In March 2015, Saudi Arabia and several Sunni allies launched a massive air campaign against Iran-aligned Shiite Houthi rebels who had overrun much of Yemen a year earlier. The United States gave its full support to this campaign, which aimed at rolling back rebel military gains in Yemen.

Washington’s Support for the Saudi Coalition in Yemen

Washington provided training and logistical and intelligence support to the Saudi-led coalition as well as selling billions of dollars in weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the two main members of the anti-Houthi coalition.

In support of the Saudi-led war campaign, the administration of then-President Barack Obama signed off an arms sale worth $1.3 billion in precision-guided bombs and bomb parts to the Saudis and their allies.

US officials argued that American weapons, training and intelligence assistance would help the Saudis and their allies avoid causing more civilian casualties in Yemen. However actions proved otherwise.

Sharp Increase in Civilian Casualties in Yemen

Civilian casualties sharply increased in Yemen with the Saudi-led military intervention. According to an estimate from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, an independent monitoring group, more than 127,000 people have been killed in the war, including 13,500 civilians in targeted attacks by the Saudi-led coalition.

In the first 18 months of the Saudi-led campaign against Houthi rebels, human rights groups linked US bombs to attacks on homes, residential buildings, factories, warehouses, a cultural center, an agricultural complex, a primary school and other non-military sites.

US Officials May be Held Accountable for War Crimes in Yemen

According to the New York Times, concerns are now rising among US officials that they could be held accountable for war crimes in Yemen due to their role in facilitating arms sales to Saudi Arabia and its allies.

Administration officials fear that they could be arrested while on trips overseas for war crimes for ignoring the harm caused by the US weapons in Yemen.

In 2016, the legal office of the State Department in the Obama administration issued a memo warning that US officials, including the secretary of state, could be charged with war crimes for their role in arming the Saudi coalition.

Fearing accountability, the Obama administration acted on the warning and took a tougher line on the delivery of weapons to Saudi Arabia. In December of this year, Obama blocked a shipment of precision-guided bombs that he had agreed to sell to the Saudis.

Trump Resumed Obama’s Weapons Shipments to Gulf Allies

A few months after Obama left the White House, his successor Donald Trump, however, delivered the bombs his predecessor had halted. The Trump administration even sought to advance more arms sales in billions of dollars to its Gulf allies, but the shipments were blocked by the Congress for nearly two years.

As the deliveries of $8.1 billion of arms sales to members of the Saudi-led coalition were blocked pending congressional approval, the Trump administration came up with a new strategy to circumvent the Congress by declaring an emergency over Iran, which prompted a review by the inspector general.

Since April 2019, Trump has used his veto power to prevent lawmakers from withdrawing US military support and weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and its allies.

The Laws of War Still Apply

Under the laws of war, all countries are prohibited from approving arms sales in cases where these weapons can be used to commit attacks against civilians. As this is the case in the Yemen war, the possibility of holding American officials accountable for war crimes looks high.

Lawsuits can be filed against US officials for alleged war crimes in Yemen before courts in sovereign countries. The charges can also be brought in an international tribunal if one were set up to investigate atrocities in the Yemen war.

Earlier this month, the UN issued a report on atrocities in Yemen and asked the Security Council to bring actions by all parties in the conflict to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for possible war crimes prosecution.

The ICC Investigation into the US, UK and France

The ICC has already authorized an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by the US and other forces in Afghanistan in March, a move that prompted the Trump administration to blacklist ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and her top aide.

In September 2019, a panel of UN investigators concluded in a report that the US, along with Britain and France, were likely complicit in war crimes in Yemen because of continued weapons sales and intelligence support to the Saudis and their allies.

The report said third states that have influence on Yemen’s warring parties – including the US, Britain, France and Iran – “may be held responsible for providing aid or assistance for the commission of international law violations”.

L'articolo American Officials on the Hook for War Crimes in Yemen proviene da InsideOver.

Iran will sue US President Donald Trump at the International Criminal Court in The Hague following the American drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassim Suleimani. Gholam Hossein Esmaeili announced his state’s intentions to file lawsuits at the ICC, in Iran, and in Iraq where the assassination took place.

“There is no doubt that the US military has done a terrorist act assassinating Guards Commander Lt. Gen. Soleimani and Second-in-Command of Iraq Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis … and Trump has confessed doing the crime,” Esmaeili said Jan. 14. 

The attack on Suleimani caused immediate concern over a possible war with Iran, with some observers even questioning whether it would bring about a Third World War. None of that came to pass, however, as Iran chose to fire missiles at a US military base in Iraq instead. US officials initially downplayed damage reports, declaring no US casualties, but The Pentagon later amended its report to include 11 injured US military personnel.

