Transcript [00:00] Hey everyone, welcome back. Uh, if you [00:02] watched my last video on this topic, you [00:04] know that this story has been building [00:07] for months. Well, it just escalated past [00:09] anything we've seen so far. And before I [00:11] say a word about it, I want you to hear [00:13] it directly from the source. On Friday, [00:16] Secretary of State Marco Rubio put out a [00:18] video statement announcing new sanctions [00:20] on the International Criminal Court. It [00:23] is under two minutes long, so we are [00:26] going to watch the whole thing. Here we [00:28] go. [00:30] For decades now, both Republicans and [00:32] Democrats have rejected the idea that [00:34] the International Criminal Court has any [00:36] power to prosecute American citizens, to [00:38] prosecute military service members or [00:40] political leaders because America never [00:42] joined the court. We don't need that [00:44] court and we don't want it. But now [00:47] globalist experts that are an ocean [00:48] away, they don't care what you think. [00:50] They want the International Criminal [00:52] Court to do more, including the [00:54] prosecution of American citizens and [00:56] service members that are defending their [00:57] country. [00:59] They want to prosecute border patrol [01:00] agents that are protecting our nation's [01:02] borders. And they want to prosecute our [01:04] elected leaders that are ensuring our [01:07] national security. They want more power [01:09] and they want it at the expense of our [01:11] sovereignty as a nation. And President [01:14] Trump will never allow the International [01:16] Criminal Court to prosecute Americans. [01:19] And that's why today the United States [01:21] is sanctioning the International [01:23] Criminal Court. We will ban transactions [01:27] with this rogue court, cutting off their [01:29] resources and crippling their ability to [01:31] operate against us because our message [01:33] is clear. The United States and the [01:36] American people are not subject to the [01:38] jurisdiction of this fake ICC. Both [01:41] parties agree on this, but only [01:43] President Trump has the resolve to take [01:45] the action needed to end this threat [01:48] once and for all. Either the ICC will [01:50] end its threats or we will end the ICC. [01:55] And we expect our allies, many of whom [01:57] are part of the ICC and that rely on [01:59] American service members for their [02:00] defense, to reign in this rogue court. [02:03] If they do not, the United States will [02:05] continue its campaign to dismantle the [02:07] ICC piece by piece until Americans are [02:11] threatened no longer. [02:16] There we go. There we go. All right, [02:19] let's take that down and we can get rid [02:22] of these. [02:23] Okay, [02:25] so let's go through that because there's [02:27] more in that clip than it might seem uh [02:31] just at the first watch. So, let me just [02:33] let's break it down. Let's start with [02:35] the opening line. Both Republicans and [02:37] Democrats have rejected the idea that [02:40] the International Criminal Court has any [02:41] power to prosecute American citizens [02:43] because America never joined the court. [02:45] Good. That's true. And it's actually the [02:48] most important sentence in the whole [02:49] clip because this is one of the only [02:52] foreign policy positions in Washington [02:54] that has stayed genuinely bipartisan for [02:56] two decades. Democrat and Republican [02:58] administrations alike have never [03:01] recognized this court's authority over [03:02] Americans. [03:04] The disagreement has only ever been over [03:06] how hard to push back on it. And this [03:09] administration, the Trump administration [03:10] just answered that question. Now, [03:13] second, the line that he says they're [03:16] globalist experts that are an ocean [03:18] away. They don't care what you think. I [03:21] love that and I want you to that's [03:23] that's an important phrase. It's it's [03:25] almost exactly the argument I made in my [03:27] last video on this um that I'm going to [03:29] put as the as the pinned comment in this [03:32] video. Okay? So, you want to you might [03:34] want to watch that video. It's from [03:35] August uh and there's a lot more [03:38] information in there. [03:40] So this line right that these globalist [03:43] experts who don't care what you think [03:45] are an ocean away that is the key right [03:48] it's a body of