The US seems to have been extremely strong in its reaction to the ruling. "“My colleagues and I look forward to make sure neither Khan, his associates nor thei

The US seems to have been extremely strong in its reaction to the ruling. "“My colleagues and I look forward to make sure neither Khan, his associates nor their families will ever set foot again in the United States,” Republican Senator Tom Cotton wrote on X." "The ICC is the world’s first permanent international war crimes court and its 124 member states are obliged to immediately arrest the wanted person if they are on a member state’s territory." Source: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/21/no-equivalence-biden-defends-israel-after-icc-requests-arrest-warrants https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/21/no-equivalence-bide... I don't understand how the US and many other EU governments can be so extremely critical of a court which as far as I know has been considered legitimate by all of them (except the US which apparently removed its signature... anyone knows why?), and whose decisions have always been applauded by all of them (including Putin's arrest [1]), except for this last one. Quoting from the linked article [1]: "British journalist George Monbiot wrote in a Guardian op-ed that the ICC targeting Putin was an example of the organization's bias in favor of prosecuting crimes by non-Westerners, ...". Looks like that's the real issue here, doesn't it? Imagine a leader of a country saying that the judiciary's decision is wrong and that the judge won't be allowed to travel freely anymore because of that. That would be the end of the rule of law. Why is it different in this case? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_arrest_warrants_for_Vladimir_Putin_and_Maria_Lvova-Belova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court_a...