Secretary of State Marco Rubio decided the International Criminal Court needed a refresher on how American sovereignty works, and boy did he deliver one. In a statement that reads like a politely worded eviction notice, Rubio made it crystal clear that the United States has zero interest in letting unelected foreign judges tell Americans what to do. As USA Journal reported, the Secretary of State went full founding father on the ICC and did not hold back.
"For 250 years, Americans have governed ourselves as a free and sovereign people," Rubio said. "We choose our own leaders. We determine our own laws. And when we're accused of a crime, we stand for judgment before a jury of our own peers."
That is about as diplomatic as telling someone their invitation to the cookout has been permanently revoked.
For those unfamiliar with the ICC's origin story, the court was established in 2002 under the Rome Statute with what sounded like a perfectly reasonable mandate: prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, but only when a country's own courts could not or would not handle things. Think of it as the judicial equivalent of a designated driver. You are only supposed to step in when the original driver cannot function.
The problem, according to Rubio and a long line of critics before him, is that the ICC has been steadily expanding what it considers its lane. Rubio specifically pointed to the theoretical risk that Border Patrol agents, Marines, and prosecutors could face ICC prosecution for carrying out their duties under American law. Whether you think that is a realistic scenario or a dramatic hypothetical, the underlying point is hard to argue with: the United States never ratified the Rome Statute. American voters did not pick ICC prosecutors. Most Americans could not name a single ICC judge if you spotted them the first and last name.
Rubio then dropped this line: "If they believe they can deprive us of our sovereignty, we will teach them the full meaning of American resolve."
That is the kind of sentence that sounds like it was workshopped by someone who watches a lot of action movies but also passed the bar exam.
The broader context here is that this has been a simmering fight for over twenty years. The United States under various administrations has ranged from mildly annoyed to openly hostile toward the ICC. The Bush administration unsigned the Rome Statute. The Obama administration cooperated selectively. The first Trump administration sanctioned ICC officials. Now the current administration appears to be telling The Hague that the suggestion box is closed and also on fire.
Rubio drew a direct line back to the American Revolution, noting that the Founders fought specifically against a foreign power that wanted to haul Americans overseas for trial over "pretended offenses." It is a fair historical parallel, even if the ICC operates out of a very nice building in the Netherlands rather than a British warship.
Love him or not, Rubio clearly has a flair for the dramatic exit line. The ICC might want to update its mailing list accordingly.
Read more conservative news commentary at: USA Journal News
