Concrete Bob Update: From the Man Himself
The return of

Accusations of abuse against our troops & the ICC

I have a bad feeling that we are going to be seeing a lot of folks claiming that our forces have roughed them up. First of all it is right in the al Qaeda training manual. They are told to start whining early and often that they were tortured or otherwise abused. We saw last week that the guys scarfed up by our SEALs complained about a fat lip. Did it happen? Did he do it to himself? We don't know, but we know they are taught to make the claim. Today we read that two Afghans are claiming they were "tortured" in the Spec Ops holding facility at Bagram Air Base in AStan.

At the beginning of his detention, he was forced to strip naked and undergo a medical checkup in front of about a half-dozen American soldiers. He said that his Muslim upbringing made such a display humiliating and that the soldiers made it worse.

"They touched me all over my body. They took pictures, and they were laughing and laughing," he said. "They were doing everything."

Can we get this guy a Whaaambulance? Don't mouth off about your Muslim upbringing buddy, there's an awful lot of goat raping going on over there, so I don't want to hear about your delicate sensibilities. Hell all prisoners in the US get a strip search. Now these two make some claims that they were beaten and forced to look at pornography, but all in all pretty weak tea. Here is the problem though, the chump who runs the International Criminal Court has decided he has jurisdiction over our troops in Afghanistan, even though we aren't signatories to his tribunal. He is making noises like he wants to investigate us for war crimes such as torture, bombing civilians etc. The even bigger problem is that our own government makes this more likely by trying terrorists as criminals thereby undermining our claim to be at war with them.

By undermining the legal architecture supporting the use of military force against al Qaeda and its allies, this decision carries further profound implications for the United States' ability to defend itself in the future.

Even as it jettisoned the term "war against terror," the Obama administration has confirmed that the United States is engaged in an "armed conflict" -- an international law term for "war" -- with al Qaeda, the Taliban and their allies. President Obama has not withdrawn the United states armed forces from Afghanistan and even plans to increase them.

Characterizing the struggle against al Qaeda as an armed conflict is critical because it is the law of armed conflict that permits the United States to use military force in Afghanistan and elsewhere. If the law of war does not apply here, if al Qaeda and Taliban operatives are not enemy combatants but civilian criminal suspects, then armed attacks by American soldiers against them are illegal.

Such attacks would be war crimes leading to potential criminal liability not only for the individual U.S. servicemen involved, but all the way up the chain of command to the president himself.

The attempts by this administration to make everyone like us may backfire and wouldn't it be kinda ironic if they brought Obama up on charges for the drone strikes he has been using to kill terrorists? The law of unintended consequences is a mofo.