International Criminal Court issues arrest warrants for Taliban leaders, accusing them of persecuting women
Posted by BabylonianWeeb@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 101 comments
Unbegrenzt11@reddit
I wonder if the Arab and Muslim areas are ever going to reach the level of gender-equality we have in the West. While it definitely will not be in the near future, this is a step forward, one of many, but hopefully something positive comes out of this
BabylonianWeeb@reddit (OP)
As an Arab, I can say this will never happen, our people are too brainwashed by religion snd tradition.
BendicantMias@reddit
Why is it always only other peoples' who've been 'brainwashed'? Why is religion uniquely capable of 'brainwashing' people, but not any secular force? Oh wait, there is a secular force that the west says does brainwash - communism. Basically anything that isn't the western ideal 'brainwashes', but western culture itself is only composed of completely freethinking individuals, despite them all thinking similarly so as to have formed a common culture. Yessiree! No brainwashing in the west at all!
Actually check that - apparently the alt-right and MAGA brainwashes as well. Okay, so westerners can be brainwashed, if they're not liberal. But never liberals! No, liberalism is unique in never brainwashing.
Visual-Ad-1978@reddit
Doesn’t remove the gender equality argument
BendicantMias@reddit
Doesn't remove the western cultural supremacy argument. You take your way of life too much for granted, imposing it on not just on foreign immigrants in your own lands (in your case especially), but even on foreign people in THEIR OWN LANDS. You're not some universal standard they have to live up to.
Visual-Ad-1978@reddit
I personally don’t impose my way of life on anyone else. I’m not a agreement with my government and with my culture. Why would you assume that ? I’m a powerless citizen trying to emancipate myself what you’re describing.
You’re the one amalgaming things here
BehemothDeTerre@reddit
It's a common argument of mysognists, homophobes and transphobes to equate equal rights for women and LBGT people as "imposing western values".
That's what he was driving at.
loggy_sci@reddit
Tankies will literally try and make everything about themselves.
BehemothDeTerre@reddit
He's not a tankie, he's a fundie. He's all about that caliphate.
BendicantMias@reddit
Westoids will literally try and make everything about themselves.
loggy_sci@reddit
Someone said that people are brainwashed in their region of the world and you go into a rant that has nothing to do with their point, and you are arguing against a point NOBODY MADE. Just so you can claim that western people believe something which they do not and then get mad about it?
You are ridiculous.
BendicantMias@reddit
It has everything to do with their point. They said other peoples were brainwashed just based on them not being a carbon copy of western liberal culture. I simply turned it around and asked why it couldn't be said that you westerners are brainwashed to take your own culture for granted then?
loggy_sci@reddit
That is not what they said at all. That is what you accused them of saying.
BehemothDeTerre@reddit
Given that it's you, I know you weren't asking in bad faith, but to answer: it's not.
There are political fanatics, just like there are religious ones.
There are 2 key differences are that make religious fanaticism more difficult to deal with, however:
The promises are usually non-falsifiable.
Someone who has been roped into fanatical political belief can be shown evidence that he's wrong. It's hard, but not impossible.
But any evidence that goes against religious fanaticism is just handwaved away as "Satanic deception".
Good luck disproving the existence of some sort of "heaven". It's non-falsifiable.
The rewards are "another life".
A political fanatic can grow deluded with his ideology when he sees the rewards promised not materialise. A religious fanatic (at least for Abrahamic religions) cannot, as the rewards come after death. If someone is convinced of that, little can be done to shake it off.
krombough@reddit
I mean, never is a long word.
sheytanelkebir@reddit
You’re giving non Iraqis the impression that Iraq is like the taliban Afghanistan . It’s really nothing of the sort. When’s the last time you went to Iraq ?
