ICC to start investigation of Afghanistan

[Saiwania]

My guess is that if the Taliban takes over Afghanistan once again, that it'll no longer be subject to the ICC. I don't see the Taliban as the type to want to be too humane with their conduct and sense of justice.

[Gormwood]

My guess is that if the Taliban takes over Afghanistan once again, that it'll no longer be subject to the ICC. I don't see the Taliban as the type to want to be too humane with their conduct and sense of justice.

So the US will be in the same club as the Taliban. Quite a commentary.

[Kaltovar]

Also, like you said, no nation os sovereign over another. This means that Afghanistan has total jurisdiction over its territory, and it has decided that the ICC has jurisdiction within its territory. So, any crime committed within Afghanistan is subject to ICC jurisdiction, whether the US agrees or not. US agreement is not required for Afghanistan to invoke its territorial jurisdiction.

Just like in Crusader Kings II, the agreement of France is not required for me to invoke my jurisdiction over Lothringen (Ducal Conquest). However, in order for me to actually obtain control of Lothringen ...

The simple fact is that ICC and Afghanistan can do or say whatever they want, and so can we. If they invoke their jurisdiction and declare our soldiers bad, we can simply refuse to turn them over, and we will not have to invade an NATO member because a NATO member will never have physical access to our troops unless they send a strike team to the USA to kidnap them.

It's not for the best. A few war crimes tribunals would help keep our wars more honest, and I'd like to see some of the actions I've heard about punished if they're true. However, most of the people who would have committed them have been long since out of the country unless you're talking about very recent ones (it's been a multi decade war) and then even if they're still in Afghanistan and the ICC convicts then who the hell is going to arrest them? Do you really think you can just walk on to a US Military base and demand they hand over some of their soldiers or else "Because laws"?

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.

I've recently seen the UN trying Khmer Rouge leaders through an apparatus other than the ICC. The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia is an example of such a court established with the consent of the host nation, and the Nuremberg Tribunal is an example of one established without. If you care more about imagined legalities than human suffering, all I can say is that I disagree.

[Aclion]

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?

Erm, they have been moaning about the invade the hague act, a lot.

[Infected Mushroom]

It all comes down to this.

How much money and benefits can the Afghans bring to the ICC. How much money and benefits can the US being to the ICC.

I think when the entire thing is weighed, the USA has more to offer.

Therefore, the logical outcome: the USA won't be prosecuted at all.

[The New California Republic]

It all comes down to this.

How much money and benefits can the Afghans bring to the ICC. How much money and benefits can the US being to the ICC.

I think when the entire thing is weighed, the USA has more to offer.

Therefore, the logical outcome: the USA won't be prosecuted at all.

Wrong. If that was the case, then there wouldn't even be an investigation in the first place.

[Infected Mushroom]

It all comes down to this.

How much money and benefits can the Afghans bring to the ICC. How much money and benefits can the US being to the ICC.

I think when the entire thing is weighed, the USA has more to offer.

Therefore, the logical outcome: the USA won't be prosecuted at all.

Wrong. If that was the case, then there wouldn't even be an investigation in the first place.

they could call for an investigation, then take some benefits under the table, and then call it off

[The New California Republic]

Wrong. If that was the case, then there wouldn't even be an investigation in the first place.

they could call for an investigation, then take some benefits under the table, and then call it off

I don't have time for nonsense conspiracy theories.

[Infected Mushroom]

they could call for an investigation, then take some benefits under the table, and then call it off

I don't have time for nonsense conspiracy theories.

why else would they antagonise the United States?

Clearly, they want to be offered some benefits by the national government in exchange for not pursuing the matter further.

[Rojava Free State]

My guess is that if the Taliban takes over Afghanistan once again, that it'll no longer be subject to the ICC. I don't see the Taliban as the type to want to be too humane with their conduct and sense of justice.

So the US will be in the same club as the Taliban. Quite a commentary.

People are gonna be real angry that anyone dared question the good guy/bad guy narrative of the war on terror, the flimsy one that from the start of the fight was bullshit. you can't have dick Cheney and Donald rumsfeld on your team and claim you're the "good guy."