Trump and Iranian officials both declared the end of armed hostilities and pledged to move toward peace with a return of diplomatic negotiations. However, Washington levied more sanctions on Iranian officials and Tehran is intent on holding American responsible for what was most likely a war crime. 

What is the ICC?

The ICC is a tribunal with 123 member states, including the entirety of South America, most of Europe, a large portion of Africa, Canada, Australia, Mexico, and New Zealand. Compared to other institutions, such as the UN, the ICC is relatively new. It was spearheaded in the 1990s and formally created with the singing of the Rome Statute at a UN General Assembly on July 17, 1998. 

It should not be confused with the International Court of Justice, which is designed to hear inter-state complaints. The ICJ is a formal branch of the UN, dating back to the organization’s creation in 1948 and every member state is subject to it, unlike the ICC which requires member states to ratify the Rome Statute to join it. 

Consequently, the ICC holds significantly less power than the ICJ, which is used as an avenue to punish individuals it convicts of international crimes. Genocide, crimes against humanity such as murder, torture, and rape, war crimes, and crimes of aggression, like military invasions and blockades, are common areas states use the ICC for redress.

Does it hold any power over the US?

The US has not signed the Rome Statute into law, therefore an ICC ruling is essentially non-binding. An American citizen convicted in the court could, in theory, find their travel options restricted and overseas assets frozen by signatories to the Rome Statute. An American citizen has never been investigated by the court, and in its existence, it has only carried out 12 investigations in total. 

The worst likely outcome, as pointed out by Business Insider, is a stain on the US faces a public relations “embarrassment.” Iran’s case, according to some analysts such as Agnes Callamard, UN special rapporteur on extra-judicial executions, is sound. 

“The targeted killings of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al Muhandi most likely violate international law [including] human rights law,” Callamard wrote. “Lawful justifications for such killings are very narrowly defined and it is hard to imagine how any of these can apply to these killings.” 

Since the beginning of the US war in Afghanistan, it has never faced such an official, black stain on its international reputation. By assassinating Suleimani, Trump placed America in an unprecedented position. Even that war in Iraq, which resulted in the capture and trial by Iraqis of Saddam Hussein, did not prompt an ICC investigation, despite Washington producing no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. 

Other dictators which have allegedly committed crimes worth of international trial, such as Chinese President Xi Jinping and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, have not been investigated, nor have such actions been seriously put forward.

Further complicating Washington’s case, the Trump administration has produced no evidence to justify the attack. Although it claimed “imminent threats” as the reason, briefings before the US Congress yielded no specifics. As such, if Iran follows through with opening an investigation and subsequent trial at the ICC, the odds are stacked against the US. 

L'articolo Iran Will Take Trump to ICC Over Suleimani Assassination proviene da InsideOver.

Her face once inspired hope in the downtrodden – but as Aung San Suu Kyi’s drawn features appeared on screen, the refugee camp erupted in fury. “Liar! Liar! Shame!” rose up the cries from the squalid, Bangladeshi settlement. Half a world away, the protesters’ compatriots—assembled outside the UN’s highest court in the Hague—echoed the message with vigor. 

Suu Kyi: What Genocide?

Myanmar’s leader won’t have heard them, nor the hundreds of her supporters also on the street. With laser-like focus, the one-time champion of democracy systematically denied charges of genocide against the Rohingya people being brought against her nation in the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ). Myanmar’s bloody suppression of its Muslim minority was an internal security matter, she maintained—but few, it seems, are convinced.   

Background On Myanmar’s Campaign Against The Rohingya

It was, in 2017, the world’s fastest growing refugee crisis. Upwards of 700,000 people forced from their homes amid a military campaign of systemic destruction and murder. Most ended up in neighboring Bangladesh’s engorged and under-resourced refugee camps. It was a “textbook example of ethnic cleansing,” the UN later concluded—one that had occurred on Aung San Suu Kyi’s watch. Horrified by the apparent act of genocide, which is said to be unfolding still, Gambia has brought World Court charges against the southeast Asian state.  

Suu Kyi Defends Myanmar Army’s Actions: Lawful Counter-Terror Operation

Electing to represent her nation in person, Suu Kyi is the first national leader to answer a charge of genocide while the crime is allegedly ongoing. Her defence has been unwavering. Yes, hundreds of villages have been destroyed, and yes, disproportionate force may at times have been used, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate conceded, but Suu Kyi has maintained throughout the proceedings that the army’s operation was a lawful counter-terror operation.

Regarding the allegations of systematic sexual violence and rape as a tactic of war, detailed in three agonizing hours of witness testimony, Suu Kyi remained silent. Instead, she used her time to attack the ICJ’s supposed overreach, assailing its judges for meddling in what she claimed is an internal security affair.

