people accused of heinous acts like genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity. these on elected judges, sitting on a panel at the hague and the netherlands are supposed to act as a court of last resort on the global stage. they're supposed to handle prosecution of these criminal acts, either committed in a state that has ratified the agreement or by a national of one of these states. recently, b, i c. c issued an arrest warrant for russian president vladimir putin, for the alleged crime against humanity. the kidnap of children from ukraine during this ongoing military operation. the only problem? well, there are many really, but neither ukraine nor russia are member states of the i, c. c. neither are bound to its arbitrary jurisdiction because neither country ever entered into the agreement. that on its face should make the i 60 is warrant bunk,

but in the us, hypocrisy is running rampant once again on the news of the arrest warrant. now to help us better understand all of these contradictions, policy, and get through the noise. we'll bring in george sam welly. he is a writer and senior fellow at the global policy institute in london. he's also author of the book, bombs for peace. nato's humanitarian war on yugoslavia. and i always say he's one of my favorite george's to talk to george. thanks for joining us. so 1st up, your reaction when you heard the icpc was issuing an arrest warrant for vladimir putin now put aside for one moment. what crimes they are alleging he committed, but to issue an arrest warrant against a sitting head of state. how did that strike you? well, i'd like to say that i was surprised, but i wasn't surprised because i had predicted this for several weeks prior to

this, warren, i knew that the i c, c would go down this. i also think that a, some kind of an ad hoc tribunal will also be created. i mean, under the auspices you the united states some, some collection of states. so it was always obvious that the western powers would resort to using some humanitarianism as the propaganda exercise, that they would want to demonize russia by bringing up some certificate, you know, crimes against humanity. and naturally it was children. and because, you know, people obviously have a very emotional response to the subject of children back in the 90s. in the

case of yugoslavia, the emotional response was generated by these fake phony stories about mass rapes, the serves were accused of running race camps. they were accused of committing mass rapes as a matter of state policy. there is no evidence for any of that. but you know, the media gave a lot of oxygen to the stories and naturally had a huge impact because people respond very emotionally to the subject of rapes. so this is, this is how the western drop began. the machine operates the of the demonized. and they also try to resort to the issues that they know is absolutely guaranteed to generate a very emotional response on the public. all right, so just so i'm clear here you said the i c. c is acting as sort of

a media disinformation or, or misinformation machine here. i think so, if one looks at the the record of what has transpired in the, in the period, immediately before the issuance of this arrest warrant, the attorney general of the united states, mary garland, of visited ukraine. and he met with the chief prosecutor of the i, c. c. and then biden, when he was speaking in poland, recently brought up the subject of the children that just there is the study brings up the sole issue of russia, supposedly abducting children. and then biden had based all his claims about these supposed russian war crimes involving abduction of children. he based on

a us state department on the research paper. nobody of course is read the research paper because it's actually pretty ridiculous document based on very little evidence. but nonetheless, biden brought the subject up and then lo and behold, what does the cc do? issues in arrest work and brings up the specific subject, the specific subject, the biden himself had brought up. so yeah, i think that is obviously been a great deal of coordination and actually us officials and of course the you, which yes. so they came out with a statement thoroughly endorsing the i c, c, wrestler. and they, you know, they're running with it, you know, because that's it, this is a nice shot in the om date. this is all of indication, look, the i c c has agreed with us bands, you know, there is now we can refer to put in as a war criminal as an accused war criminals. because if you to keep say and accuse

was criminal, then it leaves the impression in people's minds that he has a war criminal. you mean you say accuse is just simply, anyone could get a be accused of anything. so people don't notice the word accuse. they just hear war criminals that booked in war criminals. and so they've now absolutely get this ran down people's throats. alright, now let's get into the why, why the i c c issued this warrant for his arrest. now if i understand this correctly, they are accusing him of kidnapping children from the don bass after the military action began. but let's 1st recall prior to the special military operation, the don bath had been under daily shelling by key of forces, heavy bombardment. we're talking 8 years, 9 years at this point, the days leading up to the military action by russia. let's also not forget that the entire don bass region had voted to secede from ukraine,

