|
|
|
|
|
|
by luckylion
2120 days ago
|
|
|
They don't prosecute them as war criminals by building a case against themselves, but they will still prosecute individual soldiers when they feel like it, e.g. Graner and England for Abu Ghraib, but obviously not for war crimes. We might be able to trust countries to judge their soldiers' behavior when these soldiers act on their own. The problem, and the reason, I believe, why the US won't voluntarily accept the ICC is when they don't, e.g. when drone operators bomb a wedding reception, because it's not going to be those individual operators on the hook - it's the mission and the larger policy that are going to be implicated. And a military doesn't want their officers to ask themselves "wait, can I do this? Will I be prosecuted for this?" when told to do something, they want them to say "Sir, yes, Sir" and mean it. |
|
|
And were they brought to justice and sentenced for their crimes? No. A sham trial isn't sufficient for war crimes.