Hiding in plain sight the pursuit of war criminals from nuremberg to the war on terror, a great death. Debt. Reat the author lively writing ensures it can be read by all of us. One of the cases the book examines is the the special courts prosecutor who masterminded the attempt to bring taylor to justice. He said the success or failure of prosecutions hinges on a full understanding of politics and diplomacy to ensure justice at the end of the day. Reading chapters over the last few days, i was amazed at the complexity of the efforts, legal, logistical, international to bring war criminals like Charles Taylor to justice. Knowught of a young man i from sierra leone who just school. D from the capture and prosecution of Charles Taylor was a deeply meaningful event. Arms were hacked off by rebel soldiers who killed his parents in front of him under the rule of Charles Taylor. Think to international effort, Charles Taylor was found guilty in april 2012 of all 11 charges levied by the special court for sierra leone, including murder, terror, and rape. Our three guests tonight based their books on years of research and indepth interviews and prosecutors and diplomats. There is more on our website. The director of human rights onter she teaches classes human rights and International Law. His current work focuses on the politics of accountability. A criminal court and the israelipalestinian conflict. Of theulty director human rights center, an adjunct professor at uc berkeley. In the early 90s he took part in conducting the First Research on the social and medical consequences of landmines in his Research Launched the International Campaign to ban landmines. Let me read and answered from the most memorable and often quoted prosecute your real off quoted off quoted statements the wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating that civilizations cannot tolerate them being ignored, because they cannot survive them being repeated. You must never forget the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. The format tonight is a conversation and we will leave time at the end for your questions. Please wait for the microphone to come to you. Welcoming ericin stover to the l. A. Public library. [applause] thank you for helping us here tonight. Be ableu for girls to to make the trip girls out and for the chance to see so many of you. We are going to talk a little bit about this book and how it got launched. Wasg motivating question really how do you get some of the most us war crime suspects singlebars with complaint go, and operational obstacles to make that happen. To ely being able they count as one of the greatest threats to legitimacy. This whole system of laws put into place in the aftermath of world war ii has grown and matured over the last 75 years. One of the most exciting things working on this book has been to go out there and learn from some of the people that have helped design that framework. Managed out what they to do to make the system one that could ideally begin to find justice. Mentionedpans as was it goes up through the development from the former yugoslavia and rwanda. It talks about the evolution of hybrid trials. Or hybrid tribunals of a put together to marry International Criminal law with domestic and national efforts. Wethrough the war on terror see the moment of 9 11 as engendering a split in that evolution. Where as a moment choice needed to be made about how we would see justice in the aftermath of incredibly her thick incidents that ultimately impact people around the globe. First as a mentioned earlier is withnterplay of the legal the political and operational. To ultimately get people arrested and get accountability, you need to have Legal Framework that allows you to try them in a court of law. Operational ability to find those individuals. What we ultimately kept coming was about political will often became that critical element to see justice play out. Theme is thejor idea of being bound versus unbound by the law. When you are looking to get a present of a country, for example, behind bars, or some buddy who is politically powerful, there is a tension there. Who had tountries sign onto this framework over time had to make a choice. Or they willing to be bound are they going to assert their sovereignty in a way that they want to remain unbound to do what they feel most expedient in the moment . Im going to turn to both victor and eric and we are going to open it up to questions toward the end. You, the book opens with the flight of hundreds of people in the aftermath of world war ii. Why does the book start there and what does that tell us about the problems today and how we can ultimately engendered justice . Stover it is hard to condense world war ii into two minutes. Im going to leave japan out of the picture, we talk about the pursuit of war criminals. Keeping in mind this is a book of history. We are looking at it operationally. Secondly what is the legal means of which you can do it . And then the politics. The way to understand the pursuit of for criminals is putting it into three periods three periods of time. Thats from normandy, storming onto the beaches and moving across europe. We had the allied forces coming in. Of course the soviets, russians were coming in from the east. The legal regime is in place, essentially there would be trials of the major nazi war criminals. Across the spectrum. The london charter is in place. There was still an issue that was there. That was the british and you probably know, werent so sure that they wanted there trials where wouldnt be why have these trials . Roosevelt was holding out that there should be, we should have a judicial process. The other thing that is important is as the troops moved in, there was the. Ounterintelligence cord it would move in with the u. S. Troops. It would check out the