigation.
"There's no area [in Mosul] with a large space... the houses are built against each other so it's really intense. So using such a weapon in this area is not within the international legal framework,"Mohammed Serkal told RT.
Read more
US-led coalition admits use of white phosphorus in Mosul amid mounting criticism
"It is banned… in areas like this... especially now with the heat in Iraq... with this it could burn easy and that could have consequences, not just now but on the future as well," he said.
White phosphorus burns when it comes into contact with oxygen, producing high-temperature heat and characteristic white smoke.
Serkal also said there "seems to be a blackout on Mosul" in the media, because "we don't have many NGOs in Mosul who can verify information, who can report on information on the airstrikes" on the city, and because the city is inaccessible.
Serkal is calling on the Iraqi government to investigate any criminal behavior"independently and transparently,"without the US being involved.
READ MORE: 'Staggering loss of civilian life' during US-backed siege of Raqqa – UN
The US-led coalition has admitted to using munitions loaded with white phosphorus, with a New Zealand general disclosing it earlier this week. The explanation was that the substance has been used for creating smokescreens to aid fleeing civilians.
It comes after an increasing number of claims pointed to the use of such munitions in Mosul and Raqqa, Syria in previous weeks. The cities are the two strongholds of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has also criticized the coalition for deploying the munitions by releasing a statement entitled“Iraq/Syria: Danger from US white phosphorus” on Wednesday.
‘What’s it hitting on the ground?’
The Americans saying that they’re only using artillery-delivered white phosphorus as a smoke screen, but the group warned against employing it “to attack personnel on the ground or material objects,” Mary Wareham, the advocacy director of HRW’s arms division, told RT.
“We see enough risk in the use [of white phosphorus] and see horror stories from past use in previous conflicts. We want the US to be extremely careful and sparing when it uses white phosphorus – if it uses it at all,” she said.
READ MORE: What we see in Raqqa is no attempt to protect civilians – Vanessa Beeley
When asked if she believed that the use of white phosphorus could endanger peaceful Syrians and Iraqis, Wareham’s reply was:“Yes. There are hundreds of thousands of civilians still on the ground in Mosul and in Raqqa. It’s a very complex situation.”
“Our problem is that there are no clear rules in terms of using white phosphorus as a weapon. It’s not covered by international law. It’s not primarily designed as an incendiary weapon. But its incidental effects can cause terrible injuries – burns, smoke inhalation,” she said.
Even after being deployed in the air, white phosphorus keeps burning when reaching the ground and HRW wants to know “what’s it hitting on the ground?” and if“adequate provisions [are] being taken to ensure that civilians aren’t falling victims to white phosphorus,” Warren said.
She also stressed that Human Rights Watch has not yet identified any victims of white phosphorous in Mosul and Raqqa, adding that, according to its information, the US-led coalition has not used the controversial munition in the last couple of days.
https://www.thehour.com/news/article/White-House-expected-to-warn-of-sanctions-other-13216780.php
Search
White House expected to warn of sanctions, other penalties if international court moves against Americans
Missy Ryan and Anne Gearan, The Washington Post
Published 10:07 pm EDT, Sunday, September 9, 2018
WASHINGTON - The United States will threaten Monday to punish individuals that cooperate with the International Criminal Court in a potential investigation of U.S. wartime actions in Afghanistan, according to people familiar with the decision.
The Trump administration is also expected to announce that it is shutting down a Palestinian diplomatic office in Washington, D.C., because Palestinians have sought to use the international court to prosecute U.S. ally Israel, those people said.
White House national security adviser John Bolton, a longtime opponent of the ICC, is expected to outline threats of sanctions and a ban on travel to the United States for people involved in the attempted prosecution of Americans before the international court in an address Monday.
Bolton is a longtime opponent of the court on grounds that it violates national sovereignty.
The speech, titled "Protecting American Constitutionalism and Sovereignty from International Threats," is Bolton's first formal address since joining the administration in April. It is sponsored by the Federalist Society, a conservative and libertarian policy group.
Bolton is expected to outline a new campaign to challenge the court's legitimacy as it considers cases that could put the United States and close allies in jeopardy for the first time, according to individuals familiar with the planned remarks who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so on the record.