and russia accepted their independence status. these children, the icpc, is referring to our, our orphans who were rescued from certain death and taken to safety in russia. if you compare this russian action for these kids to how the late former us secretary of state, madeleine albright, how she referred to the 500000 dead iraqi children. how does this indictment even make any sense? it doesn't make any sense. and nobody really has, you know, they just hear about this indictment and they've abducting children. but nobody actually even goes into the, the details, which as you describe it, that these were orphans. russians, very generous. they were very eager to adopt these orphans. in many cases, children were evacuated out of a war zones, and other parents of these children were very happy to see had children evacuated

the safety. if they're in russia, they are saved from bombardment. and as you say, there's bombardments of the civilians. this is civilians that have been subjected to constant attack by the ukraine forces since 2014. so the parents were unhappy just to see their children evacuated to safety. now what would have been the alternative? the alternative would have been to leave the children there in the back, where there was always a good chance that they would be killed because the grain or thought they were targeting them. or, you know, the orphans would be shipped into terrible orphanages run by the very people who hold of his genocidal hatred for the people of the dumbass. so well that the russians were doing was trying to save these children.

there's absolutely no evidence. and if you look at this report published by this something like the public health institute of yale university. if you look at this report, there is no evidence that have no evidence whatsoever of any child was being abducted against the child's will or of any parent coming forward and say, hey, my child has been kidnapped by the russian government. i want my child that they don't have anything like that the, this report and obviously the u. s. government and the i c. c. a basing that claims on this report because this arrest warrant didn't arrive with any details at all of actual crimes and crime scene. so that was they are entirely reliance on secondary sources. and the secondary sources of the ukrainian government got claimed by the ukrainian government. they have not done any interviews with any children and have

any interviews with any parents or guardians who say yeah, my child has been kidding. i want my child that. all right, so further to your point, what sort of process do you think took place for the i c c to issue this arrest warrant? and by that, i mean, was there a valid fair investigation that was undertaken, interviews with witnesses or fight him or put himself soldiers or anybody at all? i mean, doesn't carry any weight with it. i have arms the any evidence is all. ready that any kind of forensic investigation had taken place. as i say, this was this report published by this u. s. government funded entity. it's the university, they openly say, and if you look at this report, they are open to say that they have not come about the any interview with anyone. so i'm relying entirely on what they call open source as well. open sources mean the ukrainian media. so. 5 and then the arrest warrant was

just simply a piece of paper. there's no indictment accompanying it. you know, any, any list of actual victims or any list of the claims made by the victim. so it comes across as precisely the sort of thing that the i c c does, which is they ruffin with reference or indictments without having them even the minimum of forensic investigation. i just remember they did this, they actually did this during the bombing of libya in 2011. where again, you know, as public support was beginning to fade low and behold, the i, c, c, comes out within an incitement of living. lead a moment that it's always you have to go for the lead. if we just shows i haven't read study in any actual war crimes. so they are already going for the leader.

and, and then they made all sorts of absolutely ridiculous nonsensical assertions, you know, but the libyan soldiers being given by agra in order to continue mass rates again, always pick on something very emotional like living, also rapes. so you know, here with children. so, but the point is that these are down for political purposes, no forensic investigation has been conducted right away. if, if any crime was committed, they act as if this was a directive from putting himself as if he told people that kidnapped children or this was somehow like a kremlin policy. exactly. so, and then you know, well, where's your evidence so that, i mean, you just broke? know nobody ever does that with say, the united states rule. war crimes committed in iraq war crimes that committed in

afghanistan. no one says, well that was obvious. they george w bush is guilty of his crime. this person was tortured to death or whatever. while i was obviously bushes, you know, he's guilty. people don't say that there was a who was guilty of the people who perpetrated that that's the normal way in which war grimes are normally investigated. but of course, in the case of the united states, they don't even bother to go to investigate their own war crimes. but even if they did, they wouldn't that immediately say, well, obviously, if the people in washington, were you responsible for that? but when it comes to america, nato speak with enemies. they always, they are not. it comes right from the top. it's the person in charge. he ordered these crimes, they're all guilty, you know, when it comes to law. so i was just this corporal here or this private there. you know me, you know, maybe a sergeant was, it was involved doesn't go any higher than that. so that's always the sort of the