neighborhood, and many of the were germanspeaking, have lived in europe. Jd salinger was a member of the counterintelligence corps. Bank and Henry Kissinger was a member of the counterintelligence corps. As they moved in, it wasnt. Ntil april until april that roosevelt finally made his decision that we are going to actually we are going to go after these war criminals. He was concerned that american troops and allied troops would be taken out by the germans and executed. We can give the order, counterintelligence cores are going to do these investigations. What happened was these men and women who went into concentration camps were overwhelmed by what they saw. It was at first fairly chaotic. Was is to say the beginning a chaotic pursuit. By the time occupation takes place we see several things happening. That is a photograph of the counterintelligence court. Se are all for the graphs all photographs we have in the book. Intomay officially december of 1949. Established. E allprogram was set up by the allied powers, in which those members of the nazi party were vetted. Some were sent to prison, some were dismissed from their jobs to teachers, to business, to whatever. Pow camps frequently, because the officers, people eichmann andnd others went through these camps, survivors from the concentration camp would come into the camps and try to identify the officers. The ss officers usually have their blood type either on their arm or their chest. He was actually captured but was never identified and was later able to escape. Then of course there are the nurnberg trials established. We see this massive effort to make this arrest. That was the soviet menace was beginning to trouble the left, particularly the United States. They have to back off from these trials and back off from these arrests. At the same time we begin realizing the scientific and brought about 764 and many ofces those were actually involved and we wanted information. Chemical weapon production and technology. 80 of them had been members of the nazi party and had been involved in abuses. Political changes taking place in which we are going to see this happen throughout history. It is no longer because of the soviet menace we are actually turn our back on justice essentially. Were rat lines established. From to barbie to the gestapo chief. They had all these lines run by andoatian priest in italy, they went off to various countries around the world. One of the scandals that arose from that was the fact that at barbie of the war clouse was giving intelligence to the Central Intelligence core and they put him on a rat line and made it all the way to bolivia. Up, we and into the postoccupation period. U. S. Allied powers are going to pursue these criminals anymore. The germans arent going to do it at this point. This is the theme we see in our book. We have the rise of individuals. Simon here in l. A. To and friedman, who was a polish jew held in a labor camp. After theseoing nazis who fled throughout the world. And they started using techniques. This is who was german herself. 1967. Appened in and George Kissinger is giving a speech in germany and she gets up and shout at him and was actually closer to him. Chairman this is the who is slapping the nazi path, because he had been in not the propaganda from the past. They started using these techniques to try to change the political discourse. Captures of to the him have to do you because this is whereed him and him that it is a you are facts offinally the is ang free and there soviet cold war. Was really appreciated that the right organizations around the that organizations around the world started coming out in demanding change and accountability. This started to change how we go after these criminals in this new phase in the 1980s and 90s. This first flicker of the evolution of International Law is a way to do with these atrocities. We begin to see the thawing of the cold war and the rise of the new ad hoc tribunals. Victor, what does this experience of ad hoc tribunals and the evolution of the International Criminal court, which came out of that, ultimately mean for when and how we will see global justice . Thank you for that essential question. In contrast to nuremberg and , they have a monumental and enduring challenge. At nuremberg you have an occupying army. The rest were pretty easy in comparison to today. You have people fled to argentina, many thousands who fled. Tribunals do not have a global lapd. This is a huge problem. A lot of people, optimists, were initially pessimistic about the prospects of the yugoslavia tribunal actually succeeding. You did not have a political will, which was so looks so essential. The comparison underscores how just tol will can make succeed and fail. I want to show you the first slide of a wanted poster of today that we have in our book from the National Tribunal from will on the. 90 suspects with the genocide in rwanda. Its a pretty successful arrest record. Moving onto the next slide, this late picture in the 1990s. Days of the tribunal, the problem of arrest was monumental. Explain, as i will all of the indicted suspects were accounted for. In special essentially the suspects had been arrested and handed over. It is quite a remarkable record. This shows International Justice in an ability to succeed political conditions. If we go to International Criminal courts, a new age healer hid out in belgrade. If we go to the International Criminal court, a new premise was opened a year ago i believe. Heres the cover photo of the book. For crimes against humanity and atrocities. The international Committal Court experience the share genocide in for 2009. And other officials were also indicted. We see a contrast on the yugoslavian and rwanda tribunals and the court in sudan. Success and failure in terms of arrest. The International Court more generally has been able to gain custody of approximately half of his ready to indicted suspects. 