From its inception, the United States of America has been a shining beacon of freedom and democracy to the rest of the world. We have been the place to which the world’s victims of tyranny have aspired to emigrate . . . as did countless millions, including my own grandparents.

We were the country that didn’t start wars, but never hesitated to send our troops to the defense of our allies against invasion.

We have been the first to condemn and sanction the despots, dictators, autocrats, violators of human rights in the darkest corners of the world.

We have been at the forefront of the United Nations (and its Security Council), and of NATO, in helping to keep mankind as safe as possible in an inherently unsafe world.

So how is it possible, as we approach the 250th anniversary of our nation’s birth, that we are now embroiled in controversy with the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the very sort of action of which we have been so critical for so long?

A little background: The ICC is a global court that has the power to bring prosecutions for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It has, for example, issued a warrant against Vladimir Putin for his kidnapping and detainment of hundreds of Ukrainian children since the start of his war against Ukraine in 2022.

The United States — though an original signatory to the Rome Statute that created the ICC in 2000 — never followed through with the necessary Senate ratification. In fact, former President George W. Bush formally withdrew the country’s Rome Statute signature in 2002, on the ground that it might interfere with national sovereignty. Thus, the U.S. is not an ICC member, and is not bound by its rulings . . . which explains how Donald Trump was able to invite Vladimir Putin to Alaska without having to arrest him.

The Court also issued arrest warrants last November for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his former defense chief Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Masri, for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in the course of the ongoing Gaza conflict.

And Trump — being an avowed ally of Netanyahu and a behind-the-scenes buddy of Putin — has taken umbrage at the ICC’s actions. Three months ago, he issued sanctions against four of the Court’s judges. And now he has chosen two additional judges and two prosecutors as the latest victims of his sanctions in connection with the ICC’s actions against Israeli leaders, claiming — in a statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio — “a national security threat that has been an instrument of lawfare” against the United States and Israel. [Humeyra Pamuk and Anthony Deutsch, Reuters, August 20, 2025.]

Rubio continued:

“[The] United States has been clear and steadfast in our opposition to the ICC’s politicization, abuse of power, disregard for our national sovereignty, and illegitimate judicial overreach. I urge countries that still support the ICC, many of whose freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices, to resist the claims of this bankrupt institution.” [Id.]

The four sanctioned members of the Court, all of whom have been involved in cases linked to Israel and the United States, are from the member states of France, Fiji, Senegal and Canada. Both France and the United Nations have expressed anger at Trump’s action; the ICC called the move “a flagrant attack” against the independence of an impartial judicial institution, and warned that it could impede the functioning of the Court. [Id.]

But beyond that, it is an extension of Trump’s ongoing assault against his own country’s judiciary. He has stacked the U.S. Supreme Court with six (out of a total of nine justices) of his toadying sycophants; appointed more of the same to every vacancy that has arisen in the federal court system; and installed still more of his lackeys to take control of the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, and the nation’s intelligence agencies.

So why not the ICC as well? In Trump’s world atop his gold-plated Mount Olympus, it’s the natural next step: If they don’t agree with him, he simply sets out to destroy them. The fact that the ICC is not an American institution, but an independent court of international jurisdiction, is meaningless to him; his reach knows no boundaries. He recognizes no authority above his own.

In his mind, he is Zeus.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
8/22/25