attitude of these tribunals goes. the media that just simply uncritically. and these accusations, yeah, the my lai massacre and vietnam comes to mind just saying are coming up next after all the war's waged by the us. iraq, afghanistan, syria just to name a few. is it possible that no americans ever. 2 committed crimes prosecutable by the i c. c. or is something else going on here? we'll discuss it when we return with george them. welly that type the m. o will be right back. ah ah.

ah, lisa canter, russian state little narrative. i've stayed on the northland fevers. mm hm. the american house southland, some of a group in the city, pavel, this been okay, so mine is group i'm speaking with. we will van in the european union, the kremlin media machine, the state on russia today, and split ortiz sport neck, given our video agency, roughly all band on youtube with,

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, a ah good. the, the news. ah,

me welcome back to the m o i manila chan. americans in particular are prohibited from prosecution by the international criminal court. yeah, you heard that right. let that think in civilian politician, soldier doesn't matter if you carry the passport of the united states. if you are an american, you cannot even have an investigation brought against you by the i c c, george sam, while he is back with us to better explain how this all works and why. so george, remember that time not too long ago in the fall of 2020, where the u. s. issued sanctions against officials at the i c. c. back then, secretary of state, my palm, peo accused the court of, quote, illegitimate attempts to subject americans to its jurisdiction. that was because

the i c. c wanted to investigate us forces war crimes in afghanistan. now correct me if i'm wrong, but this seems to me like the u. s. coercing or forcing the i c. c to drop the investigation. dissuade them. if i'm being generous, what do you think you have to keep in mind that the the united states, i does not accept the jurisdiction of the i, c. c. you know, neither those russian, neither those china, neither does india. ok. on the other hand, the united states cooperates very actively with the i c. c in directing it against others. so you know, often you know, these do gooder types, you know, who think that it's a great idea to have these on international tribunals. they are saying, well yeah, i mean, so you know, it, it's great to have international tribunals. what you might say needs to cooperate

with it. i mean, it's a, it's not go to the united states doesn't cooperate with the united states. very actively cooperates with the i c. c. i mean there is a reason why the u. s. actually signed the wrong treaty. i mean it didn't ratified, but the us very actively cooperates with the i c. c. as it did in the case of gaddafi. an as it overseas doing in the case of ukraine. ah, now what the us insists on is that nothing is ever done against the us. the way the i c c works is that if you don't accept the jurisdiction, they can't investigate any alleged crimes on your terror trip. but somebody else who does accept icpc jurisdiction can go and issue a complains and say that you committed crimes on their territory. so that was why the, the previous chief prosecutor, the been suda says that she was going to investigate claims of torture in

afghanistan as well. that obviously referred to the united states after what the united states heard this basically absolutely crazy. you know, are there you do this? and then of course, she was banned from entering the united states. the united states. you book threatened to impose sanctions on all states that had ratified of the i c c. and then of course, george w bush had already signed into law a provision that mandates the united states to go in anywhere including the netherlands to liberate any american who has been arrest the on the basis of the icpc war. and so if any american were to end up in the have the americans would actually invade the netherlands and liberated. all right, so let's get into

a little bit of history here. the international criminal court was founded in 1998 . they began their 1st hearings in 2006. so by then some 100 countries had ratified the rome statute to sign on to being members. but by 2002, the us, china and russia all declined to join america. at that time. under president george w bush went as far as to threaten to pull us troops from un peacekeeping forces, unless the ice c, c exempted any and all american citizens from its prosecution. so doesn't that alone diminish any credibility of this so called court one shouldn't in any shape man, or form, give any credence at all to anything that the i c, c does nothing. but instead,