Leather-Paramedic-10@reddit
https://youtu.be/kXvNxXDDHSY
BendicantMias@reddit
I wonder if the west is ever going to stop looking down its cultural supremacist nose at other parts of the world? This superciliousness is exactly why, despite Americans' constant excuse of claiming their democracy means they can change, they never do and hold the record for most military operations since WW2. It's also why the European colonial powers, despite also being democratic for part of their colonial history, were able to get away with their disastrous colonial policies that saw literally millions die. Democracy isn't a check on aggression and dominance if your culture carries a deep-seated sense of its own superiority - on the contrary it becomes an excuse for it. From the 'White Man's Burden' and 'Civilizing Mission' to today's 'Freedom' and 'Democracy v/s Dictatorships' sloganeering, you can always find excuses to justify your violence as long as your population stands firm in their belief that they have all the answers, so everyone should just listen to them - or be forced to (for 'their own good', of course...). There's are no checks and balances on a fundamentally and deeply ingrained sense of arrogant exceptionalism. It's easy to blame your politicians, but the reason they're able to sell all these interventions is cos people believe in the cause. Jihads' and crusades don't just have to be about a particular religion, there is a secular version of it too. And that one never went out of style, despite the very same people ironically despising jihads and crusades.
You'd have have thought the wests' horrendous record of two world wars and numerous other wars would have taught it some humility, but ultimately it's just feels too nice to put yourselves on a pedestal. Just leave Afghanistan alone. Let her people sort out their own affairs however they see fit. And everywhere else too.
georgeb1904@reddit
All I read from this is you’re pro Taliban
BendicantMias@reddit
No one except the Taliban is pro Taliban lol. Some of us are just anti western supremacism. We've had half a millennium of dealing with your egos, and it's still very much a thing.
georgeb1904@reddit
“Let her people sort it out” that’s a pro Taliban POV. You’re so desperate to paint the west as the ultimate villain that you sound ridiculous
BendicantMias@reddit
No, it's an anti-western supremacist POV. I would say the same for every other country. You're so desperate to preserve your fallacious False Dichotomy cos you need to preserve your ego, so you force others to view all your conflicts as moral - with you as the heroes.
georgeb1904@reddit
Actually I agree! Let’s keep the entire female gender down in the Middle East to stick it to the West! Anything less than anti-taliban is showing support
BendicantMias@reddit
Lol you're determined to moralize I see. Very well. It's still all just empty words tho, simply to feel good about yourselves. If you care so much, why don't you go down there again and free them then? Go on, but one condition - you don't get to use any other excuses. No fake WMDs or any of your other bag of political tricks. No, you announce openly that you're invading the country solely in order to 'save' its women, nothing else. Let's see how much support you're able to drum up without your usual 'national security' excuse. And how long that support lasts. Here's my prediction - your invasion will struggle to even get started. Cos that's how much it really matters to you. You don't give a shit about those women bub - you only care about massaging your own ego by boasting about how terrible others are and how superior your own culture is. Those women are just tools for you to feed your sense of cultural superiority. You won't lift a finger to help them if it doesn't serve you. The history bears this out - the Taliban ruled Afghanistan for years before your invasion, yet it was only after the 9/11 attacks that you felt like doing something there. The plight of Afghan women was irrelevant to you until they became a convenient narrative to serve your agenda.
loggy_sci@reddit
This ridiculous rant has nothing to do with the article. You gripe about “the west” like it’s your job.
BendicantMias@reddit
Gee, how observant. It's specifically a response to the comment above, not the article. Imagine being on reddit so long and missing that. And you promote the west like it's your job.
loggy_sci@reddit
There is greater gender equality and rights for women in western nations compared to theocratic governments in other nations.
This is not chauvinism to point out. It is not “supremacist” to advocate for equal rights for women, something that women WITHIN THESE NATIONS ALSO WANT.
You trip over yourself condemning the west that you don’t bother to notice that your points are fucking dumb.
Phenergan_boy@reddit
We literally just had an elite pedophile ring get away with any consequences. Western rule of law is just an illusion created by the elites to lull people from organizing
Future_Adagio2052@reddit
this was certainly possible but outside interference constantly fucked them over and is how we ended up here
hamandcheezus64@reddit
Has it ever happened naturally without regime change?
