International Criminal Court & U.S. Sovereignty Hearing — September 15, 2026

07:06The 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.

07:21I 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 international law practice.

07:39That means they're practicing over the borders and trying to know the law of one, two, three non-US entities. It is a far cry from saying that there is such a thing as international law.

07:54National law can be two countries or the entire United Nations which represents 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 particulars of that.

08:18No 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 reenter.

08:37A treaty that in some cases can be used by one country to prosecute its own citizen when And no such law exists or at least is not indicted. This has happened in the Philippines in real time in the last few months.

09:00In the months of his campaign, the new New York Mayor, Mayor Mandami, said that his city government would arrest Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu on its ICC arrest warrant. Again, as I said 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.

09:36members of the Democratic Party including House colleagues here have also echoed the same thing, that they would arrest the Prime Minister of a foreign country here under diplomatic cover and diplomatic visa under a claim of an international court for which we are not signature.

10:00I 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 President Putin for his crimes in Ukraine.

10:20Having 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.

10:48Also Israel is not a signature to it. As 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 while these threats that I referred to could be empty, nevertheless, it calls into question the greater question for this subcommittee, which is the sovereignty of the American people, elected government, our judiciary, and in fact the Constitution that spells this out clearly.

11:28Quote, 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 ordained to establish. Unquote. This portion of the Constitution has never been amended and I doubt that it ever will.

11:50As a 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.

12:16In 2002, Congress went the other direction when it passed the American Servicemembers 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 be hat on behalf of yes the ICC the International Criminal Court President Biden President Obama and President Clinton all refused to enter to to enter the United States into the ICC and I'm going to 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 reveal just how far that 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 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.

13:43They 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 create a situation in which yes the mayor of 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 power over the people who never agreed to submit to it.

14:42The 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 the Trump administration and Secretary Rubio to dismantle the ICC may be my Democrat colleagues remaining silent in condemning the threats to our sovereignty.

15:28And on that note, I'll yield to the ranking member.

15:34I thank the chairman for yielding. Normally I would thank him for holding this very important hearing. You can still thank him. Very timely hearing, but this is far afield from what the American people want us to be talking about right now.

15:55You know, they're concerned with paying the bills, groceries, gas, diesel, rent. They are concerned about living in America and being able to make ends meet. They can't do it, but yet they look up and they see a few trillionaires and billionaires corruptly soaking their profits, soaking money directly out of the pockets and pocketbooks of regular working people in the country.

16:27And 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 which has nothing to do with their cost. America's commitment to the rule of law should not end at our borders.

16:48If we believe accountability is the foundation of justice at home, then we should not undermine or ignore it when crimes are committed abroad. But for some reason, that is exactly what we are doing here today.

17:04On its face, this hearing serves to benefit Donald Trump and his friends like 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.

17:23Because while we are allegedly here today to discuss how the International Criminal Court quote threatens end quote our sovereignty and that of our allies much like the Trump administration 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.

17:50While 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.

18:13Over 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.

18:27That 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 it.

19:01This 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.

19:32My 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 not one that is only concerned with the president's ego and helping him get richer on the backs of American workers.

19:49This 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 recommence testing of nuclear bombs.

20:07We're dealing with nuclear proliferation, we're dealing with climate change and the increasingly unchecked development of artificial intelligence. artificial intelligence. We got the head of a artificial intelligence company telling us that mankind may be no longer in 10 years or less.

20:32Some 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 development of artificial intelligence. And what do we do in Congress?

20:56We go back on vacation. After being on vacation for four weeks, five weeks, now we're going back on a six-week vacation, all so that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can get reelected.

21:10And all of this while the country is facing existential danger. 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 $12 billion, by the way.

21:31Just a drop in the bucket, however, $12 billion, that's nothing to those up at the top with gazillions of money, the first trillionaire in the country's history. Just last week, Anthropic disclosed another instance of one of their models hacking an external system during testing.

21:52Nobody instructed 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 wisdom and intelligence set, but it was not enough.

22:08It's ominous, you know, where we headed Now each of these incidents is concerning on its own and they raise real questions about the soundness of the evaluation setups 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.

22:46And speaking in language that human beings can't even decipher or understand. 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.

23:06That 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 cybersecurity 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 to biggest trying to build the most powerful AI capacity another nuclear arms 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 address this threat, not just to Americans, but to humanity.

24:35Yet 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 confuse 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.

25:14We can either choose to confront these challenges together, or we can confront their consequences, either alone or with everyone else we're all going to the same grave it is my sincere hope that we choose to work together to solve these existential threats to humanity thank you to our witnesses for being here today maybe you can enlighten us on your ideas on how we can lower costs for you and your family and for me and mine 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.

25:56The gentleman's time has now expired.

25:59And I'll yield the balance of my time.

26:01I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee for his opening statement.

26:07I'll pass on an opening statement.

26:09I just want to thank our witnesses for being here for this important hearing and yield back to the chair. Gentleman yields back. With that, I'll introduce our panel. Without objection, all opening statements other than those will be placed in the record.

26:26And introducing our distinguished panel, we start with Professor Abraham Bell. Mr. Bell is a professor of law at University of San Diego, the finest conservative private college anywhere, but particularly in San Diego. I'm allowed to be biased, guys.

