The International Criminal Court’s Threat to the Sovereignty of the United States and its Allies

We'll start again, good afternoon. Good afternoon. And there's an echo in here. I wanna thank you all for coming here today. The subcommittee will come to order without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. We welcome everyone here today to a hearing on the International Criminal Court. and its threat to the sovereignty of the United States and its allies. I'll now recognize myself for a short opening statement. International law, to the extent it exists, is made up of countries entering into treaties. Often people will say that they have an inter-la- national law practice. That means they're practicing over the borders and trying to know the law of one to three non-U. S. entities. It is a far cry from saying that there is such a thing as international law. International law can be two countries or the entire United Nations, which represents uh the vast and greatest single treaty organization. NATO has proven to be the most effective treaty organization. Each of those binds the Congress, after review by the Supreme Court, to the the particulars of that. No such thing exists in the United States as a treaty that would create the International Criminal Court in the United States. The International Criminal Court itself is just a treaty to those who have signed on to it, but a treaty that people can exit and re-enter. A treaty that in some cases can be used by one country to prosecute its own citizen when no such law exists or at least is not indicted. This has happened in the Philippines in real time in the last few months. In the months of his campaign, the new New York Mayor, uh Mayor um Ma- Ma- I always do this, Mandami said that his city government would arrest Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu on its ICC arrest warrant. Again, as I said in earlier in my opening statement, even leaving aside the fact that mayors do not have such a right, governors do not have such a right, the reality is the United States would not have such a right, because we are not a signature to it. Other members of the Democratic Party, including House colleagues here, uh have also echoed the same thing, that they would arrest the Prime Minister of a foreign country here under diplomatic cover and diplomatic uh uh visa under a claim of an international court for which we are not a signatory. I take this threat seriously because it implies that in fact there is a valid arrest warrant for a foreign leader, rather than an arrest warrant that can be very political in nature. An example would be that it took more than two years of pushing for the International Criminal Court to indict uh President Putin for his crimes in Ukraine. Having said that, Bashar Assad was never indicted by the International Criminal Court, even as he murdered his own people and people of surrounding countries including using chemical weapons. The USA was there for the negotiation for this agreement, and chose not to be a signature, and very wisely so. Also, Israel is not a signature to it. As a result, today's hearing will include the threat of those who believe that we should essentially observe something that we've chosen not to observe. So, well, these threats that I referred to could be empty, nevertheless, it calls into question the greater question for this c this subcommittee, which is the sovereignty of the American people, their elected government, our judiciary, and in fact, the constitution that spells this out clearly, quote, the judicial powers of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time uh uh ordain to establish." This portion of the Constitution has never been amended and I doubt that it ever will. As a req- result, the ICC or any other court, foreign or domestic, that does not fall under this constitutional limitation is in fact invalid, and yet Political figures in our country at all levels continue to state that in fact this in fact has, should be enforced. In in two thousand two Congress went the other direction when it passed the American Service Members Protection Act. That act authorized the president to use I quote, " all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied persons being detained or imprisoned by or beha- on behalf of, yes, the ICC, the International Criminal Court. President Biden, uh, President Obama and President, uh, Clinton all refused to enter to to enter the United States into the ICC. And I'm gonna repeat, in addition to Republican presidents, President Biden, President Obama and President Clinton, all refused to put themselves under the sovereignty of a nebulous foreign power. So these current calls to uh reveal just how far the and I'll say it not trying to be partisan in this partisan season, but as far as I know it's only Democrats that are even suggesting this, so my script says how far the Democrats have moved in just a few short years, throwing under the bus their three most recent presidents, even without the consent of the American people. Democrats want the ICC to exercise criminal jurisdiction over American citizens and those traveling within our borders. They also want other means of lawfare to be disposed. For example, and I mentioned this earlier, in the Philippines, a former president was arrested under ICC warrant sought by his own political enemies. If this were to happen here, anyone in this country that could get the ICC to issue an arrest warrant for the actions of one American citizen, even if under our own constitution, could in fact ha create a situation in which, yes, the mayor of uh of New York might in fact find himself in a position to arrest one American, who simply was unfortunate enough to lose an election against another. So let's make it clear, no treaty binds our country without consent, no court has the power over the people who never agreed to submit to it. The United States did not consent to the ICC, the American people did not consent to the ICC, and no foreign court, no matter how many treaties it points to, how vocal its proponents are, gets to make the decision on behalf of the American citizen, because ultimately the United States Constitution has not been amended. That is why ultimately what is at stake today, despite the efforts of pr- of the Trump administration and Secretary Rubio to dismantle the ICC may be my Democrat colleagues remaining silent in condemning the threats to our sovereignty. And on that note, I'll yield to the ranking member.