Reaction To Suu Kyi’s Defense Against The Charges

Suu Kyi’s spirited defense of the military was well received back home; but for the opposing side, it’s a desperate race against time. Gambia’s legal team are not at this stage seeking official recognition of the genocide, but rather the imposition of “provisional measures” to protect Myanmar’s remaining Rohingya community.

Roughly half a million Rohingya individuals still reside in the country’s westerly Rakhine State. Where once their ancestral villages stood, the court heard that new security bases and government offices have been built. It is a cynical effort to destroy evidence of mass murder, said the Gambian lawyers, who worry the military’s genocidal intentions may actually have strengthened in recent months.   

Suu Kyi disputes this charge, claiming that Myanmar’s generals remain firmly under her control. Her government “actively investigates, prosecutes and punishes soldiers and officers that are accused of wrongdoing,” she told the court, pointing to the conviction of seven servicemen in 2017. The group had massacred ten Rohingya villagers, a crime exposed by two Reuters reporters. For their reporting of the killing, the journalists languished in jail for more than 16 months, significantly longer than the murderous soldiers, who were released only one year into their 10-year sentences. The affair is indicative of Myanmar’s inability to self-police, critics argue.      

“Aung San Suu Kyi says Myanmar is investigating its own crimes… Once atrocities are systematically committed as policy, you lose the credibility to investigate them yourself,” said Mark Kersten of the Wayamo Foundation, an international justice group. “We’d never accept the Nazis investigating the Holocaust, or Milosevic’s Serbs investigating Srebrenica.”

Proving Genocide And Holding Myanmar Responsible

In the cases of the Holocaust and other horrors, genocide’s high benchmark—acting with the “intent to destroy in whole or in part” a community—was proven. With the weight of evidence at their disposal, Gambia’s legal team will be hopeful of a similar verdict against Myanmar. But even if Myanmar is eventually found guilty, the ICJ has no way of enforcing its decisions. Neither the country’s civilian leader nor its military commanders would necessarily be arrested or put on trial.

Foreign sanctions would, however, be a likely consequence—as would severe reputational damage. However, for those suffering in ramshackle Bangladeshi camps or encircled Rakhine homesteads, that means very little. Myanmar’s much-feted leader must be made to call off the dogs, critics say. But whether she will—or even can—is far from clear.  

L'articolo Aung San Suu Kyi Denies Myanmar’s Alleged Rohingya Genocide proviene da InsideOver.

The International Criminal Court will possibly investigate the involvement of the British military in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars for the first time. The plan came following the allegations that British troops had committed war crimes in both Middle East countries, despite previous rejection from the Hague-based institution to do so.

According to BBC’s Panorama report, London had covered the killings of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Panorama and The Sunday Times interviewed 11 British detectives who mentioned that they discovered evidence related to war crimes.

New evidence came up from Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT-before its operation was shut down in 2017) who investigated war crimes allegations during the war and the Northmoor Operation, who did the same thing in Afghanistan.

Secret prisons and brutal torture on prisoners

Meanwhile, the Middleeasteye.net report said that the UK and the US operated secret prisons months following the occupation in 2003, hiding inmates from Red Cross inspectors.

According to the British veteran legal expert, the Red Cross may not have been informed about those prisoners, who may have been subsequently taken out of the country.

One of the two secret detention centers was located at an airfield and oil pipeline pumping station in Iraq’s Western desert, known as H1. The second one was outside al-Qaim close to the Syrian border, known as Station 22

The most notorious prison, perhaps, is Abu Ghraib, located outside Baghdad. The New Yorker report in 2004 exposed how American soldiers and guards systematically and illegally tortured and abused prisoners there.

The US also run two lesser-known prisons; one at Balad (north of Baghdad) and the other was at Baghdad international airport, assisted by the UK, Middleeasteye.net added.

The Red Cross report expressed grave concern about the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and ad Umm Qasr.

Wars in Afghanistan

On September 11, 2001, four commercial planes attacked the World Trade Center (WTC) building in New York, the Pentagon outside the US capital Washington, DC and a Pennsylvania field. The tragedy killed thousands and prompted the war in Afghanistan after then US president George W.Bush believed that Osama bin Laden, head of the militant group Al-Qaeda, was behind the hijack.

“Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated,” Bush addressed the Congress as he announced the war on terror.

On October 7, 2001, the US and the UK launched an airstrike targeting Al Qaeda (once funded by the US to crush the Soviet influence during the Cold War era in the 1980s) and Taliban camps. Just a few weeks later, the ground battle began as more troops from other countries such as France, Germany were deployed into Afghanistan.