Bolton is likely to lay out American opposition to the court and propose measures including new agreements to shield U.S. personnel from international prosecution and the threat of sanctions or travel restrictions for people involved in prosecuting Americans.
One person said Bolton plans to use the speech to announce that the Trump administration will force the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization's office in Washington in a dispute over a Palestinian effort to seek prosecution of Israel through the ICC.
Bolton's announcement is closely related to concern at the Pentagon and among intelligence agencies about potential U.S. liability to prosecution at the court over actions in Afghanistan, said a senior administration official familiar with aspects of the forthcoming announcement.
The ICC investigation of U.S. wartime actions represents exactly the kind of infringement on U.S. sovereignty that Bolton and other opponents of the court have long warned about, that official and others said.
"It's a much more real policy matter now because of the potential liability in Afghanistan," the official said, adding that other nations share U.S. concerns.
The Trump administration has questioned whether the ICC has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute U.S. citizens for actions in Afghanistan, because Afghan, U.S. and U.S. military law all could apply in different situations, the official said.
The new broadside against the ICC follows steps by the administration challenging international cooperation in other areas. This year, the administration has withdrawn from the United Nations human rights body, halted financial support for a U.N. aid program for Palestinian refugees and threatened to pull out of the World Trade Organization.
Bolton's speech comes two weeks before President Donald Trump will attend the United Nations General Assembly, where he will address other world leaders. U.S. officials have said Trump will focus on U.S. claims about the threat posed by Iran, and reiterate his opposition to the international nuclear deal with Iran. Trump pulled the United States out of the deal in May.
Trump's opposition to the Iran deal is related to a wider suspicion of international agreements and organizations such as the ICC.
Three successive U.S. administrations of both political parties have rejected the full jurisdiction of the international court over American citizens, although U.S. cooperation with the court expanded significantly under the Obama administration.
The United States has never signed the 2002 international treaty, called the Rome Treaty, that established the court, which is based in The Hague.
Stephen Pomper, who worked on issues related to the ICC in the Obama administration, said an attempt to weaken the court would exacerbate strains between the United States and allies in Europe and elsewhere who were supporters of the court.
"It's going to create friction that's not necessary and it's going to create the impression the United States is a bully and a hegemon," said Pomper, who now is U.S. program director at the International Crisis Group.
Bolton was part of an effort during the George W. Bush administration to formalize U.S. resistance to the court, including through legislation prohibiting U.S. support and efforts to pressure other countries into agreements not to surrender U.S. citizens to the body.
Bolton's opposition has intensified as ICC judges evaluate a request from prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, who last fall asked for permission to formally investigate alleged crimes committed during the Afghan war. That could potentially include actions by U.S. military or intelligence personnel in the detention of terrorism suspects.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal last November, Bolton said the investigation added urgency to the need to keep the United States and its citizens out of the court's reach.
"America's long-term security depends on refusing to recognize an iota of legitimacy" of the court, he wrote.
David Bosco, a professor at Indiana University's School of Global and International Studies, said the judges were likely to approve Bensouda's request.
The court is also considering a request from Palestinian authorities to probe alleged crimes committed in Palestinian territories, a step that could result in attempts to prosecute Israeli officials.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, in a speech at the United Nations a year ago, called on the ICC to investigate and prosecute Israeli citizens for alleged crimes against Palestinians.
In response, the Trump administration had moved in November to close the Palestinian diplomatic office, but quickly backtracked and allowed the office to remain open with temporary restrictions.
That office serves as a de facto embassy, staffed by an ambassador, to represent Palestinian interests to the U.S. government.
The Trump administration contends that the Palestinians violated U.S. law by seeking prosecution of Israel at the ICC. The administration's initial decision to close the office caused a breach with Abbas that widened in December when Trump announced that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and move its embassy there.
The Trump administration has not publicly committed to support a separate sovereign Palestine alongside Israel, which was the goal of previous administrations. But like previous U.S. administrations, the Trump White House considers Palestinian efforts to seek statehood recognition through international organizations to be illegitimate.