32 indicted suspects. In light of the lack of enforcement powers, all tribunals and the tribunal said i have to become political, i have to Lobby International political actors such as nato, the European Union to pressure targeted states to hand over suspects. Game andhe name of the social pressure. In the case of the former yugoslavia, the tribunal chief prosecutors first put pressure on the nato peacekeepers after and scores ofords other suspects who have been indicted. What actually happened . Nato commanders wanted nothing recipe the primarily because of fear of troop casualties. Shame natorosecutors into taking action and arresting scores of bosnian serbs. Is scores of suspects, especially crossed serbia andother enjoyed a protection of who came under indictment. Problem is you didnt have an International Peacekeeping force there. Now the tribunal had another problem, how to compel serbia to hand over suspects widely regarded as war heroes. It is a difficult task, very hard. The key to that is activist and chief prosecutor pressure on the European Union to press belgrade and croatia into handing over suspects. You have a couple of options. You can threaten punishments or offer rewards. The European Union had a perfect system. It was too conditioned serbias desired advancement toward european admission. Leverage is used to advance along the path to membership slowly in terms of handing over suspects. The serbian government played very deviously in terms of handing over small suspects as long as possible. Around 2008, the European Union and ultimatums in 2011 ultimately the serbian authorities handed over all of it suspects. That is a very hopeful and successful case. Turning to sudan and the International Criminal ernational Committal Court the International Criminal chief prosecutor, who had been sued of and the chief prosecutor who indicted him for genocide in connection with the murder of 300,000 people. The crimes actually continue in darfur or, according to Amnesty International the Sudanese Armed forces are committed. Chemical attacks are primarily targeting children and babies. Attacks continue, we dont hear much about it however. So they pressed the security actually calld upon the International Criminal court in the first place to investigate darfur. She repeatedly makes calls for his arrest and she is virtually ignored. Meanwhile if we go to this classic photo here you see shear hiding and traveling in plain sight. It pretty much encapsulates the problem of hiding in plain sight. All the indictment has traveled timesationally 100 131. There are beginning to arrest them but they hadnt. Parties it creates a monumental problem and underscores the essential role of political will. The African Union in particular. As been a great supporter it is looking at another array of global actors who have sidelined the International Criminal court such as our government. Last friday barack obama decided a major part of the sanctions sudan, which is still an official sponsor of the state his decision comes despite the attacks of last year. Watch callsrights it an inexplicable decision and softening of pressure, but it undermines the prerogative of try him forne day genocide and crimes against humanity. Could end on a hopeful note, politics do change. We saw that in the balkans and in sierra leone. So, hopefully, it will change again visavis sudan and other cases i havent had the opportunity to speak about it. Thank you. So, we have the evolution of the International Criminal court coming out of the development of the tribunals in bosnia and rwanda. The interesting thing about the icc and what comes next is that the International Criminal court, the low statute that brought the court into being was in 1998. When the court began operations, there was an effort to get enough countries to sign on to the court that it could legally come into operation. What happens before 2002 when they have the necessary number of signatures . On september 11, we have the attack on the United States. All of a sudden, you see the shift arrest United States had where as the United States a supporter of this framework, you suddenly see this thelict with what they feel need to effectuate next. This is where we see the split in the road. S thathad been this pas had gone underground during the cold war and reemerged and looked like a moment in history where law would become the solution to a lot of the challenges of the present day, you see to paths begin to form. The immediate aftermath of 9 11, you all of a sudden have the passing of what was called operation greystone. , it operation greystone was was a directive issued by president bush that ultimately gave the cia a tremendous amount of power and a tremendous amount of authority to determine how we would respond in the aftermath of that particular atrocity. It set up a regime of what was known as secret renditions individuals believed to be affiliated with terrorism, often thatover of darkness being a phrase that we use repeatedly Interrogation Practices that were above and beyond what we had seen previously in what had previously been authorized. We also see with operation greystone the beginning of our neutron program. Whereas during the genocide in yugoslavia, we been using drugs for surveillance purposes. All of a sudden, you have the army of drones and the ability to use them to take of individuals affiliated with terrorism. Now, the cia has this directive to go out there and gather people up. The cia has never run prisons and they are beginning to bring in more and more people and they have to figure out what to do with them. This is an illustration of what happens next. Abu is one of the individuals we speak about in the book. Inbecame the first person the