March 6, 2020

"An investigation of alleged war crimes by the US and others in the Afghan conflict can go ahead, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has ruled."

"The ICC overturned on appeal a previous decision to block the investigation. The actions of the Taliban, the Afghan government and US troops since May 2003 are expected to be examined. But US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the ruling was "reckless" and vowed to protect Americans from it. 'This is a truly breathtaking action by an unaccountable, political institution masquerading as a legal body,' he said. 'All the more reckless for this ruling to come just days after the United States signed a historic peace deal on Afghanistan, which is the best chance for peace in a generation.'"

BBC reports.

28 comments:

Narayanan said...

I'm okay with it as long as ICC do all proceeding in Afghanistan

tim in vermont said...

Can’t have Trump success without shitting on it. It’s a rule. Believe it or not, it’s laid out in the book “The Power of Habit.” Small successes are the key to success, and this then implies that to defeat somebody, you must deny them even small successes.

rhhardin said...

It's part of the self-esteem movement.

Greg Hlatky said...

"And others"? Are there "others"? I get told by my betters that the US unilaterally makes war on innocent, peaceful, kite-flying agrarians.

phillyfan said...

will Obama be prosecuted for drone killings?

traditionalguy said...

The Muslim Brotherhood that Obama and his Iranian handler, Jarrett, had 8 years to place into the institutions still po up like Japs imbedded in Iwo Jima caves did. It’s gonna take time and uncommon valor to kill them all.

henry said...

The criminals in Europe have their own court? How cute.

tim maguire said...

And the ICC hands Trump another electoral gift. Good for them!

MayBee said...

Maybe the ICC can order us to give a couple billion to Iran.

Sebastian said...

Ah, so what critics of the ICC said at the time of its founding was correct after all.

Critic #1 was . . . John Bolton. So, John, who would you rather have responding to ICC shenanigans -- a Trump or a JoeB SoS?

daskol said...

Sometime in the very late 90s, the Israelis had the senior member of their equivalent of the judge advocate's office sit in the war room during targeted assassinations. They'll make better defendants, I think, than Col. Jessup types.

Leland said...

ICC is still around? How does a court without a police force function? I guess I'll watch the Hitman's Bodyguard again.

David Begley said...

At the Austin Film Festival, I saw a movie about the ICC called “I,Witness.” It was one of the last movies of Bruno Ganz. Terrible movie. Confusing. The trial went on for years. The judge retired during the trial. It is a corrupt jobs program.

Howard said...

Bush Cheney and Obama should be the only men subject to war crimes tribunals.

daskol said...

(Col. Jessup voice): "There's no such thing as International Law!"

Gusty Winds said...

They need to do something to try and be relevant. Is it Nuremberg envy?

gspencer said...

All of this was warned about since Wilson's 14 Points. In 1919 the Senate wisely rejected joining the League of Nations. In 1945 the Senate recklessly joined the UN. Since, the US has been roped into countless entangling alliances against the wise advice of Washington himself.

doctrev said...

Blogger Howard said...
Bush Cheney and Obama should be the only men subject to war crimes tribunals.

3/6/20, 7:36 AM

I'd happily just see Bush/ Cheney explaining their actions. Preferably in front of an American judge, but I can see why the President would want to schedule an international tribunal. Millions dead due to Simpleton 43 in one of America's most ineptly run wars.

Phidippus said...

And when they're done, Trump will very properly wipe his rear with their report and send it back to them.

Otto said...

Another dying breath of globalization or bastardized tikkun olam.

Etienne said...

There is no such thing as a war crime.

The object of war is to kill everyone except the breedable women.

Which is why you should never go to war in the middle east, because all the fucking women are circumcised.

Ghad!

Etienne said...

The only thing Bush and his generals did wrong, was they attacked the wrong country. The war would have been shorter if they invaded Pakistan, and let India have their territory back.

~ Gordon Pasha said...

St Crispin's Day, 1415 - from Wikipedia.

Regardless of when the baggage assault happened, at some point after the initial English victory, Henry became alarmed that the French were regrouping for another attack. The Gesta Henrici places this after the English had overcome the onslaught of the French men-at-arms and the weary English troops were eyeing the French rearguard ("in incomparable number and still fresh").[58] Le Fèvre and Wavrin similarly say that it was signs of the French rearguard regrouping and "marching forward in battle order" which made the English think they were still in danger.[86] A slaughter of the French prisoners ensued. It seems it was purely a decision of Henry, since the English knights found it contrary to chivalry, and contrary to their interests to kill valuable hostages for whom it was commonplace to ask ransom. Henry threatened to hang whoever did not obey his orders.
In any event, Henry ordered the slaughter of what were perhaps several thousand French prisoners, sparing only the highest ranked (presumably those most likely to fetch a large ransom under the chivalric system of warfare). According to most chroniclers, Henry's fear was that the prisoners (who, in an unusual turn of events, actually outnumbered their captors) would realise their advantage in numbers, rearm themselves with the weapons strewn about the field and overwhelm the exhausted English forces. Contemporary chroniclers did not criticise him for it.[87] In his study of the battle John Keegan argued that the main aim was not to actually kill the French knights but rather to terrorise them into submission and quell any possibility they might resume the fight, which would probably have caused the uncommitted French reserve forces to join the fray, as well.[88] Such an event would have posed a risk to the still-outnumbered English and could have easily turned a stunning victory into a mutually destructive defeat, as the English forces were now largely intermingled with the French and would have suffered grievously from the arrows of their own longbowmen had they needed to resume shooting. Keegan also speculated that due to the relatively low number of archers actually involved in killing the French knights (roughly 200 by his estimate), together with the refusal of the English knights to assist in a duty they saw as distastefully unchivalrous, and combined with the sheer difficulty of killing such a large number of prisoners in such a short space of time, the actual number of French prisoners put to death may not have been substantial before the French reserves fled the field and Henry rescinded the order.[89]

RobinGoodfellow said...

We’re fools! We fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is “Never get involved in a land war in Asia,” but only slightly less well known is this: “Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!”

narciso said...

the uk is still trying their soldiers from the irish war, but not any of the provos, you see how this works,

Achilles said...

Few things in the world are more worthless than the ICC.

The world would be better off if whatever buildings housed it were turned into parking lots.

Robert Cook said...

"The only thing Bush and his generals did wrong, was they attacked the wrong country."

By what right did we have the right to attack any country?

"The war would have been shorter if they invaded Pakistan, and let India have their territory back."

Tough, that, given that Pakistan is an ally of ours...(and they have nukes). Also, by what right would we invade Pakistan and "return it" to India, (assuming we could even do that, which is unlikely)?

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.