supremecourtbldg

STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
ICC Begins to Pale
By Daily Bell Staff - December 29, 2016

Rising nationalism leaves international criminal court at risk Top lawyer warns withdrawal of countries and limiting of funding threaten future of tribunal … Six months after the international criminal court’s new Dutch palace of justice was formally opened on windswept sand dunes beside the North Sea, a tide of nationalist sentiment is threatening to undermine the project. Three African states have begun withdrawing from its jurisdiction, raising fears that a succession of others will follow suit. Russia has removed its signature from the founding statute, the Philippines and Kenya are openly contemplating departure and key member nations – including the UK – have limited its funding.

So the ICC Criminal  Court may be on the way out and that surely a positive development. Here at The Daily Bell, we are not fans of growing worldwide justice. We would rather see justice move in the other direction and become more privatexed again.

The ICC is funded in part by George Soros, and there is a reason for that. Soros gets involved when events are headed in an international direction. The creation and elaboration of global law is near and dear to the hearts of globalists everywhere.

The tribunal embodies international efforts to prosecute those responsible for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, but in 2017 it will face serious challenges to its credibility, insiders say.

Brexit, the election of Donald Trump and derogations from the European convention on human rights all represent a common theme of emphasizing national interests over international – usually stigmatised as “foreign” – laws.

The most immediate threat is the move by Burundi, South Africa and the Gambia, which in the last quarter of 2016 have all served notice of intention to withdraw, citing complaints that ICC prosecutions focus excessively on the African continent.

The ITC has 10 ongoing investigations since 2004 and these are almost all in Africa. This has led quite rightly to the idea that the ITC is mostly a way of focusing on Africa by Western white countries. A spokesman denied that the ICC was overly focused on Africa.

“Geographic considerations as such have no part in the exercise of this legal mandate. Most of the ICC‎ investigations in Africa were opened at the request of the African governments themselves. Two more were opened following referrals to the ICC prosecutor by the United Nations security council.”

But all in all, the ITC is pursuing fewer cases rather than more and offering less “justice” as well. Again from our point of view this is a good thing. What starts out aimed at bad guys almost invariable ends up afflicting the West instead of its stated targets whatever they are.

Additionally, while this sort of justice is supposedly supposed to be on bleeding edge of fairness, it is often far less equitable than it seems. The targets are preemptory, and often the remedies are delayed or denied. It doesn’t help that Soros is involved.

Conclusion: Justice of this sort is best delivered by those involved. The idea that some supranational body can swoop in and adequately administer a curative is simply untrue. What’s involved could eventually have more if an impact on the west than the east, and not a good one.

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • 45clive

    As long as American Presidents and their advisors, including secretaries of state are exempt from the ICC there really is no point. Some of the biggest war mongers and genocidal murders are to be found in the Clintons, the Bushes, Obama, Kissinger, and various other nasty people – usually associated with the neo-conservative and neo-liberal movement. Soros himself should be tried as a criminal for his work in subverting various societies around the world. Whoever tries, convicts and executes some of these nasty people gets a nod and a wink from me. It just won’t be the ICC – which is as corrupt as the UN.

    • jackw97224

      Oh and lest we forget, Lincoln, Wilson and FDR were provocateurs of mass slaughters, too.

      • Mstrjack

        Lincoln was not a warmonger. If you will read what he said and wrote his entire life, he valued liberty, peace, and prosperity his entire life. The warmonger was lifelong warrior, slave owner, and loving of killing of people not like him, the .01% master race Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Read what Lincoln said his entire life. The Southern Confederacy were enslavers. Read the Confederate Constitution for yourself. Slaves!

        • Mstrjack

          I can not believe that in the 21st century people claim that the Confederate Constitution was a superior government to the U.S. Constitution. The Confederate Constitution enslaved people! That’s what it was all about. Slavery. If you want to be a slave to your government, then embrace the 1861 Confederate Government. Everyone was a slave except for the slave traders, the slave owners, and the political class. Everyone else was a slave to them both black and white. The precursor to today’s government.

          • jackw97224

            General of the Army Winfield Scott to William H.
            Seward, Sec. of State, on the choices available to Lincoln for Handling Secession

            Reference: Volume One in the American Civil War Trilogy The Coming Fury by Bruce Catton Page 260

            Scott told Sec. of State Seward the new government could do one of 4 things:

            1. It could adopt theCrittenden peace plan* and wait for the
            dissident states to return to the Union;
            2. It could blockade the ports of the Southern states,
            collecting import duties outside the harbors and in general waiting for a break;
            3. It could raise huge armies and beat the Confederacy into
            submission, winning as last “15 devastated provinces” that would have to be garrisoned for generations at immense cost…or
            4. It could simply give up and say to the seceded states
            “Wayward Sisters, depart in peace.”