26:48He is also professor of law at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv, Israel, where he focuses on trademark and intellectual property law, real property and international law and its theories and flew back for this hearing.

27:11Mr. Stewart Smith. Mr. 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 Mr 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 2009 to 2015.

27:37I want to welcome all of our guests here today and ask you to please rise to take the oath. And the usual right hand if you would please do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of 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 beliefs of up you God Do thank 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 We'll have five minutes the red green 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 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

28:46Thank you. Chairman, ranking member, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Abraham Abbe Bell. I'm a professor of law, as the chairman mentioned, at the University of

29:00San Diego. Professor, would you mind just move a little closer and make sure the red

29:04light's on? You've come too far not to be heard. I'm not sure. There we go. Okay. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Abraham Bell, Avi Bell. I'm a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego, as you mentioned, and at the Faculty of Law at Barilan University.

29:26I thank you for the opportunity to 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 a career in this field.

29:38In the abstract, the court's mission sounds noble, justice for the world's worst crimes. But we owe it to ourselves to judge the institution by its record, not by its rhetoric. And the record is one of failure.

29:49Start with the numbers. In more than 20 years of operation on a budget of now roughly $200 million per year. The court has secured just 11 convictions and only six of those were for the core atrocity crimes that exist to prosecute.

30:12Six in two decades. By that measure, the court is spending on the order of $800 million 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 patronage, and the approval of the European governments that fund it.

30:35That 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.

30:52Turning that into a criminal code and using it to prosecute individuals who never consented to it is a dangerous enterprise. The Rome Statute recognized as much. It built the court to respect state sovereignty and to defer to national justice systems.

31:07The court has since cast those limits aside. It now claims jurisdiction over the citizens of nations that never joined it, including the United States. It has shrunk the promise to defer to national courts down to almost nothing.

31:20It 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, the since deposed prosecutor, described the two sides in opposite terms.

31:41For 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 lawfulness of each strike and that the burden of proof rested on his words, those who fire the gun.

32:02That is a presumption of guilt announced in public in advance. It is the opposite of due process. When the charges came, they were of a peace with that posture. The indictments remained sealed, but it is evident to those of us who work in this area that the available evidence would not prove the guilt of Prime Minister Netanyahu or Minister Gallant beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes described and that the court 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.

32:36Here is 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 this court, its theories will never be tested by a real defense, freed from the discipline of actually having to prove things in court.

33:00The court can stretch the law as far as it likes, and the elastic theories it builds against Israeli commanders today will reach American commanders tomorrow. We've already seen the court move against U.S. personnel over Afghanistan.

33:14For nearly 20 years, we have had laws than 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 incentives in the court are impervious to them.

33:30So I urge this committee to support decisive steps, diplomatic pressure on states to withdraw and defund, criminalizing cooperation with the court's actions against protected persons, broader sanctions and a remedy for the victim of wrongful prosecution.

33:45This is not an 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 international justice and the sooner it is gone the sooner those ideals can be Rescued from the disrepute it is brought upon them.

33:57I look forward to your questions and thank you

34:06Thank you, mr. Smith you're recognized

34:09Thank 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.

34:27These 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 raised serious concerns about its willingness to minimize or disregard the authoritarian practices and human rights abuses associated with those regimes DSA 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.

35:17There's a common saying inside the DSA, put ten socialists in a room and you will get 11 different answers. The phrase reflects the organization's big tent character, bringing together anarchists, communists, Maoists, Marxists, Leninists, Socialists, Social Democrats, and others across the left.

35:35It obscures a more important question, who has the power to turn those 11 answers into reality? The most obvious place to start is the DSA's primary national governing body, the National political committee, the NPC.

35:49Since its election in August 2025, 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 People's , Venezuela's Simone Bolivar Institute for Peace and Solidarity among peoples, SBI, and China's, China's NGO network for international exchange, CNIE.

36:22These 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.

36:43These 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 40-person delegation to Cuba in October of 2025 included both national co-chairs, both young Democratic Socialists of America co-chairs, and additional members of the NPC.

37:09The 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 activities through advocacy fundraising material assistance and organized travel It participated in the Nuestra America Convoy helped facilitate Hasan Piker'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.

37:46This 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 an August 2026 delegation commemorating the 100th anniversary of Fidel Castro's birth.

38:08To 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 left party overseas, and we're accountable to all of our comrades both here and overseas.

38:26We 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 advancing what it has described as a struggle to dismantle the U.S. empire, Congress and the American public should seek a fuller understanding of the organization's partnerships and political activities.

38:53Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to the committee's questions.

39:01Ambassador.

39:02Mr. Chairman, honorable members, Mr. Ranking Member, I'm honored to appear before you to to state that the International Criminal Court is not a threat to U.S. sovereignty and that U.S. engagement with the ICC can further our long-standing commitment to accountability for atrocities while protecting American security interests and those of our allies.

39:24I base this on my long experience as an international prosecutor and my six years representing U.S. interests at the ICC as Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues and Global Criminal justice during 2009 to 2015.

39:34Even when there were preliminary examinations of US conduct 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 II with the prosecution led by US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson.

40:00That process resulted in precedent-setting guilty verdicts against the major surviving Nazi leaders rendered 80 years ago this month. Later at international courts established under US leadership powerful men responsible for mass atrocities were brought to justice including Kumbhanda, Milosevic, Karadzic, Mladic, Taylor.

