Josh Riley Votes To Protect War Criminals
On Thursday, January 9, 2025, Congressman Josh Riley voted in favor of H.R. 23, also known as the Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act. H.R. 23 is a MAGA Republican bill that would defund the International Criminal Court (ICC) and impose harsh sanctions on any individual or organization who helps the ICC to prosecute war criminals. Riley represents the 19th congressional district in Upstate New York, which includes the city of Ithaca, a stronghold of opposition to human rights abuses and atrocities committed under the cover of war. Representative Riley’s vote in favor of H.R. 23 signals that Riley may be significantly out of touch with the values of his own constituents.
Earlier that day, Democratic US Representative Jim McGovern represented mainstream legal principles as he spoke on the floor of Congress in opposition to H.R. 23. McGovern argued that H.R. 23 represents “messed up and backwards” priorities by sanctioning an international legal institution designed to hold individuals accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity. He emphasized that the rules should apply to everyone, including America’s allies like Israel.
McGovern celebrated the work of the International Criminal Court:
“If the United States of America stands for anything, we need to stand out loud and foursquare for human rights. That means we have to hold ourselves accountable. We have to hold our allies accountable., and we have to hold our adversaries accountable where they don't live up to those standards. The International Criminal Court is there to hold countries accountable and to hold entities accountable when they commit human rights crimes."
Giving a speech on the floor of Congress dedicated specfically to opposition to H.R. 23, McGovern declared:
“The International Criminal Court exists to hold the world accountable, to prevent atrocities and to serve as a reminder that no one is above the law. Abandoning the ICC, as HR 23 proposes, undermines our values, undermines our alliances and undermines our credibility on the world stage. This is a moment to reaffirm our commitment to human rights, to international law, and to the partnerships that have defined American leadership. This bill fails that test.
By sanctioning officials of the ICC and anyone who has done business with them, this bill would have a chilling effect on America's work to support human rights and rule of law around the world. It would hamper the ICC’s efforts to prosecute serious atrocities that have wrecked lives and destabilized countries around the world from Ukraine to Uganda, in countries around the world, from Ukraine to Uganda to Darfur. NGOs would be chilled from sharing evidence of the great crimes committed this these places.
Many of us celebrated in March of 2023 when the ICC 's judges issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and another senior Russian official for abducting thousands of Ukrainian children. Congress even passed legislation to enable the united states to provide financial support to and share information with the ICC to investigate and prosecute Putin and his regime for their heinous crimes in Ukraine. This bill we are considering today would undermine that work and rob it of its legitimacy.
If passed, this misguided legislation would bluntly curtail our ability to engage the ICC to advance our interests in supporting justice and accountability and, crucially, to share relevant information with our partners and allies. Speaking of our al least. This bill is so absurdly broad it would sanction our own allies. This would sanction our own allies. Read the bill. Our allies would be sanctioned for supporting the ICC if this were to pass. The largest funders of the ICC are America's closest allies, the UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan. As drafted the leaders of these countries would be sanctioned for providing material assistance to the ICC that's truly nuts. It doesn't make any sense to me.
The legislative bodies of these bodies could also be sanctioned for appropriating funds to the ICC and by some interpretations, interparliamentary travel to Europe could become a sanctionable activity. Did anybody think this through? Is sanctioning the leaders of our closest friends and allies really the best we can do here? This sanction over 900 members from approximately 100 countries at the court from judges, prosecutors, to administrative staff, including nationals of close US allies and partners, who collectively work to prosecute war criminals around the globe. The language in this bill is so broad even cafeteria workers and janitors, even their families could be construed as having, quote, supported or materially assisted in these prosecutions by providing services to the I.C.C.
This is nuts. This is nuts, and what would happen next? I can tell you, Mr. Speaker. American companies would be banned from doing business with the ICC if its top officials are sanctioned. Their Chinese competitors would rush in to fill the gap. Not only does this undermine America's interests, it bolsters Russia and it helps China. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill.”
The majority of Democrats in Congress agreed with Representative Jim McGovern. H.R. 23 is a bad bill. Why did Josh Riley vote for it?
McGovern also criticized the bill for hindering international efforts to prevent atrocities and for undermining America’s commitment to human rights. He stated that H.R. 23 would make Israel less safe and weaken America’s global credibility. He further condemned the bill’s broad scope, which could sanction American allies and individuals who provide basic services to the ICC.
Human rights organizations from the United States and around the world criticized H.R. 23, citing the following reasons:
● H.R. 23 undermines international efforts to hold government officials accountable for war crimes.
● H.R. 23 violates international law and America's principles of justice by sanctioning ICC personnel.