War in Iraq: When The Invasion Was Based On The Lies

While the war in Iraq started in 2003 after the intelligence report saying that Iraq and its then-president Saddam Hussein owned weapons of mass destruction (WMD), American soldiers managed to capture the Iraqi dictator in ad-Dawr. Hussein was indicted with war crimes and crimes against humanity and then executed in 2006.

A year later, CBS admitted it had revealed the identity of the person who falsified the story of WMD, used as the justification for the US war on terror.

Journalist Bob Simon investigated for two years. CBS stated that Iraqi fugitive named Rafid Ahmed Alwan was the first person who spread the lies about Saddam developing WMDs by telling the German government. Alwan, then biology student, fabricated the story that Baghdad’s secret agent had killed 12 biologists to get asylum from Germany.

Germany trusted Alwan’s statement, but he provided no evidence to back up his claims. Vox report said that the US intelligence relied on information from a man named Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who was taken out of Afghanistan, tortured in Egypt then moved to the US Libi told Saddam provided training on chemical and biological weapons for Al-Qaeda.

The Pentagon warned that such a piece of information was false. However, Bush insisted on using it as credible information.

Why Must The ICC Continue To Investigate War Crimes?

A study released by Brown University stated that war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan killed 500,000, including American soldiers and innocent civilians.

The ICC previously blocked its prosecutor’s request to probe alleged war brutality in Afghanistan, citing instability and poor coordination in the country. The court’s decision came after the US repealed the visa of the court’s prosecutors.

In November 2018, the ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, filed a request to resume a formal probe following a decade-long preliminary inquiry into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan since it was a member of the judiciary institution in May 2003, as The Guardian reported. 

Former U.S-president Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute (as the fundamental of the ICC’s establishment)  in 2000, but it was never ratified by the Senate. In 2002, Clinton’s successor George W.Bush announced it would not join the ICC, citing the concern that American citizens could be put on trial by non-American law enforcement officers. Later, Barack Obama cooperated with the court by supporting ongoing proceedings and taking part with the ICC’s body.

Many slammed that the ICC only focuses on human rights abuses and war crimes in developing nations such as in Serbia and Republic Democratic of Congo, but turned a blind eye to what the US and its allies had done.

Katherine Gallagher, senior staff attorney at New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, said in her article published in The Guardian that the ICC’s plan to continue the investigation shows that nobody can skip the law “when it comes to torture.”

“To date, no high-level US official from the civilian leadership, military, CIA, or private contractor has been prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. An ICC investigation could finally change that – bringing an end to the impunity US officials have enjoyed and, critically, some measure of redress to victims of the US torture program,” Gallagher wrote.

An investigation will guarantee victims and witnesses’ claims to be heard, given the ICC unique nature in which the most vulnerable ones have an opportunity to take part in all stages of the proceedings.

“It is high time an international body takes action. The ICC Pre-trial Chamber should authorize the investigation,” Gallagher added.

L'articolo Will the ICC Continue To Investigate War Crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan? proviene da InsideOver.

On 15 November 2019, President Trump once again invoked a vastly unchecked and virtually unlimited constitutional power, the presidential pardon. Trump, in executing his Article 2, Section 2 authority, cleansed three former US soldiers of war crimes for which they were either convicted of or alleged to have committed. In doing so, Trump has raised the question of whether or not he is using the constitutional authority of pardoning as a form of immunity for US Forces in the War on Terror. The War on Terror, a US-led engagement nearly two-decades-old, has witnessed countless revelations and incidences of war crimes by the United States, seemingly with impunity.

On Friday, with the smooth sweep of his pen, Trump absolved First Lt Clint Lorance and First Class Edward Gallagher of convictions stemming from war crimes, cases for which the two had been adjudicated guilty by a military court. The third soldier, Major Mathew Golsteyn, had been awaiting trial on murder allegations.

Lt. Lorance had been convicted on two counts of murder and a count of attempted murder stemming from orders Lorance had given to engage three unarmed men, who the prosecution characterized as civilians. Though it was later determined that all three men could be linked to either enemy combatants or attacks against US forces, Lorance had no knowledge of that at the time he ordered his team to fire upon them. At trial, some of the soldiers under Lorance’s command testified that the three men presented no threat.

The second soldier, First Class Edward Gallagher, a Tier 1 operator with the Navy, had been accused of a litany of war crimes including murdering a Prisoner of War (POW). However, at trial the prosecution’s star witness confessed to having committed the murder, thus clearing Gallagher. Consequently, Gallagher was acquitted on all of the most serious allegations. However, he was found guilty on the charge of having posed for a celebratory picture with the POW’s corpse. Trump not only pardoned Gallagher but reinstated him as Chief Petty Officer.

