They crunch the job didnt leave millions with no redress for what china is tightening grip on home call movies with Financial Hub status virtual jobs other stop gap the real deal. Counting the cost on aljazeera we will not stand by as our people are threatened by a Kangaroo Court. The u. S. Imposes sanctions against the International Criminal court targeting its lawyers investigated suspected would crimes in afghanistan well whats behind president Donald Trumps move this is inside story. Hello and welcome to the program im iran can the United States is facing criticism around the world for its latest threats against the International CriminalCourt President donald trump has signed an executive order sanctioning the i. C. C. Staff and their families the u. S. Which is not a member of the hague based tribunal is angry at investigations into suspected war crimes in afghanistan that could implicate its soldiers the i. C. C. Called the sanctions an unprecedented attack Rights Groups are worried about the potential impact on International Justice will bring in our guest in a moment but 1st roslyn jordan has this report from washington d. C. The United States has never been a party to the International Criminal court in the hague it says the court does not have the right to put u. S. Citizens on trial for alleged crimes against humanity war crimes or genocide but the trumpet ministration has gone further calling the i. C. C. Corrupt ineffective and biased we cannot we will not stand by as our people are threatened by a Kangaroo Court. On thursday it imposed new sanctions on all i. C. C. Officials investigating the behavior of us forces and cia operatives in afghanistan it gives us no joy to punish them but we cannot allow i. C. C. Officials and their families to come the United States to shop travel and otherwise or joy american freedoms as these same officials think to prosecute the defender of those very freedoms the United States maintains the sovereign right and obligation to properly investigate and address any of our personnels allegedly violations of the laws of war the new sanctions follow washingtons decision last year to revoke the travel visa of the i. C. C. Chief prosecutor found to bensouda shes been pushing for the investigation and possible trial of u. S. Forces since 2017 bensouda is also trying to prosecute the former sudanese leader Omar Al Bashir for atrocities committed in darfur and shes investigating alleged israeli war crimes in the occupied west bank and gaza something the u. S. Opposes i think its the culmination of our evolution from a republic to an empire that believes that we live by our standards and are alone i dont think that we should look at this particular act of mr trump in isolation by targeting bensouda colleagues the new u. S. Sanctions raise questions about whether the court can actually do its job effectively. Weve taken note with. Or its the executive order of the rising sanctions against certain individuals at the International Criminal court will obviously continue to follow very closely any developments on this issue human Rights Groups say the trumpet ministrations decision could harm their ability to help the most vulnerable in war zones but for now the u. S. Has declared it cant trust the i. C. C. To do the right thing which is to carry out justice on american terms rosalyn jordan al jazeera washington. Lets introduce the panel invents in southeastern france fergal gain a council at the International Criminal court and legal representative of victims in afghanistan in washington d. C. J. King a fellow at the Heritage Foundation and in london toby cadman an International Human rights lawyer and cofounder of the guernica 37 the International Justice chamber is welcome to all we will not stand by as our people are threatened by a Kangaroo Court incredibly strong words there from my pump over from the white house lets bring in bro schaffer in washington d. C. Right now bret what is behind this move there was this is an extraordinary statement. Well its its a consistent u. S. Policy if you go back to 998 when the rome statute was being negotiated the United States was deeply involved in those negotiations it voices objections to certain powers in terms of that treaty that were going to be placed upon the court and it decided to vote against the threat of the approval that treaty is one of a handful of countries that did that the Clinton Administration refused to sign the rome statute until the very last day possible in when it did sign it it read it recommended that the Bush Administration that followed not seek ratification because a serious flaws in that treaty the Bush Administration for 2 years tried to get some of those flaws addressed unsuccessfully when the International CriminalCourt Finally stood up in 2002 the u. S. Unsigned the rome statute which clearly mr asian signed to remove any vestigial legal obligations underneath that treaty and then took specific actions to shield the United States from the power and authority and reach of the court including passing the American Service members protection act which. Constrained u. S. Cooperation with the i. C. C. It also entered into article 98. 00 agreements with the over 100. 00 countries around the world which those countries agreed not to turn u. S. Persons over to the Court Without u. S. Consent and then the United States signal over and over and over again through statements through its actions that it did not recognize the courts jurisdiction over the United States and this is just a continuation of that policy that is extended. Through the Clinton Administration the Bush Administration the Obama Administration and now the transfer ministry it without all of that is a negotiation with the i. C. C. It was the american saying well this is the problems with what we think is the i. C. C. The rome statute they say is sanctions this is an extraordinary one sided done we are done with this call completely and its also calling it a Kangaroo Court theres no talking anymore right well this is than action that the court initiated the United States worked for years with the court when there was a preliminary examination and then the announced investigation it gave investigate all of the allegations that the Us Government received in terms of crimes alleged to have been committed by u. S. Persons in afghanistan the us reported over 600 different investigations over 250 individuals who were held to account and punished in some way for allegations or for a view says of the prisoners that were found to be credible and sustained that the idea that the United States is not willing to hold people to account in the United States is not willing to have investigate these investigations is just pat nonsense the United States has taken a number of different actions here in fact if you look at the the prosecutors investigation report. All of the evidence that she provides is actually based on u. S. Sources its based on the Senate SelectIntelligence Committee its based on. Department of defense reports of defense its based on an Inspector General report to spaced on cia Inspector General report all the evidence that she has is actually based on u. S. Reports and u. S. Transparent efforts to actually hold people accountable and to be as cooperative apart as possible in the investigation efforts of these matters the idea that she would come in and 2nd guess this matter after the u. S. Has gone through so much effort to try and hold individuals accountable is just nonsense well lets bring in for going to his the counsel for the International Criminal court you heard what had to say that effectively saying were investigating ourselves we dont need