Unbegrenzt11@reddit
I mean, back in the 1600s, witches were feared and everyone was against women because of it, a ridiculous amount of women were killed during the witch trails but overtime, they kinda just fizzled out, no major regime change constituted it from what I believe, however I think this is because people realised witches either weren't a threat or didn't exist whereas with these Arab countries, they are misogynistic for an incredibly deep rooted religion
BendicantMias@reddit
They don't see it that way. You describe it as misogynistic from your western liberal perspective, they don't. No one promoting their norms there says to do so just cos they hate women, that's just how feminists characterize it. From their perspective it's just their way of life and religious duty to live like that.
thegodfather0504@reddit
America has outlawed abortion. Many Americans call harry potter evil because witchcraft.
e-lsewhere@reddit
We're working on it, but it's hard to deconstruct a functioning family structure as fast as you guys did. Give us a few more decades. We'll get to your level of demographic winter eventually, assuming there's anyone left to turn off the lights.
TRx1xx@reddit
Just a few more bombs and civilian casualties bro, that’ll do it
travistravis@reddit
It's getting closer, at least if you use the US as "the west". Admittedly because the US keeps wanting to restrict women's autonomy, not necessarily because things are getting better elsewhere
FudgeAtron@reddit
There's a case to be made that Afghanistan was never legally part of the ICC.
The government that signed the treaty (2003) was one composed of officials appointed by the US occupation, i.e. the government that signed the treaty was merely the civilian army of the US Military occupation. A civilian government was not elected until 2004.
The ICC would have to consider that government the legal government of Afghanistan at the time for Afghanistan to be a part of the ICC.
The question becomes, are the Taliban the legal government of Afghanistan an was the occupation government of Afghanistan the legal government? This has multiple answers with branching implications.
The simplist is to say they both were legal and thus ICC has jurisdiction until revoked by the Taliban.
The Taliban will likely argue that the 2001 invasion and the 2003 government were illegal and that the 2003 government had no right to sign away elements of soverignty that they did. The Taliban will claim that they were always the legal government and as such we should see all international treaties signed by the Republic as invalid, and to have always been invalid. If the Taliban argument is accepted then, the ICC had no jurisdiction to investigate and charge Taliban officials in a country in which the ICC had been given jurisdiction illegally.
The ICC will likely argue that the 1st Emirate (Taliban 1 1996-2001) was never the legal government of Afghanistan and thus the invasion and occupation were legal and thus the 2003 signing of the treaty was legal and valid. They would likely also argue that the 2nd Emirate ( Taliban 2 2021 - present) is also an illegal government that has no right to revoke treaties.
I see one major problem for the ICC regarding the second argument, that it would go against the 2013 ruling that the overthrown Freedom and Justice Party was not the legal representative of Egypt despite winning the 2012 election and being overthrown by a military coup in 2013. Since the ICC saw the 2013 Egyptian coup as legal and thus removing the right to represent Egypt from the deposed ruling party, it would be very strange for them to not follow the same logic in Afghanistan. As a result they would likely have to consider the 1st Emirate and 2nd Emirate legal, because they were military overthrows of a sitting government, and they could also consider the Republic legal too. In which case they would need to follow the the first answer.
I do wonder whether the Taliban will challenge this or whether they will just ignore a court that has absolutely 0 ability to enforce these arrest warrants.
Personal-Special-286@reddit
The Taliban goverment doesn't hold Afghanistan's seat at the UN. The ICC has always deferred to the UN to determine the legitimacy of states/goverments.
FudgeAtron@reddit
Really? Why did they say in the 2013 ruling that it was because FJP weren't in power anymore.
Personal-Special-286@reddit
Because they weren't. The UN ambassador quickly recognised the military installed foreign minister and cabinet. Members of Morsi's cabinet either resigned willingly or were captured by the military.
meister2983@reddit
I've always found this undermines the ICC as a court. They are deferring to a group, the unga, who theoretically is not supposed to be able to make binding law.
Same problem exists with deciding that territory like Gaza and East Jerusalem falls under ICC jurisdiction. Somehow a not actual state under the Montevideo standard is able to place territory it doesn't even control under the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Common_Echo_9069@reddit
Maybe the west should try and invade Afghanistan again so the Taliban can gain more territory and upgrade even more of their weapons? At least all the bored Tajik and Hazara bacha baz in Europe and America will have something to look forward to if they try it again.