The third and possibly the most significant of the three pardons was for Major Mathew Golsteyn, another Tier 1 operator with the Army. The former Green Beret was awaiting trial on allegations that he killed an unarmed combatant who had just been released from custody.

Golsteyn’s team and accompanying US forces had been taking heavy casualties and fatalities from enemy snipers and improvised explosive devices, IEDs. One of those IED incidents claimed the lives of two Marines, following which Golsteyn and his team captured a Taliban bomb maker.

Though a local tribal leader identified that the POW was a known Taliban bomb maker, for reasons unknown, the bomb maker was released back to the battlefield. Following which, Golsteyn is alleged to have murdered him.

Initially, Golsteyn characterized the encounter as an ambush, and thus the killing was lawful. Upon his return to the US, the Pentagon determined that Golsteyn had not violated any laws or rules of engagement. He was, however, discharged from service for behavior unbecoming an officer.

While the case should have ended there, Golsteyn kept the issue alive by conducting various interviews in which his narrative of events continually seemed to change.

This included an attempt to explain a failed polygraph conducted as a pre-employment measure by the CIA. The CIA’s version and the current accepted chain of events is that Golsteyn escorted the bomb maker off-base, killed him, and buried the body. Later, he along with other soldiers dug the body back up, set it on fire, and tossed the remains into a garbage pit.

Throughout the US-led War on Terror, revelations of war crimes by the United States have steadily surfaced, with convictions, especially for those truly responsible, falling far behind the number of incidents.

From the US torture program to the CIA black site network to the egregious actions at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, not to mention all of the evidence which the US never intended to reveal to the public, but Julian Assange did.

It should be noted, given the United States’ move to forgive the commission of war crimes, obviously, no actual criminal liability would ever attach for those involved in the incidents which Assange exposed, and thus what is the true and actual reason for which the US wants Assange?

The Founding Fathers believed the authority to pardon was consistent with the true nature of justice and was a necessary measure to counter the inevitable breakdowns in the justice system.

For most, the line dividing a just pardon and the issuance of immunity is black and white. For Trump, however, it’s more of a grey line which he consistently seems bent on bending as far as it can conceivably go.

Trump’s use of the presidential pardon to clear war crime convictions as well as to prevent the truth determining process to unfold for such allegations is tantamount to providing immunity for such crimes.

Additionally, his pardons have seemingly divided members of the military. The Pentagon’s response to Trump’s move was little more than ‘He’s the President, we will do as we are told’’.

Trump’s three pardons on Friday, are not his first pardons for clearing war crime convictions, or which establish a basis of immunity and not justice.

In May, Trump issued a pardon for First Lt. Michael Behenna, a former Army officer who had been convicted for killing a naked and unarmed Iraqi POW. Before that, in April, Trump pardoned Scooter Libby, a member of the Bush – Cheney White House, whose federal conviction stemmed from the illegal disclosure of a covert CIA operative. Or in other words ‘leaking information to the Press’, something Trump has demonstrated absolute animosity for.

Trump’s first invocation of his Presidential pardon power was for former Arizona sheriff Joseph Arpaio, who had been convicted but not yet sentenced. Arpaio was one of America’s most degrading law enforcement officials, who essentially believed that it was impossible for law enforcement to commit human rights abuses. Thus, Arpaio ran one of America’s most inhumane and deplorable detention sites, which he publicly and proudly called a “concentration camp”.

The Presidential pardon has been utilized by virtually every President since the inception of the Constitution. Though the original intentions for including the pardon into the Constitutional powers of the Presidency was for the furtherance of justice, it has more often than not been used as an instrument of political gain as well as for personal reasons.

Trump’s grant of immunity is the earmark of most of his pardons. Trump’s construct of immunity by pardon, however, actually echoes back to his Republican predecessors.

President George Bush also wielded the pardon as an immunity measure. As Vice-President under Ronald Reagan, Bush was well aware of the plethora of criminal activity which essentially comprised the Reagan Administration. One of the most prolific and famous being the Iran – Contra Affair, in which the Reagan White House funnelled weapons to Iran as well as funded the Contras; a group which would be classified as a narco-terrorist organization today. On Christmas Eve 1992, Bush pardoned all of those involved in the criminal enterprise; both convicted and awaiting trial.

Pardons are rarely granted for a severe or egregious crime, a felony, especially one which had a victim, minus some personal or political interest.

It is nearly unheard of for a President to use his pardon powers to correct a true and genuine miscarriage of justice sustained by an ordinary innocent citizen who has been wrongfully convicted.