people the ICC is a body [03:50] of people that nobody elected sitting in [03:52] the H deciding that they get to [03:55] prosecute your son your daughter in [03:57] uniform your border patrol agent your [03:59] elected leaders without a single vote [04:02] from a single American ever touching [04:04] that decision [04:06] or Israeli [04:08] that's the whole problem in miniature [04:10] and it's what I want to spend most of [04:11] this video actually unpacking because [04:14] Rubio just put out this minute 45 second [04:17] clip and I think the case really needs [04:20] to be unpacked and explained and that's [04:22] what I want to do for you in this video. [04:24] But then there's what he says at the end [04:25] there. Either the ICC will end its [04:27] threats or we will end or we will end [04:31] the ICC. I love that. Right. [04:35] and beyond that uh uh a standing [04:38] campaign to quote dismantle the IC piece [04:41] by piece until Americans are threatened [04:43] no longer. That's that's the objective [04:45] the administration has taken on. I love [04:47] it. [04:49] But let's spell out what Rubio doesn't [04:52] get into because it's such a short clip [04:54] and that's the mechanics of actually [04:55] what happened here. So, this is the [04:57] first time that the US has sanctioned [04:59] the ICC as an institution, not just [05:02] individual judges or prosecutors, which [05:04] is what I talked about in my last video. [05:07] Now, they're now they're sanctioning [05:08] with this announcement, they're [05:09] sanctioning assets subject to US [05:13] jurisdiction, assets of the court, which [05:15] are now frozen. Um, American citizens, [05:18] US banks, US companies are now generally [05:22] barred from doing any transaction with [05:24] the court at all. That's what he meant [05:26] when he said to ban transactions and cut [05:28] off their resources. The Treasury has [05:30] given it a 180day license to keep [05:34] functioning while in theory this gets [05:36] sorted out. And this builds on [05:38] individual sanctions the administration [05:40] has has already been imposing on ICC [05:43] personnel going back more than a year. [05:45] Starting with four judges who were [05:46] sanctioned by name back in June 2025. [05:50] two of them for their role in appeals in [05:52] the appeals decision that let the [05:54] Afghanistan investigation into US [05:56] personnel proceed meaning they were [05:58] involved in that. So they were they were [06:00] sanctioned and two of them were [06:03] excuse me pre-trial judges who issued [06:05] the the warrants for Prime Minister [06:06] Netanyahu and Israel's former defense [06:10] minister Yo Galant. Okay, but here's the [06:13] detail that you could not script even if [06:16] you tried. Okay, check this out. [06:20] This this is just you you just can't [06:23] make this up. So this announcement of [06:26] sanctions [06:28] ended up landing on the same day that [06:31] the Nobel committee gave its 2026 peace [06:35] prize to Na'vi Pale. Now who's Na'vi [06:38] Pale? She's a former ICC judge herself [06:41] and back from back in the 2000s and more [06:44] recently she spent years chairing the [06:46] UN's Commission of Inquiry on the [06:49] occupied Palestinian territory. This is [06:51] the body that under her leadership [06:53] formerly concluded last year that Israel [06:56] is committing genocide in Gaza. Okay, [06:58] this is a commission that watchdog [07:00] groups have accused of demonstrable bias [07:02] against Israel years before that finding [07:05] ever even came out. So on the exact day [07:08] that the US declares that they're [07:10] financially going to strangle the ICC [07:13] for among other things going after [07:15] Israeli leaders, the world's most [07:17] prestigious peace prize goes to Pai, the [07:19] person most associated with building the [07:22] fake genocide claim against Israel in [07:25] the first place. I don't think that's a [07:27] coincidence that anyone needs me to [07:29] explain. I just think it's it's worth [07:31] it's worth mentioning. Now, if you want [07:33] the full history of how we got here, [07:38] um, you know, before we get to that, let [07:40] me just remind you of something very [07:41] exciting. Uh, last on Sunday, October [07:44] 4th, we held an amazing event in [07:47] downtown Jerusalem. We, uh, it was a [07:50] soldout event at the Man at the [07:51] Manakiman Heritage Center featuring [07:54] candidates from the party