            Choices 1, 2 and 4 did not involve the slaughter of nearly 1
            million men, women and children and the wounding and maiming of perhaps another 1 million. Any of these were better than the 3rd option. By far the last choice, #4, was the best and would have paved the way for reconciliation later. Lincoln was not a “great” president, just as
            Wilson and FDR were not “great” presidents.

            Interestingly, Lincoln denied the very first paragraph of
            the Declaration of Independence to wit:

            “When, in the course of human events, it becomes
            necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

            Lincoln refused to concede that the colonists, who just 85 years previous, i.e. 1776, had seceded from England and
            that they certainly would never have put their necks under the heel of a dictatorial central government the likes of which they had just dismissed. This is a truth that is not taught in government schools or admitted by the media or
            by well known writers. It would have been anathema to the very foundation of liberty and the revolution to have condemned future generations to abide by their beliefs as they then would have imposed slavery. How utterly duplicitous would that have been?

            Read Lysander Spooner’s No Treason No. 6, The Constitution of No Authority and then visit Marc Stevens’ No State Project. Lincoln had no authority or right to prevent secession and then to compound his evil, he forced war and got nearly a million Americans slaughtered, maimed and wounded. Lincoln was not great notwithstanding the propaganda, indoctrination and brainwashing.

          • Mstrjack

            People at the Mises Institute have done the liberty movement a great disservice by misrepresenting Abraham Lincoln.

            Prior to the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln lived a life of freedom, peace, and prosperity that hardly anyone today can even imagine. Certainly I would like to live with that much freedom. Pulling himself up from extreme poverty to great success through hard work and diligence. No licenses, no Unions, no passports, no travel restrictions at all, no IRS, EPA, no sales taxes, few jails, no business regulations except free market restrictions.

            Seriously, read what Lincoln said when he walked the Earth. He was funny. He could mesmerize his audience. He was brilliant in thought. It is a delight to read his words if one is literate enough to understand what he said. His Lyceum Address is well thought out and he was very young at the time. His Cooper Union Address was a work of art. That speech alone won him the presidency. Read the speech he gave at Independence Hall on February 22, 1861 just before he took the oath of office. Brilliant speech calling for peaceful solutions to the crisis at hand.

            It is too bad that the people from the Mises Institute don’t promote Lincoln as a leader of liberty and free markets which he lived. It is sad that they denounce him because of the war which the South attacked the Union one month after they ratified the Confederate Constitution. Lincoln had no war experience whatsoever while Jefferson Davis had a lifetime of war expreience.

            I don’t blame Lincoln at all for calling up the Militias to defend the Union. He knew they were on their way to oust him before the end of April. Jeff Davis in the White House had become a song. As they were bombing Fort Sumter, Confederate Secretary of War threatened to occupy Washington by the 1st of May. And march North they indeed did. Those were real threats in those days.

          • Mark Baumann

            Nice bio on Lincoln. It is bad etiquette though; you are off topic, discussing another institution, and blaming the whole institution. I suggest you take this to Mises.org and address specific articles they publish instead of wiping out the lot of them with one comment. If you have done this already, I would be interested in reading the comments.

          • Ephraiyim

            Sorry, I call bullshit. Under the constitution slavery was legal. It continued to be legal to hold slaves in places like New York, Philadelphia and others until quite some time after Lincoln’s so called emancipation proclamation.
            That in no way supports the Confederates but does support the fact that the Lincoln administration, and, particularly, Lincoln himself cared not one iota about slaves.
            Lincoln cared only about what he termed and defined as the Union. He wanted to punish the Southern states who had the audacity to think they were free as states to decide what was best for Them and their citizens, misguided as it was.
            Unlike the South, who at least were honest about slavery, Lincoln and his ilk made us all into slaves by creating a corporation called “The United States Of America”.
            He took all our right to petition our own local and State governments and put us at the mercy of a centralized government that cared less about the people they purported to serve, instead sold us all to the financial overlords who now completely control it.
            The precursor of today’s government was NOT the Confederacy but the Union.

          • Mstrjack

            Nonsense. You are full of nonsense.