I thank the chairman for yielding. Normally I would thank him for holding this uh very important hearing.

You can still thank him.

Very uh timely hearing, but uh this is uh far afield from what American uh what the American people want us to be talking about, they're concerned with paying the bills, groceries, Uh, they're concerned about living in America They can't do it, but yet they look up and they see a few trillionaires and billionaires corruptly, uh, you know, soaking, uh, their profits. soaking money directly out of the profit, out of the pockets and pocketbooks of uh regular working people in the country. And they don't like what they see and they don't like what they're hearing when they see us addressing issues like the International Criminal Court uh, which has nothing to do with their cost. America's commitment to the rule of law should not end at our borders. If we believe accountability is foundation of justice at home, then we should not undermine or ignore it when it crimes are committed abroad. But for some reason that is exactly what we are doing here today. On its face, this hearing serves to benefit Donald Trump and his friends like Vladimir Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un and Bukele. And this all while he leaves the American people to suffer under the consequences of his failed policies. Because while we are allegedly here today to discuss how the International Criminal Court quote threatens in in quote our sovereignty and that of our allies, much like the Trump administration's other manufactured crises, it's a farce, a smokescreen, a pathetic excuse to mask the true nature behind this hearing. to distract from the corruption and greed and cruelty of Donald Trump and his cronies here in Congress. While Trump and his MAGA Republican minions are here talking about sovereignty, American families are worried about how they are going to pay for gas and groceries and everything else that inevitably gets more expensive when war sends energy prices soaring. Over the weekend, the cost of diesel fuel hit an all-time record high, while Trump is encouraging big tech to continue building enormous data centers in our backyards, putting unprecedented demands on our already strained energy grid. That is the reality for millions of Americas, not an abstract debate about international law. This hearing will not put gas in the tank, or food on the table. It will help my colleagues across the aisle talk about anything other than the consequences of Trump's self-serving policies, and their mindless support for This administration is asking Americans to look abroad and fear an international court that we don't even belong to, when the American people don't need another distraction. They need a government focused on making their lives more affordable, not one manufacturing new enemies abroad to distract from the fact that President Trump is increasing the economic pressures facing American families every single day. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle can talk about sovereignty all they want, but I believe the American people deserve a government that understands their actual problems. not one that is only concerned with the president's ego and helping him get richer on the backs of American workers. This manufactured attack on international cooperation comes at a crucial time when the world faces threats no one could solve alone, no country can solve alone. Nuclear weapons proliferation. Donald Trump has instructed our military to com- recommence testing of nuclear bombs. We're dealing with nuclear proliferation, we're dealing with climate change. And the increasingly unchecked development of artificial intelligence. We got the head of a uh artificial inte- intelligence company telling us that mankind may be no longer, in ten years or less. Some say by the end of the decade, that's only four years away. We're facing, and he's calling for a slowdown of development of artificial intelligence. And what do we do in Congress? We go back on vacation. After being on vacation for four weeks, five weeks, now we going back on a six week vacation, all so that My colleagues on the other side of the aisle can get re-elected, and all of this while the country is facing exis existential danger. In July, an open AI test became uncontrollable when agents hacked into the servers of an AI company, Hugging Face which just got sold for twelve billion dollars by the way. Just a s- a drop in the bucket however, th twelve billion dollars That's nothing to those up at the top with gazillions of money, the first trillionaire uh in the country's history. Uh, just last week Anthropic disclosed another instance of one of their models hacking an external system during testing. Nobody instructed the I the AI to take these actions. This is the AI thinking for itself, being programmed to think for itself. escaping the guardrails that human beings in their uh wisdom and intelligence set. Uh, but it was not enough. It's ominous uh, you know, where we're headed. Now each of these incidents is concerning on its own, and they raise real questions about the soundness of the evaluation set-ups. But the larger question is what happens when these same capabilities are in the hands of someone who intends harm, or when it's the machines themselves that are dictating what they do, and speaking in language that human beings can't even decipher or understand, what happens then? We should be having conversations about robust safety standards here at home. The reason we have not is because Donald Trump has told his cronies in Congress that they cannot regulate AI. That is why this very subcommittee had a hearing last year to try to preempt all state laws that try to regulate AI. We have a narrow window, ladies and gentlemen, to get this right, and while we should be collaborating with our allies to address AI, augmented cyber security and autonomous Weaponry concerns. My colleagues across the aisle are instead busy trying to take the ICC apart brick by brick. Instead of dismantling international cooperative organizations, we need to be strengthening them. All on Donald Trump's orders. Working together with our allies, this we should not be embarked on another cold war. where we spend billions upon billions and indeed trillions of dollars trying to build the biggest nuclear bomb or trying the biggest, trying to build the most powerful AI capacity, another nuclear arms way race that puts us all on the brink of extinction, we should be as human beings working together, not just America first, but America China and other nations in the world working to uh address this threat, not just to Americans but to humanity. Yet it has become clear that Trump and MAGA Republicans are incapable of moving in that direction. Instead, they confuse sovereignty with isolation and strength with intimidation. They confused putting America first with putting America alone. History has shown that America is strongest when we lead, when we stand with our allies and our enemies, and understand that the choice before us is not between sovereignty and international cooperation. We can either choose to confront these challenges together, or we can f- confront their consequences, either alone or with everyone else. We're all going through the same grave. It is my sincere hope that we choose to work together to solve these exist existential threats to humanity. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Let's let's uh maybe you can enlighten us on your ideas on how we can lower cost for uh, for you and your family uh, and for me and mine. I don't I don't know if you're prepared to discuss that today. But I would gladly yield my time to anyone who has a prescription.