United States custody to be subjected to this process of enhanced interrogation. One of the things we now know happened was that the military and other Government Agencies psychologiststo to reverse engineer a program known as Survival Evasion Resistance and escape. That particular program had been developed in the aftermath of the korean war to teach military how to survive a torture regime should they be captured. Oft they did in terms reverse engineering this was take the training they gave those military personnel and begin to extract from that the techniques that had been used to and putindividuals them into a box of what could potentially be done if the gloves came off and we were to take a much more aggressive response to what happened. Of tryingan in terms to figure out what we would do with these individuals, he ultimately was captured. The way he was ultimately found is that a number of different analysts were going through cell card records and credit records and they ultimately began to build a network of individuals and how they were related to each other. There was this big operation hereby the ultimately pinpointed him and dropped in and did an operation and 70 locations and did ultimately apprehend him. Nearflew him to a cia jail bangkok and took him to poland and thats where the enhanced interrogations took place. We now know about those interrogations because of the leaked report. The icrc was able to go in and look at attending conditions and they had an opportunity to enter highvalue detainees. That information was leaked to the public in 2009. ,o, we have this underground doing these things on the dark side and keeping the program secret. This is in direct contrast to what we then did during the same era with Saddam Hussein. On march 19 of 2003, we entered into a war with iraq, we brought tens of thousands of ground in theto the country attempt to find Saddam Hussein and remove him from power. Practices there may have been questionable, its a much more visible and much more traditional method of trying to go after an individual. The use similar methods to find a process of Network Analysis whereby they began to figure out the relationships among different peoples and different families in iraq to pinpoint where Saddam Hussein was. He realized that his greatest weakness could ultimately be his ties to his family, to his friends. People are apprehended who are trying to hide from accountability, its often this little slip where they get more complacent or they want to touch base with a child they have not talked to in years and it provides an opening. What ended up happening is that he had actually escaped another attempt to detain him back in the 1950s and he gone to the particular farm and as people were closing in on capturing gone across a river and wrote into the sunset to become this future leader of iraq. He went to the same farm. We were able to use the Network Analysis to pinpoint a relationship to one of five families. One of the individuals apprehended from one of the five families ultimately give up information about the farm where he was likely hiding. When the u. S. Went to go get him , they walked over and tapped on a piece of dirt and they brushed away the dirt and found a mat and took away the mat and found the hole. After that time, he was turned over to the Iraqi Government and he ultimately was subjected to a trial in a court of law which contrasts with the form of justice we see playing out there are process of enhanced interrogation. This is one of the infamous pictures from abu ghraib there was tremendous fear in the aftermath of 9 11 of letting go of anyone who had been detained because a lot of the u. S. Government was really concerned that if they let people go and they turned out to effectuate another terrorist attack on the United States, no one wanted to be that person. Our prison systems became very impacted. We had individuals considered the worst of the worst sent out to guantanamo bay. A lot of our systems and processes we would have used historically to screen people on the battlefield were not used in this particular situation. Number ofp as the people in autonomous for whom there was never any evidence of actual terrorist activity. This visibility and how much we follow the methods used in the past and how we use the law as ever more important. How much the unites states began to come up with legal memos to say we are adhering to the best case of law. At the same time, we are manipulating the laws that were problematic. They were giving a latitude that under International Legal standards in this big push we were making at the time we were making to intense that international framework. That enhance that international framework. Nutshell, id like to turn to erik and victor and ask given this history, what comes next for International Justice . Victor i think under the statute of International Criminal court, a key principle is couple maturity. Complementarity. It encourages states and state sovereignty and calls upon state parties to the court to try their own first before the icc. Weve already Seen Movement and we will see a bigger shift toward couple maturity and domestic justice. At the same time, you have a new ad hoc hybrid cord set up for in close of both. Coast of oh. Vo feared that stands as a model of a new type of hybrid regional type of court that we may see for several examples. Anwill also see International Criminal court ,nvestigation on that score its important to caution the icc has been in business now for almost 15 years and because it is a global court or aspires to be, it has opened eight country investigations. Georgian the russian conflict of 2008. It is trying to spread itself out there nobly but it doesnt have resources to plunge to deeply into any given conflict. For the nine country situations in the 