you've got the way you've got the human rights brigades, the human rights brigade, which is always n g o, like human rights watch amnesty international. i mean, they've been promoting these nonsensical courts and tribunals for years and they're, well, yeah, this is really a 1st step towards accountability. you know, that you know that down the road, you know, we'll have the, the americans are going to be accept the i c, c jurisdiction major. accept the absolute nonce. they're lying to the public in saying that, and they suggesting that somehow this, this, this is a real chord and then, and when you pointed out yet, but what about the americans? there's a yeah, one. okay. i mean, it's not perfect, but you know, half a loaf is better than none. and then it's very important to me. know, a mockery of justice is a mockery of justice. it doesn't become a justice just because because it pretends to be adjusted because it pretends to be

a core, it's a kangaroo court. and the whole point of a kangaroo court is that it mimics the procedures of real cause. so they have judges, you know, where these fancy rose and they're sitting there at these tables, you know, 3 judges solemnly and nodding the shuffling papers on their desks. and the lawyers come in and out with big motions. and then you know somebody a response to that motion as interlocutory to you and they go through all these convoluted legal steps, giving the impression to the outside world. what listen serious legal work going on . this is a real go. no, it is a kangaroo court designed to deliver political outcomes, you know, favorable to they and they tow powers to the great 1000. they run their school and

i radically, our pledge of allegiance specifically says justice and liberty for all. but i guess not. so i've heard some critics of the icpc characterize it as the very inception of the court as some sort of colonization of a countries justice or judicial system that it's like a modern day european colonizers version of having some semblance of authority or even dominion over these unsophisticated barbarians is that too wild an accusation though against the i c. c. you have to keep in mind that the, it's inherent to national serenity that you don't recognize any court as the higher than your own. i mean, you basically have, you know, implicit within a state that you have your, the judicial authorities that accept the legitimacy of that state. you cannot

accept any higher court. the moment you accept the court that can overrule your court, then you've lost your own self read it. and that's what you do when you accept the i c. c. and it's particularly irksome when this is imposed on countries that have not even signed on to the treaty and that we've been ratified because you know that that's it. all this violation. all of them say the vienna convention. i thing on the law of the treaties, which means that you cannot be bound by a treaty that you have not signed onto it, but it's the herd is if an article $34.00 of that vienna conventional 1969, you cannot be bound by a treat that you haven't signed so but oh, that's the way that the, you know, the i,

i c c work which is that it eliminates any sense of national. so really because after all, the whole point of the national serenity is that you retain ultima to authority over your own citizens. you don't hand them over to a, you know, some of the bodies and which takes away your right to, to, to dispense justice to your own people. george sam. well, a writer senior fellow at the global policy institute in london. thank you so much . check out his book bombs for peace. nato's humanitarian war on yugoslavia. thank you, george. to see you when they were. all right, that is gonna do it for today's episode. modus operandi, machine. dig deep into foreign policy and current affairs. i'm your host manila chan. thanks for tuning and we'll see you again next time to figure out the ammo. ah

ah . i just added the ssl on your id id with the girl to can i add some just with the kimberly stella lucky. send it with

them. how to get the kitchen making a bit. so it was more which of those who below is poised with would you didn't talk good to. yes, i'm one of those with and i'm here to plead with you. whatever you do not watch my new show seriously. why watch something that's so different,

my little opinion that you won't get anywhere else work of it please, or do you have the state department, the cia weapons, bankers, multi 1000000000 dollar corporations. choose your facts for you. go ahead. i change and whatever you do. don't watch my show stay main street because i'm probably gonna make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact, but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the way. who is the aggressor today? i'm authorizing the additional strong sanctions. today russia is the country with the most sanctions imposed against it. and number those constantly growing. a list of course. sure. as we speak on the bill in your senior, mostly mine or wish you were banding all imports of russian oil and gas, new g i. g proposed

with regard to joe by imposing these sanctions on russia has destroyed the american economy. so there's your boomerang with and what is the us doing that? creating more and more new mil to re alliances does the worst that is building new axis. in that major interview, windermere, put in a queue as nato of aggressive global military expansion. denying that russian a chinese cooperation is aimed at other states. a fresh unrest players up in israel as thousands of people take the 3 in a protest against the countries prime minister benjamin.