Tuesday, November 15, 2016

ICC Report Claims That US Forces And The CIA May Have Committed War Crimes In Afghanistan



New York Times: U.S. Forces May Have Committed War Crimes in Afghanistan, Prosecutor Says

The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court said Monday that she had a “reasonable basis to believe” that American soldiers committed war crimes in Afghanistan, including torture.

The international prosecutor has been considering whether to begin a full-fledged investigation into potential war crimes in Afghanistan for years. In Monday’s announcement, the prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, signaled that a full investigation was likely.

Still, the prosecutor did not announce a final decision on an investigation, which would have to be approved by judges, and it is unlikely that the United States will cooperate.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The timing is interesting .... this report is being released now .... just a week after the U.S. Presidential election. But since an investigation will need to be approved by judges, and the U.S. has a lot of sway on this body .... the recommendation for an investigation is probably going to die on the table.



More News On The ICC Report Claiming That US Forces And The CIA May Have Committed War Crimes In Afghanistan

ICC prosecutors: US forces may have committed war crimes -- AP
US may have committed war crimes in Afghanistan: ICC prosecutor -- AFP
U.S. forces may have committed war crimes in Afghanistan, ICC prosecutor says -- UPI
US may have committed war crimes in Afghanistan, says ICC -- France 24
ICC claims US may have committed war crimes in Afghanistan -- DW
Hague Prosecutors Say U.S. Tortured At Least 61 Prisoners In Afghanistan -- RFE
US army and CIA may be guilty of war crimes in Afghanistan, says ICC -- The Guardian/AP
ICC: US Forces, CIA May Have Committed War Crimes in Afghanistan -- VOA
US faces investigation into war crimes in Afghanistan -- Euronews
ICC: US forces may have used torture in Afghanistan -- Al Jazeera
‘War crimes of torture’: ICC prosecutor signals charges against US armed forces, CIA -- RT

15 comments:

Steven Krische said...

Didn't the US renounce its signiture of the ICC in May of 2002?

B.Poster said...

"The US has allot of sway on this body..." Very respectfully, nonsense. The whole purpose of this "investigation" is to charge Americans who are making every effort to defend their country and its leaders with war crimes and to get convictions by any means necessary. In other words, the court has already decided. The term "witch hunt" is what comes to mind.

If there is nothing to try the Americans on, then instead of exonerating them and clearing them, "American pressure" is blamed allowing further incentives for the constant demonization of America. The ICC very likely views this as a win/win regardless.

Carl said...

"The US has allot of sway on this body..." is nonsense, because the US is not a member of the ICC, but everything else B. Poster says is also nonsense, in that torture a crime under international treaty that the US is party to but also under US law. Further more, as a means of actually gaining intelligence, numerous experts who have spoken publicly on the matter point out that torture is totally useless because the victim will end up saying whatever the interrogator wants to hear, just to stop the pain.

B.Poster is spewing nonsense in defense of wars that have been based on lies, and we will not get our country back until we call the liars to account for their crimes.

fazman said...

Have to go with b poster on this one, l wonder how taliban operations are being hampered by these investigations.

fazman said...

Have to go with b poster on this one, l wonder how taliban operations are being hampered by these investigations.

War News Updates Editor said...

I hope and wish that you are right Carl .... but I worked at the UN (ICAO in Montreal and a couple of brief stints at New York) for a number of years, and I got to see first hand how the U.S. operates in these international bodies. They are very good at convincing and deal making behind closed doors. Trust me on this one .... the last thing that the U.S. wants is a war crimes investigation that may eventually lead to indictments of Presidents Bush and Obama .... they are going to move heaven and earth to make sure that this will never happen.

B.Poster said...

Carl,

Much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong in that Iraqi WMD were not "there" at least where we and our coalition allies thought they would be. This was not because there was a deliberate attempt to lie about anything. Rather than fix the problems with the intelligence community certain elements in the government came up with the tagline "Bush lied, kids died" and other such things.

In any event, this post was not about the Iraq war but about Afghanistan particularly in response to what the information provided by the editor. Very respectfully, please try reading the post in their entirety before commenting. If you had you would know that in this post I was not defending the Iraq war per say. There may have been other ways that the existential threat to America posed by Saddam's Iraq could have been dealt with but this is getting off topic.

Fazman,

I certainly don't see Taliban operations, those of ISIS, or the militias fighting ISIS in Iraq being affected one iota by these investigations. By some accounts they are doing much worse things than the American side would even conceive of. Picking on America is cheap, easy, carries no downside risk, and costs almost nothing. If a fair investigation were carried out on this, the Americans would either 1.) be fully exonerated, 2.)the context of facing multiple existential threats to America would be taken into account, and 3.)the Americans and "allies" were dealing with very ruthless enemies who were much worse than they would be taken into account.

As it is right now, the Americans cannot be expected to get a fair trial from a body such as this. When it comes torture, the Americans have not even graduated pre school yet whereas the enemies it faces are full fledged doctors at this kind of stuff. Lets see the ICC go after them. Respectfully I don't think its going to happen as this would carry downside risk for the prosecutors.

Furthermore if someone had "lied" we would have already had the trial and conviction right now. Going forward with a trial and having someone exonerated would mess up the narrative a bit. With that said there seems little doubt that US intel is incompetent.

Steven Krische said...