Funkliford@reddit
For those unaware, his degenerate is mocking child rape victims.
Common_Echo_9069@reddit
Correction, I'm mocking the western backed paedophile warlords, not the actual victims.
Insignificant_Letter@reddit
Why do you keep slandering our people?
Common_Echo_9069@reddit
I didn't say something incorrect. Your ethnic leaders and kin are begging at the feet of any foreign imperialist power to bomb and/or sanction Afghanistan, yet apparently it's only a problem when we point that out?
Is it not enough that you vampires have colluded with foreign powers for 40+ years and sacked our capital like some central Asian horde but now you want us to pretend nothing happens outside of your western curated narratives?
Insignificant_Letter@reddit
I will not buy into your narrow narrative and do not wish to be banned from this sub for incivility.
All I will say is that every accusation you make can also be applied to the group I believe you are from. You know this to be true as well - Pakistan actively chose to back Pashtun groups over non-Pashtuns in the civil war, and so did the British before them.
BabylonianWeeb@reddit (OP)
I really hope this finally shuts down all of zionist arguments. "What about Muslim and Arab leaders?" When ICC imposed arrest warrant for Netanyahu.
lightmaker918@reddit
Please, talk to me when they issue a warrant for Khomeini and the leaders of the IRGC for their part in the massacare of 400,000 Syrians.
BabylonianWeeb@reddit (OP)
Why? For responding against Israeli aggressions?
lightmaker918@reddit
Are you a bot? How is that related to the 400,000 dead Syrians.
Positive-Vibes-All@reddit
Whataboutism, Netanyahu was indicted along hamas, so whataboutism will never sway anyone
lightmaker918@reddit
Two things can be right, Hamas is an autocracy so does not hold it's own accountable, and Israel had a fomer prime minister serve jail time for corruption.
Positive-Vibes-All@reddit
I want to be perfectly clear about one thing I don't give a shit about corruption. War crimes are in the thousands and never realistically punished, the system is designed for the courts to ignore war crimes.
lightmaker918@reddit
It also arrested and jailed the jailors that sodomized captives and that fucker that killed a terrorist after he was already neutralized, granted for not enough time.
ExtremeAcceptable289@reddit
What about the other 99% who werent prosecuted
lightmaker918@reddit
I'm aware of Yesh Din's report which could very well be cherry picked. Even if I grant you this, when a soldier thinking of breaking the rules knows they might end up in prison, that already cuts down on 99% of unlawful acts.
ExtremeAcceptable289@reddit
So out of every 100 person who breaks a law, 99 goes free? Yea nah not an incentive to stop committing crimes.
ExtremeAcceptable289@reddit
What about the other 99% who werent prosecuted
BendicantMias@reddit
Called it!
lightmaker918@reddit
It's always been a joke, the compartmentization principle means ICC shouldn't use warrants when a country has a strong judiciary arm that self persecutes, Netanyahu being under criminal trial in Israel is proof of that.
mnmkdc@reddit
But he’ll never be under trial for war crimes in Israel. Those are just brushed under the rug
lightmaker918@reddit
Or maybe Israel's policy has not amounted to war crimes, not saying that individual cases weren't a breach of protocol and sometimes can amount to war crimes, but there's no policy I know of that has been a war crime.
Can you point to a war crime you think he should be held accountable for?
Tom-Rath@reddit
How about the explicit use of starvation as a weapon of war against Gazans? That's plainly a war crime and a crime against humanity.
lightmaker918@reddit
A starvation as a means of genocide where no one dies of hunger, amazing.
Memeing aside, there's a legal case to be made a billgerent is not beholden to allow aid if the other billgerent stockpiles aid and does not distribute it. I don't agree with it, but that's the Geneva convention.
ExtremeAcceptable289@reddit
No there isnt
lightmaker918@reddit
Your link does not go over what happens if a billgerent diverts aid and stockpiles it for it's own use, witholding from it's civilians, a war crime by Hamas since day 1 no one talks about.
I'm not saying the aid needed to stop, or that it even served the war goals, but stopping it while stockpiles lasted is not necessarily a war crime due to Hamas not meeting it's obligation.