● H.R. 23 sets a dangerous precedent of politicizing judicial functions and weakening global commitments to accountability.
● H.R. 23 sends a signal that will embolden authoritarian regimes to commit future human rights abuses.
● H.R. 23 could halt the ICC’s work in conflicts that are critically important to the United States, such as Ukraine and Sudan.
● H.R. 23 jeopardizes the ability of victims to access justice and weakens the credibility of sanctions in other contexts.
● H.R. 23 places the United States at odds with its closest allies, forcing the US government to sanction nations such as the United Kingdom and France.
A joint open letter from multiple human rights organizations to Congress argued that sanctioning the ICC would undermine U.S. interests and betray American values. The letter emphasized the ICC’s vital role in investigating crimes against humanity and upholding the rule of law. It further highlighted bipartisan support for the ICC’s investigations in Ukraine, Myanmar, and Sudan.
Another group of UN human rights experts urged the U.S. Congress to block the bill, calling it a blatant violation of human rights. The experts criticized the bill for eroding international law enforcement and politicizing judicial functions. They also expressed concern that the bill would set a dangerous precedent by allowing governments to shield war criminals who have conducted violent atrocities against civilian populations from any accountability. Amnesty International also condemned the House’s passage of the bill, stating that it would harm victims globally and undermine the U.S. government's ability to champion human rights.
It is disturbing for residents of Ithaca and Tompkins County to see Josh Riley work with extremist MAGA Republicans to destroy the International Criminal Court. Why would Congressman Josh Riley go against the humanitarian values of New York’s 19th district and America’s longstanding commitment to ending war crimes through the rule of law?
“War crimes” is such an awfully generic term. Let’s get explicit about what war crimes are. War crimes include torture prisons, concentration camps, the purposeful mass murder of entire populations of people, and the use of horrific chemical and biological weapons against enemy soldiers. Think of the worst things that the Nazis did. Those are the kinds of things that are included in war crimes.
War crimes are the worst things that human beings do, and the International Criminal Court protects people from them. In his first week in Congress, Josh Riley decided to protect war criminals and attack the International Criminal Court. What kind of person would do that?
It may seem harsh to link Josh Riley to support of war criminals inspired by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Third Reich, but the association is inescapable. The International Criminal Court was established in response to the wartime atrocities of the Nazis during World War II and the war crimes committed during the Balkan Wars of the 1990s.
We should take legislation that attempts to dismantle protections against war crimes seriously. The fact that this legislation is being passed days before Donald Trump takes the White House is particularly significant. H.R. 23 is a blatantly fascist bill that seeks to provide legal protection to violent authoritarians.
Most chilling of all, H.R. 23 will make it easier for Donald Trump to get away with ordering the American military to commit war crimes in wars of foreign conquest… or even worse, to commit atrocities against Trump’s enemies right here in the USA.
Not only is the substance of H.R. 23 in conflict with every democratic value Americans were once taught to hold dear, but procedurally, the process of its passage in the US House of Representatives was an affront to the standards of honest legislative work. The Republican Party leadership under Mike Johnson rushed H.R. 23 to the floor without any committee review, hearings, opportunity for public comment, or legislative amendment. What’s more, Republicans scheduled the one short hour that was allowed for debate of H.R. 23 for the very same time that the funeral of former president Jimmy Carter was being held.
No member of Congress with any sense of professional integrity could have voted for H.R. 23 under these circumstances. Josh Riley went ahead and did it anyway.
Representative McGovern commented:
“I'm told that there were negotiations going on to try to actually improve this legislation and then the speaker made a unilateral decision to go with the most extreme version. This was not marked up in committee, and there were no amendments to this. Didn't come to the Rules Committee. Nobody can offer an amendment. Nobody can make a suggestion. Take it or leave it. That is the way, I guess, the way the Republicans are going to want to run the House… The reason why my colleagues are not here is because the republicans scheduled this debate during President Carter's funeral, which I find to be incredibly disappointing, given President Carter's stature in this country and his commitment to human rights.”
Josh Riley is a lawyer. He knows better than to vote for violent authoritarian legislation such as H.R. 23. The question is why Josh Riley has abandoned his better interests to join with Donald Trump’s MAGA movement in providing special protections to war criminals.
Has Josh Riley given in to the temptations of power, or is he simply afraid to stand up to Donald Trump? Will Josh Riley continue to support extremist MAGA Republican legislation for the entire 119th Congress, or is he just getting off to a rough start?
Come back to Josh Riley Watch to see more about how this two-year term is developing.
In the meantime, you can call Josh Riley’s office in Washington DC to express your opinion about his vote on this bill. The phone number is (202) 225-5441
