and i m sure you ve also looked at afghanistan too, but none of that gets anywhere near the icc. none. and the truth is that the biggest powers in the world the united states, china, russia, india a whole host of countries. britain. ..they don t accept the legitimacy of the icc. no, britain and france do, and i think we have to give britain and france very great credit they are both parties to the statute. russia, china and us are not. but the jurisdiction of the international criminal court, interestingly, doesn t attach only to nationality, so it attaches to territory. amazingly, afghanistan is a party to the icc statute and, therefore, all the acts which may or may not be criminal that occurred, for example at bagram airbase, in the alleged torture chambers, those fell within the jurisdiction. from 2002, they have not been investigated. that s a serious problem. well, you say it s a serious problem. if you accept the glaring sort of failings of the internationaljustice framewo
looked at afghanistan too, but none of that gets anywhere near the icc. none. and the truth is that the biggest powers in the world the united states, china, russia, india a whole host of countries. britain. ..they don t accept the legitimacy of the icc. no, britain and france do, and i think we have to give britain and france very great credit they are both parties to the statute. russia, china and us are not. but the jurisdiction of the international criminal court, interestingly, doesn t attach only to nationality, so it attaches to territory. amazingly, afghanistan is a party to the icc statute and, therefore, all the acts which may or may not be criminal that occurred, for example at bagram airbase, in the alleged torture chambers, those fell within the jurisdiction. from 2002, they have not been investigated. that s a serious problem. well, you say it s a serious problem. if you accept the glaring sort of failings of the internationaljustice framework at the moment, why on
mission in iraq by the end of the year. america has about 2,500 forces there, to help iraq fight the islamic state group. this comes as us forces are ending their mission in afghanistan too, and mr biden tries to wind down the wars that were launched after the 9/11 attacks. iraq s prime minister was at the white house on monday, as mr biden explained the role of us troops in the future. it s just to be available, to continue to train, to assist, to help and to deal with isis as it arises. but we re not going to be by the end of the year in a combat mission. our correspondent barbara plett usher is following the story at the white house. president biden didn t actually talk about a troop withdrawal. he talked about ending the combat mission. and so it looks as if this is really a redefining of what the americans are doing. they re defining it as a mission to assist and train iraqi troops to fight islamic state militants. and in actualfact,
and i m sure you ve also looked at afghanistan too, but none of that gets anywhere near the icc. none. and the truth is that the biggest powers in the world the united states, china, russia, india a whole host of countries. britain. ..they don t accept the legitimacy of the icc. no, britain and france do, and i think we have to give britain and france very great credit they are both parties to the statute. russia, china and us are not. but the jurisdiction of the international criminal court, interestingly, doesn t attach only to nationality, so it attaches to territory. amazingly, afghanistan is a party to the icc statute and, therefore, all the acts which may or may not be criminal that occurred, for example at bagram airbase, in the alleged torture chambers, those fell within the jurisdiction. from 2002, they have not been investigated. that s a serious problem. well, you say it s a serious problem. if you accept the glaring sort of failings of the internationaljustice framewo