40:18When 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 2002 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.

40:41During 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 U.S. to support all of the ICC's then active investigations and prosecutions.

41:01Most prominently, when two warlords, Ndeganda in 2015 and Ungwin in 2015, surrendered to U.S. officers in Africa, we assisted in transferring them to The Hague, strongly advancing our commitment to accountability for armed groups' conduct and atrocities in the DR Congo and by the LRA in Uganda and neighboring countries.

41:23If 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 ISATS group in murder of Jews in World War II.

41:48Second, when it comes to avoiding investigations or prosecution of our personnel or allies who are not ICC state parties, the argument that the ICC has no jurisdiction is neither legally or strategically sound. The basis for ICC jurisdiction is in line with the fundamental concept of territorial jurisdiction, which is integral to state sovereignty.

42:11If 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.

42:22It is only when we act on the territory of a state party that the ICC can possibly reach us Recently the Trump administration has argued that we being threatened by the ICC that there's a threat to U.S. personnel.

42:42Based on the facts, based on the law, I know of no situation in the world where U.S. is engaged where the ICC would have that jurisdiction. In fact, the magic bullet in protecting the U.S. interests at the ICC is complementarity, the principle that the ICC does not have jurisdiction where a state has the capacity and the will to prosecute itself.

43:04In 2022, thanks to this principle and the engagement of my successor, the ICC prosecutor deprioritized the investigation of U.S. and allied personnel in Afghanistan. Third and finally, sanctioning the judges and other officials of an international criminal court is the wrong approach.

43:23Sanctions should be used against those who act like terrorists or mass killers, not judges who join the court 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.

43:45This 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.

43:59As Justice Robert Jackson said in a great speech in April 1945 before his appointment at 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.

44:14One final point. The gentleman's time has expired.

44:19I could add. 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.

44:27Mr. Bob Brown. Well thank you Mr. Chair. This is a very important hearing. I thank the witnesses for being here today. You know when you become a member of Congress to swear an oath to the Constitution and part of that oath is Article 1 section 8 that talks about 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 a potential prosecution of US service members through an unjust ICC process could do to our military recruitment and you know this is not a theoretical concern we saw during the Biden administration when year after year the army was unable to meet its military recruitment goals indeed in both 2022 and 2023 the army failed to meet its recruitment goals by 15,000 troops 25% lower than that target rate of 60,000 troops they can only recruit 45,000 troops in part if you do when I talk to my constituents and you talk to Folks who served in the military here this is in part his view to the view that the military had gone woke had gone Political in that sense and that service members may not be treated fairly and if we potentially see a ICC that is run a muck and can prosecute American service members For doing their duty to protect our country I am very concerned that when we go to recruit our next cadre of military forces 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 to defend this country If they are having to be subjected to potential ICC prosecution So, you know, this is a concern we saw what happened.

46:40We all know what happens these international institutions We saw what happened the World Health Organization during the COVID epidemic when they were co-opted by China and would not Stay even its World Health Organization would not say that COVID originated In China and now the idea that the America America would be subject to the ICC We know it will happen to this organization.

47:07So, you know, I'll start with with you Mr. Smith if you were talking to America's sons and mothers and fathers about having their sons and daughters step forward to To serve our country what concerns would have you have about them certainly being subject to ICC prosecution So I was brought here to discuss the DSA but I would defer to Professor Bell Well let go to Professor Bell then

47:35Okay, I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

47:38Well, should America's mothers and fathers have concerns about their sons and daughters serving in our military if the U.S. is subject to the ICC?

47:47I'm sorry to say that they absolutely should. I think that if the present course continues, I think that it is likely that the ICC will attempt to charge Americans with crimes. If I may, I would like to say something about the Ambassador's testimony.

48:11I think it's important, and with all due respect, and I have enormous respect for the Ambassador's 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.

48:25The real problem that we have in a system that respects due process, we allow sometimes the guilty to go free, to protect freedoms, we allow the guilty to go free because the evidence was improperly gathered, because the court lacks jurisdiction, because the prosecutor has acted unjustly.

48:58It is 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 a prosecutor.

49:15Thank you, Mr. Bell, I'm just gonna, I got 15 seconds left, so I just wanna close up my argument here. We saw during COVID that because of concerns of woke political activity in our military, that we were short on military recruitment.

49:30If America is subject to ICC jurisdiction, and we get a prosecution overseas American service member, it will impact the very basics of trying to fulfill our duty to protect this country. Congress cannot allow it.

49:41We 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.

49:53Thank the gentleman. We now go to the gentleman from Georgia for his comments.

49:56Thank you, Professor Bell. It's comforting, I would guess, that you would know that of the handful of genuine criminals who have been brought to justice before the ICC and found guilty, a disproportionate number have been from African nations.

50:20That gives you some comfort, doesn't it?

50:23I think that the disproportionate attention...

50:28So in other words, it doesn't look like the state of Israel has any worries that would come from being subject to international criminal court jurisdiction.

50:43I think you misapprehend me. I think the disproportionate attention.

50:48Maybe I did, and if so, I apologize, but is there any evidence in your mind that the ICC is an imminent threat to U.S. sovereignty?

51:02Yes, I think that it is already a threat to U.S. sovereignty right now.

