The fact that the US considers itself "in the right" concerning ANY war we get into does not give us the "right" to be barbarians. It seems we have made this mistake before...
6
Of course there was abuse and torture by US military! Have we forgotten all the memos legitimizing water boarding and other forms of “enhanced interrogation techniques” that were totally sanctioned by the Bush-Cheney administration? The reports of abuse that came out about Blackwater security forces, Abu-Ghraib (Yes, I know this is in Iraq not Afghanistan), all those “secret prisons” in Poland and god knows where else in order that horrific treatment could be perpetuated by our military for “the war on terror” so long as it wasn’t done on US soil. We have such clean hands, or so we must think! This administration is acting totally ridiculous as usual. Go on ICC, please pursue these criminals and wring out some measure of justice as water from a stone. It will not be enough to cover all our crimes.
3
For once, Trump can not be blamed, at least not for potential war crimes before he was president. However, he must be blamed for his administration's constant undermining and dismantling of anything that remotely looks multilateral.
He needs to be reminded that none of the major challenges facing the globe can be solved in isolation: Israel/Palestine, climate change, COVID19, North Korea, Iran, and the list goes on.
I am convinced that if he had enlisted his allies into some of these fights there would have been real progress, not just love letters from Pyongjang.
He now faces a real test with COVID19, and so far he is failing miserably. Maybe it won't be the stock market or Joe Biden who will bring him down, but a virus. How ironic would that be that a virus brings down a germophobe?
As some of the comments say, the United States is not viewed favorably overseas. And that's perhaps an overstatement.
2
It’s a guerrilla war. There are 34 provinces in Afghanistan. In each province, the Taliban kills its perceived enemies without any central coordination. That’s why an agreement with a central Taliban representative is totally meaningless. But Obama, as good as he was, should have done what Trump has done, early in his first term.
2
That shows also that this court was in the last decades a tool to further US Interests.
The sheer arrogance of this country, is, at times, utterly astounding.
We are above everything, including human decency, the law and common sense.
We are always right and everyone else is always wrong.
No wonder no one can stand the sight of us anymore
4
"..this renegade, unlawful, so-called court.." sure sounds like what Hitler might have said if an international body started investigating Nazi crimes during his reign.
3
I heard Bolton jabber on about something, Then I stopped listening to him, and skipped ahead the video. We as the USofA tell the rest of the world, you got to buy Oil in our currency, then we tell them, if they don't do what we tell them to do....yada yada yada. as if someone suddenly made us god's on planet earth.
The covid19 outbreak is going to humble the nations again like the spanish flu did 100 years ago. This time around the supply chains that the USA so much wanted to save money with, are breaking. Can't cut the federal funds rate much more, at Zero, you also can never raise it.
The reign of terror the USA has been pushing globally will end about the same time, other nations stand up and don't buy our Debt. With supplies cut off due to the virus outbreak, what are we going to do, Invade India and take them?
We have been playing the bad guy so long we forgot what it is like to be the good guy.
Now It's time we stood up and did the right thing, and take the medicine.
It is good to see that so many of the comments put the lie to the headline that “America” is against the ICC.
While it is fair to say that the Trump administration should not be singled out for war crimes relative to its predecessors, it has to be singled out for its opposition to any accountability. By recently derailing military justice, it forfeits any special treatment by the ICC.
I still live in hope that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Woo will face consequences for their promotion of war and torture. At least I know that God will deal with them at the final Judgement.
1
Why has the USA exempted itself from the jurisdiction of this court?
It’s certainly not because they are innocent of war crimes over all the years they’ve been fighting wars all over the place.
It’s clearly because of hubris and the myth of American exceptionalism . “We’re better than other nations!”
I was raised with the same mythology in Great Britain. It took leaving the UK to realize that we Brits aren’t as special as the history books told us!
(And neither were the mighty Germans,
Mr. Trump...)
2
Remember, history is mostly written by the victor.
The United States should be accountable, when warranted, like everyone else. We haven’t accepted that fact, however.
2
“truly breathtaking action by an unaccountable, political institution masquerading as a legal body.”
I'm confused. Was Pompeo talking about the ICC, or the White House?
2
"Katherine Gallagher, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights,... said the crimes had been documented for the prosecutors to move quickly. “In the case of U.S. torture, who bears responsibility has been well-documented,”
Will this be the final battleground where Donld J. Trump is finally held accountable for his crimes against humanity? The forever, impeached 45 along with his 17,000+ lies, subversion of justice and the Constitution is long overdue some justice of his own.
45 has done more damage in three short years, than any other dictator thought possible. Who needs a foreign enemy when you have this malicious, self enriching man setting an example for criminals everywhere and subverting democracy from within?
