is still paying the price as our main hospital is still treating birth defects to date. well, i'll see you. we'll continue. it's coverage of the grim legacy. the u. s. left in iraq after 2003 invasion, which led to decades of turmoil in the country. well, that's the latest from around the world. my name is peter scott. my be back again. the top of the hour with another rundown, but to head over to r t dot com. if you can't wait that long. the the, the, the, the, the hello, i'm manila chan. you are tuned into modus operandi. the us, russia, nor china, the world's biggest super powers have ever signed on to be

a member. but the international criminal court at the hague seems to be going after . one of the leaders of these countries tonight will explore why the i c. c might be on the attack and learn more about how they operate. all right, let's get into the low me around a half the countries of the entire world have ratified what's known as the rome statute. that's the permanent judicial body established by the international criminal court to prosecute and put on trial. people accused of heinous acts like genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity. these on elected judges sitting on a panel at the hague in 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 ccs 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 step, your reaction. when you heard the i, c. c 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 the 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 under the auspices of you,

the united states some, some collection of state. so it was always obvious that the western powers would resort to using some humanitarianism. as the propaganda exercised, 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 served were accused of running race camps. they were accused of committing mass

rates 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 rape. so this is, this is how the western propaganda 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 when the public. all right, so just so i'm clear here you say 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 married 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. ready supposedly abducting children and then biden had based all his claims about these suppose the russian war crimes involving abduction of children. he based it on a us state department on the research paper. nobody of course has read the research paper because it's actually pretty ridiculous document based on very little evidence, but not as 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 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, the wrestler, and they know they're running with it. you know? because that's it. this is a nice shot in the arm a, this is all of indication. look, the i, c, c has agreed with us and you know, there is, now we can refer to poaching as a war criminal as an accused war criminals. because if you keep saying an accused war criminal, then it leaves the impression in people's minds that he is 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 criminal that and so they've now absolutely get this ran down people's throats. all right, 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, you know, they just hear about this indictment and they abducting children. but nobody actually even goes into the, the details, which as you describe is 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 bombardment of the civilians of the civilians that have been subjected to

constant attack by the ukraine forces since 2014. so the parents were more than happy 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 great author is targeting them . or, you know, these orphans would be shipped into terrible orphanages run by the very people who hold of 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 their claims on this report because this arrest warrant didn't arrive with any details at all of the actual crimes and crime scenes. so that was they are entirely reliance on secondary sources. and the secondary sources of the ukrainian government got claimed by the great 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 issued this arrest warrant?

and by that i mean, was there a valid fair investigation that was undertaken? interviews with witnesses or former putting himself soldiers or anybody at all, i mean doesn't carry any weight with it. i have arms the any evidence is all that any kind of forensic investigation had taken place. as i say, this was this report published by this u. s. government fund, the entity, it's yale 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 reliance entirely on what they call open source as well. open sources mean the ukrainian media so, 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 rush in with ref, lawrence, or indictments without having done even the minimum of forensic investigation. i just remember they did this, the, i see did this during the bombing of libya in 2011. where again, you know, as public support was beginning to fade. lo and behold, the i, c. c comes out within the diamonds of living and lead a mo, mark it up. it's always you have to go for the leader, which shows i haven't really studied any actual war crime. so they are already going for the leader. and. and then they made all sorts of absolutely ridiculous nonsensical assertions you know, the libyan soldiers being given by agra in order to continue mass rates again. you

know, always pick on something very emotional, like, it will leave you also rapes. so here with children. so, but the point is that these are down for political purposes, no forensic investigation had 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? i mean, you just broke. know nobody ever does that was say the united states are pro war crimes committed in iraq war crimes committed in afghanistan. no one says, well, that was obvious. they george w bush is guilty of this crime. this, 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. well, the, the people who perpetrated, and that, that,

that's the normal way in which war crimes are normally investigated. but of course, in the case of the united states, not even they don't even bother to go to investigate their own walk crimes. but even if they did, they wouldn't say you needed to say, well, obviously it's the people in washington who are you, who are responsible for that. but when it comes to america and nato's favorite enemies, they always say are not. it comes right from the top. it's they, the person in charge, he ordered these crimes, they're guilty, you know, when it comes last, like, what is just this corporal here or this private there. you know, maybe a sergeant was, it was involved, doesn't go any higher than that. so that always the sort of the attitude of these tribunals and of course the media that just simply uncritically add these accusations. yeah, the my lai massacre in vietnam comes to mind just saying are coming up next after

all the wars waged by the us. iraq, afghanistan, syria just to name a few. is it possible that no americans ever committed crimes prosecutable by the i c. c, or is something else going on here? we'll discuss it when we return with george, sam welling. that type, the ammo will be right back with ah, lou needs to come to the russians state little narrative. i've stayed on the most landscape with eclipse in