The Bush and Obama administrations sought negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians to reach that goal. The Trump administration has drafted a detailed proposal to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but has not released it or publicly discussed how it would address Palestinian statehood.
Bosco said punitive moves would "mark a return to a kind of cold war between Washington and The Hague."
But a move against the ICC is likely to generate less outcry from Congress than those against other international bodies because politicians of both parties generally oppose attempts to subject Americans, particularly service members, to international prosecution.
The ICC has been subject to international criticism for other reasons, including that it has moved slowly to convict and has focused mainly on crimes occurring in Africa.
---
The Washington Post's Julie Tate and Carol Morello contributed to this report.
These BS caused Earth Man and ALL LIVING THINGS to face Global Total Extinction, exhaust all global resources and ruined global environment, by over population and over consumption.
https://www.telegraphindia.com/world/trump-threatens-icc-with-sanctions-258386?ref=world-new-stry
President Trump's national security adviserJohn Bolton. (Reuters)
Washington: The Trump administration threatened the International Criminal Court with sanctions if it pursued an investigation of American troops in Afghanistan, opening a harsh new attack on an old nemesis of many on the political Right.
"The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," President Trump's national security adviser, John R. Bolton, said in a speech on Monday in Washington.
"We will ban its judges and prosecutors from entering" the United States," Bolton said. "We will sanction their funds in the US financial system, and, we will prosecute them in the US criminal system. We will do the same for any company or state that assists in an ICC investigation of Americans."
Bolton also announced that the US would shut down the Palestine Liberation Organisation's office in Washington - a decision linked to the International Criminal Court, which he said was being prodded by the Palestinians to investigate Israel.
More from Homepage
Bolton's hostile words, in what the White House has called his first major address as national security adviser, echoed the position he took as a senior official in the George W. Bush administration, when Bolton emerged as the most virulent foe of the court, which is based in The Hague.
.jpg)
The US declined to join the court during Bush's first term, when Bolton was an under secretary of state and later ambassador to the UN. After he left the Bush administration, the White House showed a little less resistance to the court's work, even expressing support for its investigation of atrocities in Darfur.
Under President Barack Obama, the US began helping the court in investigations and shifted to a policy of "positive engagement", according to Harold Koh, then the state department's legal adviser.
Still, the US never joined the court. And with Bolton back in power, the White House has swung back to the language of 2002 and 2003.
In his speech, he made familiar arguments against the court, saying that it infringed on American sovereignty, had unchecked power, and was "ineffective, unaccountable, and indeed, outright dangerous".
"The largely unspoken, but always central, aim of its most vigorous supporters was to constrain the US," Bolton said. "The objective was not limited to targeting individual US service members, but rather America's senior political leadership, and its relentless determination to keep our country secure."
New York Times News Service
https://www.rt.com/news/392635-mosul-raqqa-us-white-phosphorus/
#MosulSOS
- FILE PHOTO © Karim Sahib
- AFP
US-led coalition’s white phosphorus use in Mosul ‘not within int’l legal framework’ – rights groups
The use of white phosphorus by the US-led coalition in Mosul is “not within the international legal framework,” the UN coordinator for rights group Salam for Democracy and Human Rights told RT, adding that Baghdad should launch an independent investigation.
"There's no area [in Mosul] with a large space... the houses are built against each other so it's really intense. So using such a weapon in this area is not within the international legal framework,"Mohammed Serkal told RT.
Read more
US-led coalition admits use of white phosphorus in Mosul amid mounting criticism"It is banned… in areas like this... especially now with the heat in Iraq... with this it could burn easy and that could have consequences, not just now but on the future as well," he said.
White phosphorus burns when it comes into contact with oxygen, producing high-temperature heat and characteristic white smoke.
Serkal also said there "seems to be a blackout on Mosul" in the media, because "we don't have many NGOs in Mosul who can verify information, who can report on information on the airstrikes" on the city, and because the city is inaccessible.
Serkal is calling on the Iraqi government to investigate any criminal behavior"independently and transparently,"without the US being involved.