51:06When the U.S. is not signed on to the treaty.

51:09The ICC has already started once preliminary actions against American defendants and it has done so with...

51:21It's non-binding though of course and any international organization can choose to sanction criminal conduct or misconduct committed by anybody in this world whether or not they were black, white, Asian. It certainly is binding.

51:41Let me ask Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith, you were brought to this hearing to not talk about the International Criminal Court, correct? Well, I was brought here to discuss how it

51:57intersects with the DSA due to...

52:00And so, tell me, do you think the price of gas is a threat to U.S. sovereignty?

52:07I was brought here to discuss how the DSA...

52:09You can answer my question. I know I've already covered that. Do you think that the price of gas is a threat to U.S. sovereignty?

52:20To the extent your expertise allows for it, of course you can answer.

52:23I do not think it is a threat to U sovereignty the price of gas Do don You don see a revolution by the DSA bringing in the communists to try to replace the American capitalist system?

52:38You don't see that as a threat?

52:41So when DSA invokes something like affordability, there are plenty of well-meaning people.

52:46By the way, that's all DSA is talking about, right, is affordability. I mean, they're also talking about North Korea as well. Donald Trump says is a hoax do you think affordability is a hoax I think

53:02affordability is a very polished buzzword and you don't think that it's

53:06real I mean I'm having a hard time listening hearing you could you move your

53:10mic a little closer please some of whom may be watching this very relevant hearing? I think affordability is... Because they are not working? Because AI has taken over their job? Let me ask Ambassador Rapp, do you have anything in response you would

53:34like to say to Professor Bell? Well, I mean, clearly the ICC has been quite favorable to defendants. 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 in Carr, a vice president, it bends over backwards to protect the interests of the defense.

53:57I'm not worried about that.

53:58Why does it focus its attention on African nations?

54:03Well, initially, many of the African nations ask the...

54:06Are African nations the only nations led by war criminals?

54:09No, but the ICC asks, the countries ask the ICC to become involved in those situations. And the ICC also has the principle of complementarity. If you went to a situation like the crimes being committed in the Congo when they were being committed, there was no justice system to handle it.

54:27So if there's no justice system, the ICC has jurisdiction. If you do have a strong justice system, then the ICC doesn't. And we have a very strong system of military justice. When Sergeant Bales kills 16 civilians in Afghanistan, we prosecute them and give them a life sentence.

54:44We go after our own people. And as a result, the ICC doesn't get involved. That's complementarity.

54:49So there's no threat to American sovereignty by the existence of it.

54:52As I say there no threat because they have no jurisdiction 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 doing something about it All right with that I yield back

55:07The gentleman yields back. We now go to the gentlelady from Florida for her questions.

55:14Thank 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.

55:29Whether 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.

55:44Professor Bell, I would like to return to the discussion we've been having with you. 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.

56:04You mentioned several concepts earlier that are core principles of our system of justice, 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.

56:26Sure, thank you. So Ambassador Rapp mentioned accurately that there is something in international law called a territorial principle of jurisdiction which would allow for example Britain to prosecute an American who committed a crime in London but there's nothing in international law that indicates that this can be delegated to newly created treaty organizations that Britain could then send this individual off to be judged in the latest kangaroo court created by whatever treaty they just signed on to.

57:06It is, the record is fairly clear that the court has been aggressive in going well beyond all of the bounds in the treaty, not only in exercising territorial jurisdiction that has been improperly delegated, but in creating delegations out of thin air where it takes a delegation from the Palestine Liberation Organization holding itself forth as the state of Palestine in order to give jurisdiction to prosecute Israelis.

57:37And it is clear that it is not, the court is not respecting the basic rules of of presumption of innocence, due process of law, clarity of rules to the defendants before the accusations are made, and all the other things that we take for granted.

58:02We have a justice system in the United States that is perfectly capable of handling 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.

58:24And tell us if you would, you mentioned in your testimony earlier, the concept of the presumption of guilt and the way that you framed it as that he who shoots the gun then has the responsibility to demonstrate what happened and how contrary that is to our American system of justice.

58:44Would you elaborate please on how you see that operating and also what you described as more of a political campaign than a court?

58:53Yeah, this is something that struck me when the prosecutor at the time, Karim Khan, came to visit on the border of Gaza and observed the Gaza war and then gave remarks in Cairo that he very clearly set up a standard for potential Israeli defendants where the burdens were reversed.

59:16And he said, Israel will have to prove for every target that it legitimately targeted that whatever that object or person was. Now that's exactly the opposite of the way the criminal justice system ought to work.

59:30It is not the burden of the defendant to prove innocence. It is the burden on the prosecutor to prove the guilt of the defendant. And this is not a general standard that Khan announced.

59:45It was one that was for a particular party, which shows all the more so what a political circus this is. The prosecutor is making up new standards for the unpopular defendants that it picks out.

60:00Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

60:02Would the general lady yield to me?

60:04Yes.

60:05Following up on that, this is from the Democrat Socialist website. The first part where it says, prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders responsible for the genocide in Gaza. Mr. Smith, is the U.S. involved in genocide in Gaza?

60:20On what basis would there be, according to Ambassador Rapp, the ability for that to occur, leave Israel out for a moment, in the case of the United States, do you know of any? There's not.