55 with. okay, so 9 is to 5 must be the one else with we will ban in the european union. the kremlin. yup. machine. the state on russia for date and c, r t spoke neck, given our video agency, roughly all band to on youtube with ah,

ah, welcome back to the m o. i'm manila champ. americans in particular are prohibited from prosecution by the international criminal court. yeah. you heard that right? let that think n 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 mike 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 um does not accept the jurisdiction of the i, c. c. you know, neither those russian, neither those china, neither does india. on. 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 try. it was 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 gadhafi. and 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 said that she was going to investigate the claims of torture in afghanistan as well. that obviously would refer 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 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 that on the basis of the icpc war. and so if any american were to end up in the hague, 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 icy see exempt at 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 manner or form, give any credence at all to anything that the i c c does nothing. but instead, you've got the, we've got the human rights brigade, the human rights brigade, which is all these n g o, like human rights watch amnesty international. i mean, they've been promoting these nonsensical courts and tribunals for years. and they say, well, yeah, this, this is really a 1st step towards accountability. you know, 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 was going to accept places each was an absolute nonsense. they lying to the public in, in saying that, and this is suggesting that somehow this, this, this is

a real core. and then when you pointed out, give, but what about the americans? they said, yeah, well ok, i mean it's not perfect, but you know, half a loaf is better than none. and then it's very important. no, 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 court. 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 look 3 judges solemnly and nodding the shuffling papers on their desk. and the lawyers come in and out with big motions. and then, you know, somebody finds a response to that motion interlocutory to you and they go through all these

convoluted legal steps, giving the impression to the outside world won't listen. serious legal work going on. this is a real go note. it is a kangaroo court designed to deliver political outcomes, you know, favorable to the nato power of the great powers they run their school. and ironically, our pledge of allegiance specifically says justice and liberty for all. but i guess not. so i've heard some critics of the i c c 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 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 silver entity that you don't recognize any court as that higher than euro. and i mean, you basically, you know, implicit within a state that you have the, or the judicial authority is that accept the legitimacy of that state. you cannot accept any higher court. the moment you accept the court that can overrule your court and 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 on countries that have not even signed onto the treaty and that we've been ratified because that's an obvious violation

of the say the vienna convention on the law of the treaties. which means that you cannot be bound by a treaty, but you have not signed on. so, i mean it's, it's the herd. is it things article 34 of that d n a conventional 969. you cannot be bound by a treat that you haven't signed. so, but that's the way that the, you know, the, i see the word which is that it eliminates any sense of national. so really because for all the point of the national serenity is that you retain ultimate authority over your own citizens. you don't hand them over to some other bodies and which takes away your right to to, to dispense justice to your own people and george them while 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. roger to see you. all right, that is going to do it for today's episode of modus oper, right? michelle, the dig deep into foreign policy and current affairs. i'm your host manila chant. thanks for tuning and we'll see you again next time to figure out the ammo. ah ah ah

ah, i am, my name is frank, i'm a retired from philadelphia. got in the movement in the age of 13 going on 14. we were violent towards those people because we believed that we're in this race. we're here 1st, and this is our country being part of that movement. i got your sense of power. when i felt powerless, we got attention when i felt invisible and accepted when i felt level life after hey, is an organization that was founded by for skin, neo nazi white supremacists in the u. s. in canada. and they found each other and they knew that they wanted to help other guys get out is 2 parts to getting out of a violent extremist group. the 1st part is disengagement, which is where you leave the social group. and then the next part is d.

radicalization work belief systems audiology are removed. it was very impactful. when someone finally came along with no fear, i heard my story, nothing challenges, validate with israel and a 2nd day of nationwide demonstrations by the sucking of the country's defense minister. i was following his criticism of the government funds, judicial reforms also ahead and what does the us do it that creating more and more new mil to reliance. it is the west that is building new axis. they pretend accuse of nato, all the aggressive global military expansion denying that russian and chinese cooperation is aimed out of the states. also this our.