leading medical journal found it, felicia showed a fourfold increase in all cancers, and a 12 fold increase in childhood cancer. in under fourteens, it found a tenfold increase in female breast cancer, and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumors in adults. research is found a $38.00 fold increase in decay. mia? this exceeded the figures for her rossimer, where survivors of the atom bomb attack showed a 17 fold increase, indicates near medics on the ground agree. but they were reluctant to appear on camera, saying they were under pressure from the us, not to speak out. it's no surprise that western powers want to deny the causal link to do so would leave them open to war crimes charges. but once again, they continue to avoid accountability as iraqis live with the legacy of the war. with that, with some iraqis in how they thankfully jeff from the u. s. military which brought overwhelming fire power to the basil killing

a large number of civilians who were caught in the crossfire. but i'll go a little as well. we fought was light and medium weapons. the us forces used white phosphorus as well as internationally banned weapons in agreement. with the mayor of allusion, the football stadium was turned into a cemetery for our martyrs who were in great numbers. the city lost many of its residents, but the us forces failed to break into in the 1st part of the improvised cemetery was dedicated callers. while the 2nd one served the grand cemetery on which initially had $4000.00 bodies. then the number rose more than 7000. i'm the most significant violations perpetrated by the us occupation forces were bombarding with white fos for lack of compensation for those affected in raids without warning . someone a rate occurred and their faces broke into the house. we had to gather all the

family in one room and practices a violation back then. the occupation forces hit solutions with white phosphorus uranium. and as a result, we have been suffering from birth defect, and illness. the city is still paying the price as our main hospital is still treating birthday effect to date on and online will be bringing more details and revelations on the grim legacy of the us led invasion and occupation of iraq when he, thanks for joining us here on our t international web back with more, the latest and about 30 minutes. ah, 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 m me around 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 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, the icpc 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 warren buck. 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 and george's to talk to george. thanks for joining us. so 1st step, 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 under the auspices of the

e u. 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 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

rates as a matter of state policy. there is no evidence for any of that. but, you know, the media, you know, 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 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 say the icpc 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, is that the brings up the sole issue of russia, supposedly abducting children. and then biden had based all his claims about these suppose that 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 absolutely ridiculous document based on very little evidence. but none of biden brought the subject up. and then lo and

behold, what does the cc do? issues in arrest worth and brings up the specific subject, the specific subject, the bite and 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, you 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, they, there is. now we can refer to put in 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 has a war criminal. you mean you say accuse this just simply, anyone could get a be accused of anything that people don't notice the word accuse. they just hear war criminals that booked in war criminal. 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 bath after the military action began. but let's 1st recall prior to the special military operation, the don bass had been under daily showing by key or forces. heavy bombardment were 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. most 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 grain or thought they were 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. the claims on this report because this arrest warrant didn't arrive with any details of 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 that 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 putting himself soldiers or anybody at all? i mean, doesn't carry any weight with it. i'm seeing any evidence of all 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 open and 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 and then the arrest warrant. i was just simply a piece of paper. eliza does no indictment accompanying it and you know, any, any list of the actual victims or any list of the claims made by

a victims. so it comes across as precisely the sort of thing that the i c c does, which is they rushin ah, with arrest warrants, or indictments are without having done even the minimum or forensic investigation. unless remember, they did this, the icy 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 with in an indictment of a libyan lead. a ma ma, get that, it's always, you know, we have to go for the leader. it, which shows i haven't read it, study in any actual war crimes. so they're ready going for the leader. ah, and, and then they made all sorts of absolutely ridiculous nonsensical assertions. i know by the libyan soldiers b, a given the viagra in order to continue mass rapes again, you know,

always pick on something very emotional like if we're living also rapes. so in other 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 putin himself, as if he told people to kidnapped children, or this was somehow like a kremlin policy. exactly. so you and then you, i well, where's your evidence? will it, i mean, you just have him throw? no, nobody ever does that was say the united states official war primes committed in iraq war crimes that committed in afghanistan. no one says, well that was obviously 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 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 the immediate the 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 say or not. it comes right from the job. it's the person in charge. he order 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, 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 and of course the media that just simply uncritically air. these accusations, yeah, the my lai massacre and 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 welling. the type, the emma will be right back in the ah

ah, welcome back to the m o i, manila, cham, americans in particular, are prohibited from prosecution by the international criminal court. yeah. you were 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 icy 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, pompei 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 m, the united states, i does not accept the jurisdiction of the i. c. c. you know, neither those russian, neither does 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 go to 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's great to have international tribunals. what you might say needs to cooperate with it. i mean, it's a, it's not good. 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 has been sued, 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, there you do this, and then of course she was banned from entering the united states the united states. you both 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 i, 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 manual 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 all these n g o, like human rights watch amnesty international. i mean, they've been promoting these nonsensical course and tribunals for years and they say, well, yeah, this is really a 1st step towards accountability. you know, that you know, that down the road, you know, will have the americans are going to be accept the icpc jurisdiction major is going to accept the absolute nonsense lying to the public in saying that. and they are suggesting that somehow this. ringback this is

a real core and then and when you pointed out yet, but what about the america? there's a 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 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 robes, and they're sitting there at these tables, you know, 3 judges solemnly and nodding the shuffling papers on their dest, you know, 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. what listen, serious legal work going on. this is a real cool note. it is a kangaroo court designed to deliver political outcomes, you know, favorable to they and they tow powers to the great value 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 icpc characterize it as the very inception of the court, as some sort of colonization of a country's 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 serenity that you don't recognize any court as the higher than euro. and i mean, you basically, you know, implicit within a state that you have the, 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, then you've lost your own self bridget. 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 on to the treaty and that we've been ratified. because that's an obvious violation

of the let's say the vienna convention on the law of the treaties. which means that you cannot be bound by a treaty that you have not signed on. so, i mean it's, it's the herd is if 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 he eliminates any sense of national. so really because for all the points of the national serenity is that you retain ultimate to 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. well, a writer senior fellow at the global policy institute in london. thank you so much . check out his book bombs for peace,

nato humanitarian war on yugoslavia. thank you, george. russia 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 manella chan. thanks for tuning and we'll see you again next time to figure out the ammo ah, in a rec center and i'm here to plead with you. whatever you do, you do not watch my, your show or sleeping. why watch something that's so different. my little opinion that you won't get anywhere else, work of it please, or do i have the state department to see i 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 mainstream 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 you think . ah, fresh planning flare up is well defined, the government agreeing to postpone a calling for virtual and judicial reform offer methods, protest thing, go the country. oh, so this out your studio is signal and what is the us doing that? creating more and more new military alliances does the west that is building new axis latimer period can accuse his nato of aggressive global military expansion while stressing that russia deployments of nuclear weapons in bella. ruth, if a purely defensive with phones to the west has been doing with.