1
The ruling by an appeals chamber of the court in The Hague reversed a lower chamber’s decision that had halted an inquiry into the behavior of forces from the United States, which does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction. Washington revoked the visa of the court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, last year after she had signaled her intentions to pursue the case..."
What is America / Britain afraid of the I.C.C. revealing? Have my country, (the U.S.), AND Britain discovered nuclear weapons, overnight in Iraq / Afghanistan? If not...our mere presence is a war_profiteering, ('Pillaging'), crime!
My country, 'N, Britain, alleged N.-W.M.D.'s, in Iraq was reason, enough for initiating a search for them!
So...where are they?
If My country, 'N, Britain have nothing to hide...why all, this animosity, Vs. the I.C.C.?
Is this more denial, like...
Ronald, ('Iran_Contra') Reagan, and his beloved death squads in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Chile, and elsewhere, Vs. the I.C.C....all, over again?
1
"...an unaccountable, political institution masquerading as a legal body.”
When I read this I immediately thought of the SCOTUS. When a US border agent committed the cold-blooded, pre-meditated murder of a Mexican teenager by shooting at him through the slats of the border fence (multiple times until he was sure the rock-throwing boy was dead), our SCOTUS declared that the Mexican family had no standing.
That rotten decision on the heels the imPOTUS' recent lionizing of a convicted war criminal tells the world what to expect when we decide to go for their natural resources by means of undeclared wars -- a military without Standards of Conduct sent by a nation without morals. Speaking as a ColdWar-era veteran, those were the things we were supposedly fighting for that made us the Good Guys.
I long for the day when the I.C.C. declares Bush, Cheney, Powell, et al war criminals for deceiving the world about the supposed intelligence that justified that 2003 oil grab we are still paying for with blood and treasure. I am so ashamed and disgusted by my nation's "leaders."
3
When we have a President who thinks himself above the law, it is no surprise to discover that many in his party think the nation is also above the internationally recognized law.
To retreat from standards set by the community of nations at a time when the bounds of decency and and the fabric of democracies are being threatened worldwide is to abandon the principles that this country is founded on.
28
Perhaps mistakes were made, but we have nothing to hide but fear itself.
2
@kirk You must have been in a diffferent part of Afghanistan from the rest of us.
( you were in Afghanistan, weren't you?)
@kirk Nothing to hide....are you kidding. You should have been there.
2
We wage more war than almost any other nation, so it only makes sense that the U.S. military should come under scrutiny. War is a Petri dish inviting bad human behavior to come and grow. We have seen enough atrocities over the years to know that we Americans are not immune to evil.
Some of my most vivid childhood experiences involved watching the horrendous deeds committed by American soldiers in Vietnam. The My Lai massacre is still at the top of the list. The shameful Gallagher case was only the most recent in a long line of garbage acts in which "our boys" have been complicit.
Maybe instead of acting like indignant children caught with their hands in the cookie jar, our so-called leaders ought to consider the reality that when they send troops to war, they are asking human beings to commit murder and other atrocities in an official capacity, and that they therefore have a responsibility to cooperate with international criminal courts whose job it is to ensure that the rules of engagement are not violated.
We have seen our own "commander in chief" not only abdicate his responsibility to enforce punishment for evil activities, but to actually encourage and celebrate unusual and inhumane cruelty. He is not allowing U.S. military courts to function properly, effectively hamstringing our military's domestic justice system. Trump's irresponsible behavior has opened us up to even more criticism, and the international court is right in trying to hold us to account.
124
@Allison :
wow!
thank you for your sincerity.
i am ashamed to state that my (european) country helps
US drones reach their targets in the muslim world ...
and my country's leaders do not seem to mind the fact
that, by helping "our north american friends", they violate
both our constitution and international law.
[not to mention that they do not seem to realize (or care?)
how much anti-western sentiment their 'policies' engender
around the globe ...]
1
@Allison you missed the big ones.There was a general whose name I am blessed to not remember who had his troops shoot everything that moved in order to create BIG numbers of dead combatants. At the end of the sweep there were 11000 or so enemy dead and fewer than 750 weapons recovered. Simply a slaughter. By wars end two million Vietnamese were killed, five million more crippled , wounded, and eleven million homeless , left to wander a country destroyed by war lacking any resources to support it's devastated population. Mei Lai was a minor incident in our tragic history of inhumanity practiced on our fellow human beings.
4
@Allison 'We wage more war than almost any other nation'
Almost??
1
Wow, who could have seen this coming? I mean, it's almost as if pardoning war criminals sent a message that we can't self-enforce the Law of War . . .
103
We are not so special that we Americans should be exempt from this international investigation and potential court proceedings if significant evidence is found. The arrogance and egomania of how we Americans talk about and believe that we are the best the best the best is absurd. We need to join the community of nations to collaborate on: justice, climate catastrophe, women's rights, public health worldwide, etc. And most people know that the person who boasts the most is, in fact, the most insecure. This bad psychology shows up in geopolitics with disastrous deadly results. Let's join the civilized world by cooperating with the ICC. We do bad stuff, too, and we need to be held accountable. This is what The Rule of Law looks like internationally.
185
@christine
I couldn't agree more. I recommend reading or re-reading "The Ugly American" by William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick. (Upon looking for it in my bookcase to re-read, I just realized I have a First Edition. Truly a treasure!)
23
@christine Agree. Hopefully, GWB, Obama, Trump and associated hangers-on will be forced to limit their travel domestically. A investigation like this would be unthinkable 20 years ago, but this just shows you that the Empire is coming to an end.
22
Brilliant post Christine ! You summed it up just perfectly. Here , Australia, we are going through the same story , a whistleblower released what are now known as the Afghan Papers. The govt is trying to gag everything.
I don’t understand why the American Govt is trying to extradite Julian Assange from the UK , I have read thousands of the cables most were idle chatter. Our Govt is offering no help whatsoever.
21
Our military is mostly just something to boost the economy of the military-industrial complex and cement the power of those people over the world. These people have been and are going to continue to enrich themselves and terrorize the world using the blood and treasure of the citizens of the United States. Sadly, these people are never going to be held accountable. The only people ever held accountable are the people that act a little more insane in a already completely insane situation. If other more civilized countries want to hold some of our people accountable for the damage done by this insanity, that’s understandable.
6
The Golden Rule - he who has the gold makes the rules.
1
Our invasion of Afghanistan was a war crime without a justifiable cause, except that America was afraid and raging after the 9/11 attacks. US war crimes were reported in American media as soon as our boots hit the ground, with US allies torturing captured prisoners by the hundreds, denying medical care, locking some in shipping containers to suffocate, among countless other atrocities. Then we bombed innocents and continue to do so. Meanwhile, we drove many of our troops insane with the stresses of too many combat deployments, sleep deprivation, too much horror and observed suffering. Our war in Afghanistan is a super industrial mega nightmare.
14
I still can't get over the fact that a US President ordered the assassination of an Iranian citizen and high ranking military official, on his own soil, and that being a sovereign nation with whom we are not at war. When asked why, trump said "it didn't matter".
Ten or eleven other men died with him. This assassination (murder) resulted in the deaths of 169 civilians when their commercial jet was inadvertently shot down by Iranians. US soldiers nearby suffered concussion as their base was bombed in retaliation.
General Soulemeini (sp?) was a bad, bad guy. He killed a lot of our troops and innocents as well. We killed a lot of Iraqis, Afghans, military and civilian in Bush's war. What makes our actions any different from his? What gave us the right to unilaterally kill him?
17
@Deb 'General Soulemeini (sp?) was a bad, bad guy.'
And this is where all critical thinking fails you; why?
Please give one example of Sulemein being a bad, bad guy. Had he been American, protecting not only our interests but ourselves, he would be described for what he was: a brilliant military technician and strategist. ( I believe they said the same about Lee, but.....)
@Deb One correction. He was not on his soil. he was in Iraq.
1
Mr. Pompeo called the ruling a “truly breathtaking action by an unaccountable, political institution masquerading as a legal body.”
He fails to mention his masquerade as this nation's Secretary of State. He's failed to rebuild and re invigorate the State Department after it was gutted by Rex Tillerson under the guidance and insistence of Donald Trump. He's failed to support and defend his own staff as they attempted to fulfill their duty, under oath, to the US Constitution.
Who is being held "unaccountable" for dereliction of duty? Who is "masquerading" on the world stage as a statesman? Why, Mr. Pompeo of course. He shouldn't cast stones when he's the one living in a glass house. And he should be bright enough to know when to keep his mouth shut.
9
@invoke25 'He fails to mention his masquerade as this nation's Secretary of State.'
And never fail to forget the masquerading senator who put him there: Rand Paul. After a week of milking his bogus antiwar bona fides by threatening to vote against Pompeo's confirmation, by spending not a minute putting a revelatory question to Pompeo that could have quickly exposed his unfitness for office, Rand Paul voted for Pompeo, the vote proceeded to the full senate where confirmation was guaranteed. All of that was simply to enhance Paul's run for the presidency in 2020, and give him his motto: Rand Paul. The Good Republican.
@Jerry Westerby Take some comfort in the likelyhood that Rand Paul's run for any future presidency will be as effective as Elizabeth Warren's chances for the 2020 cycle. He's an outlier. A freak without Trump's malignant charisma to seduce the illiterate. Won't get very far.
War crimes should be prosecuted worldwide, including at the ICJ. How ironic that the state that correctly pushed for the Nuremberg trials after WW II - without any treaty or established precedent at the time - denounces accountability if its own forces are concerned. It just shows the credibility problem the US have in this field - and have had for a very long time. So while this is not new or specific to the current administration, Trump has just recently pardoned a Navy Seal for war crimes in Afghanistan - so it seems that national enforcement is not effective.
11
from the outset I felt the justification was thin to send troops into Afghanistan. We were pursuing Bin Laden, why not use special Ops? There was absolutely no justification for invaiding Iraq and I still feel Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield should be tried for war crimes.
15
@Linda W We did use special forces and cia operatives (in conjunction with local Northern Alliance militia members) at first, but they failed at Tora Bora (in capturing Osama) and therefore we had to send in the army. The Pakistan ISI airlifting Taliban leaders out while pretending to cooperate with the US also didn't help our kill/capture efforts. Iraq . . .well we all know the motives there.
@Linda W And don't forget: Taliban, ruling Afghanistan then, told Bush sure, sure, we'll hand over bin Laden, but could we just go through the preliminaries first -- show us the evidence. To which Cheney, uh, Bush said: invasion and occupying is easier than coming up w the evidence.
4
Tony Blair, too.
Yet there was the Chilcot Enquiry that more or less let him off after a few years.
“More or less “ because it’s said his conscience still plagues him mightily .
The comments below are predictably focused on Trump. Overwhelmingly the allegations occurred before Trump.
Obama would very likely have given the same response. Bush too.
They're also talking about the terrorists in Guantanamo.
This action is more about shaming the US, and undermining the Afghan forces.
Do you think they'll focus on the Taliban? I'm sure they'll cooperate with an investigation.
3
@Dred The difference is that Obama and Bush upheld the rule of law and did not try to undermine our justice system and did not pardon war criminals. Things are a bit different these days.
3
Really, the U.S. should be taken to task for spinning the intel. about WMDs and destabilizing the Middle East. Oh, and lying to get us into Vietnam. Remember that one? Wasted lives but great dividends for U.S. war economy investors who wisely avoided the military. Will a moderate President change that? One hopes but...
9
I am not a fan of the International Criminal Court, which is indeed politicized, but on the other hand we have a president who pardons war criminals and tacitly encourages further war crimes. If we had a president who was not disgustingly corrupt, lawless, and actively undermining the rule of law in this country -- and GOP senators who upheld their oaths and exercised proper oversight of the executive branch -- and a Supreme Court that was not coopted into being just another partisan entity -- well, then, our objection to international investigations contrary to our sovereignty would be morally persuasive. Our dying US democracy needs an intervention, and maybe we'll be lucky enough to get one.
3
@Jonathan - Far worse occurred under Bush. Our country literally committed serious war crimes by invading Iraq. Of course, in any war, both sides eventually commit war crimes at the local level as well. Put enough young men with guns into painful situations and you will end up with war crimes. Not surprising.
3
This was inevitable.
This is not the first time the U.S. SHOULD have been charged with war crimes. It’s just that international agencies usually fail to regulate the most powerful countries.
With every international agreement and treaty broken or discarded by the Trump Administration, the U.S. lost international clout and power. Leaving the Paris agreement, failing to support NAFTA, withdrawing from the TTP, breaking the nuclear treaty with Iran, cozying up with authoritarian dictators, giving implicit support and submission to Russia, abandoning the Kurds on the field of battle, creating concentration camps on our borders and stealing children (children!); the list goes on.
These actions have not only immediate consequences, but the cumulative effect of deconstructing American hegemony.
Trump has publicly taken this country down a path of becoming less. And with the loss of allies and power, we can expect the international regulatory powers in the world to begin stepping forward and confronting us with our sins.
If I were Dick Cheney or Henry Kissinger, I’d be worried.
4
@Chickpea
Power does not vain overnight. The Russians labeled Turkey ‘the sick man of Europe’, in 1853. Mind you the sickness had overtaken Turkey even a 100 years before that. But the sick man did not DIE till 1918.
In today’s world, where news spreads at the speed of electrons, once the rot sets in, the demise comes sooner. Much sooner. First the moral bankruptcy, and then the corroding cancer working from the inside!
We have an administration in this country that does not believe in accountability and the rule of law (and lets war criminals walk free).
Thank goodness some international organization is willing to finally hold this country accountable. If only they had stepped in sooner when something could have been done about Bush and Cheney. But better late than never.
8
The Taliban should face the ICC for their brutal treatment of the Afghan people and also the Afghan forces who caused crimes against the Taliban. While I understand Sec. Pompeo defending the US position, I don't see any reason to defend the president, Bush, his administration and those in the Congress who gave a nod who initiated America's longest war in Afghanistan that resulted in the war crimes and loss of million lives during the execution of the war.
3
America is exceptional. In two world wars it proved itself to be the bulwark of democracy and freedom. It built alliances that have held for a century. Though not nearly perfect, the stability we have provided has given many other nations reason to honor our efforts. Now we are a laughing stock. Our "shining light on the hill" so proudly pronounce by Ronald Reagan is dimmed by an inept and angry administration. Our work and war in other nations must be held to the same standards of justice as every other nation. If our representatives have committed atrocities in our name then they (and we) must ay the price. If we are not accountable to fair and equal justice, then no nation is accountable.
2
Consider that US troops and/or representative troops, aka mercenaries, have definitely committed war crimes, what does it tell us about the US government’s nonrecognition of international law? CORRECT RESPONSE: We are a nation run by criminals.
1
Well, the most aggressive, war-loving country on the planet (seriously.. competitors?) will now be held to account. Pompeo’s whining is laughable... these are the people who regularly flaunt international law.. not least by recently assassinating a serving Iranian general and citing fake intelligence to justify it. American exceptionalism does not mean it can get away with war crimes.. although I have no doubt that the majority of Americans think the country can do whatever it wants...like invading Iraq illegally.
2
What took them so long?
It's pretty obvious that the US committed war crimes in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
2
Not to mention Vietnam. But of course, more and more choose to forget what we did there.
1
No country on earth should be above accountability and investigation for war crimes.
3
@You Know It ....agree but let's hold this president accountable first otherwise it will be meaningless.
1
They need to also indict ‘W’ Bush and his henchman Dick Cheney for starting these two wars in the first place. Their personal incompetence is written in blood all over these two wars. But, then is there any real leadership culpability when our Congress tacitly allow abets these military follies and our citizens do nothing to make either the Executive or Congress pay in any way for the deaths and waste. Conclusion: look for bigger and more deadly wars to follow.
6
Absolutely amazing to me how far we’ve fallen in just a few short years.
No matter how far back they want to go, the impetus is surely the 31/2 years of this rogue administration’s actions, thumbing its ugly orange nose at the rest of the world.
Can’t end soon enough.
Of course the US commits war crimes. And like everyone else we should have to answer for them. All by himself Trump is a war crime.
2
I abide by international law except when it goes against my interests
1
It’s about time. The Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump debacle has its offshoots have killed well over two million innocent civilians. Twelve year old kids blown up with Hellfire missiles for herding the family’s goat herd is not how civilized government’s operate. The CIA, Administration, and Presidents responsible need to stand trial. Obama’s wars in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, starting ISIS, were especially awful. But Trump not just continuing those crimes against humanity, but doubling down, is beyond contemptible. We are in an election year and Biden is as bad as Obama. We have one choice, Tulsi Gabbard.
2
We did torture people and should be held accountable for our actions.
1
'Although the United States is not a state party to Rome Statute...'
Yes, yes, yes... something to do w Israel, isn't it?
Isn't everything?
2
Individuals are guilty of war crimes, not entire nations. A bad headline taints the whole story.
@Ben Lowsen
Yes, Yes. Adam blamed Eve; Eve blamed the serpent, and the serpent had no legs to stand on. End of story.
American serviceman commits genocide, the President pardons him. End of Story.
Yes, we are prone to seeing the mote in the other’s eye, while remaining oblivious to the beam in our own.
2
The US should tell the International Criminal Court to "stick it". Any allegations of war crimes committed by US forces should be adjudicated under US law in US courts of competent jurisdiction. The US does not recognize the International Criminal Court and should not cooperate with it.
7
@Mike F. I think essentially what you're saying is that the US believes in international law except for when the law implicates the US in a crime. Typical hypocrisy.
8
@Mike F. The point you never addressed is why not. Trying yourself for alleged crimes means you can't be convicted even if you should be.
2
@Mike F.
The US saying it doesn't "recognize" the ICC should hold about as much water as you saying you don't "recognize" the judge's authority should you ever find yourself dragged into court.
6
I don't defend atrocities, no matter who commits them, but priorities need to be kept straight if you're interested in actually helping the people on whom these things are done.
So, it's interesting this article and reporter neglected to mention the NYT story that ran YESTERDAY and lead with this observation:
Deadly assaults against Afghan forces have increased since the U.S. and Taliban signed a deal to end their war. Afghans worry about the ambiguity of the Taliban’s promises.
In other words, due to the law of unintended consequences, that terrible force and truth, these bumbling efforts in the Hague will give the far greater murderers known as the Taliban a free hand.
6
@Jake Leibowitz
The agreement between the Taliban and America (the sovereign authority in Afghanistan), clearly stated that prisoners (of both sides) would be released immediately. Nowhere did the statement make the (SO CALLED) Afghan Government arbitrators regarding the time of release.
its about time. No country is above the law. This nation needs to be held accountable and our general populace needs to know what has been done in their name which is vile and despicable. Of course we have done good, but many in this country don't understand the grave misdeeds our soldiers/personnel have done which contributes to PTSD and homelessness and suicide among our military.
