Welcome back to the Dershow. Let us happen since the last time we met, particularly the

horrible brutality and apparent killing of civilians in areas around Kyiv, obviously.

The evidence shows fairly conclusively that Russian soldiers were responsible for murdering

in cold blood, shooting at close range, civilians tying some of their hands behind their

back, not expectantly. Unexpectedly, the Russians claimed none of the Ukrainians did

it. It's a false flag operation, obviously, investigation. We'll determine the truth

of what happened, but if it was the Russians, as it appears to be, the legal question

that arises, what is this? And President Zelensky, understandably, because he's at war,

wants to weaponize words in history. And so he said that what's going on in the areas

around Kyiv, and generally in Ukraine, not only is a war crime or war crimes, it is also

genocide. President Biden says, no, there are war crimes. And Putin is a war criminal, but

it is not genocide. The media, as usual, does know what it's talking about. And the experts

are all confused at what constitutes genocide. What constitutes a war crime? I've been thinking

and teaching about these issues now for what, 55 years. So this is a seminar on what is

a war crime? What constitutes different kinds of war crimes? Who can try war crimes? What

is the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court? When does the actions of a country

like Russia become genocide? Is genocide a war crime? And can it be tried in front of

the International Criminal Court? Or any other tribunal? Obviously, all this goes back

to the Nuremberg trials. The first time, really, in history, that a trial was conducted against

people who conducted an aggressive war and people who committed war crimes. Following

the Nuremberg, principles that were established, partly by my mentor and close friend,

Telfer Taylor, General Telfer Taylor, who was the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg after

...