This reality should be seen in light of the fact that the United States is guilty of producing a significant percentage of wrongful convictions.

A 2017 Department of Justice funded project concluded an estimated 10% of convictions were wrongful. However, not a single citizen in recent history to have been proven innocent has found justice through a pardon.

Though America’s Founding Fathers strived, in the creation of the US Constitution, to ensure a Republic as far removed from despotism as possible, the Presidential pardon having its origins in the royal fiat has proven to manifest itself to the contrary.

The United States Supreme Court historically labelled the Executive power to pardon as an “act of grace”. However, Presidents have consistently brandished it with far more prejudice and self-interest. Thus, the Supreme Court, in the latter half of the 20th century, seemed to return to the issue, attempting to redefine the instrument of the pardon as circumscribed by its inability to offend the nature or substance of the very Constitution which created it. Though, that is essentially where the Court stopped.

Offending the Constitution, or even the very tenets of justice, does not have a very influential role in the decision making process of US Presidents in general but is most patently visible via their exercise of the pardon.

Trump’s use of the Presidential pardon, in most instances, has been as far removed from its intended role to correct a misstep committed by the judiciary as it could possibly be.

War crimes, corrupt politicians, a violator of human rights, politically connected criminals, and those who Trump had some personal connection to have all benefited from the Constitution due to Trump’s position.

While it is highly unlikely that this is what Alexander Hamilton meant when he argued “humanity and good policy” mandated “the benign prerogative of pardoning”, it is and has been the reality of contemporary American leadership.

Immunity, or even the mere allusion of its existence, for incredibly severe and intolerable crimes, such as some of those for which Trump has absolved, is arguably, not consistent with the mandate to “faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States”.

Without a doubt though, Trump is absolutely in no way concerned about any of that. His previous pardons already establish the fact that he grants immunity not justice. Which is once again founded more firmly in his self-interest than anything else, as Trump has already asserted that he believes he has the “absolute right to pardon” himself.

L'articolo Is Trump Using the Presidential Pardoning as a Form of Immunity? proviene da InsideOver.

As the warfare ensues in Syria, Turkey has come under heavy criticism for committing war crimes and serious violations. Turkish armed forces and a coalition of Turkey-backed Syrian militia have been accused of atrocities such as the killing of civilians, unlawful attacks, and summary killings like the brutal murder of a leading Syrian-Kurdish female politician, Hevrin Khalaf. Her car was ambushed by members of the Syrian National Army – a coalition of Syrian armed groups funded by Turkey – and she was then viciously beaten before being shot to death.

Reuters reported that a Turkish offensive in northeast Syria has killed 218 civilians, including 18 children since the bloodshed began a week ago, and that more than 650 people were injured.

Amnesty International investigations

Amnesty International conducted an investigation by obtaining video evidence, as well as interviewing witnesses, which included medical and rescue workers, civilians, journalists, and humanitarian workers. The organisation gathered information that revealed “indiscriminate attacks in residential areas, including attacks on a home, a bakery and a school, carried out by Turkey and allied Syrian armed groups”

Kumi Naidoo, Secretary-General of Amnesty International, said in a statement, “The Turkish military offensive into northeast Syria has wreaked havoc on the lives of Syrian civilians who once again have been forced to flee their homes and are living in constant fear of indiscriminate bombardment, abductions and summary killings. Turkish military forces and their allies have displayed an utterly callous disregard for civilian lives, launching unlawful deadly attacks in residential areas that have killed and injured civilians.

“Turkey is responsible for the actions of the Syrian armed groups it supports, arms and directs. So far, Turkey has given these armed groups free rein to commit serious violations in Afrin and elsewhere. We call on Turkey again to end violations, hold perpetrators accountable, and protect civilians living under their control. Turkey cannot evade responsibility by outsourcing war crimes to armed groups.”

One Kurdish Red Crescent worker spoke about his endeavours to assist an 11-year-old boy and his eight-year-old sister, both of whom were badly injured when mortars landed where they played outside their house. The area had come under heavy attacks at the time.

“The boy was injured in his chest. The injury was horrible. He had an open wound… and he couldn’t breathe. It looked like a [piece of] shrapnel ripped his chest open,” the Kurdish Red Crescent worker said.

The boy later died of his wounds and his sister had to have part of her leg amputated.

Amidst the warfare, there are also growing fears about the 100,000 civilians who have been displaced and whether they have sufficient food and clean water. Experts are concerned are that these figures could more than triple in the coming days.

Is prosecution possible for war crimes?

Over the years, many world leaders have been accused of war crimes. Apart from Turkey’s president, Erdoğan, both Trump and Assad have also come under scrutiny. Yet, the reality is that it is unlikely any of them will ever face prosecution.