you whats your reaction oh yeah i just like to point out a couple things 1st of all the u. S. Engagement with the i. C. C. Has been little more nuanced perhaps than mr schaffer said lets not forget that dominic on when was delivered to the court with the assistance of the u. S. Government was going to get and was delivered to the court with the assistance of the u. S. Government the United States cosponsored the referral of libya to the i. C. C. The United States advocated for a referral of syria to the i. C. C. And in many parts and many situations for example the Central African republic the democratic republic of congo northern uganda and myanmar what the i. C. C. Is trying to achieve broadly aligns with u. S. Interests so the notion that the United States has been always opposed to the i. C. C. Every quarter some some correction there has been a policy of constructive engagement particularly during the Obama Administration no more recently yes the policy of the United States government has been a little more obstructive now in the office of the prosecutors request. The United States never abrogated its article 98 agreements under the obama destruction aska the American Servicemen or members protection act still existed and still was applied to the u. S. U. S. Cooperation with the i. C. C. Was still restricted by u. S. Statute and the United States also even though it was werent willing to work with the i. C. C. In certain instances that was all before the announcement of an official investigation that was announced in november of 2017 the 1st year of the Trump Administration so to say that the United States was acting in a proper inconsistently with its previous actions i think is is wrong but 2nd it was also instigated by the decision of the court itself. 3rd place. Yes yes well the obama policy of constructive engagement or with the i. C. C. Is is very well documented now another thing to keep in mind is that the United States has plenty of legal remedies which are set out in the rome statute to challenge the jurisdiction of the court on the basis that the United States is investigating and prosecuting the crimes at issue it can make that challenge at any stage that it wants it could have filed a challenge within the 1st month after the investigation was authorized but it also retains the right to challenge the courts jurisdiction on the very for the very reasons that were put forward earlier that the court that the u. S. Is investigating and prosecuting but furthermore we have to keep in mind that not only the office of the prosecutor but also 3 judges of the Pretrial Chamber will beers all 5 judges of the appeals to ever have all come to the conclusion that the steps which have been taken by the United States to date to investigation prosecute the crimes issue have not in fact been sufficient so the but that still doing even that fighting is still open to challenge by the u. S. So what the u. S. Can do under the statute is continue to maintain its jurisdictional objections to the court but to show the court about all of the trials which have taken place or are taking place or about to take place the crimes for which people were convicted the sentences to which those convicted were required to serve and then having done all of that the court is actually required to cease investigation thats the principle of complimentarity which appears in europe such a bringing toby cadman in london here in just a moment i want to ask is this a case of ok well work with the i. C. C. What is in our interest but as long as the u. S. Is ring fence as long as you dont investigate the u. S. Then the i. C. C. Is kind of something an institution we will work with is this consistent with President Donald Trump just not wanting any International Agreements not wanting to be part of any International Agreement that encroaches on the u. S. And serenity. No i dont think so and actually. In response to the previous speakers comments the United States is not a party to the rome statute the United States has decided not to ratify the rome statute is not a party to the core and therefore it has no legal obligation whatsoever to cooperate with this investigation nor to cooperate or pure speed in the procedures outlined by the court the idea that the United States should submit itself to the courts procedures just because the court exists in essence would be a tacit recognition of the courts a thorny over the United States in the situation which the us has over and over and over again rejected told me cadman in london is that any legal basis for these sanctions can present trouble actually do this. A legal basis though. I mean i think the point to recognize it as. Well as already mentioned that there are legal routes that could have been taken to the trump in the situation has decided to ignore despite all the. Best in washington said they could and still try and excise those legal challenges to the jurisdiction that decided not to simply say that the u. S. Is has not sought refuge it respects use it so it doesnt fall within its jurisdiction and unfortunately thats thats a very narrow reading of the statue of course if crimes of trade on the state. Of a state party then the i. C. C. Has jurisdiction that irrespective of whether those crimes are committed by a ton of an afghani or or u. S. Service or senator so the i. C. C. Does center stage and of course they refuse to cooperate makes it more difficult for the i. C. C. To do its job but it doesnt change the fact an investigation will go forward but what we heard yesterday im and we really have to look at this is unprecedented they have tacked on and on an International Court in such a way. And that is the response we want to see city as it has made clear that they consider this to be an attack on the administration of justice you know we havent seen this with the philippines we havent seen this but its way the mind of all of these countries that are also under investigation and in which changes have been made for the u. S. To do this i think is is truly astonishing and a bit worrying because its its not just what will happen matter to i. C. C. Personnel and all of those human Rights Groups the support work but its going to empower dictatorships and talk of cities around the world to act in a similar way. And so i was a in social justice and that was but it really was i dont think the u. S. Press the right to to court so i respect the rule of law what makes such a decision such as this it is it is very broad let me bring in you head its not just against the i. C. C. Stuff themselves but their families as well i mean toby makes a good point that you know the u. S. Should be seen to be upholding the rule of law and this is a an attack effectively not just on the i. C. C. But their families as well you should understand this from the perspective of the United States this is attack of the court on the u. S. Itself this isnt a set of tampa the court to assert your station where the United States is specifically said that we reject that jurisdiction this is an instance of the United States upholding International Law which says that the united. Is only legally bound by treaties that it is actually agreed to be bound by through the ratification process that is not the case here in fact afghanistan itself has an invited the court to exercise its jurisdiction in this case the court itself has asserted itself through the prosecutors powers under the treaty to launch an investigation of her own authority that is the process this is the court itself launching investigation not at the behest of the United States not at the behest of the Afghanistan Government of its own authority and this is also a case where