The gentleman's time has now expired.

And I'll yield the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee for his opening statement.

Uh, I I'll pass on an opening statement. Just wanna thank our witnesses for being here for this important hearing, and yield back to the to the chair.

Gentleman yields back. With that, I'll introduce our panel. Without objection, all opening statements uh other than those will be placed in the record. And introducing our distinguished panel, we start with Profess- Professor Abraham Bell. Mister Bell is a Professor of Law at University of San Diego, the finest conservative private college anywhere, but particularly in San Diego. He I'm allowed to be biased guys. Um He is also Professor of Law uh at Bar- Bar-

Bar-Ilan.

Bar-Ilan, of course. University in Tel Aviv, Israel, where he focuses on trademark and intellectual property law, real property and international law, and and its theories, and flew back for this hearing. Thank you. Mister Stuart Smith. Mister Smith is an investigative analyst at the City Journal. a publication as part of the Manhattan Institute. His work focuses on political extremism and the extremism movement. Ambassador Stephen Rapp. Mister Rapp, Ambassador Rapp, is a senior fellow at the Georgetown Law Center for National Security. He previously served as ambassador at large for war crimes issues from two thousand nine to two thousand fifteen. I wanna welcome all of our uh guests here today and ask you to please rise to take the oath. In the usual right hand, if you would please. Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty uh under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give will be the true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief? So help you God.

I do. I do.

Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. All of you have seen C-SPAN, I know, many times. They'll have five minutes. The red, green and uh and yellow lights will indicate, as they always do, green for go, red for stop and yell yell for yellow for hurry up and stop. Um, however, rest assured that your entire opening statements, along with supplemental material, you may provide will be included in the record. With that, I'll begin with Professor Bell.

at the University of San Diego. I'm in the far right corner.

Professor,

Oh, there he is.

would you mind, yeah, just move it a little closer and make sure the red light's on.

Yes. Uh, it's, it is.

You've come too far not to be heard.

Okay.

I'm not sure th- eh, there we go.

There we go.