60:33I see this as one of DSA's radical horizons where they...

60:37Ambassador Rapp, do you see anything there based on your statement that the moving nation must be a country, any basis under which the United States would be involved in indicting itself in the International Criminal Court?

60:53No, I do not. Thank you. I yield back. We now go to the gentlelady, Ms. Ross, for her questions.

61:02Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is my fourth committee meeting today, so I'm sorry if I'm not high energy, though I do find it to be the most ridiculous of all of them. I want to take a moment to just respond to the gentleman's comment about military recruiting.

61:21My dad's a veteran. He's a veteran of the Vietnam conflict. I take military service very seriously. I have an advisory committee of military advisors, and I pride myself on nominating more people to service academies and getting them in than really any other member of the house in North Carolina military state.

61:51And since President Trump took office, it's really the first time that parents, after their kids have been accepted to military academies, have been scared about what's going to happen to their kids. And the Iran War has made them even more scared.

62:11And these are the best of the best. These are the people who we want to go to our military academies. I dare say that the actions of our Secretary of Defense Mr Hegseth have also made them scared particularly the very talented female applicants to a military academy But with that said I want to just ask Ambassador Rapp about some potential actions that a state or a leader of a state could take that might be considered a war crime.

62:50And actually, my mother thought this was a really good idea. 86-year-old mother when I told her about this hearing I hope she's watching on C-SPAN she loves to watch She thought this was a really good idea.

62:58So I just want to run through these things Please you can say yes or no. I'm not predetermining So in Ambassador Rapp if a high-ranking military official called for no quarter Meaning in order to kill Surrendered or captured enemy combatants rather than taking prisoners could that qualify as a war crime?

63:23Exactly, it's a war crime and they teach that at the JAG Academy in Charlottesville.

63:28Okay, and would a leader threatening to target civilian infrastructure in another country, such as bridges, power plants, desalination plants that are not used for military purposes, would that potentially qualify as a war crime?

63:45Under Additional Protocol 1, which the U.S. hasn't ratified, which our military recognizes provisions of as reflecting international law, yes it would be. It would be a threat against the civilian population intended basically to terrorize them and to influence their government.

64:01And would bombing a girl's elementary school and killing 180 people, mostly school children, potentially qualify as a war crime or a crime against humanity?

64:11Well, you used the word potentially and not necessarily. It would depend upon whether it was intentionally targeted, which I don't believe it was, and then it would depend upon whether there was an effort to exercise distinction between civilian and military targets and whether we followed the rules in that regard.

64:28Okay, I just have a couple more. Would sinking an unarmed naval ship, participating in an international naval exercise and then departing the scene without attempting to rescue survivors potentially qualify as a violation of the second Geneva Convention?

64:46It potentially could yes.

64:48Would attacking a boat with an aircraft painted to look like a civilian plane

64:55qualify as a crime of perfidy Well It possible and but but understand these attacks on the high seas are difficult to classify because there no territorial jurisdiction There could be certainly crimes being committed, but whether they're international crimes is

65:13uncertain. And would attacking a ship then, once the smoke cleared and the video feed showed two survivors clinging to the burning wreckage ordering a double tap strike to kill the survivors be considered a war crime?

65:26Well if that ship

65:31was viewed as being within the territorial jurisdiction of a state yes.

65:34Okay and so do you have anything to add because I have 23 seconds I'd like to

65:41yield that to you. I think you did emphasize the point that we're in a in a world in which we can consistently reminded of the ineffectiveness and counter productivity of unilateral action. And that's why I think the answer is to work in concert with our allies and international bodies, use our best legal advocacy and effective diplomacy to further our values and our interests.

66:02Thank you and I yield back.

66:03I thank the gentlelady. We now go to the gentleman from Florida for five minutes.

66:12Thank you Mr. Chairman. Switch mics, that one's not working. Ambassador, how many people did Assad kill in Syria?

66:24I'd say more than 500,000.

66:27Right, that's the number I've heard. Yeah. Between 500,000 and 600,000.

66:30And I've been to Syria eight times since his overthrow working to establish justice in that country.

66:36Yeah, and he gassed his own people, right?

66:38That's correct.

66:39Mr. Smith, why do we think that there's been no call from really anyone that the ICC go after Assad, or why weren't there calls at the time for the ICC to go after Assad?

66:52So I am not an expert on the ICC, so I will defer to Professor.

66:56I don't understand. Isn't the point of this hearing about that?

66:58But I just want to make clear, Congressman, we did move in the Security Council in May of 2014 to give jurisdiction to the ICC. We voted for that. 10 countries of the elected countries, three of our allies to vote with it, China and Russia vetoed it, so we did attempt to do that.

67:15Yeah, but there wasn't a large clamoring in this country at the time, protests in the street, people online saying, you know, where the ICC when it comes to Assad We didn see the same sort of organization of countries come together on that like like we seeing now in the Middle East Mr. Smith let me just go back to you I'm I'm bewildered by your answer today's

67:40hearings about the ICC what are you doing here so I was brought in to discuss the DSA okay mayor Mamdani has made comments I trust me I know who the DSA is they

67:49targeted me in my primary I'm very well aware but the hearing is not on the DSA The hearing is on the ICC. I know those are three-letter words, but like I'm confused why you're here Why would you be scheduled to talk about the DSD is a on a hearing on the ICC this hearing is not on the DSA

68:05I was brought into brought bring in some facts regarding some of DSA's international relations abroad

68:12Well, who I'm just curious so who invited you from the committee to talk about the DSA and hearing about the ICC? Trust me listen I've been surprised that Republicans have not had more hearings on the DSA But this is not that this is a hearing on the ICC who asked you to come.

