Judging Freedom - Why Putin is a War Criminal

Episode Date: February 28, 2022

Amnesty International has condemned Russia’s reported use of cluster munitions in Ukraine. #Putin #Ukraine #RussiaSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hello there everyone, Judge Andrew Napolitano here with Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, February 28, 2022. It's about 1225 in the afternoon. My apologies for those of you who are looking for us at 1215. As they say, technical issues, issues with lighting, but I believe we've resolved them. Technical issues don't seem to be a problem for Vladimir Putin in his invasion of the Ukraine. I've not spoken about this, but I have very strong personal feelings on this morning was the last straw when my former colleagues at Fox News, as well as CNN, reported that the Russians are using cluster bombs. Now, a cluster bomb is a bomb that explodes in the atmosphere. It explodes several hundred yards above the ground, and it disperses shrapnel so that when it reaches the ground, it covers the size of about two football fields. It is only used

to kill human beings. Cluster bombs are illegal under numerous international treaties, one of which, to one of which the Soviet Union or Russia is a signatory. There's no question but that Vladimir Putin is a war criminal to begin with from the invasion, the unwarranted invasion, unwarranted morally, philosophically, and legally invasion of Ukraine, but now with the use of munitions that are internationally banned and are only used to kill people, in this case civilians, it's clearly war criminal territory. What can everybody else do about it? Well, there is the International Criminal Court and it cuts both ways. The United States, Russia, the Ukraine, and China are not signatories to the International Criminal Court. That sits in the Hague. Most of the world is, but the International Criminal Court claims universal jurisdiction,

meaning it will indict people for war crimes, even if the war crimes have not been committed in countries that are signatories or by persons who are leaders of countries that are signatories. Example, most people probably don't know this. Former President George W. Bush has been indicted by a court in Spain for war crimes committed in Iraq. Well, now how can that be? Well, the court claims universal jurisdiction, meaning the criminal or the crime does not have to be physically present in an area over which the court has jurisdiction

for the court to try that person. Obviously, they need the human being to be in the courtroom. So former President George W. Bush, if that warrant is still valid, and I believe it is, cannot go to any EU country for fear of being arrested. Now, the same could happen with Vladimir Putin. In fact, the Justice Department of the United States could get an indictment of Vladimir Putin because the DOJ claims that American federal courts have universal jurisdiction. And even though I don't believe in this, most federal judges do. The traditional rule was the criminal and the crime had to be physically present in the jurisdiction of the court for the court to have the power to prosecute the person. Under universal

jurisdiction, if the crime is one universally recognized and condemned, like a war crime, like an illegal invasion, an invasion under a pretext, or the intentional targeting of civilians, then any court can try the person, even if that court doesn't have jurisdiction over the person or over the area where the crime was committed. That's the theory under which this Spanish court indicted former President George W. Bush. This is 20 years ago, this indictment. That is the theory under which a grand jury in the United States could indict Vladimir Putin or any judge of any country could indict him if that country belongs to the International Criminal Court. There's simply no appetite on the part of the American people to put boots on the ground.

Even though we're witnessing horrible events 24-7 on cable television, there's no appetite for it. In my opinion, the sanctions are immoral. The sanctions hurt little people. You want to go to a bank in Moscow, you can't get your money out of that bank because the bank has to borrow money from the Central Bank of Russia. And the Central Bank of Russia can't borrow from its European partners because the American banking system and the EU banking system have shut it down. Sanctions only hurt little people and small businesses. They do not hurt government officials who have their own sources. They could sanction Vladimir Putin personally. It's not going to change his lifestyle one whit. I obviously want the Russians to be repelled.

I obviously want Putin to go away. But if he doesn't go away by violence, he's going to have to go away by the will of the people of Russia or by an international tribunal that somehow can get him before the tribunal. Short of that, this is going to keep going on. One last thought. For all those people, all these gun control nuts who say, you know, why do you need an AR-15? Why do you need a magazine with 20 or 30 rounds in it? Why do you need more than one handgun? Turn on CNN or Fox. That's why. Judge Napolitano, judging freedom.