            “Lincoln himself cared not one iota about slaves.” – Ephraim

            Nonsense. You obviously have never read what Abraham Lincoln said his entire life. For readers who want to know first hand what Lincoln said, read what he said: Speeches & Letters of ABRAHAM LINCOLN 1832-1865. He cared about people enslaved!

            http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14721/14721-h/14721-h.htm

            Southerners and Confederate defenders are so silly. It’s like they are completely illiterate.

            We have the U.S. Constitution ratified 1789 and we have the Confederate Constitution ratified 1861. The Confederate Constitution enslaves black people forever throughout the Confederacy while the U.S. Constitution allows for each state to decide rights for themselves. That’s the way it was. States had rights. Abraham Lincoln completely understood those rights.

            Unlike the South, who at least were honest about slavery, Lincoln and his ilk made us all into slaves by creating a corporation called “The United States Of America”. – Ephraim

            Good Grief! How silly do the Confederate defenders get?

            The United States of America, INC did not come to fruition until 1871. Nearly six years after Lincoln was killed. You are full of nonsense.

            “He took all our right to petition our own local andState governments and put us at the mercy of a centralized government that cared less about the people they purported to serve, instead sold us all to the financial overlords who now completely control it.” – Ephraim

            Nonsense.

            The precursor of today’s government was NOT the Confederacy but the Union. – Ephraim

            Pure nonsense.

            Confederate Constitution: Article IV. Slavery Nationalized!
            ARTICLE IV

            Section I. (I) Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

            Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

            (2) A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.

            (3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

            Sec. 3. (I) Other States may be admitted into this Confederacy by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.

            (2) The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make allneedful rules and regulations concerning the property of the Confederate States, including the lands thereof.

            (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

            (4) The Confederate States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy, a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature or of the Executive when the Legislature is not in session) against domestic violence.”

          • Mstrjack

            The Joy in reading about Abraham Lincoln is that he lived a free life. 19 years old rafting the Mississippi River from Southern Indiana to Baton Rouge without a license while selling wares along the way… a free life indeed. A Joy to read about a man who lived such a free life.

          • Mstrjack

            “Lincoln himself cared not one iota about slaves” – Ephraiyim

            Dude, have your ever read anything Abraham Lincoln said? He was against slavery his entire life. He was a slave until he was emancipated at age 21. To claim that Abraham Lincoln didn’t care one iota about slaves says a lot more about your educaton than his. Read what Abraham Lincoln said. He spent his entire life opposing slavery and you don’t have any idea what he stood for, but you are willing to post lies about a dead man who can’t defend himself. Crazy.

          • Mstrjack

            “Lincoln and his ilk made us all into slaves by creating a corporation called “The United States Of America”. – Ephraiyim

            This is a lie. It’s a total lie. United States of America, INC came with the Organic Act of 1871, years after Abraham Lincoln took a bullet in his head defending liberty.

            Ephraiyim, is either a CIA disinfo agent or doesn’t have any idea what he is talking about. History is completely obvious to anyone who studies it.

      • 45clive

        Of course. Only it’s pretty hard to try, convict and execute those who are already dead 😉
        Perhaps we need a citizen’s court, with the ability to arrest, try and if necessary execute those who are above any other means of bringing them to justice. You’d never get to do it legally, of course. But as a practical matter….

        • jackw97224

          Have you read Lysander Spooner’s No Treason No. 6, The Constitution of No Authority? Have you listened to some of Marc Stevens’ No State Project (on YouTube)? The disasters of political government, economic recessions and recessions and the slaughters of wars is damning of such creations. I would prefer government based on voluntary contracts.

  • CCblogging

    The ICC is a joke anyway. May it and the Fascist United Nations die a quick death!

  • Brabantian

    African countries are right … the whole history of ‘international tribunals’ is marked by horrendous & murderous bias … and without local sovereignty, ‘safe havens’ against oppression also disappear, to humanity’s eternal loss

    The other big target of the ‘international courts’ in the Netherlands has been Nato victim Serbia … with a half-dozen Serbian ‘defendants’ dying very quickly after being in the hands of these ‘international courts & prisons’ … whilst those poseurs in the Hague totally refused to prosecute the palpable war crimes of Nato … only ‘crimes’ by targets of Nato or Africans, get the ‘full court’ treatment

    Going back to World War II, the lynchings at Nuremberg & the ‘victor’s justice’ in Japan, were marked by mass-murder hypocrisy, with no prosecution for the war-crimes of Allies fire-bombing hundreds of thousands of civilians to agonising death … and in Japan the USA hanged military so-called ‘war criminals’ where there was no evidence of personal involvement in atrocity, but merely the fact they were high-ranking officers way above subordinates who did such crimes … in other words, grounds for hanging much of the USA political & military leadership

    Two brave Jewish philosophers, Martin Buber & Max Horkheimer, stood alone in denouncing the Argentina kidnapping & 1962 hanging in Israel of Nazi Otto Adolf Eichmann … as Horkheimer said, if someone who had lost family to the Nazis shot Eichmann down in the street, that would be an understandable human act … but dressing up revenge with made-up-to-suit ‘international law’ is the formula for witch hunts, of the very kind that Jews & others have suffered

    • Donna Deinss

      Not to mention letting off the Japanese for war crimes and especially what they did at Unit 731.