Okay. Um, Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee, uh, my mem- my name is Abraham Bell, Avi, Avi Bell. I'm a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, as you mentioned, uh, and at the Faculty of Law at Bariland University. And I thank you for the opportunity to uh appear today. Secretary Rubio has called for the dismantling of the International Criminal Court, and I'm here to tell you that he is right, and to explain why as someone who has spent uh a career in this field. In the abstract, the court's mission sounds noble, justice for the world's worst crimes. But we owe it to ourselves to just judge the institution by its record, not by its rhetoric. And the record is one of failure. Start with the numbers. In more than twenty years of operation, on a budget of now roughly two hundred million dollars per year, The court has secured just eleven convictions, and only six of those worth for the core atrocity crimes that e- exist to prosecute. Six in two decades. By that measure, the court is spending on the order of eight hundred million dollars for each core conviction. No institution genuinely devoted to criminal justice could operate this way. What sustains it is not justice, it is its own budget, its own pa- patronage, and the approval of the uh European governments that fund it. That failure is not an accident. It is built into the nature of what this court attempts. International law is not law as we know it. It is a set of agreements among states. It is not democratic, as its subjects have no voice in its making, and it binds states, not individuals. Turning that into a criminal code, and using it to prosecute individuals who never consented to it, is a dangerous enterprise. And the Rome Statute recognized as much, it built the court to respect state sovereignty and to defer to national justice systems. The court has since cast those limits aside. It now claims jurisdiction over the citizens of nations that never joined it including the United States. And it has shrunk the promise to defer to national courts down to almost nothing. It has invented a category of pseudo-states to reach defendants it could otherwise not touch, a device used in practice against Israelis. Consider how the court has approached the war in Gaza. Speaking from Cairo, the prosecutor, uh the since uh deposed prosecutor, described the two sides in opposite terms. For Palestinian perpetrators, he spoke of crimes to be pursued, quote, " if proven". For Israel, he announced that its leaders, quote, must be able to account for their actions, that they would need to demonstrate the lawfulness of each strike, of each strike, and that the burden of proof rested on his words, Those who fire the gun, that is a presumption of guilt, announced in public in advance. It is the opposite of due process. And when the charges came, they were of a peace without posture. The indictments remain sealed, but it is evident to those of us who work in this area, that the available evidence would not prove the guilt of uh Prime Minister Netanyahu or Minister Gollant beyond a reasonable doubt uh of the crimes described and that the courts reading of those crimes departs sharply from their settled meaning. The charges were rolled out through celebrity endorsements. That is the conduct of a political campaign, not of a court. Here's why this should concern this committee regardless of one's view of any particular conflict. Because the United States, Israel, and Russia will never hand their people to to this court. Its theories will never be tested by a real defense. freed from the discipline of actually having to prove things in court. The court can stretch the law as far as it likes, and the elastic theories it builds against Israeli commanders today, will reach his American commanders tomorrow. We've already seen the court move against US personnel over Afghanistan. For nearly twenty years we have had laws and books to answer this, and for a decade we have imposed occasional sanctions. Unfortunately, the court has ignored all of it. Half measures have failed because the in- incentives in the court are impervious to them. So I urge this committee to support decisive steps, to diplomatic pressure on states to withdraw and to fund, criminalizing co- cooperation with the court's actions against protected persons, broader sanctions, and a remedy for the victim of wrongful pros- pros- pros- pros- prosecution. This is not a t- attack on the rule of law, it is a defense of it. A court that has abandoned the limits that made it legitimate is not

Thank you. Mister Smith, you're recognized.

