USA DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE ICC OR ITS CORRUPTED JUDGES (in fact it is a political kangaroo court ) (closely associated with the UN ) and alleged sex offender Judge KARIM KHAN is a prime example

USA DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THE ICC OR ITS CORRUPTED JUDGES (in fact it is a political kangaroo court ) (closely associated with the UN )Judge KARIM KHAN is a prime example. The so call 'arrest warrant' against Netanyahu is a 'trumped' up political tool used by the anti-Israel Terrorist groups leveraged though UN . notice that the ICC never prosecutes ISLAMIC terror groups or countries in any significate numbers therefore is simply another political tool to Propagandize with . Graham Healy

Monday 27/7/26 **The United States does not recognize the ICC for reasons of sovereignty, protection of its personnel, and concerns about legitimacy and political bias.**

### Main Official Reasons

| Reason | Explanation |

|--------|-------------|

| **Sovereignty** | The US never ratified the Rome Statute. Under international law, a treaty only binds countries that consent to it. The US view is that the ICC has no legal authority over American citizens or officials. |

| **Risk to US personnel** | Successive US administrations have feared that US soldiers, intelligence officers, or political leaders could be prosecuted for actions taken during overseas military operations (e.g., the ICC’s past investigation into alleged US actions in Afghanistan). |

| **American Servicemembers’ Protection Act (ASPA, 2002)** | This law (sometimes called the “Hague Invasion Act”) explicitly rejects ICC jurisdiction over Americans. It prohibits US cooperation with the ICC and authorizes the President to use “all means necessary” — including military force — to free any US person detained by or for the ICC. |

| **Lack of accountability** | US officials argue the ICC is an unaccountable international body with no democratic oversight, weak checks and balances, and the potential for politicized prosecutions. |

| **Selectivity / double standards** | Critics in the US say the Court has focused heavily on weaker countries (especially in Africa) while being more hesitant or politically influenced when dealing with powerful states or US allies. |

### Why Some US Officials Call It a “Kangaroo Court”

A “kangaroo court” is a pejorative term for a tribunal seen as illegitimate, biased, or lacking fair process — one that goes through the motions of justice while serving political ends.

US officials (including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in 2020 and more recent statements under the Trump administration) have used this label because they believe:

- The ICC claims jurisdiction it does not have over non-member states.

- It has pursued cases against Americans and close allies (such as Israel) that the US views as politically motivated.

- It lacks the due-process protections and democratic accountability of US courts.

- Internal problems (including past allegations of misconduct against senior officials) undermine its credibility.

### Historical Context

- President Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but refused to send it to the Senate for ratification, citing “significant flaws.”

- The Bush administration formally notified the UN in 2002 that the US did not intend to become a party.

- Both Republican and Democratic administrations have maintained that the ICC has no jurisdiction over Americans, though the intensity of opposition has varied.

- In 2025–2026, the Trump administration escalated this stance with sanctions, a public campaign to isolate the Court, and strong language describing it as a threat to US sovereignty.

**Note**: The ICC and its supporters reject these criticisms. They argue the Court is complementary to national systems, only acts when states fail to prosecute seriously, and is necessary to end impunity for the worst crimes. The US position remains that it will not accept the Court’s authority over its citizens.