    • jackw97224

      Politics is violence per Tolstoy. We don’t need political government. The Zero Aggression Project by Perry Willis and Jim Babka offers a much better approach.

    • kenvandoren

      Perhaps even worse was what happened to John Demjanjuk. A naturalized US citizen born in the Ukraine, he was extradicted to Israel for alleged war crimes, despite the fact that it could be argued he was a low level guard just doing his duty, despite the fact that the alleged crimes took place when he was a young man, despite the threat to those who under those circumstances, did not do “their duty,” despite having lived in the US for almost 35 years, leading an exemplary life, despite even the fact that his identity was in question, and he was not even the same height as the young man identified as the guard who did the “war crimes.” So many unanswered questions, and our government gave him to Israel to prosecute under nebulous and changing codes of international law.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Demjanjuk

      Standord Law also wrote about this case, concluding that the changing mores of international law could make any sort of dissent a punishable crime.

      • kenvandoren

        The good news is, that Israel has run out of WW II “war criminals” to prosecute. I wonder, will Israeli soldiers and leaders be held to the same standard they set for others?

  • Donna Deinss

    I’m a long time reader of the website and I wanted readers of Daily Bell to know about George Webb who has been investigating the oil, arms, pipeline and regime change in the middle east by the Clinton Foundation.

    He really has done some incredible investigations and everything is clearly explained. Please don’t think this is spam. Check out his Youtube series – Where is Eric Braverman?

  • Jim Johnson

    Sounded good in theory, but the experiment is proving otherwise.

  • jackw97224

    Imagine the utter evil, the brutality that would follow if the Muslims and their Sharia were to get control of the ICC.

    • 45clive

      I support Sharia banking. Interest, and more specifically compound interest are illegal under that system. All those who SAY they are against the banksters and the Rothschilds are full of crap if they support anything other than Sharia banking or something very similar.

      • jackw97224

        I don’t support the use of violence and Sharia “law” is violent; it is evil. Sharia denies free will and thus it denies Jehovah God’s gift to mankind. The use of force to make people use fiat currency is evil and should not be condoned.

  • Licia

    If this tribunal does not immediately try war criminals like Blair, GW Bush, Hlilary Clinton and Obama it should surely be shut down for gross negligence and/or for being a fellow conspirator.

  • Sven

    Good content but I feel my reading comprehension was harmed after reading this article.

  • ICFubar

    I believe most would be in total agreement with the DB’s conclusions on the ICC if they had any understanding of its political purpose. As the western imperial powers seek to re colonize Africa and keep China et al from practicing their brand of the same, there is the meddling [sic] in local politics to install friendly governments with the ICC there as backup to charge any opposition with crimes whether through an orchestration of events by the western globalists or not.

    As an aside American’s had better look to their on affairs as it has been reported in the back channels by ‘outsider’ observers of international commercial law the the USA LLC was foreclosed upon by the Federal Reserve system some time ago, the Reserve taking effective control and doing business as the USA LLC, and is now considering transferring its control, and off its balance sheet, to a banking body within the U.N., possibly the World Bank, IMF or other little known banking institutions or a consortium thereof. Whether this is true or not remains an unanswered but an extremely troubling question as things move along under globalist agenda and as contrary to the decentralization most persons view as the way forward? “Own nothing, control everything.” D Rockefeller.

  • Ephraiyim

    “The idea that some supranational body can swoop in and adequately administer a curative is simply untrue.”

    This statement is especially true when one looks at governments that have chosen to deal with their own war crimes. Rwanda, Mozambique and South Africa come to mind.

    Most end up doing extensive interviews with participants and victims. While not perfect, they often give sweeping forgiveness and, at times, justice to participants while also attempting to provide some form of reparation to the victims.

    There is still much to be learned in doing justice this way but it is a much preferred solution to that of the ICC.

  • rahrog

    DECENTRALIZATION!!!

loading