READ MORE: 'Staggering loss of civilian life' during US-backed siege of Raqqa – UN
The US-led coalition has admitted to using munitions loaded with white phosphorus, with a New Zealand general disclosing it earlier this week. The explanation was that the substance has been used for creating smokescreens to aid fleeing civilians.
It comes after an increasing number of claims pointed to the use of such munitions in Mosul and Raqqa, Syria in previous weeks. The cities are the two strongholds of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has also criticized the coalition for deploying the munitions by releasing a statement entitled“Iraq/Syria: Danger from US white phosphorus” on Wednesday.
‘What’s it hitting on the ground?’
The Americans saying that they’re only using artillery-delivered white phosphorus as a smoke screen, but the group warned against employing it “to attack personnel on the ground or material objects,” Mary Wareham, the advocacy director of HRW’s arms division, told RT.
“We see enough risk in the use [of white phosphorus] and see horror stories from past use in previous conflicts. We want the US to be extremely careful and sparing when it uses white phosphorus – if it uses it at all,” she said.
READ MORE: What we see in Raqqa is no attempt to protect civilians – Vanessa Beeley
When asked if she believed that the use of white phosphorus could endanger peaceful Syrians and Iraqis, Wareham’s reply was:“Yes. There are hundreds of thousands of civilians still on the ground in Mosul and in Raqqa. It’s a very complex situation.”
“Our problem is that there are no clear rules in terms of using white phosphorus as a weapon. It’s not covered by international law. It’s not primarily designed as an incendiary weapon. But its incidental effects can cause terrible injuries – burns, smoke inhalation,” she said.
Even after being deployed in the air, white phosphorus keeps burning when reaching the ground and HRW wants to know “what’s it hitting on the ground?” and if“adequate provisions [are] being taken to ensure that civilians aren’t falling victims to white phosphorus,” Warren said.
She also stressed that Human Rights Watch has not yet identified any victims of white phosphorous in Mosul and Raqqa, adding that, according to its information, the US-led coalition has not used the controversial munition in the last couple of days.
https://www.thehour.com/news/article/White-House-expected-to-warn-of-sanctions-other-13216780.php
Search
- Home
- News
- Sports
- UConn Nation
- Business
- Real Estate
- Entertainment
- Living
- Obituaries
- Privacy Notice
- Classifieds
- Jobs
- Cars
White House expected to warn of sanctions, other penalties if international court moves against Americans
Missy Ryan and Anne Gearan, The Washington Post
Published 10:07 pm EDT, Sunday, September 9, 2018
WASHINGTON - The United States will threaten Monday to punish individuals that cooperate with the International Criminal Court in a potential investigation of U.S. wartime actions in Afghanistan, according to people familiar with the decision.
The Trump administration is also expected to announce that it is shutting down a Palestinian diplomatic office in Washington, D.C., because Palestinians have sought to use the international court to prosecute U.S. ally Israel, those people said.
White House national security adviser John Bolton, a longtime opponent of the ICC, is expected to outline threats of sanctions and a ban on travel to the United States for people involved in the attempted prosecution of Americans before the international court in an address Monday.
Bolton is a longtime opponent of the court on grounds that it violates national sovereignty.
The speech, titled "Protecting American Constitutionalism and Sovereignty from International Threats," is Bolton's first formal address since joining the administration in April. It is sponsored by the Federalist Society, a conservative and libertarian policy group.
Bolton is expected to outline a new campaign to challenge the court's legitimacy as it considers cases that could put the United States and close allies in jeopardy for the first time, according to individuals familiar with the planned remarks who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to do so on the record.
Bolton is likely to lay out American opposition to the court and propose measures including new agreements to shield U.S. personnel from international prosecution and the threat of sanctions or travel restrictions for people involved in prosecuting Americans.
One person said Bolton plans to use the speech to announce that the Trump administration will force the closure of the Palestine Liberation Organization's office in Washington in a dispute over a Palestinian effort to seek prosecution of Israel through the ICC.
Bolton's announcement is closely related to concern at the Pentagon and among intelligence agencies about potential U.S. liability to prosecution at the court over actions in Afghanistan, said a senior administration official familiar with aspects of the forthcoming announcement.