[Rojava Free State]

I don't have time for nonsense conspiracy theories.

why else would they antagonise the United States?

Clearly, they want to be offered some benefits by the national government in exchange for not pursuing the matter further.

Or they actually wanna pursue justice? I'm no idealist and my cynicism is very strong, but I'm sure there's still a few genuine good faith actors out there..

[Ifreann]

Good. More publicity for America's historical and presumably on-going war crimes should help pressure democratic governments to stop cooperating with them.

[Infected Mushroom]

why else would they antagonise the United States?

Clearly, they want to be offered some benefits by the national government in exchange for not pursuing the matter further.

Or they actually wanna pursue justice? I'm no idealist and my cynicism is very strong, but I'm sure there's still a few genuine good faith actors out there..

really?

is that a thing? I thought they would mostly target Third World actors and clearly vilified parties (like the Nazis in WWII), easy "wins" with no political costs where they could both earn hero points and receive additional funding from the world's strongest countries

I'm seeing this as a sign that the US is showing weakness/vulnerability in one area which emboldens the ICC to test the waters, but I highly doubt they'd press ahead once the under-the-table-bargaining settles down

US has too much weight and power to throw around

[Rojava Free State]

Or they actually wanna pursue justice? I'm no idealist and my cynicism is very strong, but I'm sure there's still a few genuine good faith actors out there..

really?

is that a thing? I thought they would mostly target Third World actors and clearly vilified parties (like the Nazis in WWII), easy "wins" with no political costs where they could both earn hero points and receive additional funding from the world's strongest countries

I'm seeing this as a sign that the US is showing weakness/vulnerability in one area which emboldens the ICC to test the waters, but I highly doubt they'd press ahead once the under-the-table-bargaining settles down

US has too much weight and power to throw around

Tell me, where is Charles Taylor right now?

[Ifreann]

Or they actually wanna pursue justice? I'm no idealist and my cynicism is very strong, but I'm sure there's still a few genuine good faith actors out there..

really?

is that a thing? I thought they would mostly target Third World actors and clearly vilified parties (like the Nazis in WWII), easy "wins" with no political costs where they could both earn hero points and receive additional funding from the world's strongest countries

I'm seeing this as a sign that the US is showing weakness/vulnerability in one area which emboldens the ICC to test the waters, but I highly doubt they'd press ahead once the under-the-table-bargaining settles down

US has too much weight and power to throw around

Do you actually know anything about the ICC? You were just telling me the other day that you don't read.

[Loben The 2nd]

Good. More publicity for America's historical and presumably on-going war crimes should help pressure democratic governments to stop cooperating with them.

On going?

Historical?

Shit someone dig Truman out of his grave for his ordering of a couple cities be wiped off the map.

[Infected Mushroom]

really?

is that a thing? I thought they would mostly target Third World actors and clearly vilified parties (like the Nazis in WWII), easy "wins" with no political costs where they could both earn hero points and receive additional funding from the world's strongest countries

I'm seeing this as a sign that the US is showing weakness/vulnerability in one area which emboldens the ICC to test the waters, but I highly doubt they'd press ahead once the under-the-table-bargaining settles down

US has too much weight and power to throw around

Do you actually know anything about the ICC? You were just telling me the other day that you don't read.

I know it stands for International Criminal Court. That's correct right?

[Ifreann]

Good. More publicity for America's historical and presumably on-going war crimes should help pressure democratic governments to stop cooperating with them.

On going?

Yes, I personally think it's likely that American troops are committing war crimes.

Historical?

As in, war crimes that occurred in the past, as opposed to one that are occurring now. Maybe "historical" is the wrong word, but I think you get the picture.

Shit someone dig Truman out of his grave for his ordering of a couple cities be wiped off the map.

Nothing like a good corpse synod.

[Ifreann]

Do you actually know anything about the ICC? You were just telling me the other day that you don't read.

I know it stands for International Criminal Court. That's correct right?