ExtremeAcceptable289@reddit
It falls under millitaryvpurposes
Positive-Vibes-All@reddit
I mean don't you see yourself speak? are you reading for a script?
>The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) has documented that between 2001 and 2022, more than 1,400 claims of torture by Israeli authorities were made, but only two were investigated and none resulted in indictments.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/7/16/israeli-courts-cannot-and-will-not-prosecute-israels-war-crimes
And before your script compels you bash Aljazeera they are quoting the PCATI
lightmaker918@reddit
I'm not defending those, I'm sure Israel is more lax with things like this and I'm against it. Not the war crimes people are talking about.
Positive-Vibes-All@reddit
What do you think war crimes are? how is torture not a warcrime?
lightmaker918@reddit
Torture for militants is a war crime used by all nations in war, I don't defend it, but don't know enough about it to have an opinionated statement. I do know Israel doesn't hold itself accountable enough, for example with settlers attacking Palestinians in the WB.
Those are things I can agree on, but actions in Gaza are different, and of the many cases where Israel was accused of war crimes I read in depth it was clear it wasn't in fact policy to commit war crimes, but actions permissible by IHL in war time and consequences of Hamas operating out of civilian infrastructure, like Mohammad Sinwar that was killed hiding in a tunnel under the European hospital two months ago. Feel free to add any case you might find to the contrary.
Positive-Vibes-All@reddit
Let me put this very simply, by not holding people accountable you are in fact committing a warcrime.
Israel does not benefit from encouraging torture, but it risks losing morale by punishing its torturers, hence it will always protect them.
Its exactly the same as corruption, governments don't want it but to keep the cops happy they let the cops do it. Key difference is that it seems corruption is handled not war crimes.
The ICC should not arrest top Israelis for corruption, the ICC should arrest top Israelis for war crimes
lightmaker918@reddit
I think torturing is a different moral problem - for example if you catch a person trying to kill other people, and torturing them is how you save dozens of others from an imminent terror attack where they know of another squad going to do a coordinated attack, I prefer those terrorists to be tortured than to be the only country on earth that holds the moral ground but gets hundreds of civilians dead each day. Shabak for example also tortures Jewish terrorists, which I'm curious if you're also against as strongly.
I don't care about these cases, as they all go away if there's a geo political solution and security for all sides, I care about pragmatic solutions rather than the weeds of the conflict and pointing fingers. And yes, Israel holds it's own accountable with jail time while the Palestinian side has never in it's history held someone accountable for killing civilian Israelis.
Positive-Vibes-All@reddit
Well #1 you are wrong torture never solves anything because they can lie and the information you got is unreliable, you went left when you go right and boom.
#2 that is exactly the same rationale used for 1100 or whatever torture cases being thrown out, this exact same faulty reasoning
#3 Remind me again which Jewish terrorists were tortured? if they are accused of treason they don't count. And also stupid based on #1
lightmaker918@reddit
1) Obviously Israel stops 95% of terror attacks, whether it's torture or not, you can't say what they're doing is not effective.
2) True, that's why I'm not not making broad claims here, I don't know.
3) https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4742100,00.html, there were claims.
This article actually claims the law does not permit torture, but permits sleep deprivation and subsequent interrogations on certain events like if terror attacks are imminent. As I said, I don't know enough and don't have actual evidence of torture.
Positive-Vibes-All@reddit
>Obviously Israel stops 95% of terror attacks, whether it's torture or not, you can't say what they're doing is not effective.
Correlation does not equal causation, torture could very well have bumped it up to 99%
Google translation
>Against the backdrop of the Shin Bet investigation into the attack in the village of Duma and the claims in extreme right-wing circles about torture against the Jewish suspects, in recent days,
Were they really tortured? or is it a conspiracy theory
lightmaker918@reddit
If you believe Palestinians are being tortured it may very well be Jewish terrorists are being tortured. OTOH it may also be that they are just sleep deprived and not given rest to get information, we don't know.