The ICC investigation of U.S. wartime actions represents exactly the kind of infringement on U.S. sovereignty that Bolton and other opponents of the court have long warned about, that official and others said.
"It's a much more real policy matter now because of the potential liability in Afghanistan," the official said, adding that other nations share U.S. concerns.
The Trump administration has questioned whether the ICC has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute U.S. citizens for actions in Afghanistan, because Afghan, U.S. and U.S. military law all could apply in different situations, the official said.
The new broadside against the ICC follows steps by the administration challenging international cooperation in other areas. This year, the administration has withdrawn from the United Nations human rights body, halted financial support for a U.N. aid program for Palestinian refugees and threatened to pull out of the World Trade Organization.
Bolton's speech comes two weeks before President Donald Trump will attend the United Nations General Assembly, where he will address other world leaders. U.S. officials have said Trump will focus on U.S. claims about the threat posed by Iran, and reiterate his opposition to the international nuclear deal with Iran. Trump pulled the United States out of the deal in May.
Trump's opposition to the Iran deal is related to a wider suspicion of international agreements and organizations such as the ICC.
Three successive U.S. administrations of both political parties have rejected the full jurisdiction of the international court over American citizens, although U.S. cooperation with the court expanded significantly under the Obama administration.
The United States has never signed the 2002 international treaty, called the Rome Treaty, that established the court, which is based in The Hague.
Stephen Pomper, who worked on issues related to the ICC in the Obama administration, said an attempt to weaken the court would exacerbate strains between the United States and allies in Europe and elsewhere who were supporters of the court.
"It's going to create friction that's not necessary and it's going to create the impression the United States is a bully and a hegemon," said Pomper, who now is U.S. program director at the International Crisis Group.
Bolton was part of an effort during the George W. Bush administration to formalize U.S. resistance to the court, including through legislation prohibiting U.S. support and efforts to pressure other countries into agreements not to surrender U.S. citizens to the body.
Bolton's opposition has intensified as ICC judges evaluate a request from prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, who last fall asked for permission to formally investigate alleged crimes committed during the Afghan war. That could potentially include actions by U.S. military or intelligence personnel in the detention of terrorism suspects.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal last November, Bolton said the investigation added urgency to the need to keep the United States and its citizens out of the court's reach.
"America's long-term security depends on refusing to recognize an iota of legitimacy" of the court, he wrote.
David Bosco, a professor at Indiana University's School of Global and International Studies, said the judges were likely to approve Bensouda's request.
The court is also considering a request from Palestinian authorities to probe alleged crimes committed in Palestinian territories, a step that could result in attempts to prosecute Israeli officials.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, in a speech at the United Nations a year ago, called on the ICC to investigate and prosecute Israeli citizens for alleged crimes against Palestinians.
In response, the Trump administration had moved in November to close the Palestinian diplomatic office, but quickly backtracked and allowed the office to remain open with temporary restrictions.
That office serves as a de facto embassy, staffed by an ambassador, to represent Palestinian interests to the U.S. government.
The Trump administration contends that the Palestinians violated U.S. law by seeking prosecution of Israel at the ICC. The administration's initial decision to close the office caused a breach with Abbas that widened in December when Trump announced that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and move its embassy there.
The Trump administration has not publicly committed to support a separate sovereign Palestine alongside Israel, which was the goal of previous administrations. But like previous U.S. administrations, the Trump White House considers Palestinian efforts to seek statehood recognition through international organizations to be illegitimate.
The Bush and Obama administrations sought negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians to reach that goal. The Trump administration has drafted a detailed proposal to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but has not released it or publicly discussed how it would address Palestinian statehood.
Bosco said punitive moves would "mark a return to a kind of cold war between Washington and The Hague."
But a move against the ICC is likely to generate less outcry from Congress than those against other international bodies because politicians of both parties generally oppose attempts to subject Americans, particularly service members, to international prosecution.
The ICC has been subject to international criticism for other reasons, including that it has moved slowly to convict and has focused mainly on crimes occurring in Africa.
---
The Washington Post's Julie Tate and Carol Morello contributed to this report.
Turkey vows to bring Israel to ICC over Gaza carnage, Tel Aviv says Ankara will be there first