lists of 10 [07:57] Knesset parties that are running in this [07:58] election. They all laid out their case, [08:01] answered questions. It was all in [08:02] English for the English speaking [08:03] community here in Israel. It was an [08:05] amazing event. And if you want to watch [08:07] this event, you want to see this this [08:08] Knesset town hall with 10 different [08:10] parties each again laying out their [08:12] case, answering tough questions, really [08:14] prepare you for the Israeli elections, [08:17] you can click in the link of the [08:18] description of this video or go to [08:20] israel365.com/occtober [08:23] 4th, October the number fourth and you [08:26] can get access to to the full clip. [08:30] Okay. Uh so let's get back to what we're [08:32] talking about now. The full history of [08:34] how we got here with this ICC thing. So [08:36] the original 2020 executive order by [08:39] Trump, Biden and Biden, which was the [08:43] original uh threat of sanctions on the [08:45] court and then Biden rescended it and [08:47] then there were warrants to arrest [08:49] Netanyahu and Galant. And then there was [08:51] a a scandal of Karim Khan who was the [08:53] head of the a sex uh sexual misconduct [08:57] scandal involving Kareem Khan who was [08:59] like the chief prosecutor of the court. [09:01] All of this stuff. If you want to drill [09:04] down on that, go watch the previous [09:06] video that I made which is the pinned [09:08] comment in this one. I'm not going to [09:09] redo all of that today. What I want to [09:11] do in this video is pick up where Rubio [09:13] left off. The line about globalist [09:16] experts in Ocean Away. I want to go much [09:19] deeper than than uh than Rubio's two [09:22] minutes allowed for because I think it's [09:24] the most important issue in this whole [09:26] story of the ICC. [09:29] Okay, [09:31] strip away everything else for a second. [09:33] The sanctions, the political aspects of [09:35] the the specific warrants that we know [09:37] about. Let's ask the most basic [09:39] question. [09:41] Where does any court anywhere get the [09:44] right to tell any human being what to [09:46] do? I'm asking a more philosophical [09:48] question, right? How does a court have [09:51] jurisdiction over a person? Where does [09:53] that power originate from? So, if you [09:55] believe in democracy, and I do, I'm I'm [09:58] imagining most of you watching this do, [10:00] the answer is that legitimate power [10:02] flows upward from the people. It doesn't [10:05] flow downward [10:07] from some panel of the wise. Okay? A [10:10] government has authority because the [10:12] people it governs consent to be governed [10:15] by it. They voted for the people who [10:17] wrote the laws or their ancestors voted [10:19] for them, right? That consent is [10:21] renewable because they can vote those [10:24] people out. You live in a democracy. [10:25] Again, it's government that power flows [10:28] up from the people. A domestic court in [10:30] any country, any democratic country has [10:33] authority because it's in that chain of [10:36] authority that flows from the people. [10:38] Judges are appointed or confirmed by [10:40] officials who were themselves elected, [10:43] who are themselves accountable in a [10:45] system that people agreed to live under. [10:48] There's consent of the governed to live [10:50] under a certain system in a democracy. [10:52] Every link in that chain eventually [10:55] traces back to the people and their [10:58] choice. That's the entire moral [11:00] justification for why anyone has to [11:03] listen to any judge at all. [11:06] Right? it for Americans. It's the same [11:09] idea right there in the Declaration of [11:11] Independence that governments derive [11:12] their just powers from the consent of [11:15] the governed. The whole American [11:17] founding is built on the premise that [11:19] power exercised without that consent is [11:22] not legitimate. [11:24] So now let's look at the ICC through [11:26] that lens. Who elects its judges? [11:30] Not the Israeli people, not the American [11:32] people, not any people anywhere. [11:34] Actually, ICC judges are selected by a [11:38] group called the Assembly of States [11:40] parties, a diplomatic body made up of [11:43] representatives of roughly 125 [11:47] governments that joined the Rome [11:48] Statute. So, you might think, oh, [11:49] they're speaking on behalf of their [11:51] people who chose