We Don't Need No Steenkeen International Court

An International Criminal Court investigation of possible war crimes by US forces in Afghanistan is not "warranted or appropriate", the US state department has said after prosecutors in The Hague found initial grounds for such a probe.

  alJazeera

What a surprise.

In fact, we don't even recognize the ICC.

Elizabeth Trudeau, a state department spokesperson, said on Tuesday that the US [...] had a robust justice system able to deal with such complaints.

It's called a round file.

Her comments come a day after ICC prosecutors said in a report that there was "reasonable basis to believe" US forces had tortured at least 61 prisoners in Afghanistan and another 27 at CIA detention facilities elsewhere in 2003 and 2004.

The prosecutors' office, headed by Fatou Bensouda, the ICC prosecutor, said it would decide imminently whether to pursue a full investigation.

My guess is not.

The results could lead to charges being brought against individuals and the issuing of arrest warrants.

Which the US would ignore. It would just make more people besides George Bush, War Criminal in Chief, refrain from international travel.

And speaking of not needing an ICC...

Russia has said it is formally withdrawing its signature from the founding statute of the international criminal court, a day after the court published a report classifying the Russian annexation of Crimea as an occupation.

[...]

“This is a symbolic gesture of rejection, and says a lot about Russia’s attitude towards international justice and institutions,” said Tanya Lokshina of Human Rights Watch (HRW). “On a practical level it will not make much difference, but it is a statement of direction: it shows that Russia no longer has any intention of ratifying the treaty in future or of cooperating with the court.”

[...]

A spokesperson for the ICC said on Wednesday: “Membership of the Rome Statute is a voluntary and sovereign decision which is the prerogative of all States. Russia signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but did not ratify it and is not a State party. The ICC is respectful of each States’ sovereignty."

  The Guardian

Who's supporting it at this point?

The ICC has struggled to obtain widespread international acceptance. The US, India and China as well as most Middle Eastern states have declined to ratify the Rome statute which established the court.

About 120 countries, mainly smaller states, have ratified the treaty. The UK is a member of the ICC. The resurgence of nationalist politics, apparent in Brexit and Donald Trump’s presidential election victory, suggests the tide may be turning against international legal institutions.

[...]

In recent months, three African countries who were all full members of the ICC – South Africa, Burundi and Gambia – have signalled their intention to pull out, following complaints that ICC prosecutions focused excessively on the African continent.

At least they have a legitimate complaint.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.