15 years, you have a total of 32 people whove been publicly indicted. You wont get a lot of justice toterms of indictees underscore the importance of supporting a complementarity and rule of law efforts. Eric the way to look at the goes back to what alexa originally mentioned. Criminals,rsue were when you pursue criminals in the streets of l. A. Or anywhere, you do it bound by the law, you follow the law. I want to go back to the case that alexa brought up because this illustrates it. When he was captured and taken to bangkok where the cia was running a black site, the two psychologists he mentions from the cia were to come in and also the fbi. They were going to come in this was the first alleged terrorist whos been picked up that we know of. And they will begin the interrogation and do it in this black site outside of bangkok. The fbi arrives there early. They start interrogating sabina aida. When the two psychologists arrived, the cia staff actually sent a telegram back to alex station, the special unit back. C. Who weren, d directing the war on terror. Elegram or that message im showing my age was essentially we are worried because these interrogators that heome in from the cia has heart trouble and we are worried that something could happen to him because he is being water boarded and other forms of interrogation. He ever going to go public. Meanwhile, what had happened is of fbi pulled out interrogations and what that amount. Whatever transgressions they make an, if interrogation, a judge is going to be watching over what theyve done. It can be exposed in court. They werent going to be part of this and they pulled out. Goingve the cia staff back and what came back from alex station was dont worry about his health, its unlikely hes ever going to go public. They were completely unbound by the law. This is the question we will have to watch. We uphold the law and that in the pursuits of terrorists, alleged terrorists, are we going to be bound by the law and understand that the law is what directs us or will we leave ourselves unbound . That is the big challenge we face. I the last thing i will say, think we cant underestimate the power of time. Time is so powerful because of the politics that go along with it. Cycle, aften a lifecycle to justice. In the immediate aftermath of some atrocity, theres so much momentum and so much anger and so much more at what has happened. Theres momentum to do something. Often, that becomes politically challenging or operationally challenging. It goes underground for a while. We see this cycle that a generation later as children rediscover the sins of their fathers, they ultimately rediscover there is a new momentum to see justice done. We see that occurring throughout history. Sometimes when the most politically powerful people in the world, you cannot go after them and get countries to pursue them because of the political tradeoff they have to make for getting those people into custody, you often wait until 20 or 30 years later when they are weaker politically and their friends might have died out or lost positions of power and so there is an opening and a moment. Make sure those Legal Frameworks are in place and the operational tactics are in place so that moment can be grabbed when it finally exists. I would like to open it to the audience for our last few minutes. Yes, sir. When Glenn Greenwald was speaking at ucla if years ago he said as long as the United States has the military and economic preeminence in the world that it does now that it is very unlikely that george w. Bush and dick cheney will ever be brought up on war crimes charges either domestically or internationally. You share that assessment . Does thattent undercut the moral legitimacy of International Efforts to bring war criminals to justice criminals to justice when african were criminals can be prosecuted but american ones cant . We have seen a number of human rights lawyers attempt to bring cases against the individuals known as the bush six. What we are seeing happen as we go after these really powerful political actors, what gives way is often not their cases but the law itself. Theres a doctor known as universal jurisdiction. Doctrine known as universal jurisdiction. There are some crimes that are so horrific that any country in the world should be able to hold trials for that wrongdoing. Even if the crimes did not take place on the soil. Lawyers have been tried to use that doctrine to say we can bring this case to spain or germany. What we have seen is that when those cases have been brought, those countries are weakening this doctrine and saying universal jurisdiction is not that powerful. We will require american domestic laws to allow this to go forward. There is an impression that maybe that is because the political tradeoffs will be too high for this countrys. For these countries. Causes weumber of were try to push forward, bilateral immunity acts that were passed with countries to which we would normally give foreign aid. In order to receive this eight, we want you to sign a paper that says you will never turn a u. S. Citizen over to criminal court for prosecution. We passed the american servicemembers protection act. It would be a provision to protect people who are peacekeepers who are u. S. Troops on the ground in public areas from ever being prosecuted. This act got the nickname the invade the hate act. It included a provision that said if anyone in the world turned a u. S. Citizen over to the hague, we reserve the right to militarily invade and extract that individual by force. You have to find those openings note those individuals are so politically powerful in the tradeoffs are not so extreme and we will see the world coming together for prosecution. Predictions is a rough science. I could eat my words. I doubt we will see those prosecutions taking