Thank you to the chairman and the ranking member and the rest of the committee for the opportunity to address you. I am an investigative analyst who focuses on extremism. I am here to discuss the DSA's international activities and organizing efforts, which I believe pose significant concerns for American sovereignty. These activities are rooted in proletarian internationalism, a revolutionary anti-imperialist vision of global working class solidarity aimed at overthrowing capitalism. The causes the DSA champions abroad are antithetical to the American project. Their support for governments, including Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea, raise serious concerns about its willingness to minimize or disregard the authoritarian practices and human rights abuses associated with those regimes. DSA's national leadership is increasingly acting as an international political actor, developing relationships with foreign political parties, participating in foreign delegations, coordinating with overseas political movements, and engaging in domestic political advocacy that intersects with the interests of foreign governments. There's a common saying inside the DSA, Put ten socialists in a room and you will get eleven different answers. The phrase reflects the organi or the the phrase reflects the organization's big tent character, bringing together anarchists, communists, Maoists, Marxists, Leninists, socialists, social democrats, and others across the left. It obscures a more important question, who has the power to turn those eleven answers into reality? The most obvious place to start is the DSA's primary national governing body. the National Political Committee, the NPC. Since its election in August twenty twenty five, the current NPC has pursued an unprecedented level of international engagement. Across multiple countries, DSA delegations have operated through state-controlled organizations, including Cuba's Cuban Institute of Friendship with the Peoples, ICAP, Venezuela's Simon Bolivar Institute for Peace and Solidarity among Peoples, SBI, and China's China's NGO network for international exchange, CNIE. These organizations function as extensions of state power, cultivating foreign sympathizers, and promoting government interests abroad. ICAP was just sanctioned by the US treasury. The CNIE has been identified as part of the CCP's broader influence network, providing them with a channel to exert influence, often covertly, around the world. These delegations spend several days networking and participating in political programming. often meeting with government officials upon returning to the United States, participants are expected to translate those experiences into advocacy and organizing. The forty person delegation to Cuba in October of twenty twenty five included both national co-chairs both young Democratic Socialist of America co-chairs and additional members of the NPC the DSA later described the Cuba delegation as its leading example of internationalism. Organizers returning from the trip reported meeting with senior Cuban government officials and outlined plans for future Cuba related organizing efforts. In the months that followed, the DSA expanded its Cuba focused activities through advocacy, fundraising, material assistance, and organized travel. It participated in the Nuestra America convoy, helped facilitate Hassan Peiker's visit to Cuba, launched its Stop the Siege campaign, expanded its delegation fund, and took part in the Cuba Under Siege conference. featuring virtual participation from ICAP representatives. This organizing continued even as the United States expanded sanctions targeting the Cuban regime including the ICAP representatives who appeared at that conference. Despite those sanctions, the DSA joined a an August twenty twenty-six delegation commemorating the one hundredth anniversary of Fidel Castro's birth. To quote the to quote Ahmed Hussein from the DSA's NPC, we consider ourselves part of an international left. Many of us do organize in multiple countries and have connections. I grew up in a p left party overseas and we're accountable to all of our comrades both here and overseas. We don't see our struggles as separate but as one. This testimony has examined only a fraction of the available record, as the DSA continues to expand its international engagements while a- advancing what it has described as a

Thank you, Ambassador.

