On November 21, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Hamas military chief  Mohammed Diab Ibrahim al-Masri (aka Mohammed Deif), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and  former Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant, all on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It’s unclear whether Deif remains alive.  Hamas’s official statement on the warrants was a call to “expand the scope of accountability to all criminal occupation leaders.”

The more interesting reaction comes from the Israeli regime, which has announced its “intention to appeal to the court along with a demand to delay implementation of the arrest warrants” … while simultaneously reiterating its pre-existing denial of the ICC’s jurisdiction over Israel, Israeli actions, or Israeli citizens.

Well, which is it going to be? Does the ICC have jurisdiction or doesn’t it? If it doesn’t have jurisdiction to issue the warrants, it doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of those warrants.

The Israeli jurisdiction claim is based on the fact that Israel is not a member state of the International Criminal Court.

But the state of Palestine IS a member state of the International Criminal Court, and the alleged actions for which the warrants were issued took place in Palestine, not Israel.

ICC jurisdiction comes in two flavors:

First, jurisdiction over citizens of member states who allegedly commit war crimes or crimes against humanity, no matter where those crimes are committed.

That’s the jurisdiction which applies to Mohammed Deif. His alleged crimes were committed in Israel, but since the state he resides in is under ICC jurisdiction, Deif is under ICC jurisdiction.

Second, jurisdiction over war crimes or crimes against humanity allegedly committed in ICC member states, regardless of who, from where, allegedly commits them.

That’s the jurisdiction which applies to Netanyahu and Gallant. The alleged crimes were committed in Palestine.  Netanyahu’s and Gallant’s Israeli citizenship doesn’t exempt them from ICC jurisdiction any more than me being from the United States would exempt me from prosecution in, or extradition to, Poland for a murder I stood accused of committing in Warsaw.

It’s that latter jurisdiction which Netanyahu and Gallant deny — but which they would necessarily have to recognize to enjoy standing to appeal the warrants.

Instead of making up their minds, they’re resorting to the usual Israeli regime policy of loudly demanding their own absolute exemption from, while crying everyone else’s absolute obligation to, “international law” and “rules-based order.”

Naturally, they’re backed up on that dodge by their friends in Washington, DC, who proclaim the same policy for both the US regime and its Middle East welfare client.

But those exceptionalist demands are clearly wearing out their welcome elsewhere. Netanyahu and Gallant probably shouldn’t plan near-future vacation trips to ICC member states.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Writing at the Washington Post,  Marc A. Thiessen argues in favor of a presidential pardon. Specifically, a pardon by outgoing president Joe Biden, of  incoming president Donald Trump.

I agree that Biden should pardon Trump, but I disagree with Thiessen as to why.

Thiessen’s case in brief:

Biden, in his inaugural address, pledged to end a national “uncivil war” by “bringing America together,” but  failed to deliver on his promise. C’mon, Joe! Unite all Americans in holiday joy at the splendid vision of a smirking crook skating into office unencumbered —  at least at the federal level —  by threat of prosecution!

Unlike Thiessen, I don’t expect a presidential pardon to produce anything like a uniformly positive reaction. Those among the public who pay attention to current affairs and history know Trump is a crook, if for no other reason than that he can’t resist bragging about his crimes to fill the time he doesn’t spend  whining about how unfairly he’s treated and how brutally he’s persecuted. Half of that public loves him for his crimes; the other half hates him for those crimes.

“From a legal standpoint,”  Thiessen writes, “Trump does not need a presidential pardon.” I don’t think he writes that with a straight face, though. His Post author photo features an “about to pitch you on a sketchy timeshare opportunity” grin, matching that quote perfectly.

Part of the real case for giving Trump a pardon is that he DOES need one … and that if he doesn’t get one from Biden, he’ll try to give one to himself before his second term expires, opening up yet another can of constitutional worms that nobody wants to eat.

If Biden pardons Trump, Trump’s unceasing whine — probably for a good six months —  that he didn’t need a pardon because he did nothing wrong will  embed his past crimes in the public consciousness more firmly and for longer.

Part two: A pardon for all his PAST crimes will  encourage him to get even more brazen about his FUTURE crimes. He’s going to commit those crimes anyway. Why not get louder and more boastful public confessions out of the deal?

Will Donald Trump ever face real justice? Probably not. If presidents were treated like the rest of us, Joe Biden would find himself sharing a Club Fed facility with Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton come January 21.

It is in a political, not legal, sense that Trump doesn’t need a pardon. All presidents skate for all their crimes, up to and including murder, but so far only Richard Nixon has skated with a pardon … and his crimes and that pardon are therefore pretty much all he’s remembered for. Trump deserves the same legacy.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On November 12, president-elect Donald Trump announced his second-term plans for a “Department of Government Efficiency” which will, in his words, “dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies.”

He’s assigning leadership of the “department” to the world’s most successful corporate welfare queen, Elon Musk, and to Vivek Ramaswamy, whose claim to fame is trying, not very well or successfully, to sell himself to the public as some kind of Trump/Musk hybrid.

Such DOGE! Much wow! Working up a backronym from Elon Musk’s favorite memecoin wasn’t hard, but it’s probably the heaviest lifting involved we’ll see from the idea.

After noticing the joke and the jokers involved, the first and most important feature to understand about this new department is that it’s not going to be a “department.”

A “department” is a cabinet-level, executive-branch organization with broad powers to administer government operations using taxpayer money appropriated for its use by Congress.  At present, there are 15 “departments” in the federal government ranging from State (diplomacy), Defense (the military) to justice (law enforcement).

DOGE, on the other hand, will operate as either a Presidential Commission or a Federal Advisory Committee. Several of the former and a thousand or so of the latter can be identified as operational at any given time,  but few of them ever get much, or continuing, attention.

Why? Because Presidential Commissions and Federal Advisory Committees only get to do one thing: Make recommendations.

When it comes to recommendations on how to “dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies,” the difference between your conversation with a neighbor and DOGE’s recommendations comes down, mostly, to who’s buying the coffee donuts consumed during the talking.

DOGE may get some office space, a small staff, and a tiny budget to cover the coffee and donuts, but authority to make anything happen? Nope.

We’ve been here before, many times. History is littered with commissions and advisory committees. They’re among politicians’ favorite tools for convincing you they’re going to do things they have no intention of actually doing.

Even escalating from the commission/committee scam to requiring “recommendations” from actual departments usually doesn’t accomplish much. For a recent example, look at Trump’s first term.

In 2016, Trump campaigned on eliminating two federal regulations for each new one. Then he ordered government departments to do just that.

Oh, wait, no … he ordered government departments to “identify” two regulations “to be eliminated” for each new one. No requirement that they actually BE eliminated, just that they be “identified.” Results:

As of three days before Trump’s inauguration, according to QuantGov’s Regulation Tracker, the Federal Register included 1,079,651 regulations. That number then increased, never dropping below the original number again for nearly two years, after which it began increasing again, totaling 1,089,742 on the day he left office.

This time, he’s not even letting such recommendation-making infiltrate the functional areas of government. He’s just microwaving his old guff and serving it  to Musk, Ramaswamy, and you.

Business as usual, as usual.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY