ICC to start investigation of Afghanistan

[The Emerald Legion]

If they engage in hostility against us by illegally arresting US troops, we can invoke article 5 against them. Them being a member of NATO themselves doesn't give them any special privilege.


It's illegal to be gay in Afghanistan, doesn't mean gay US soldiers get arrested if they go there. This is not how the law works.

Yet a crime committed by a tourist in a foreign country can get them arrested, even if said thing is not illegal in their home country. See PDA in the UAE.
So there is at least some degree of jurisdictional crossover. Unless visiting troops get diplomatic immunity, I don't actually know.

Invading troops largely get to ignore the local laws by virtue of being an army and able to kill the local law enforcement if necessary.

[Alvecia]

Yet a crime committed by a tourist in a foreign country can get them arrested, even if said thing is not illegal in their home country. See PDA in the UAE.
So there is at least some degree of jurisdictional crossover. Unless visiting troops get diplomatic immunity, I don't actually know.

US troops are immune to the laws of the nations they are stationed in. So tough luck ICC

TIL. Is that just a US thing? Other than "yeehaw, let's bomb the fuckers" what actually compels other country to acknowledge that?

[The of Korea]

If they engage in hostility against us by illegally arresting US troops, we can invoke article 5 against them. Them being a member of NATO themselves doesn't give them any special privilege.


It's illegal to be gay in Afghanistan, doesn't mean gay US soldiers get arrested if they go there. This is not how the law works.

Yet a crime committed by a tourist in a foreign country can get them arrested, even if said thing is not illegal in their home country. See PDA in the UAE.
So there is at least some degree of jurisdictional crossover. Unless visiting troops get diplomatic immunity, I don't actually know.

they dont unless the host country grants that iirc. in any case Afghanistan has every right to prosecute US soldiers who conduct war crimes against Afghani civilians. Whether they would do this is another thing entirely.

[Aclion]

If they engage in hostility against us by illegally arresting US troops, we can invoke article 5 against them. Them being a member of NATO themselves doesn't give them any special privilege.


It's illegal to be gay in Afghanistan, doesn't mean gay US soldiers get arrested if they go there. This is not how the law works.

Yet a crime committed by a tourist in a foreign country can get them arrested, even if said thing is not illegal in their home country. See PDA in the UAE.
So there is at least some degree of jurisdictional crossover. Unless visiting troops get diplomatic immunity, I don't actually know.

Soldiers are not tourists, and are not subject to the same jurisdictions. Also even with tourists there's a certain amount of diplomacy involved. If you go around targeting tourists from a specific country for political prosecution(what is called hostage diplomacy) that country will put out a travel advisement for your nation.

US troops are immune to the laws of the nations they are stationed in. So tough luck ICC

TIL. Is that just a US thing? Other than "yeehaw, let's bomb the fuckers" what actually compels other country to acknowledge that?

No. Generally speaking soldiers aren't subject to domestic prosecution in the nations they are stationed unless the soldiers nation agrees to it. The caveat to that is that soldiers ARE subject to military law and the chain of command, which will come down on solders who comprise their relation with the host nation by getting up to illegal shit; because if they don't it will be an international incident and compromise relations.

Unless they're enemy nations, in which case they're treated as POWs anyway so prosecution is meaningless.

[The Emerald Legion]

US troops are immune to the laws of the nations they are stationed in. So tough luck ICC

TIL. Is that just a US thing? Other than "yeehaw, let's bomb the fuckers" what actually compels other country to acknowledge that?

More or less that.

Basically, unless we have a SOFA agreement with the Host Country the troops don't have to follow local law.

[Tekania]

Just read article 12 of the Rome Statute, that would be quicker.

You do understand the futility of referencing the Rome Statute in a dispute with a nation that does not recognize the Rome Statute? Yes?

In practice, Service members who commit crimes on foreign soil are subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign country. As Afghanistan is under the ICC that includes ICC jurisdiction over acts committed in Afghanistan irrespective of the US being a signatory. This is a long standing practice we rely on to even have access to foreign ports and stations. Without it our military becomes persona-non-grata everywhere and would make overseas logitics a nightmare.

[Tekania]

TIL. Is that just a US thing? Other than "yeehaw, let's bomb the fuckers" what actually compels other country to acknowledge that?

More or less that.

Basically, unless we have a SOFA agreement with the Host Country the troops don't have to follow local law.

You have it backwards, SOFA agreements allow for transfer of jurisdiction to the military for service members crimes while in foreign countries rather under the local courts of the country. That is, if a military service member commits a crime while on foreign soil, a SOFA agreement can outline that the case be tried by our own military courts rather than subject to the local courts of the foreign country in question. Absent of such an agreement a US servicemember who is arrested for committing a crime on foreign soil is subject to applicable court of the foreign country rather than having the criminal case transferred to the US's own military court. A SOFA agreement is not required to subject a servicemember to foreign laws while in the foreign country. Merely BEING in the foreign country establishes that jurisdiction. A SOFA agreement is what creates any immunity to the jurisdiction of the foreign courts.

[The Emerald Legion]

More or less that.

Basically, unless we have a SOFA agreement with the Host Country the troops don't have to follow local law.

You have it backwards, SOFA agreements allow for transfer of jurisdiction to the military for service members crimes while in foreign countries rather under the local courts of the country. That is, if a military service member commits a crime while on foreign soil, a SOFA agreement can outline that the case be tried by our own military courts rather than subject to the local courts of the foreign country in question. Absent of such an agreement a US servicemember who is arrested for committing a crime on foreign soil is subject to applicable court of the foreign country rather than having the criminal case transferred to the US's own military court. A SOFA agreement is not required to subject a servicemember to foreign laws while in the foreign country. Merely BEING in the foreign country establishes that jurisdiction. A SOFA agreement is what creates any immunity to the jurisdiction of the foreign courts.

I'm pretty sure Iraq had laws against toppling their government. Ditto for the prior Afghan government.

[Tekania]

You have it backwards, SOFA agreements allow for transfer of jurisdiction to the military for service members crimes while in foreign countries rather under the local courts of the country. That is, if a military service member commits a crime while on foreign soil, a SOFA agreement can outline that the case be tried by our own military courts rather than subject to the local courts of the foreign country in question. Absent of such an agreement a US servicemember who is arrested for committing a crime on foreign soil is subject to applicable court of the foreign country rather than having the criminal case transferred to the US's own military court. A SOFA agreement is not required to subject a servicemember to foreign laws while in the foreign country. Merely BEING in the foreign country establishes that jurisdiction. A SOFA agreement is what creates any immunity to the jurisdiction of the foreign courts.

I'm pretty sure Iraq had laws against toppling their government. Ditto for the prior Afghan government.

Yes, however service member who would have been arrested would be subject to the foreign law. That we were in a state of war with them and dismantling the government in power at the time made that a moot point in that instance. That does not apply in the case of the official government in Afghanistan at this time however. Unless you're planning to start shooting people for holding trials?

[The New California Republic]

It actually would be nice if they extended it all the way back to the Soviet intervention too, but I'm betting that they won't.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

It actually would be nice if they extended it all the way back to the Soviet intervention too, but I'm betting that they won't.

That would be unlawful, since the ICC only has jurisdiction for acts committed after it was constituted.

[Purpelia]

Let's be real here. The ICC is like all such bodies simply a tool of great power politics and victors justice. At best it's only going to exonerate americans and at worst it's going to be used as a stick to beat any local strongmen whom the americans dislike.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

But you understand that Afghanistan can determine the law in their own country, yes? Or do you think that Americans can bring their guns wherever?

If Americans are arrested in another country, that arrest is lawful. Afghani sovereignty over their own territory is paramount, and they decided that the Rome Statute applies to their territory.

For very obvious reasons the are significant limitations on local jurisdiction over foreign military personnel, this is why there is a separate body of law specifically for military personnel. This is why when military personnel are arrested by local authority they contact the persons superiors to handle the issue instead of trying to prosecute them themselves.

Aclion’s claim was one of international law. I responded.

Your response was circular and therefore shit.

Aut dedere aut judicare. Afghanistan has jurisdiction, but won't prosecute because of an agreement with the US.

However, in the case of murder, either the US or Afghanistan could prosecute. For convenience sake this is usually the US, but Afghanistan does have jurisdiction.

Let's be real here. The ICC is like all such bodies simply a tool of great power politics and victors justice. At best it's only going to exonerate americans and at worst it's going to be used as a stick to beat any local strongmen whom the americans dislike.

The US actually has very little power in the ICC.

[The New California Republic]

It actually would be nice if they extended it all the way back to the Soviet intervention too, but I'm betting that they won't.

That would be unlawful, since the ICC only has jurisdiction for acts committed after it was constituted.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that.

[Purpelia]

The US actually has very little power in the ICC.

Of course they do. I bet you believe Trump still has his natural hair color too.

[Telconi]

For very obvious reasons the are significant limitations on local jurisdiction over foreign military personnel, this is why there is a separate body of law specifically for military personnel. This is why when military personnel are arrested by local authority they contact the persons superiors to handle the issue instead of trying to prosecute them themselves.


Your response was circular and therefore shit.

Aut dedere aut judicare. Afghanistan has jurisdiction, but won't prosecute because of an agreement with the US.

However, in the case of murder, either the US or Afghanistan could prosecute. For convenience sake this is usually the US, but Afghanistan does have jurisdiction.

Let's be real here. The ICC is like all such bodies simply a tool of great power politics and victors justice. At best it's only going to exonerate americans and at worst it's going to be used as a stick to beat any local strongmen whom the americans dislike.

The US actually has very little power in the ICC.

The ultimate power over the ICC is rather to permit it to prosecute your citizens. A power the United States has in spades.

[The East Marches II]

The US actually has very little power in the ICC.

If that were true, they would have been moaning about the Invade the Hague act. They wouldn't be crying that US doesn't care or any other pleadings they've given. Again, how many divisions do they have?

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

On one side we have psychotic terrorists that intentionally murder innocents because they dare not to be subservient to them and on the other we have a president who boasted about how he'd force our troops to commit war crimes so I'm pretty confident absolutely fuck all will come out of this because no one is willing to play ball.

ICC is wasting it's time and energy.

[Purpelia]

On one side we have psychotic terrorists that intentionally murder innocents because they dare not to be subservient to them and on the other we have a president who boasted about how he'd force our troops to commit war crimes so I'm pretty confident absolutely fuck all will come out of this because no one is willing to play ball.

ICC is wasting it's time and energy.

You say that as if there is a non wasteful use of their existence.

[Gormwood]

Not even 3 pages and the Murika, Fuk Ya bukkakke party has already started. No wonder Trump got elected.

[The East Marches II]

Not even 3 pages and the Murika, Fuk Ya bukkakke party has already started. No wonder Trump got elected.

Gauthier please, we've discussed this. The weird sexual references all the time is rather unpleasant and unbecoming.

[US-SSR]

Any US national credibly accused of war crimes should be charged and put on trial, whether that is a court martial, a US or foreign court or the ICC itself. But the ringleaders are those who planned the offensive war of choice in Iraq: W, Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al. They all need to be investigated, charged and tried.

[Thermodolia]

Any US national credibly accused of war crimes should be charged and put on trial, whether that is a court martial, a US or foreign court or the ICC itself. But the ringleaders are those who planned the offensive war of choice in Iraq: W, Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al. They all need to be investigated, charged and tried.

W? Ya they don’t charge people who don’t have the mental capacity to commit crimes

[The Black Forrest]

is It really a war crime when the Taliban are the victims?

well yes, but these are mainly against AFGHANI CIVILIANS, not the Taliban.

Who are this money civilians?

Minor nitpick.

Refer to them as Afghans. Afghani is money.

[Rojava Free State]

TIL. Is that just a US thing? Other than "yeehaw, let's bomb the fuckers" what actually compels other country to acknowledge that?

More or less that.

Basically, unless we have a SOFA agreement with the Host Country the troops don't have to follow local law.

In other words our soldiers are basically allowed to murder people and get away with it

I wonder why people aren't fond of us