[sdeframond]

> So half of the defendants carried out the justice sought by the ICC on the other half.

...without trial. And assuming guilty and sentenced to death.

[flyinglizard]

I think this comment shows how far removed is the modern person living in a sheltered, matcha-sipping western environment from actual human historical reality. Do you seriously suggest that during an active war one side would bring the other to trial rather than just destroy them?

[kubb]

Have you heard about Nuremberg trials?

[sdeframond]

I am saying that "half of the defendants" DID NOT carry out the justice sought by the ICC on the other half.

They did something else (an act of war) that should not be conflated with justice.

[graemep]

I agree. Having lived with a civil war and with non-western roots I find the Western attitude to things like this to be hopelessly naive. It is the product of a golden age following the collapse of communism and the subsequent unrealistic "end of history" optimism.

[jeltz]

The winning side destroying the losing has historically been the exception, not the rule. So why not?

[rounce]

Indeed, conflating execution without trial with ‘justice’ is utterly bizarre.

[soldthat]

There are no trials in combat.

[soldthat]

Trial by which court?

This is standard rules of war. Soldiers don’t have to convene a court before shooting at enemy combatants.

[sdeframond]

> Trial by which court?

Well, the ICC ?

OP states that "one the defendants carried out the justice sought by the ICC". That's incorrect. One of the defendants went farther than any sentence the ICC would have decided.

As you say, this is an act of war (killing ennemies), not an act of justice (trial and prosecution) .