The international criminal court responsible for pursuing war crimes is not recognised by Turkey, Syria or the US, which inadvertently, offers them some vague impunity.

Organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch remain some of the few outlets for victims of war crimes – who rarely get the justice that they deserve.

One man who may inspire hope in others is Omar Alshogre, a Syrian refugee who was tortured as a political prisoner and now lives in Sweden. At 17-years-old, he was arrested in 2012 for being part of a protest in his hometown of Bayda. Along with other victims and witnesses, Alshogre is part of an upcoming legal case seeking out justice in EU courts.

Last year, French and German prosecutors were able to issue the first international arrest warrants for senior Syrian officials: Ali Mamlouk, National Security Chief at the time, and Jamil Hassan, Air Force Intelligence Directorate at the time. Yet, it remains far more difficult to target more senior officials such as country leaders since various loopholes and legislation mean that they are often immune from accountability.

L'articolo War Crimes And Other Violations Committed By Turkish Forces proviene da InsideOver.

Justice, critics say, is the latest casualty in America’s Afghan war. It wasn’t lost on the streets of Kabul or the scorched sands of Helmand Province however – but in the courtrooms of the Hague. The International Criminal Court (ICC) last week decided to forgo investigation into alleged war crimes in the Afghanistan, despite acknowledging their likely existence. Such action, the judges argued, would not serve the interests of justice – but for some it simply underlined the court’s systemic impotence in the face of opposition.

“Extremely limited” were the prospects of a successful prosecution the three ICC pre-trial chamber judges said, delivering their unanimous decision. Certain inescapable factors accounted for this: the current instability of Afghanistan now half-controlled by a resurgent Taliban, questions over the evidence gathered since the preliminary examination opened in 2006, the court’s need to prioritise resources for cases with a better chance of success, and – crucially – the scarcity of cooperation from relevant parties.

On the last point, the ICC will feel especially vindicated. The most relevant of parties, the United States, has never recognized the court’s authority. Only days earlier Washington revoked the visa of Fatou Bensouda, the chief prosecutor – in line with a policy to shield US citizens “from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court,” as put by National Security Adviser John Bolton. His boss, Donald Trump, could barely contain his glee at the ICC’s ruling, hailing it a “major international victory”.

And in a rare showing of unity, Democrats tacitly welcomed the decision – disdain for the Hague-based court is truly bipartisan in Washington. In Israel too there was jubilation, with the recently re-elected Benjamin Netanyahu branding the scrapped investigation “absurd”. The US-ally is facing an ICC probe of its own, focusing on alleged crimes committed in Gaza and other Palestinian territories.

But in Afghanistan, where the judiciary has struggled to prosecute those linked to alleged human rights violations, there was dismay. Now in its eighteenth year, America’s longest ever war has wrought misery upon a generation of Afghans. Knowing the limitations of domestic courts, victims’ families had placed faith in the ICC to deliver justice, submitting around a thousand complaints to the preliminary inquiry. Rather than serving the interests of justice, the court’s dismissal “contributes to a culture of impunity,” said the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC).

This anger has been echoed globally by groups aghast at the ICC’s decision. For the court to conclude that it had “a reasonable basis” to believe war crimes had occurred but reject further investigation amounted to a “craven capitulation,” said Biraj Patnaik of Amnesty International. The group charged the court with “a shocking abandonment of the victims”, pointing to the US’s “bullying and threats” in explaining the step down.

And while the ICC identified a lack of cooperation from all sides – the Afghan authorities and Taliban included – it is indeed the US’s obstinance that has provoked the angriest backlash. Allegations against American operatives and their behaviour in the war are well documented. In their preliminary investigation, prosecutors claim to have found evidence of “torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and rape” in regard to individuals under US military detention.

These, among a litany of other allegations, were not the actions of isolated individuals, they said, but seem to have been been part of an officially sanctioned system “approved at senior levels of the US government”. The CIA’s infamous “black sites” – secret prisons used for interrogations – were also detailed in the reports. Torture allegations were levelled at the Afghan security forces too, and thousands of civilian deaths were attributed to militant groups.

That these charges will not be further investigated sends a worrying message: “The powerful won’t be held to account,” says Katherine Gallagher, a senior attorney who filed victim representations to the ICC’s preliminary inquiry. Guénaël Mettraux, a leading international lawyer who has worked in the Hague, told Il Giornale that “the decision can only result in no justice at all,” adding that, if the court’s ruling isn’t overturned, it suggests “the ICC will only investigate where there is no resistance to its efforts, which is the exact opposite of what it was created for”.