place. Something may happen, but i the president elect coming to power my dont think we will see that. I dont think we will see that. The more fundamental question your book sounds fantastic. I wonder whether your book addresses the definition of a war crime. The throw out a couple firebombing of tokyo, the istmas bombing in 1972 when you bring up bush and cheney, for most of us, its not simply about improper interrogations but overthrowing a civilization where women could work and people were getting along. Theres a lot of things that go on in life and presumably its not just regime change that we are against. What is the definition of a war crime . It cannot sadly be based on a body count because hiroshima nagasaki would be under the definition. Maybe lets go to nuremberg. What we know about the nuremberg trials, they had a tremendous effect, but we know looking back at the nuremberg trials is that they were political. This was victors justice. The intent there there were no cameras there. We wanted to show to americans and the british, we wanted to show the rest of europe that this is what the totalitarian regime had been. It was political. To whats discussion as we look at our own crimes. He firebombing of dresden the decision was no, we would not do that. Only on thelect crimes committed by the germans. We see the courts in the 1990s come along, that changes. The idea is you will look at a conflict and you will look at all the combatants in the conflict. In terms of how you define a war crime or how you define crimes against humanity and genocide which are the most serious that is anal crimes, long seminar about how you define that. Essentially, what is agreed upon in the geneva conventions of 1949 where we sign on is that war is going to happen. But, we are going to respect prisoners of war. Come back,soldiers they willr have not be tortured and abused. They will have contacts with family. We will protect clinics and hospitals and places of worship. Civilians should be protected. Any commanderthat when they are engaging in an corek have to take personality. You will have to think about what the civilian casualties will be. The problem is it is all in the hands of the commander. If they dont follow the geneva conventions, were crimes are committed. War crimes are committed to the crimes you are looking at how when the serbs took over and the men and boys fled in july of 1995,in when they captured the boys, they were executed in different places. The crimes against humanity is defined that this was systematic. This was widespread. When you get to work crimes war crimes. Theres a great pressure on the prosecutor to really have sound evidence because the sentences, the penalties will be quite high. We are going to see it through history and have seen through history that certain people who we would allege that are war criminals will get away with it. There are others who are not. It hinges on political will and to really go after these sorts of criminals and now, we are in a winning waning period. I dont think the international griddle court will collapse, but it is certainly losing support. Thats International Criminal court will collapse, but it is certainly losing support. Chosen societies have alternatives to prosecution like truth and Reconciliation Commissions in south africa and wanda. In spain, there was just an amnesty granted they thought that was the best way to handle atrocities. That do you view those alternatives as failures do you view those al alternatives as failures of justice . As not critics view it allowing alternatives. So, one question i get from students is in terms of south africas truth and Reconciliation Commission which was in the 1990s prior to the creation of the international kernel court, with the icc today internationald criminal court, would the icc truth and recognized reconciliation . The icc prosecutor has a jurisdiction over the great crimes. About the talking most Serious International crimes, such as genocide and crimes against him in any mother should be crimes against humanity, there should be prosecution. It is not always successful. I would just add on south africa, when the African NationalCongress Comes to power , we face a horrible situation because of all the crimes under apartheid, you would have had tens of thousands of people prosecuted. And mandela himself, we cannot afford that. Some societies will decide if we have criminal trials, we will devalue this country even worse. Truthill go the Commission Model or other reparations. That has to be the decision of that society. If the chilean government doesnt want to pursue trials for the argentines did population isnt ready for it, then that decision has to rest with the people themselves. Clearly come in south africa, it was a question of it would have been tremendously hard to try everyone. I just wondered if you know with the recent peace accord in columbia, what is the approach that is being taken there . I will have to pass on that. Im really not that well versed in i know some, but not enough to weigh in. I think most americans ascribe to the view that the leaderask of a countrys would be to protect the homeland and its citizens. If youre in conflict and you have to perform certain acts in order to shorten the war or protect the homeland, you do whatever is necessary. , ifefore, in world war ii it takes the bombing of nagasaki and hiroshima to save a million american soldiers, you do it. Isnt a if that question of what is a war crime. I think most americans would say the if you are protecting homeland and protecting its citizens, you do what you have to do and that is not a war crime. Thing i would bring up about that, there are a number of different standards in International Law. War does allow for killing. Not every killing during the course of a war will be considered an illegal