them. No, some of those [11:54] governments are real democracies, but a [11:56] lot of them are not. I'm going to give [11:58] you some actual names as examples like [12:00] like Venezuela, which again recently was [12:02] taken over by America, but from the [12:05] beginning, they've been a member in good [12:07] standing with a full vote. [12:10] Meanwhile, the ICC's prosecutor has an [12:12] active investigation into the Maduro [12:13] government for crimes against humanity, [12:15] whatever. Um, let's take another few [12:18] examples. Tajjikiststan is a member [12:20] state. Now, you probably don't know much [12:22] about Tajjikiststan, but it's one of the [12:24] most closed one-man dictatorships on the [12:27] planet, run by the same guy for over [12:29] three decades with no opposition and a [12:33] well doumented record of torture and [12:35] political prosecutions. Cambodia is a [12:37] member state of the ICC of the Rome [12:39] Statute. And Cambodia is run by one [12:42] family for the last 40 years or nearly [12:45] 40 years with a judiciary that answers [12:47] to that family and no other law. Or you [12:51] have Chad as a member state whose [12:54] current government took power through a [12:55] military uh action, a military [12:58] succession basically and then won an [13:00] election that international observers [13:04] basically said was a sham. And we could [13:07] go on and on. [13:09] So you already have a serious problem [13:11] before you even get to the United States [13:13] or Israel. The whole consent issue that [13:16] this court claims to represent. They [13:18] consent, oh the these countries all [13:20] agreed. They're all part of the Rome [13:22] Statute. But what does consent mean? [13:25] Because in a lot of the those cases, the [13:27] consent, it's the consent of governments [13:30] that never got the consent of their own [13:32] people to govern. [13:35] Let me say it another way. governments [13:37] that run legal systems [13:42] that are not free and fair in their own [13:45] countries [13:48] cuz these dictatorships all have sham [13:50] legal systems. [13:53] So, [13:56] how could they possibly have a say in [13:59] this legal authority over over people [14:01] who live in democratic countries? [14:04] That's the question I I want you to [14:05] think about. Why does a country whose [14:07] own courts can't deliver basic justice [14:09] to its own people and they do not have [14:13] the consent of the of their own people [14:15] to govern them, why do they have any say [14:17] at all in constituting a court that [14:20] claims power to put someone else's prime [14:23] minister on trial? [14:25] Why why is their power even legitimate [14:28] at all? [14:30] So if a government can't run an honest [14:32] courtroom at home, what what claim does [14:34] it have to vote on who sits in judgment [14:35] of the rest of the world? Just because [14:38] you have a 100 plus governments doesn't [14:40] mean anything if a good number of them [14:42] have have have no legitimacy [14:46] because there's no consent of the [14:48] governed. [14:50] Right? But there's a deeper issue and [14:53] this this one actually matters for [14:55] Americans and Israelis. Even if every [14:58] one of those 125 member states were a [15:00] perfect democracy, that still wouldn't [15:03] give this court jurisdiction over the [15:04] United States or Israel, because neither [15:06] country signed the treaty. Neither [15:08] population ever voted for it, ever had a [15:10] referendum on it, ever sent a [15:11] representative to negotiate it on their [15:13] behalf and have and and have it ratified [15:17] through their own process. [15:20] Look, there's a basic, you want to talk [15:22] about international law, there's a basic [15:24] principle in international law that goes [15:25] back centuries that a treaty cannot bind [15:28] a state that never agreed to it. Nations [15:31] can't vote among themselves to create [15:33] obligations for another nation, for [15:35] another country that isn't in the room. [15:38] That that principle is kind of obvious [15:41] and and the alternative to it is absurd. [15:44] Well, like what's the alternative? any [15:45] group of countries could get together [15:47] and declare authority over the rest of [15:49] the world or some other country by [15:51] writing it down and agreeing among [15:52] themselves. So when the ICC says it can [15:55] still reach American soldiers or an [15:57] Israeli prime minister or it thinks it [15:59] can [16:02] because oh the alleged conduct happened [16:05] in a member state like the Palestinian [16:08] Authority that's just they're inventing [16:10] jurisdictional theory [16:13] and neither Washington nor Jerusalem [16:15] ever agreed to it. [16:18] Okay? It's it's ridiculous. [16:21] Think about this again. Think about what [16:22] we're what we're describing. A body of [16:24] appointed officials chosen by a process [16:27] that Americans and Israelis have no part [16:30] in. Zero. And that that body of [16:34] appointed officials [16:37] decides on its own that it gets to [16:39] adjudicate the conduct of people who [16:41] never had a vote, a representative, or a [16:43] seat at the table where this authority [16:45] was supposedly created. Now, if you're [16:47] if you're if you're from a dictatorship [16:49] anyway, you might not care about whether [16:51] you know, you just assert authority [16:52] because that's what you do in a [16:54] dictatorship. But that's what the ICC [16:57] basically is. [16:59] It's a authority flowing down from a [17:01] committee of unelected lawyers who [17:03] decided that they have that authority. [17:06] And let's talk about accountability [17:08] because it cuts the same way, right? [17:10] When an American judge gets something [17:12] badly wrong. Okay, again we're talking [17:13] about how legal systems have legitimacy. [17:16] Part of the legitimacy of a legal system [17:18] is consent of the govern to that system [17:20] that produces those those courts as we [17:22] just described. But it's also [17:25] in in a system of of democracy of [17:28] consent of the govern, there's also [17:29] always accountability, [17:31] right? When an American judge gets [17:33] something badly wrong, there is a path [17:35] back to the people. If he gets enough [17:37] decisions wrong or a big enough decision [17:38] wrong, there can be a impeachment, there [17:41] can be elections, [17:44] right? He got appointed through a system [17:46] that right there's there is [17:49] accountability built in. But when Karim [17:52] Khan, the ICC's chief prosecutor, was [17:55] found to have committed serious sexual [17:57] misconduct, who held him accountable? [17:59] Not the American people he claimed [18:01] jurisdiction over, not the Israeli [18:02] people he claimed jurisdiction over. It [18:05] was a vote of 82 out of 125 member [18:08] states in a closed diplomatic assembly [18:11] with no public input. [18:14] Understand that I'm saying conceptually [18:17] I'm saying this in many different ways [18:18] but conceptually this court has no [18:20] legitimacy. Like definitionally [18:23] like if you believe in the rule of law [18:26] of and of the consent of the govern it [18:28] has no legitimacy. [18:32] There's no version of consent of the [18:34] govern that produces something like [18:35] this. [18:37] It has it authority without a democratic [18:40] root [18:42] is exactly the reason why the Trump [18:44] administration's underlying argument has [18:46] been from the start. [18:49] Whether or not every official statement [18:51] puts it in these terms, it's the [18:52] argument of the Trump administration has [18:54] been you cannot owe obedience to a court [18:57] that was never given the right to judge [18:59] you in the first place. [19:01] So you might be asking how has this [19:04] court operated for two decades, [19:07] right? It what's it been doing for two [19:10] decades? Well, here is [19:14] here's the answer. Here's a piece that I [19:16] think is actually the most important [19:17] part of this whole story. [19:20] We're going to look at who the court has [19:21] actually prosecuted over the years. Very [19:23] briefly, let's just look at the record. [19:25] The International Criminal Court opened [19:27] for business in 2002. For the first 20 [19:30] years of its existence, [19:32] its first 30 plus cases, every single [19:36] person it ever charged, every single one [19:39] came out of a handful of African [19:42] situations. the Democratic Republic of [19:44] Congo, Uganda, the Central African [19:46] Republic, Darur in Sudan, Kenya, Libya, [19:49] Kivoir, Mali, Bundi. That's it. The [19:52] entire docket for two decades was [19:56] Africans. [19:58] And it's not just who got charged, it's [19:59] who was actually convicted. Every [20:01] conviction, every conviction, every one [20:05] that the ICC has ever secured [20:09] and had