Positive-Vibes-All@reddit
My sweet summer child*, lets assume it is just waterbording, still torture see the coward Hannity that refused to be waterboarded after saying it was no big deal, and Hitchens a noted Iraqi pro war individual who did fully state it was torture after previously dismissing it.
https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/christopher-hitchens-admits-waterboarding-torture
It still does not negate its failure, study after study has shown it aids nothing, and worse yet it creates new enemies
*Israel, the IDF, the Shin Bet all of them torture Palestinians because they view them as less than human, not all of them of course it's not 100% but enough for it being an epidemic where they have to sweep it under the rug of "trials" that always end up with not guilty.
mnmkdc@reddit
The whole thing where israel killed those surrendering hostages on the street was protocol. They changed the rules of engagement following that because their protocol allowed for them firing on not just civilians but civilians who are clearly surrendering.
They've used and continue to use food and aid as a weapon of war. The IDF and police assisted settlers in committing acts of terrorism against aid trucks attempting to enter gaza. The GHF has near-daily massacres of Palestinians at their aid sites, and currently every reliable western source (who largely are biased in favor of Israel) is in agreement on this. They've also publicly acknowledged that they are funding a group (an Isis affiliate even) in Gaza that has been looting aid sites themselves.
And obviously this isn't even getting into Israel's crimes against humanity in the west bank that are mostly official public policy. You'd hope any country with a functioning justice system would crack down on some of those crimes, and yet 2 known terrorists are current ministers in Israel.
travistravis@reddit
They seem to be celebrated
Phenergan_boy@reddit
Nobody does whataboutism like a deluded Zionist
layland_lyle@reddit
I support Israel and feel the ICC are only doing this because the Taliban has allied with Russia, and this is a way to punish them.
This has nothing to do with policy and the ICC first not have distribution for this. Many countries have laws that are persecutory towards women, gay or ethnic groups (which I'm sure we all agree is vile), yet the ICC do nothing.
The ICC is there to uphold law which is definitive, and not used as a political weapon, as when narratives change, the law shouldn't, otherwise they might be coming after people like you.
To clarify, I condemn the Taliban and their ideology and I am against mistreatment of women, but feel this is targeting them for political gain and not law, which is wrong.
BendicantMias@reddit
They already sent out arrest warrants for Hamas' leadership, but that made no difference to them. So why would this? Besides, there's also the flip side of zionists, who'll ask why Bush isn't behind bars despite the Iraq war being declared illegal by the UN Sec Gen himself.
Fact is the ICC has no credibility anyway, except when it happens to serve your interests. It doesn't matter what they do - they're a tool to serve everyone's interests and egos, and will never be seen as anything else.
krombough@reddit
Unfortunately, he didnt "declare it" the only place he did mention it was in a BBC interview. Not officially as the UN Secretary General. It would be like a District Attorney telling you someone broke a law, but not pressing charges. Okay, great, thanks for your opinion Kofi, can we move this to the ICJ?
As for the ICC, neither the US, nor Iraq, is or was signatories to the Rome Statute. And since the only place the Sec Gen will bring it up is in BBC interview, well not much they can even do. And that is not even mentioning the Servicemen's Protection Act.
BendicantMias@reddit
Russia isn't a signatory to the ICC either. Neither is Israel. Didn't stop them there. They're perfectly willing to be expansive in their interpretation of their jurisdiction if they're determined enough. Not to mention that they DID start a warcrimes investigation into the US - the US responded by sanctioning them for it, and the case was quietly forgotten about.
krombough@reddit
Russia WAS.
But more importantly, both Ukraine and Palestine are signatories. So thungs that occur in their territory falls under the court'd purview.
For the invasion of Iraq, since the US was not a signatory, and neither was Iraq, and the UN Security coucil did not request anything about it, the ICC's hands were tied on the matter. It is simply out of their remit to cover it.
BendicantMias@reddit
Russia never ratified the treaty, and thus wasn't under its jurisdiction. Meanwhile Ukraine only ratified the treaty THIS YEAR, joining the ICC after the fact in order to pursue its case against Russia.
Meanwhile Afghanistan joined the ICC while under a foreign military occupation and govt. Neither the govt. before that intervention, nor the one they have now after it (both the Taliban), agreed to this. It's rich that the domestic Taliban govt. isn't recognized, but that of a foreign occupier is.
