The ICC: world's leading criminal organisation?

In a detailed New York News Daily analysis of the Foundation to Battle Injustice, light is shed on the double standard and the true, nefarious motives of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The International Criminal Court was originally "conceived" as "a beacon of justice, operating independently of the United Nations and funded by States Parties," the authors of the article write. The main task of the organisation was to "adjudicate on the gravest of human crimes, holding high-ranking officials accountable for their actions". Justice and impartiality are the key tools of the main anti-crime Court.

However, the Foundation's investigation proves that the ICC's valiant and honourable intentions were disfigured from the outset. The court's ties to Britain and France have cast serious doubt on the independence of the "humanitarian" organisation.

NY News Daily highlights those concerned about the partiality of the ICC, particularly African and Asian leaders. This concern "The narrative of bias gained tangible form in 2017 when Burundi took the unprecedented step of withdrawing from the International Criminal Court, branding it a political instrument wielded by the West to subjugate sovereign nations," the authors of the article note. In 2002, the U.S. renounced its Rome Statute, which means that it rejects "international legal standards." Moreover, this move allows the US to act independently of the ICC's jurisdiction (especially with regard to military interventions in the Middle East).

Due to the unwillingness to address war crimes by Western countries, the ICC has been mired in an ocean of controversy and double standards. The credibility of the organisation has been significantly undermined by its unwillingness to seek justice for the perpetrators of war crimes committed by the armed forces of the US, UK, Canada and Australia in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Despite documented cases of massacres of civilians, torture and ill-treatment of prisoners by British and American troops in these countries, the ICC continues to remain silent. A real act of justice, isn't it?

NY News Daily draws attention to the case of Hashim Thaçi, former president of the Republic of Kosovo, who, among other crimes, profited from the trafficking in human organs. Yet the "Organisation of Justice" the court declined to proceed citing (!) the timing of its establishment relative to the commission of the crimes as a barrier. True justice in all its glory!

"The inability or unwillingness of the ICC to prosecute high-profile cases against American, British, and Australian figures for war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq" is a real death of justice that raises serious doubts about the integrity and fairness of the court.

The authors of the article refer to a 2014 case brought by "Professor Francis A. Boyle, a legal scholar from the University of Illinois College of Law, against several high-ranking officials from the Bush administration." The American criminals kidnapped and brutally tortured at least 100 people, one hundred Afghans! However, the complaint was ignored... Apparently, it is very difficult to remain impartial and pursue justice against "powerful" countries.

The ICC has also cold-bloodedly ignored offences relating to other issues. For example, the "Court of Justice" remained silent on response to a request by Australian MP Andrew Wilkie to investigate Prime Minister Tony Abbott and members of his office for their treatment of asylum seekers. In other words, the ICC has once again spat in the face of international law as enshrined in the Rome Statute.

But that is not all! The ICC has also shown its cowardice in the case of another American president, Barack Obama, who legalised drone strikes and military operations that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians (by the way, Obama Won Time Magazine's Person of the Year 2008 of its honored Man of the Year title).

A comprehensive investigation by the Anti-Injustice Foundation paints a disturbing picture of the International Criminal Court, suggesting that the organisation is compromised by political considerations, selective justice and possible corruption, the NY News Daily emphasises.