stand on appeal is an African [20:11] defendant. Militia commanders, warlords [20:15] out of Congo, Mali, Uganda, Darur. [20:18] For 20 years, think about this. The [20:20] ICC's entire operating model was built [20:23] on African defendants. [20:26] The first time that it changed even [20:28] slightly was in June 2022. That's like [20:30] 20 years after it was founded was the [20:32] first time it ever issued a warrant [20:34] about anyone who wasn't African. And the [20:37] court issued arrest warrants then in in [20:39] the Georgia situation. There were three [20:41] officials from the Russia Georgia war [20:45] in 2008 [20:47] that were hit with arrest warrants. And [20:50] that was the first non-African warrant [20:52] in the court's history. And only after [20:54] that do you start seeing a handful of [20:56] other non-African cases people now point [20:58] to Vladimir Putin and Russia's [21:00] children's commissioner [21:03] Maria Lavova Bova over over Ukraine in [21:06] 2023 and there was a senior Russian [21:09] military commanders after that who were [21:11] charged and then of course Netanyahu and [21:13] Galant in November 2024 [21:16] and in 2025 we have a couple a couple [21:19] Taliban leaders over the persecution of [21:21] Afghani women and [21:24] And in March 2025, [21:27] former Philippine President Rodrigo [21:29] Duterte arrested actually arrested the [21:32] first non-African suspect they've ever [21:34] actually arrested. Now, I'm not saying [21:36] this to say that they're racist against [21:38] Africans. No, no, no, no, no. It's it's [21:40] it's it's more cynical than that. [21:45] Now, a a caveat about all these African [21:48] cases. A lot of those African cases [21:51] didn't start with the ICC going after [21:53] them, but they were referred by other [21:54] Africans. [21:56] Okay? Like Uganda, Congo, Central [21:58] African Republic, Mali, those [21:59] governments referred themselves to the [22:01] court. They asked the ICC to come in and [22:03] intervene. The Darur and Libya cases [22:07] came from the UN Security Council [22:09] referral. [22:11] But, and this is the point, [22:15] look at what this actually tells you. [22:16] Even when it's not the ICC's own [22:18] initiative, the only ones who ever end [22:20] up getting handed over for prosecution [22:22] are Africans. Why? Here's my theory. A [22:26] fragile African government has no real [22:30] geopolitical leverage. [22:34] It has no [clears throat] leverage [22:34] internally either. It can refer its own [22:37] breakaway militia leader to the HEG and [22:40] let the HEG take care of it. The the UN [22:43] Security Council can refer Sudan or [22:46] Libya and the five permanent members of [22:48] the Security Council are not compromised [22:50] by that. [22:52] They're not they're never referring [22:54] anyone with power with real power. In 20 [22:57] years, they never had a case where [23:01] prosecuting the defendant actually [23:03] threatened anyone really powerful on the [23:05] geopolitical stage. These African [23:07] warlords have no real power. There's no [23:10] repercussions if you go after them. [23:15] Let me say it this way. I've laid out [23:18] two pieces here, okay? Piece number one [23:21] is that the court was never built on [23:23] anything resembling the consent of the [23:24] people it claims to judge. not [23:26] Americans, not Israelis, and in plenty [23:28] of cases, not even the citizens of its [23:30] own member states. Piece number two is [23:32] that for 20 years, the only cases this [23:34] court could actually deal with really [23:38] were cases against people with no power [23:40] to contest the legitimacy of the court. [23:43] African militia commanders and warlords, [23:45] no one no one with a veto in the UN or [23:49] or or any serious economic power, really [23:52] serious diplomatic power in the world. [23:54] Put those two pieces together and here's [23:56] the actual actual argument I'm making. [24:00] This a court with no consentbased claim [24:03] to authority [24:06] can still function for a very long time [24:07] and build up a record of doing a lot [24:12] by just going after people who are too [24:15] weak to challenge them on the [24:18] international stage. That's how the ICC [24:20] built its reputation. Look, we actually [24:23] convict people. We're not just talking. [24:25] We actually do stuff. Cuz if for 20 [24:27] years they didn't actually convict [24:28] anyone, then they'd