68:22I mean, I read your testimony

68:27I read your your but the gentleman suspend I'll stop the clock if that's okay Since I was the inviting party. I'll be glad to answer your question The the committee's hearing is on the ICC, but it's also on its threat to the sovereignty here and so So movements within the United States, and we chose one because they're prominent and have a website and they have a prominent mayor, we brought in Mr. Smith because he is an expert on this movement of which the democratic socialists are one of more than one was worthwhile.

69:07So that's why we brought him in. Professor Bell is much more of an expert on the details of the ICC as is Ambassador Rapp. So if you will indulge me, it seemed like it was a good balance for the threat to U.S.

69:23sovereignty. And with that, I'd let the gentleman continue.

69:26Kind of like a Trojan horse.

69:27No, no. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, there are lots of threats to U.S. sovereignty. If this was a hearing on threats to U.S. sovereignty, I mean, we could talk about a lot of extremist groups, quite frankly.

69:38But it is a little strange that we have a witness on a hearing literally entitled the Judiciary IP Subcommittee Hearing, the International Criminal Court's Threat to Sovereignty of the United States and its allies.

69:52And we have a witness here just who says he's an expert on something that is not literally the topic of the hearing. But I'll let it go. I think I've made my point. Professor Bell, why do you think there was not a dramatic push?

70:07I understand what happened to the UN, Mr. Ambassador, but why did we let Assad go away? Why didn't the ICC go after him? The ICC had no, is it because Syria was not a signer to the ICC, is that your belief?

70:22I think, and this is an answer also to a question that the ranking member asked earlier. I think that the agenda of the court is to go after the politically weak and those defendants that the European funders will be happy to see put on trial.

70:41That did not include Mr. Assad.

70:43Well, I couldn't, listen, I think we can, tell me if you all disagree, Assad, with what's going on with the ICC now, obviously with the arrest warrants against Netanyahu, I think we can agree that Assad, way worse than Netanyahu.

70:55Yeah, we agree on that? Mr. Smith, I know that's not your expertise, but what's your personal opinion? Okay, fantastic. Mr. Ambassador. Way worse. Way worse. Okay, so Assad way worse.

71:10But no jurisdiction.

71:11600,000 people, right, you know, gassed his own people, used chemical weapons, but nothing from the ICC. No arrest warrants. He's living free. He's living in Russia. He'd live in free in Russia. It ain't so free.

71:28Well, he's not at the Hague, Mr. Chairman, okay, which is where he belonged, okay? And the ICC wasn't involved because they had no jurisdiction, ultimately, right? Syria was not a signer to the ICC.

71:40And so the same argument that now is being applied to Israel is the same thing. The Israel is not a signer to the ICC. The United States is not a signer to the ICC.

71:50The ICC has no jurisdiction. These arrest warrants are invalid. But I just I think it just dramatically undermines the ICC's relevancy when we see it being in my opinion applied differently like if you're not going to drag Assad in front of in front of the ICC who are you going to drag?

72:11And so listen I do Mr. Chairman think that this ICC stuff is can be very dangerous with the United States and the idea that they could come after presidents and things of that nature.

72:22I don think we should get rid of the ICC because I think the more we would retract from the world the more we letting China just take over We seeing that lots of places We saw it we seeing it in Africa we seeing it in Latin America we're reversing some of that stuff now.

72:38I happen to sit on Foreign Affairs as well, so I know a little bit about that. So I think we should reform it, not withdraw from it, but I do think that these threats are real from the ICC, and I just think there's a double, triple, quadruple standard that they're applying.

72:52But I appreciate Mr. Smith's attendance today hearing that he knows nothing about so thank you so much I think the gentleman

73:02for his detailed comments and since although the chairman of the committee did not open I did not do an opening statement the ranking member of the full committee in addition to his questions is asked to make a comment and make comments so I would ask you to combine them in your usual as much as possible succinct fashion, I think, the gentleman.

73:21Meaning you have more than five minutes, Jamie.

73:27Thank you kindly, Mr. Chairman, for your constant and eternal indulgence. We're going to miss you when you go. And thanks to our witnesses for being here today. So one-third of the hearing we've just learned from Mr. Moskowitz is about the DSA, but two-thirds of the hearing is about the ICC, an institution that we in the United States helped to create after World War II so that the world might hold war criminals accountable for their aggression against humanity.

73:56To be clear, out of expressed concern for our troops, the U.S. is not now a party to the ICC. Our permanent membership of the UN Security Council makes it virtually impossible, however, for the UN to make a referral to the ICC over our objection.

74:13Is that right, Ambassador Rupp? Correct. The US has for decades under presidents of both parties, cooperated with the ICC and helped our allies pursue justice through that forum. Authoritarian regimes that thrive on lawless violence against their own populations and against their neighbors have every reason to fear the ICC.