Such doubts over the ICC’s primary function are growing. The Philippines and Burundi unilaterally withdrew from the court recently – both had been facing probes into possible human rights abuses. And in another dent to the body’s authority, Sundanese generals have said they won’t extradite former president Omar Hassan al-Bashir on genocide charges, choosing to imprison him themselves.

A further slip in credibility could follow the ICC’s Afghan ruling, critics say. “A real concern right now is that states which may be under ICC scrutiny will look at this decision and its content and say: ‘what we need to do to thwart accountability is make it so that the ICC thinks that investigations will be too hard to conduct; then we’re off the hook’,” says Mark Kersten of the Wayamo Foundation, an international justice group.

It was conceived as a court of last resort – the final hope for victims who could seek justice nowhere else. But for tens-of-thousands of Afghans, it seems the ICC will offer no recourse to their suffering. The prosecurial team is considering its options, but an appeal is far from guaranteed. And with an opponent like the United States, it’s easy to see why. But critics say that opposing the seemingly unopposable should be the in court’s very DNA. Regrettably, the fragile concept of international justice looks to be growing ever frailer.

L'articolo Afghan War Crimes Will Remain a Secret proviene da InsideOver.

The civil war in South Sudan between government forces and opposition forces broke out in December 2013 and is still ongoing. Almost 400,000 people have been estimated to likely have been killed, according to one report, with around half of the lives lost estimated to be due to violence. Nearly 4 million people have been further internally displaced or have fled to neighbouring countries. All parties to the conflict have been accused of committing serious abuses, including unlawful killings, torture, arbitrary detentions, attacks on civilians and civilian property, and the recruitment and use of child soldiers.

On 12 September 2018, Salva Kiir Mayardit, the President of South Sudan, Riek Machar, the leader of the People’s Liberation Movement/Army in Opposition (Splm-Io), and other rebel factions signed the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-Arcss) in Addis Ababa. The agreement has reduced fighting in many parts of the country, and has also facilitated the return of senior opposition figures to Juba to allow for political dialogue. In late October 2018, Machar returned to South Sudan for a nationwide peace celebration that was meant to mark the end of the civil war. However, conflict and violence continue, including a significant number of incidents of rape and sexual violence against women and girls. Many also remain vulnerable to rising food insecurity.

Further, a humanitarian emergency still affects the majority of the civilian population. Some armed groups also remain outside of the R-Aarcss, including an alliance led by the National Salvation Front Thomas Cirillo. A recent clash involving the National Salvation Front and a faction of the Splm-Io saw at least 9 people killed in South Sudan’s Western Equatoria.

On 13 July 2018, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2428 – which stipulated that until 31 May 2019, all Member States were to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to South Sudan, from or through their territories — of arms and related material, and withhold training, technical and financial assistance related to military activities or materials. However, it laid out several exemptions to the country’s arms embargo — including for material and activities related to humanitarian activities, such as those intended exclusively for support of or use by UN personnel.

Possible violations of arms embargoes

In its latest report, the Panel of Experts on South Sudan, drawing on its earlier interim report, reiterated a number of likely violations of the arms embargo. The Panel of Experts noted the ongoing arrival of cargo aircraft at Juba International airport during the night, of which there was no meaningful monitoring and which likely included foreign-registered aircraft and aviation companies originating from outside South Sudan. The Panel further noted that no inspection reports were provided by customs agencies of neighbouring States during the mandate period. The Panel emphasized that effective implementation of the arms embargo would benefit from inspections of cargo aircraft destined for Juba International Airport or airports in South Sudan where there is a military presence, and of trucks crossing the Nimule border post on the border with Uganda – which is equipped with sophisticated scanning technology.

There is already a history of possible arms embargo violations. A 2018 report by the London-based Conflict Armament Research (Car) argued that some of the military materiel re-transferred from Uganda to South Sudan was in potential violation of an EU arms embargo. Car’s weapon documentation indicated that the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (Spla) in South Sudan and non-state forces allied with the Spla in neighbouring Sudan had acquired small arms and ammunitions exported from at least three EU Member States (Bulgaria, Romania, and the Slovak Republic) to Uganda since the onset of the current South Sudan conflict.

Deadline extension for national unity government

Most recently, both South Sudan’s government and Machar’s opposition requested a six-month extension to the May 12 deadline of this year for opposition leader Riek Machar to return to the country and once again become Kiir’s deputy in a unity government. The Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (Igad) Council of Ministers endorsed a six-month extension for the establishment of a Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity. IGAD further stressed that the extension was ‘non-renewable.’

L'articolo South Sudan: Arms Embargo Violation and Extension of Unity Government proviene da InsideOver.