Prosecutors at the International Criminal Court reported today that they have amassed evidence that the NATO troops in Afghanistan have caused “serious harm” against detainees, involving both physical and psychological abuse by the soldiers.
The revelation came in the ICC’s annual report on preliminary investigations, and faulted internal Pentagon investigations into the abuse, saying they never rise significantly up the chain of command, nor yield any convictions of the abusers.
ICC investigations into abuse in Afghanistan are likely to prove unwelcome for US officials, as the US is not a member of the court, though with many of the other nations involved in the occupation active members and Afghanistan itself joining the Rome Statute in 2003, such investigations are inevitable.
The preliminary report also detailed abuse by the Taliban, confirming they are also committing war crimes, but this is likely to be a much less controversial finding, and the implication both of NATO forces in major abuse, and the report that internal investigations are largely useless, are likely to fuel some major soul-searching in some of the nations involved, and likely an angry backlash from the US.
The ICC did absolutely nothing about Abu Ghraib, not mention Israel’s atrocities. They serve no real purpose and should just remain silent.
The ICC didn't have the option of doing anything about Abu Ghraib. Its jurisdiction extends to:
1) Things that happen IN signatory states (to the Rome Statute); and/or
2) Things that are done BY signatory states
Neither the US nor Iraq are signatory to the Rome Statute. So there was no jurisdiction either to an activity in, or by, a signatory state.
Israel is also not a signatory state. One reason they objected so much to recognition of a state of "Palestine" is that once said state became signatory to the Rome Statute, Israeli actions in that state would come under ICC jurisdiction.
Afghanistan signed/ratified the Rome Statute in 2003. Therefore things that occur within its borders are subject to ICC jurisdiction, even if the party doing those things (e.g. the US) is not itself signatory.
The Taliban are also committing war crimes, but this is likely to be a "much less controversial finding", Of course! Did we really need to be told? Taliban war crimes would be controversial only if they were committed against Russians! As I keep saying, the propaganda is so flat-footed and laid on so thick that nobody could possibly be fooled!