killing. Proportionality sonali that has been a big issue. Are the number of individuals being killed by front strikes, is that minimizing the amount of harm being done to individuals on the ground if we were to take other operational methods . I would love to see more research that actually looks the what is more leasing of facts round numbers and data so we can have a better understanding of this issue of necessity and proportionality and what are some of the facts around when different tactics may minimize the harm overall will maximizing the military objective. While maximizing the military objective. I havent read your book, so forgive me what im hearing tonight is mainly it is europeanbased law emanating from the nuremberg tribunal. Have the asians or the southeast s what has the icc done work with those entities, those countries . The you want to talk about cambodia . In terms of International Criminal court, it is open to a range of pulmonary investigations. Palestine, honduras, north korea preliminary investigations. In terms of formal investigations that are leading to indictments, you have eight and thes in africa russian georgian conflict of 2008. It has not ventured into asia at this point. The two tribunals weve seen what the 1990s in asia was known as a hybrid tribunal with International Members on the court. That was not a successful tribunal for many reasons. In cambodia, the Extraordinary Court of the chambers of cambodia has been somewhat successful. They have been prosecuting the surviving leaders and the first who they took on was a man was the commander of the prison penh. Om there has been that effort nationally working internationally and nationally, but it has not been as extensive as it has been in europe. And latin america. [indiscernible] you found at time passes. Given that were talking about the court it was not until the 1990s the court eventually comes around. Many cambodian children, teenagers, even older young people arent aware of the peri od. This court actually opened up and they had a Television Program on every sunday that they would chose scenes from the started getting the country to talk about the past history which has been hidden. In terms of the International Criminal court, they are investigating a broader number of countries and complex than currently have active cases being renun. We have a colleague at the human that pointed out that the budget for the office of prosecutor in the last year was approximately equivalent to that of the police in berkeley their jurisdiction is the entire globe. How do you effectively run cases that broadly with a budget that small . And theves states political actors within the states to really push these countries to put their money where the mouth ir mouth is. The second thing i think its important about the way the icc is set up come under its current size and shape, it can only take on maybe 912 cases a year. How does it effectuate justice globally . Complementarity is particularly critical. The icc becomes a bit of a mechanism to pressure governments and countries to begin to take on their own trials, there own statute which is a body of law that establishes what is legal and beegal, it is supposed to domesticated by those countries that signed on. It is supposed to change their own bodies of law. Around whatm ideas is a legal and illegal began to disseminate across the globe and ultimately give this body of law a much broader reach. Where do we stand on the International Court . Dide are a nonstate party bill clinton originally spoke favorably about the idea of international kernel court in the mid1980s. Middle court in the mid1980s. We got cold feet and Madeleine Albright at one point told david scheffer, the war crimes ambassador, to blow up the conference metaphorically. We tried to water down the rome statute and succeeded in key dimensions. Hoped it would be enough to get us to sign on and ratify. We did not did on friday at will start to find out over the next months and years the above administration has pursued a policy of constructive engagement with the court. To becomet signed on members yet, but weve selectively supported the icc in the situations we deem to be politically convenient. And our four, the unite states supported investigations in darfur some of the unite states has supported investigations. The United States has supported investigations. I think the Trump Administration will be no friend of the international kernel court. If the Trump Administration might see the political utility of using it against enemies, maybe we will see selective support. That underscores the importance of political will but also the ethical question of at what point does International Justice become too politicized. In that case, its incumbent upon citizens and activists to monitor the politics so we can understand it better. Any last words . I want to thank you all we have a promotion here if you want to learn more on the 20th of march, pbs will be broadcasting a documentary called day of reckoning. Companionmponen documentary to the book. Tune into pbs. Thank you very much. Thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] continuing our look at richmond, this is the citys famed monument avenue with statues honoring confederate war heroes including robert ely et lee western wall jackson and jefferson davis. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and jefferson davis. Up next come our visit to richmond continues as we travel to the Virginia Historical society to learn about the states history. Welcome to the Virginia Historical society. We are standing at the entrance to the story of virginia which thatr longterm exhibition covers all of virginia history from prehistory to the present day. This is in exhibit that is meant to show visitors how virginia plays into the broader narra