49
"infuriated" - same response this administration has toward anyone seeking accountability.
Cooperation and humility would be the rational human response. We all make mistakes (excluding Trump and his kind, of course).
12
@Kenneth Brady They're taking about cases that occurred before the Trump administration. Obama would have had the same response.
1
@Dred
Yes, the ICC is reviewing back to early 2000s, but Obama is far more rational and humble than DJT. He might have had some initial defensiveness, but I have no doubt he would have cooperated to make the world a better place for all (not just his "constituents").
The myth that God-fearing Americans, by definition, don't commit war crimes is dear to Republican/conservative "patriots". They change the old saying, "...if the evidence and the law are against you, throw yourself on the mercy of the court." to "...deny the jurisdiction of the court, claim sovereign immunity, and get Trump to issue a pardon."
29
Anything to get the US. But then they see us as the enemy with Trump's comments form the day he took office. I do not agree with the actions of this government to stop the investigation. But to me with so many tyrants in power they did not have to do this.
2
Typically to set examples accountability starts at the top. The US/ EU cannot by themselves determine/ assign tyrant status behind cover of democracy. One reason i hear Henry Kissinger does bot travel outside the US is that there are ‘similar’ charges against him - in a Spanish? court.
1
The ICC of course will not investigate any action taken by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Please America does not recognise the ICC.
4
@Eric
You didnt read the article. Of course the ICC WILL investigate the horrors perpetrated by the Talibans, as well as the Afghan forces as well as the US forces......
There is no "either / or" here. In a war tragically and often some people do commit atrocities, usually towards civilians..... I believe the Talibans committed the most of these in this war, but that doesnt mean the other parties have to go torturing innocent bystanders.
Take a minute to look at the cases the Court has pursued in the near past. Tell me if you think it should not have done so??????
2
What is "breathtaking" Mr. Pompeo, is your arrogance in believing that Americans are not subject to the same laws as everyone else. Our U.S. military has an ugly history of human rights abuses, and cannot be held to a different standard.
58
So Pompeo isn’t saying we did not torture and rape. He is saying that we simply don’t recognize anyone’s authority to call us out on it.
Wow. Just wow. I truly hate what we’ve become.
76
Our 45th President—once we finally get one after these longest 3-4 years in our history—must not only disavow the loser's and pompous pompeo's scorn of the UN here, but apologize on their eventual behalf for their thinly-veiled antisemitic attacks on "globalists", proudly cooperate with this ICC investigation and any further cases that involve the US, and undo the Nicaragua v. United States tantrum wherein the US obstructed the separate International Court of Justice.
9
All I can say is, it's about time the US was called out for this.
Perhaps Eddie Gallagher will be one of the defendants.
32
Let's put it this way, if the Allies had lost WWII, Dresden and Hiroshima would have been our trial. I'm paraphrasing from one of our generals with respect to the WWII War Crimes Tribunal.
What does that mean? I'm not sure myself, except that the "winner" does get to decide. So, until the country is overtaken by an outside force, earth bound or otherwise, and as much as a recognition of C.A.H were committed by all, I don't believe we'll see anyone or group anywhere sacrificed in order to assuage the Hague International Court.
The only thing that may make a difference is if there are international warrants placed against ALL those from ALL parties, and carried out, it will be more of the same somewhere else.
In summation, there are no rules in a fire fight. Torture is another thing all together.
1
@Rick Tornello But there ARE rules in a firefight. Even some the United States has agreed to abide by.
2
@H.A. Milton yeah number 1, Stay alive.
"infuriated" - same response this administration has toward anyone seeking accountability.
60
No country should be above the law.
71
@PJM The law is not applied evenly.
Will the ICC investigate the taliban. No!!
2
@PJM, absolutely. This applies internationally as well as internally.
8
@Eric 'Having spent years collecting information on the Afghanistan war, Ms. Bensouda requested permission to open an investigation into claims of war crimes and crimes against humanity attributed to United States military and intelligence forces, the Taliban and Afghan forces.'
Literally paragraph six.
7
This is wonderful. The US has always stood beyond the reach of international inquiry. We can kill anyone, anytime, anywhere. We can kill citizens. We can kill government officials. With impunity.
Our hypocrisy is known around the world. We proclaim the rule of law and then ignore the laws we want to ignore.
I hope that this inquiry proceeds and that the Empire and its national security military industrial complex stand in the dock of world public opinion.
103
@Greg smith
I don't care about world public opinion...I care about justice. Those Americans guilty of war crimes should be punished just like those found guilty at the Nuremberg trials.
