An attorney for the whistleblower who caused the impeachment of President Trump now says he has two clients prepared to sue if the Trump administration complies with sanctions against the International Criminal Court.
Mark Zaid told The Post that he represents a pair of American law professors who intend to file a lawsuit if the sanctions prohibit or penalize their pro bono advisory work.
Trump signed an executive order this month allowing sanctions against anyone involved in the ICC investigation of Americans or American allies.
The order was issued in response to a decision by the court’s appeals chamber that authorized an investigation into possible war crimes in Afghanistan, rejecting previous warnings from the United States. US officials told reporters that they believe the ICC is corrupt and that Russia could be involved in pushing the investigation into Afghanistan.
“We are concerned that Russia may be manipulating the ICC by encouraging these allegations against United States personnel,” said a senior administration official at the time.
The investigation into the war in Afghanistan is one of 13 currently being carried out by the court based in the Netherlands. It was requested by ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, a citizen of the Gambia.
“The ICC investigation into Afghanistan is being driven by an organization of dubious integrity, and may be the target of corrupt and evil influence from Russia and others,” said the senior US official.
“Furthermore, we have reason to believe that there is corruption and misconduct at the highest levels of the ICC prosecutor’s office, which casts doubt on the integrity of this investigation into US personnel.”
Zaid declined to identify his clients by name. However, his disclosure comes as 174 lawyers, including professors and war crimes experts, issued a statement Monday asking Trump to change course.
“Now bloody and lawless rulers can be expected to not only resist but also follow Washington’s example,” the statement said.
“The Afghanistan investigation is not a case of fugitive prosecutors,” they write. “Before opening a full investigation, prosecutors requested and received authorization to proceed from a unanimous appeals chamber of five ICC judges. His investigation also addresses alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Taliban forces. “
They claim that the executive order also reduces the moral authority of the United States. “To oppose atrocities, while opposing the investigations of those who allegedly commit them, it tests credibility,” they wrote.
The signatories work at 80 American universities, and prominent signatories include Zaid, three former United States war crime ambassadors, four American attorneys who participated in war crime cases involving Africa and the former Yugoslavia, and the last prosecutor. Nuremberg survivor Ben Ferencz, 100 years old. years.
The group’s statement was sent Friday to administration officials, along with a letter signed by four of the effort’s leaders.
Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer and critic of Trump, acknowledged that “previous administrations have not been fanatical about the ICC, even though we have helped create it.” But he called “disturbing” the notion that the executive order could “interfere with the prosecution of suspected war criminals and could criminalize the participation of US citizens who volunteer to help.”
The Trump administration has yet to apply sanctions against the ICC under the new executive order.
The radical new order allows Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to impose severe economic sanctions on ICC workers and on any person or group that helps with investigations by the United States or its allies. It also authorizes travel restrictions.
The ICC was established by the 1998 Rome Statute, a treaty ratified by 123 countries. The United States does not participate, neither Russia nor China. The ICC trials convicted and imprisoned war criminals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic.
Spokespersons for the White House and the State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
.