Mr. Chairman, honorable members, uh, mister ranking member, I'm honored to appear before you to state that the International Criminal Court is not a threat to US sovereignty, and that US engagement with the ICC can further our long-standing commitment to accountability for atrocities while protecting American security interests and those of our allies. I based this on my long experience as an international prosecutor, and my six years representing US interest at the ICC as Ambassador at Large for war crimes issues and global criminal justice, during two thousand nine to two thousand fifteen. Even when there were preliminary invest in examinations of US conduct and uh and Israeli conduct in Gaza, we were able to persuade court officials not to open formal investigations. First in deciding the best approach to the ICC, we must remember that international criminal justice is a US initiated project, launched by us after World War Two with the Nuremberg prosecution led by US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. That process resulted in precedent setting guilty verdicts against the major surviving Nazi leaders, rendered eighty years ago this month. Later at international courts established under US leadership, powerful men responsible for mass atrocities were brought to justice, including Kambanda, Milosevic, Karadich, Mladic, Taylor. When our allies decided to establish a permanent international court, we did not join it, and as the chairman has told us, the United States passed the American Service Members Protection Act in two thousand two, that limits our engagement with that court. But by the end of the Bush administration, the US was the strongest supporter of the ICC's arrest warrants in Sudan. During the Obama administration, we used the authority of ASPA's Dodd amendment, which permitted US assistance to the ICC in cases involving alleged atrocities committed by non-citizens of the US to sport all of the ICC's then active investigations and prosecutions. Most prominently when two warlords, Enda Ganda in two thousand fifteen and Ungwen in two thousand, Fifteen, surrendered to US officers in Africa, we assisted in transferring them to The Hague, strongly advancing our commitment to accountability for uh for armed groups conduct and vi- atrocities in the DR Congo, and in and by the LRA in Uganda and neighboring countries. If the US were to be successful in dismantling the ICC, the question arises where accountability would be achieved for genocide in Darfur, where the ICC is continuing jurisdiction. As we see the RFSF's own videos and photos from the last several days, of them shooting hundreds of innocent men, women and children, and pushing their bodies into ditches, in scenes reminiscent of the Izetz group and murder of Jews in World War Two. Second, when it comes to avoiding investigations or prosecution of our personnel or allies who are not ICC state parties, the argument that the EICC has no jurisdiction is neither legally or strategically sound. The basis for ICC's jurisdiction is in line with the fundamental concept of territorial jurisdiction which is integral to state sovereignty. If you murder someone in London, the British will decide where to try you. It does not interfere with US sovereignty because the ICC has no jurisdiction over American citizens acting in the United States. It is only when we act on the territory of a state party that the ICC can possibly reach us. Um. Recently the Bush administra excuse me, the Obama admin or uh the Trump administration has argued that uh, we're being threatened by the ICC, that there's a threat to US personnel. Based on the facts, based on the law, I know of no situation in the world where US is engaged, where the ICC would have that jurisdiction. In fact, the magic bullet in protecting the US interest at the ICC is complementarity, the principle that the ICC does not have jurisdiction, where a state um has the capacity and the will to prosecute itself. In two thousand twenty two, thanks to this principle and the engagement of my successor, the ICC prosecutor deprioritized the investigation of US and allied personnel in Afghanistan. Third and finally, sanctioning the judges and other officials of an international criminal court is the wrong approach. Sanctions should be used against those who act like terrorists or mass killers, not judges who join the court after after distinguished careers in the judicial systems of our most trusted allies. Judicial independence is fundamental to the rule of law, and in our annual human rights reports we justifiably criticize countries where the judges are subject to political control or influence. This is also a tactic that will not work. We must ask ourselves, if we were judges, would we bend our decision because of a threat from an interested party? If we did, it would destroy our reputations and end our careers. As Justice Robert Jackson said in a great speech in April nineteen forty five, before his appointment as Nuremberg prosecutor, we cannot successfully cooperate with the rest of the world in establishing a reign of law unless we're prepared to have that law sometimes operate, against what would be our national advantage. And one final que point

The the gentleman's time has expired.

If I could add

The rest will the rest will be placed in for the record.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. We now go to the gentleman from Eastern Washington for his five minutes. Mr. Bongroch.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, yeah, this is a very important hearing. I thank the witnesses, uh, for being here, uh, today. You know, when you become a member of Congress, you swear an oath, uh, to the Constitution. And part of that oath is Article one, section eight, that talks about, uh, provide Congress providing for the common defense of these United States. And one of the reasons that I am very concerned about the ICC is what uh a potential prosecution of US service members uh through an unjust ICC process could do to our military recruitment. And, you know, this is not a uh a uh theoretical uh concern. We saw during the Biden administration when year after year uh the army was unable to meet its military recruitment goals, Uh indeed, in both uh twenty twenty two and twenty twenty three, uh the army failed to meet its recruitment goals by fifteen thousand troops, twenty five percent lower uh than that target rate uh of sixty thousand troops. It could only recruit forty five uh thousand troops, in part if you do uh when I talk to my uh constituents and you talk to folks who served in the military here this in part is view to the view that the military had gone woke. had gone uh political in that sense in that service members may not be treated fairly. And if we potentially see uh a uh ICC that is run uh amok and can uh prosecute American service members uh for uh doing their duty to protect our country, I am very concerned that uh when we go to recruit uh our next cadre of military forces that are gonna protect us, They're gonna folks are gonna say, " I'm not signing up for this. You know, I'll protect the United States," but that America's mothers and fathers will not send their sons and daughters uh to defend this country, uh if they are uh having to uh be subjected uh to potential ICC uh prosecution. Uh so, you know, thi this is a concern we saw what happened, we all know what happens to these international institutions. Uh, we saw what happened to the World Health Organization uh during the COVID epidemic. uh when uh they were got were co-opted uh by China and uh would not uh stay, even though it's World Health Organization, would not say that COVID originated um i in China. And now the idea that the Amer America would be subject uh to the ICC, we know what will happen uh to this organization. So, you know, I'll start with with with you um uh, Mr. Smith. Uh, if you were uh talking to America's uh sons and uh mothers and fathers about having their sons and daughters uh step forward to uh to serve our country what concerns would have you have about them, uh cert uh uh being subject to ICC prosecution?