Maybe they didn't maybe they did create intel to get into the Iraq war. At the least they cherry picked intel for their case. A lot of that was done by Douglas Feith's group. Regardless, are we going to say it's OK ti be wrong on the intelligence and invade a country with no consequences. What if a country invaded the US ir Canada under what later proved to be false allegations. I think there would be consequences.

Steven Krische said...

Maybe they didn't maybe they did create intel to get into the Iraq war. At the least they cherry picked intel for their case. A lot of that was done by Douglas Feith's group. Regardless, are we going to say it's OK ti be wrong on the intelligence and invade a country with no consequences. What if a country invaded the US ir Canada under what later proved to be false allegations. I think there would be consequences.

B.Poster said...

Steven,

I stated after the attacks of 911 and again after the errors made regarding the Iraq war by US Intelligence that US Intelligence Services should be completely dismantled and rebuilt. We could have turned to allies such as Israel, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany to assist us in this process and to supply us with intelligence while US intelligence services were being rebuilt.

So of course there would be consequences. People would lose their jobs, their careers, their livelihoods, and very likely their reputations. War reparations might even be owed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or whomever.

At least at the end of the process, we might have competent intelligence services. With that said Saddam's Iraq as well as the Taliban controlled Afghanistan were existential threats to America. Whatever happened needs to be evaluated in this context.

As such, at the end of any kind of equitable analysis they may owe us war reparations. We cannot have something like this. As such, an equitable trial or analysis simply cannot happen right now.

If someone had "cherry picked" the intelligence and it could be established, the trial as well as the convictions would have already happened by now. Unfortunately for some a trial would likely reveal the opposite and US personnel just might exonerated. We can't have that.

Clearly America's coalition partners in Iraq believed to be real. After all they took enormous risks to assist us. Perhaps Saddam could have behaved differently. Perhaps agreements could have been made with the Russians and Chinese whereby we could have made certain concessions and they could have acted to assure Iraq could not/could not threaten us along with some way to verify the agreements are carried out.

RRH said...

"With that said Saddam's Iraq as well as the Taliban controlled Afghanistan were existential threats to America. Whatever happened needs to be evaluated in this context"


B.,

That is a statement of defence for a court room, not an established fact.


Past that,

Canada better be watching this really close.

B.Poster said...

WNU,

I've enjoyed reading about your experiences with the UN and your experiences as a Russian diplomat when you've discussed them. Thank you very much for your insight.

I would expect the United States to act in such ways as to protect its citizens and its leaders from harassment and to ensure that they are treated equitably. As such, "deal making", "convincing" (I call it get your side of the story out), and "deal making behind closed doors" will need to be done sometimes to. After all when someone is brought up on charges that are less than solid, often times deals will need to be made behind closed doors that allow parties to save face.

I suspect the ICC personnel are facing tremendous pressure to issue indictments no matter what and to get convictions. Some type of back room closed door deal may need to be made that allow certain personnel to save face may be needed. As such, it would seem prudent to pursue such avenues from time to time. After all, if one is seeking a just settlement, and one of the partiers (in this case the American) is almost universally despised a judge/juror may face pressure to side against them. As such, a closed proceeding where one can save some face may be in order.

As I understand it the Russian government very aggressively represents its citizens in matters that involve foreign countries. I would be curious to have a comparison and contrast as to how the Russians handle these types of things compared with how the Americans handle these types of things.

B.Poster said...

RRH,

You are probably correct that the statement would be one for the court room. I have no problem with the trial assuming it is conducted equitably. Very respectfully in the current environment it seems unlikely US personnel can expect an equitable trial. Perhaps someday.

In such a trial, this would probably come up. I don't think they want this to happen. It might upset the carefully construed narrative on this and it might derail the witch hunt/kangaroo court.

I'm not sure what Canada needs to watch out for. I don't think the ICC wants to go after them. Besides they could always blame it on the Americans. As the editor has pointed out, he's seen Russia blamed unjustly for a number of things and has developed thick skin. As an American, I've seen America singled out unjustly for a number of things. I have yet to develop such thick skin. I'm getting there but am not there yet.

For what its worth, getting any kind of conviction against George W. Bush and members of his team who are the most hated people in America would be quite easy. I suspect it hasn't happened yet because certain things such as the context and the magnitude of the threats faced will come out. This would cause huge problems for some.

RRH said...


B.,

don't kid yourself.

Canada blaming the U.S. would be like an assessory crying "they made me do it!"

It won't wash.

Bushco should expect a trial as least as fair as Slobodan Milosevic's or Saddam Hussein's.


And It hasn't happened yet because exceptionalism -and the power to enforce it- says it won't. Trials are for the losers. Claims of revelations of "context and magnitude of threats" are red herrings.

B.Poster said...

As I recall the locals tried Saddam. I would have preferred that we do it but it did not happen that way. As far as Milosevic, as I recall he died before the trial was completed. I suspect he was going to be found guilty and someone just couldn't have that but this is not known.

Enforcing something against America is generally quite easy. America exists under a very large and generally very hostile media microscope. As such, it would be virtually impossible for America not to live up to its obligations under any kind of proceeding. It's adversaries and potential adversaries face no such scrutiny.

As for the exceptionalism crap, it should be dropped. No one really believes it any way and it has negative utility.

Contest and magnitude of threats are not "red herrings." This is to imply that they are irrelevant. They are not and should be taken into account. To fail to do so, would likely result in flawed justice.