12
@Greg smith When has anyone on behalf of the U.S. ever claimed that we have the right to kill anyone we want "with impunity"? No country is perfect including the U.S. but acting as though our intentions are no different than thuggish guerrillas is absurd.
2
@John Brown
This is the International Criminal Court, not a national court. And we try people from other countries in the US—if you're in a country, and you break the law, you should be subject to prosecution, soldier or not.
And then of course there's Guantanamo, where we just detain suspects indefinitely without even giving them a trial.
The best way for a soldier to avoid being tried for crimes committed while in uniform would be not to commit war crimes.
6
Hi, I used to work for Bensouda in her Prosecutor’s Office at the ICC, specifically in Situation Analysis. That section conducts the initial ‘preliminary examinations’ that lead to full on investigations. While working there I there I saw nothing but a political machine doing the bidding of powerful western countries. Bensouda will not allow this to go far, because as much as she tries to act like she is an impartial investigator of global war crimes, she is a politician first and foremost. As much as I hate the Trump administration’s approach to international law, the ICC is there only to prosecute war criminals in poor nations and cares nothing for administering justice impartially. Something Bolton and I have in common, except unlike him, I know American forces and UK forces DID commit war crimes under the Rome Statute there. Awful, though, that the Afghan people won’t see international crimes punished by a competent court.
25
@WMJ
Powerful countries are never held accountable.
Is it not possible, thanks to Trump’s withdrawal from international agreements, betrayal of allies and favors to enemies, and clownish behavior on the world stage in general, that the ICC now sees the US as a country weak enough to prosecute?
3
@WMJ: thank you for your sobering insights.
One thing is not clear about your logic. If Bensouda is controlled or limited by the West from bringing cases against the US and U.K., then why or how is she seeking to bring these cases? Is it just show, and if so, for whose benefit? What is her motivation?
3
Not recognizing an international court's jurisdiction... Isn't that what a war criminal would typically argue?
78
Certainly this news has high importance and should stimulate very serious discussion.
However, Pompeo's characterizations of the court as "renegade", etc is misplaced, misleading and laughable.
109
@StatBoy
How can an international justice body codify laws without a constitution agreed upon in a democratic process by member states?
And even if that ratification process of codified international law could take place, how could we include member states with a history of unaccountable crimes against their own people, whose own domestic criminal systems are immensely corrupt, into an international system aiming for transparency and due process? Being prosecuted at the behest of Libya, Burundi, or Congolese claims is truly precious to say the least.
This international body is a joke.
1
This is actually a good thing. There are many that will denounce this as an attack on American sovereignty but I find that argument specious at best and a double standard of hypocrisy at worst. War is violent and dangerous but we must have rules of engagement because they protect the world from atrocities. Innocent people should have recourse for being wronged even during war times.
119
@LJP
The rules of engagement are unique for each country and highly dependant on highly fluid circumstances.
Russia in Chechnya has vastly different rules of engagement (as do the Chechans) than the US does in Afghanistan. Also, the US rules of engagement in Afghanistan circa 2003 are much different than in 2019. Circumstances have changed and call for different ROE.
The thought that you can standardize ROE and then prosecute it is beyond laughable. Not only would it be exploited by non-state actors who don't pretend to abide by any rules of war but it would also be exploited by states with a grudge in order to settle scores against states under the ICC's "jurisdiction".
Would a War Crimes case against Russia for their actions in Syria brought before the ICC by the US Congress in an election year be legitimate? Of course not! And Russia would laugh at the charges, as they should.
2
As citizens, we are responsible for the acts of our elected leaders, and those elected leaders are responsible for the acts of our military. We have a system of military justice to hold those in uniform accountable. I am not sure how we hold covert operators accountable when they deviate from the direction of elected leaders. All of this is dangerous work in a dangerous world, and we should be reluctant to defer our self-governance to anyone. Unfortunately, when our President usurps military justice or lesser commanders hide wrong-doing our arguments for self-governance fall flat. It is time to reassert control of our leaders and the people they lead.
12
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking to reporters in Washington, called the ruling a “truly breathtaking action by an unaccountable, political institution masquerading as a legal body.”
Mr. Pompeo, I would say that description accurately describes the administration you currently bow to.
127
@Kd Except for the fact that Trump was elected, and faces re-election in a few months.
2
@RP: except that who believes this administration will ever truly be held to account? I will believe it when Trump sits in jail with Cohen.
Let see where the investigation is going to get. Although I would argue that no one is above the law, the ICC will still be faced with one difficulty, State parties willingness to cooperate with the investigation and in the provision that American soldiers are found guilty, I suspect that in the worst case scenario, they will only be issued with international arrest warrants. Then we will watch the resolve of any state which will be ready to hand over American citizens to the Court.
5
Fatou Bensouda is not scared of Trump. If the US has nothing to hide they should let the investigation proceed. War crimes is a serious issue and We want to know if our troops are involved.