So I was brought here to discuss the DSA, but I would defer to Professor Bell.

Well let's go to Professor Bell then.

Okay, I could, I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

Well should America's mothers and fathers have concerns about their sons and daughters uh serving in our military uh if the US is subject to the ICC?

I'm sorry to say that they absolutely should. I think that uh, if the present course continues, I think that um, it is likely that the ICC will attempt to charge uh, Americans with crimes. And um, uh, if I may, I, I would like to say something about uh, the uh, the, the, the ambassador's uh, testimony. I think it's important, and with all the, with all due respect, and I, I have enormous respect, for uh the ambassador's uh work in his distinguished career, I think it's looking at things exactly upside down to talk about the handful of genuine criminals that have been brought to justice. The the real problem that we have in a in a in a pro in a system that respects due process, we allow sometimes the guilty to go free, to protect freedoms. We uh uh allow um the guilty to go free because the i- evidence was improperly gathered, because the court lacks jurisdiction, because the prosecutor has uh acted unjustly, it is a a near guarantee that American service people will, if they face charges, will not be protected by due process. They will be judged by a court that will lack jurisdiction, by a process that will not respect the rules of evidence, by uh a prosecutor.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. I'm just gonna, I got fifteen seconds left, so I just wanna close up a lot of my argument here. We saw during COVID that uh because of concerns of woke political activity in our military that we were short on military recruitment. If America is subject to ICC uh jurisdiction, and we get a prosecution overseas of American service member, it will uh impact the very basics of trying to fulfill our duty to protect this country. Congress cannot allow it. We uh swore an oath to provide for the common defense of this country. We have to have a military that serves. We cannot be subject to the ICC. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and with that I yield back.

Thank the gentleman, we now go to the gentleman from Georgia for his comments.

Uh thank you, Professor Bell. Uh it, comforting I would guess that you would uh know that of the handful of genuine criminals who have been brought to justice, before the ICC and found guilty, uh, a disproportionate number have been from African nations. That's gives you some comfort, doesn't it?

I think that the the disproportionate attention

So in other words, uh,

Oh.

uh, doesn't look like this, the state of Israel has, uh, any worries that would come from, uh, being subject to international criminal court jurisdiction.

Um, uh I I think you mis-apprehend me. I think the disproportionate attention

Maybe maybe s maybe I maybe I did, and if so I apologize, but is is there any evidence in your mind that the ICC is an imminent threat to uh US sovereignty?

Yes, I think that it is already a threat to US sovereignty right now.

I mean, how could that be when the US is not signed on to the treaty.

The the uh the ICC has already started once uh preliminary actions against American defendants and has done so with uh

But it's non-binding though, of course. And uh, you know, any international organization can choose to sanction criminal conduct or misconduct uh committed by anybody uh in this world, whether or not they were black, white, Asian.

It's it most certainly is binding.

Well, well, let me ask uh, Mister Smith. Mister Smith, you were uh brought to this hearing uh to uh not talk about the uh International Criminal Court, correct?

Well, I was brought here to s to to discuss how it intersects with the DSA,

And so, well, tell me, do you think the price of gas

due to

is a threat to US sovereignty?

I was brought here to discuss how the DSA

Do you uh, well, hey, you can answer my question. I know I I've already covered that. Do you do you think that the price of gas is uh a threat to US sovereignty?

To the extent your expertise allows for it, of course you can answer.

Uh, I do not think it is a threat to US sovereignty, the price of gas.

Do not.

I don't.