74:36I wouldn't be surprised, for example, to hear that Vladimir Putin complains that the ICC represents a threat to the sovereignty of his bloody corrupt imperialist government. Ukraine agreed to allow the ICC to prosecute war crimes committed within its borders more than a decade ago and became a full part of the Rome Statute last year with the objective of holding an invading army accountable for its war crimes and its atrocities Even then the IC is a threat to Russia only if Russia commits war crimes and human rights violations.

75:11Do I have that right, Ambassador? As long as they commit them in

75:15Ukraine, there's a jurisdiction, yes. They commit them in Russia, no jurisdiction.

75:18Because they've refused to sign on to. Right. Well, I was surprised to learn that our colleagues have decided to repeat what I take to be Kremlin propaganda, that the very existence of the ICC threatens their sovereignty.

75:39And I'm especially surprised because it's actually the behavior of our president which presents the greatest threat to our sovereignty. Yesterday, we saw how Mr. Kremlev, tight with the Kremlin, paid for the wedding festivities attending the nuptials of Donald Trump Jr. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars spent in that way.

76:07And everybody just keeps going like, oh, well, that's no big deal that you've got this authoritarian tyrant and dictator in Russia, now one of his close friends is paying for the president's son in the United States wedding party.

76:24That's wild to me. I mean, we're talking about a president who has now made, by his own accounting, more than $2 billion, and by some accounting it's more than $4 billion from crypto. In his first year in office, as the money pours in anonymously from foreign governments, kings, princes, militars, autocrats, contractors from all over the world.

76:51And in January 2025, the family crypto business got $500 million from the United Arab Emirates. Just months later, the administration granted the United Arab Emirates access to highly sensitive AI chips. In May of last year, Donald Trump held a competition dinner for the biggest purchasers of his meme coin, where the reward for investing the most was private access at a dinner to the leader of the free world.

77:15More than half of the 220 attendees were foreign nationals including investors with close ties to China governing party They turned the presidency and the White House into a bonanza an international pay fair for governments and contractors to come in.

77:41And we're having a hearing about the ICC when everything's being given away right here. I mean, Ambassador Rapp, I don't know if you know anything about that UAE, but I've been concerned about that $500 million crypto payoff from the beginning and then in return them getting the AI chip.

77:57Is that something you think that compromises the sovereignty and national security of the United States? Well it's the kind of

78:06thing that can compromise the security of the United States. We're not talking about a war crime, we're talking about corruption. You mean we're talking about corruption? Not a war crime specifically. Not a war crime.

78:16It's something that compromises.

78:20Fair enough, fair enough. But I took the, I mean I guess we're having a hard time nailing down the elusive topic of today's hearing, but I thought it was about sovereignty. Sovereignty generally, and I think our sovereignty is a lot more threatened by the practices of a government which accepts for example, a free $400 million jet from Qatar as an unconstitutional illegal foreign government emolument to the president than the existence of an institution that we were involved in creating, but we ourselves are not bound by today.

78:55Well, so I don't know if you're willing to opine on the question of sovereignty or, I mean, do you think that all of these financial entanglements with foreign governments compromise and undermine the sovereignty of the United States when we have as our international peace negotiator, Jared Kushner, who has received billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia and from the United Arab Emirates.

79:23Mr. Smith, would you comment on that? Because you're an expert on foreign ties, right?

79:29I can't comment on the UAE specifically.

79:32Well, let's say the DSA did that. If the DSA took several billion dollars from Saudi Arabia, would you have a concern about, even more concern about the DSA's involvement in American politics?

79:46I think it's an interesting question. I would be concerned with the DSA specifically, I'm always concerned about how they are going on these international delegations abroad where they're interfacing with organizations like ICAP.

80:01Let's say the DSA organized some of that notorious foreign travel you're talking about and went to Qatar and came back with a $400 million airplane that they then gave to the President of the United States.

80:17Do you think that that would present a problem, either constitutionally or if that's not your expertise, just in terms of the activities of DSA if they did that?

80:27Well, the issue with DSA is that DSA is not even a political party, it's a political organization.

80:32Yeah, as a political organization if they did that.

80:35So as a political organization, it would look at, we would have to see how that would show up on their 990s, and I would imagine that would be a conflict.

80:43Yeah, and what if they gave, you know, say $2 billion to the president, or a $400 million jet to the president? Would you be troubled by that if DSA did it?

80:56Possibly, I would like to look at some other issues.

81:00All right, well, Mr. Chairman, I suppose I'm going to have to yield back to you at this point. We may have exhausted the knowledge base of our witnesses on what I'm interested in, which is actually the sovereignty of the United States being drained away by violations of those safeguards that the framers of the Constitution put into the Constitution, Article I, Section and nine that none of us in federal office, including the president, can receive a present and emolument, which means a payment in office, or a title of any kind whatever from a king, a prince, or a foreign government.

81:34That is the principle constitutional blockade against the draining away of our sovereignty through corruption of the agent, which is the president of the United States. His job is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.

81:47If he's being corrupted by foreign governments, we can't trust him. And I'm a little bit more concerned about that than about an international organization, which has generally done excellent work and we helped to start it, that we're not even governed by.

81:59I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.