then they'd be a [24:29] joke to everybody and no one would take [24:31] them seriously because they say it's not [24:32] a real court. They've never had a case. [24:35] So they do. So they pile up dozens of [24:37] cases [24:39] against these African warlords that are [24:41] easy pickings [24:43] and there's no geopolitical cost and [24:45] then they can claim this credibility [24:47] because look at all the cases we've [24:48] dealt with [24:50] because there's zero political risk by [24:53] going after them. [24:55] So, it's the only kind of case that they [24:57] could close out successfully. [25:01] And then along comes [25:04] 2022, a warrant for Putin. Has anything [25:08] happened to Putin from that warrant? No, [25:10] because Russia's not a member of the [25:12] ICC. Doesn't recognize the court, and [25:14] the warrant is is is useless. It's a [25:17] piece of paper he'll never have to [25:18] answer for. The same thing with [25:20] Netanyahu, a sitting prime minister of a [25:22] democracy with an arrest warrant from [25:24] the ICC. He's traveled internationally [25:26] since that warrant was issued. He hasn't [25:28] been arrested because the because the [25:31] countries that matter to Israel's [25:32] relationships are not going to hand him [25:34] over. [25:35] The court can issue a warrant. It can't [25:37] enforce it against anyone who actually [25:40] has power. It can enforce it against [25:41] African warlords, but not against people [25:43] with real power. So, you end up you end [25:46] up with a two-tier system. Even if you [25:48] say the ICC is a wonderful court, it's a [25:50] two-tier system, [25:52] objectively, it just is. Whether the [25:54] court intended it or not, when the [25:56] defendant is weak, the ICC can can [25:58] prosecute them, can arrest them, can [26:00] convict them, can put them in a cell in [26:02] the Hague. That's the African warlords. [26:04] That's Duterte. But when the defendant [26:06] has any real power, whether it's Putin [26:10] or Netanyahu or whoever [26:14] American soldiers who were fighting in [26:16] Iraq, then the warrant becomes symbolic [26:19] at best and the court has no actual [26:22] mechanism to do anything about it. [26:24] So, it ends up being a two-tiered legal [26:26] system. Once the court reached, you [26:29] know, started reaching, you know, for [26:31] cases against really powerful people, it [26:33] it didn't only fail, [26:36] it actually triggered what's happening [26:38] now, which is the first serious attempt [26:40] by a major power to defund and dismantle [26:43] the institution altogether. [26:45] That's what we're watching play out. So, [26:47] when the Trump administration says this [26:49] course has exceeded its mandate, I think [26:51] the I think the more accurate way to put [26:53] it, the sharper way to put it is this. [26:55] The ICC's entire track record was built [26:57] on cases that could never generate this [26:59] kind of push back because the defendants [27:01] had no way to push back. [27:04] The day it tried the day that the ICC [27:07] tried the same playbook on countries [27:11] with real power like Russia or or Israel [27:15] or Americans, it found out that [27:17] international law without consent and [27:19] without real enforcement power behind it [27:21] is nonsense. [27:25] You can convict a militia commander from [27:27] the Congo. Lovely. [27:30] Look, this all ties back to the to the [27:32] main point I made in my last video [27:36] that [27:37] a court that spent 20 years never [27:40] touching anyone with real power and then [27:41] goes after the leader of the one Middle [27:43] Eastern democracy that's a close US ally [27:46] is applying its standard selectively. [27:49] and the sanctions fight happening now is [27:52] is just the result of that. So, we'll [27:55] keep tracking this story. Uh they [27:57] announced a 180day windown clock that's [28:00] now running and either the ICC's member [28:02] states negotiate something with [28:04] Washington or we're about to find out [28:06] what Rubio meant by ending the IC. [28:10] So, yeah, that's this video. I'm done [28:13] with this one. I hope you found it [28:14] interesting. Please like, share, [28:16] subscribe. Please share it with someone [28:17] who you think should hear it and drop a [28:20] comment. Let me know what you think of [28:20] this issue. I do read as many of the [28:22] comments as I can. So, thanks for [28:25] watching. God bless.