So you know exactly one thing about the ICC. Do you think that knowing their name and nothing else is really enough for you to make even an educated guess about who they investigate and why?

[The Emerald Legion]

On going?

Yes, I personally think it's likely that American troops are committing war crimes.

Historical?

As in, war crimes that occurred in the past, as opposed to one that are occurring now. Maybe "historical" is the wrong word, but I think you get the picture.

Shit someone dig Truman out of his grave for his ordering of a couple cities be wiped off the map.

Nothing like a good corpse synod.

I mean. Given the ICC considers 'aggression' to be a war crime. Yes.

Still, fuck the ICC. We should launch a satellite that mixes space concrete and drop a giant glob of space concrete on them. Or glue perhaps. Yes. Glue sounds about right. They'll never get it out of the carpets, and their gutters will seal shut, causing unwanted erosion around their buildings.

[The New California Republic]

I don't have time for nonsense conspiracy theories.

why else would they antagonise the United States?

Clearly, they want to be offered some benefits by the national government in exchange for not pursuing the matter further.

To reiterate: I don't have time for nonsense conspiracy theories.

[Ifreann]

Yes, I personally think it's likely that American troops are committing war crimes.


As in, war crimes that occurred in the past, as opposed to one that are occurring now. Maybe "historical" is the wrong word, but I think you get the picture.


Nothing like a good corpse synod.

I mean. Given the ICC considers 'aggression' to be a war crime. Yes.

Still, fuck the ICC. We should launch a satellite that mixes space concrete and drop a giant glob of space concrete on them. Or glue perhaps. Yes. Glue sounds about right. They'll never get it out of the carpets, and their gutters will seal shut, causing unwanted erosion around their buildings.

Yes dear, I'm sure your enemies will be very upset when you drop glue on them from space.

[The Emerald Legion]

I mean. Given the ICC considers 'aggression' to be a war crime. Yes.

Still, fuck the ICC. We should launch a satellite that mixes space concrete and drop a giant glob of space concrete on them. Or glue perhaps. Yes. Glue sounds about right. They'll never get it out of the carpets, and their gutters will seal shut, causing unwanted erosion around their buildings.

Yes dear, I'm sure your enemies will be very upset when you drop glue on them from space.

I mean, do you disagree that if any administration was going to build an orbital glue launcher to get petty revenge on the ICC, it would be this one?

I wonder how hard it would be to get that thought planted in Trump's head.

[Ifreann]

Yes dear, I'm sure your enemies will be very upset when you drop glue on them from space.

I mean, do you disagree that if any administration was going to build an orbital glue launcher to get petty revenge on the ICC, it would be this one?

I'm sure they'll get on that right after they've built Trump's big beautiful wall.

I wonder how hard it would be to get that thought planted in Trump's head.

Post it in r/The_Donald, it'll get to him eventually.

[The Emerald Legion]

I mean, do you disagree that if any administration was going to build an orbital glue launcher to get petty revenge on the ICC, it would be this one?

I'm sure they'll get on that right after they've built Trump's big beautiful wall.

I wonder how hard it would be to get that thought planted in Trump's head.

Post it in r/The_Donald, it'll get to him eventually.

Anyhow. Back to seriousness.

While the ICC investigations probably have the opportunity to give us a diplomatic bruise or two, it's not like we aren't in the habit of prosecuting war criminals under our own laws. But with Trump in charge I'm not actually sure.

If we were still in the Obama years, I could see him selling the troops out to avoid ruffling feathers. Dropping the ICC a few token fall guys. Trump however a.) Doesn't seem to give a shit about war crimes, as evidenced by the whole affair of that guy who was posing with a corpse, and the more serious accusations that came up later. B.) Has already set a tone of non-compliance and adversarial behaviour With the UN, meaning it's not a far leap to take the same stance with the ICC, particularly given we aren't signatories to the Rome Statute.

So I guess the answer depends a lot on who wins the election and how long the ICC investigation/trials take.

This is of course, assuming the ICC charges US troops at all. Which they might not.