82:03Normally my professors go 50 minutes before they're exhausted, so I appreciate your brevity. I thank the gentleman. I'll now recognize myself. Ambassador, in your statement, You made a statement that was pretty important which was that the nation that is offended where the crime is committed has to bring the charge right In other words a participating nation must bring the allegations You said that in one of

82:36your statements. To be clear, the jurisdiction is based on the territory. It's possible that a crime could happen in a country and that country wouldn't send it to the ICC and of course in those African situations they did.

82:51The main way the case has come to the ICC so far is states referring

82:56themselves saying we want the ICC to do this. So in the case of the state of Palestine, does the United Nations recognize Palestine as a country? Well

83:07that's, therein lies a very important question. I don't know, but just a yes or no. In the non-member state vote in November of 2012, the General Assembly passed the resolution saying it was a non-member state.

83:15That's what the But the UN then relied on to say that it was a state for treaty purposes, and that's what let it in.

83:25I disagree with that, and I filed a brief on that. I understand. So, as a non-member state, if they were a member state, okay, I just want to go through a little of this, because Prime Minister Netanyahu and the President of the United States seem to be on trial here.

83:42So I just want to go through one quick thing. If there is a war and a rocket is fired from a position and the nation fires back, destroying the location from which the rocket came, is that a war crime?

84:00That's certainly not a, that could be an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, of course.

84:06Okay so when you have, for example, the headquarters for MAS buried underneath the hospital and And in fact, there's been plenty of time for people to evacuate, but ultimately to destroy that headquarters or to take it, in a war that is going on between a non-state actor, whatever you want to call it, Palestine, and Israel, is that a war crime to destroy the headquarters of the combatants on the other side and or launch facilities?

84:42Is that a war crime?

84:43Generally not, but we're into the rules that the United States military teaches, which come from the Geneva Conventions, which we wrote, which was you need to distinguish

84:53between civilian and military targets never go after a civilian one and when you go after a mixed target you have to make sure that the harm isn disproportionate to the military Sure I understand that I served 10 on active and 10 in the reserves so I had plenty of those as a young officer and we certainly looked at President Truman's attempt to shorten the war by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the proportional nature of who would have died if we hadn't.

85:25So there's a lot of complexity there, but from a simple standpoint, is Prime Minister Netanyahu the first Israeli leader to be indicted by the ICC?

85:36He's the first one, yes.

85:38Wasn't Ariel Sharon wanted by the ICC also?

85:42Well first of all the ICC didn't have jurisdiction at all until that 2012 decision and by that time Sharon was no longer on the spot. Sharon was under a Belgian investigation based upon sovereign Shatila which we opposed and

86:00urged the Belgians not to pursue. So Professor Bell switching to I guess the indictment that we're dealing with and the mayor of New York, a proud member of the Socialist Party sub-party. Switching to that, hasn't there been a steady attack at both the United Nations and by the ICC against Israeli leaders regardless of who happens to be there?

86:28Yeah, the ICC prosecutor, the first ICC prosecutor, launched a multi-year process in cooperation with the PLO to cook up a theory for the court to grant itself jurisdiction to go after Israelis. Eventually a later ICC prosecutor opened up a preliminary investigation and under the treaty therefore had to give yearly reports on how it was going and every report concentrated only on Israelis, not on Palestinians.

87:01And eventually we got to these meritless charges. So yes, there's a multi-year process that's been outlined against Israel.

87:09On the flip side of it, Professor, I've just got to ask, because it's probably the one question that hasn't been asked. When in the early, early parts of the morning on October 7th, Hamas, on the execution of their leaders, came across the border and murdered raped and captured and held hostage over 1 unarmed Israelis Were there any charges from the ICC against their leaders?

87:39Well, Khan eventually came, the prosecutor eventually came to the Gaza border to declare his view on that and he said for the Palestinian terrorists there will be, he wouldn't use the term terrorists of course.

87:51There will be a conventional legal process which if there is proof beyond reasonable doubt. You mean like if you prove that 1,200 people were murdered in the kibbutz? Well they're not particularly interested in collecting that evidence they never have been.

88:08They issued three arrest warrants for people they knew would never be brought before the court and they never will be. They've now passed from this world, thankfully. And it's very, I think I'm ready to put some of those 12 billion dollars that are floating around that the ranking member mentioned on a bet that no Palestinian will ever face

88:35any charges in the ICC, never. Okay, well my time is also expiring. In closing, I I want to thank our witnesses. Mr. Smith I want to thank you for on my invitation being here.

88:48I do recognize that the sovereignty of the United States depends on American citizens living up to the intent of the Constitution and when there's a call to circumvent that including to arrest somebody not arrestable under our laws then I'm concerned.

89:03Ambassador Rapp I want to I appreciate your being here. We didn't have you two to one. It was kind of one to one with Mr. Smith in between. I appreciate your distinguished work over the years and your knowledge.

89:21Professor I appreciate your coming here from so far and giving us the kind of testimony that we needed. Now there were a number of members because as Ms. Ross said there were four, five and six hearings and markups today.

89:34So I would ask that they be able to submit to each of you additional questions and that that if to the extent you can, if you would respond. And so I will keep the record open officially, they say for five days, but since we're gonna be gone for six weeks, questions received in a timely fashion, we forwarded to you.

89:52And if you'd respond before we come back after the November election, I would really appreciate it. And we'll close the record at that time. And with that, this subcommittee stands adjourned.