You don't see a revolution by the uh uh DSA uh bringing in the communists to try to replace the American uh capitalist system? You don't see that as a threat?

So when DSA invokes something like affordability, there are plenty of well-meaning people

By the way, that's all DSA is talking about, right, is affordability.

I mean they're also talking about North Korea as well.

Which is which is which is what Donald Trump says is a hoax. Do do you think do you think affordability is a hoax?

I think affordability is a very polished buzzword, and

So you don't think that it's real.

I mean, I'm having a hard time lis hearing you, could you move your mike a little closer please?

You don't th you don't think affordability is a real issue for the American people, some of whom may be watching this very uh relevant hearing?

I think affordability is

Because they are not working? Because AI has taken over their job? Uh, let me ask Ambassador Rapp, uh, do you have anything in response you would like to say to Professor Bell?

Well, I mean, clearly um the ICC is has uh been uh quite favourable to defendants. Uh, it's acquitted the major accused in Kenya, it's committed the the major accused in the Ivory Coast, including presidents and vice-presidents and and in Carr a vice-president. Uh, it's uh bends over backwards to protect the interests of the defence.

Yeah.

I'm I'm not worried about that.

Well, that is

Why does it focus its attention on African nations?

Well, i initially many of the African nations asked the IC

Are African nations the only nations led by war criminals?

No, uh but the ICC asked uh the countries asked the ICC to become involved in those situations. And the ICC also has the principle of complementarity. If you went to a situation like uh uh the the crimes being committed in the Congo, when they were being committed there was no justice system to handle it. So if there's no justice system, the ICC has jurisdiction. If you do have a strong justice system, then uh the ICC doesn't. Uh and and we have a very strong system of military justice. When Sergeant Bales uh uh kills uh sixteen civilians in Afghanistan, we prosecute him and give him a life sentence. We go after our own people.

ICC doesn't have a statement.

And as a result the ICC doesn't get involved. That's complementarity.

So there is no threat to American sovereignty by the existence.

As I say, there's no threat because they have no jurisdiction i within the United States. If we go abroad, just as when we go to London, they do have jurisdiction, but we can escape that by showing we're doing something about it.

Alright, with that I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. We now go to the gentlelady from Florida for her questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The questions before us today go to the heart of our constitutional system, the authority of international institutions, the limits of government power, and the responsibility of elected officials to uphold the law. Whether the issue is an international warrant or a domestic political organization's foreign relationships, the principle is the same. Authority must be lawful, power must be accountable, and the rights of the American people must be protected. Professor Bell, I would like to return to the discussion we've been having with you. Uh, the United States has not ratified the Rome statute, the ICC nevertheless claims that it can exercise jurisdiction over nationals of non-party countries, when the alleged conduct occurred in the territory of a party, or is referred by another state. You mentioned several concepts earlier that are core principles of our system of justice. Uh, jurisdiction, due process, the rules of evidence. Explain to us how in fact those things are important here, and a failure to protect them does in fact threaten our state sovereignty.

Sure, thank you. Um, so uh Ambassador Rapp mentioned accurately that there is something in international law called a territorial principle of jurisdiction, um, which would allow for example, uh, Britain to prosecute an American who committed a crime, and London. But there's nothing in international law that indicates that this can be delegated to to newly created treaty organizations, that Britain could then send this uh uh individual off to be um um uh judged in the latest kangaroo court created by um whatever treaty they just signed onto. Um, it is, the record is fairly clear that um the the court has been aggressive in going well beyond all of the bounds in the treaty, um not only in exercising uh territorial jurisdiction that has been improperly delegated. But in creating delegations out of thin air, where it takes a delegation from the Palestine Libera Liberation Organization, holding itself forth as the state of Palestine, in order to give jurisdiction to prosecute um um Israelis. And it is clear that it is not, the court is not respecting the basic rules of presumption of innocence, due process of law, um um uh clarity of rules to the defendants before the accusations are made, and all the other things that we take for granted. There, we have a j- a justice system in the United States that is perfectly capable of handling, um crimes that are committed within the jurisdiction of the United States. There is no reason to support any possibility of allowing Americans to be put on trial in this kangaroo court.