And so on. You can split hairs over the legality if you want, but it's very clear that they're interpreting things very conveniently to suit themselves. Ironically there's actually a really good comment by an Israeli (no friend to Afghanistan) down below detailing just how silly this whole Afghanistan situation is, including how the ICC itself is being hypocritical relative to its own past rulings in how it's selectively going after Afghanistan -
krombough@reddit
Ukraine is not a member of the ICC, but it accepted the court’s jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed on its territory since November 2013 through two declarations, and in doing so, the obligation to cooperate with the court.
That is why the court has juristiction there. Iraq never made such a move.
As for Afghanistan, it ratified the treaty. It's not the court's job to say: "oh hey, we dont recognize this government." And besides which, why would the US want their puppet to pass this ratification, while being so hostile to the court? That makes no sense. As for the Taliban, they could have announced their withdrawl from the RS. They didnt. So they are still subject to it. That is how international treaties work.
Nothing will come of it, as we both know. But the court still nominally has juristiction there. As they do in Palestine. And as they have in Ukraine since 2013. But not in Iraq.
notehp@reddit
Then you haven't understood what the ICC is or how it works.
Which court of justice does? They rule on crimes committed. Prevention of crime works by establishing cultural standards or societal/political pressure. The ICC could at best be indirectly used to prevent war crimes if countries were to be pressured to sign and ratify the Rome Statute - a political decision the ICC has no power over - something the US opposes.
Which court of justice does? Enforcement is always up to a different entity (at least in a decent political structure).
This is factually wrong. The only purpose of the ICC is to rule on crimes no other court can or wants to rule. So it compensates exactly for other courts' lack of resources or lack of will to prosecute.
Then why the hell is Israel complaining about ICC arrest warrants? Or the US implementing sanctions on the ICC?
The problem with the ICC is not the ICC but the US not ratifying the Rome Statute. This led to Russia, China, and other opposing countries not to sign the Rome Statute. So we're left with a crippled court of last resort with limited resources that doesn't have jurisdiction in large parts of the world because it is strongly opposed by the US. The US is the problem here that hampers the ICC's capabilities and limits its potential.
Adiv_Kedar2@reddit
Well the dead ones at least
okabe700@reddit
They weren't dead then though
Adiv_Kedar2@reddit
Sinwar was definitely dead beforehand
BendicantMias@reddit
Doesn't matter. We already have an Israeli demanding they call for Khomenei's arrest first. Basically everyone else they don't like will be put ahead of them in the line, before they even deign to discuss the possibility of putting them in the line.
Adiv_Kedar2@reddit
It kinda does matter when that was the entire point of my comment
He probably should be
BendicantMias@reddit
Where in the line should he be? Tell me, will you guys ever put your leaders ahead in the line, if they're in the line at all? The US holds the record for most military operations since ww2. Going further back we can find the horrors of colonialism. Why is it only ever other people who should be punished? When will it ever be your turn? Will you ever be in the dock, or just constantly pushing all your enemies ahead in queue while denying even the debate over whether you deserve to be there until there's literally no one else you can use as an excuse?
The west doesn't get a free pass. They don't get to postpone judgment indefinitely either. There's either justice meted to the west too, or there's no justice at all. In which case Khomenei shouldn't be. Neither should the Taliban. Or anyone else. Let all the criminals fight it out amongst each other, and the ICC die like the bad joke it is.
Adiv_Kedar2@reddit
I'm Canadian why are you saying my leaders?
Netenyahu is already on trial inside of Israel
Positive-Vibes-All@reddit
Stop apologizing for crimes against humanity, whataboustism is 100% apologism
BendicantMias@reddit
That's a corruption trial, not a war crimes trial. Doesn't carry anywhere near the same weight, or significance. Also if internal investigations count as an excuse, then the ICC again IS a joke - and neither Khomenei nor the Taliban nor Putin nor anyone else should be called out. Just let their own countries decide their guilt, just as you're apparently arguing for Israel.
Strikingprotocol@reddit
you guys still coping about that?
empleadoEstatalBot@reddit
Maintainer | Source Code | Stats