43
@M She'll fold. Let the countdown begin. Show trial indeed.
Just crazy. US military supervised by the UN and ICC? I don't think so. Recipe for disaster. How about some awards to the US military for the fact that when US arrived in Afghanistan, 1 million kids were in school and when it left 9 million kids are in school. If that is not a victory of civilization over primitivism, I don't know what is.
6
@mike Victory of PR? If you're gullible enough??
2
@mike
Yes, only cost us a couple Tril $ and a few lives to ramp up their schools system. You don't point out that when we leave, the count will back down to what it was, and all males.
3
If the ICC wants to investigate the US then they better also investigate Russia and Turkey. There have been many players in Afghanistan and nobody's hands are clean.
7
"I.C.C. Allows Afghanistan War Crimes Inquiry to Proceed".
The problem with "War Crimes" is; everyone's guilty but the ones who ordered it.
4
What are the implications and ranges of understanding and meaning for maintaining, and sustaining, a living democracy, notwithstanding its ongoing internal divisiveness, that the “United States, which does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction?”
The ICC may not be able to carry out its global mandate to adjudicate war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, at a given time and place, and to seek justice for the many diverse victims. Stakeholder, political and national interests-perverted- may continue to be temporary, as well as more permanent barriers. Globally. But the documentable facts will remain. Even more so with new tools such as forensic architecture.
And what ordinary people choose to do about these crimes waiting to be documented, or not, will effect and determine the ethical underpinnings of menschlich law and order. Of civil society. Of behaviors such as mutual trust. Respect.
What ordinary people choose to do, or not, can, and will, make a difference as to whether elected, selected and self-selected policymakers, at all levels, for brief periods of time, longer time periods, and even a lifetime, can/will be held personally accountable for their governance.
What ordinary people choose to do, or not, will determine the types, levels and qualities of daily, enabled, toxic complacency about, and complicity with, victimization. Mass dehumanization. Mega exclusion.
The freedom inherent in choosing “not [to] recognize” doesn’t obliterate what IS!
1
Well this'll be interesting. I remember when the controversy over the ICC erupted with respect to jurisdiction over Americans. Back then we were unable to conceive of the possibility that American troops could ever act like Milosovic's troops. How naive we were then.
I hope Gallagher is included in this investigation. Allowing him to walk free is a crime in itself.
54
@Cindy L
If this court finds him not guilty, then I will believe his far fetched, self-serving, whiny defense that just because he freely and willingly said he did it does not mean he did it. Until then, I will go with his admission, not his pardon. Also, note that Trump, in pardoning him and restoring his rank and membership in the SEALs, has probably also committed a war crime.
17
@Dan For the record, "On the stand, a medic, Corey Scott, who had been granted immunity by naval prosecutors, announced on the stand that he was the one who had actually killed the prisoner, saying it was a mercy killing because he didn't want him to fall into the hands of the Iraqis." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/us/navy-seal-edward-gallagher-corey-scott.html?searchResultPosition=2
Talk about handing Trump an issue on a silver platter.
Some collection of Euro bureaucrats masquerading as the World's Conscience wants to launch some broad prosecution into the activities of American troops under three presidents -- triggered by the attack on 9/11 and continued, in good faith, to try to protect innocent Afghans, especially girls and women?
I don't like Trump and would never vote for him. But ban the ICC from America's borders. Refuse all cooperation, and preemptively pardon any American charged. When US troops violated the law over there, we've had sufficient mechanisms to bring charges and punish people. No meddling EU bureaucrats are needed.
10
@Philboyd
1) The European Union is not related to the International Criminal Court. As the name suggests, the Court is 'International' and is created by, although (arguably) independent from, the UN. Its sole relation to the EU is that it is in Europe - specifically The Hague, Netherlands - whereas the EU is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. [Also an aversion to trying Western war criminals for crimes committed in colonial/post-colonial wars].
2) Your massively charitable representation of the US's causus belli/reasons for war have no bearing on US Army servicemembers' alleged violations of the jus in bello/laws of war. Even if one were not to contest your assertion that the Afghan War was for just reasons, and produces good outcomes, specific instances of war crimes inflicted by US servicemembers are not thereby excused.
3) The ICC's investigation doesn't require much within the US's borders so it's sort of moot if you ban it. Even the President, fond as he is of pardoning war criminals, cannot pardon a judgment from the ICC, as the ICC is not part of the US judicial system; it would have the same effect as pardoning someone in Singapore.
4) The US has demonstrably insufficient mechanisms to enforce the law of armed conflict. Leaving asides Trump's recent pardoning of multiple people accused of war crimes, the US has a reputation for excusing its own war crimes: Torture has been justified and excused ex post facto and even murder has been ignored routinely.
20