The United States, which sanctions countries citing human rights abuses, has threatened the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its judges against possible legal proceedings and probe into alleged war crimes by American forces in Afghanistan.  

Applying the mindset of "exceptionalism" as a free-floating abstraction from reality, US national security advisor John Bolton says, "If any investigations go ahead on US war crimes, the Trump administration will consider banning judges and prosecutors from entering the country, put sanctions on any funds they have in the US financial system, and prosecute them in US courts."

The ICC has been quick to respond. The court says it will continue its work as an independent and impartial institution "undeterred" - backed by 123 countries and in accordance with the overarching idea of the rule of law.

American officials claim the US is a "moral beacon." For that, they need to define themselves in deeds, not just by defining what they are for but also what they are against. 

In the present instance, what they are against in Afghanistan is a no-brainer, as to cheapen the lives of that nation, cheapens the lives of all nations, even their own.

Moreover, the ICC is not engaged in challenging the imperious presidency of Donald Trump. The Hague-based court says members of the US armed forces and the CIA might have committed war crimes -and it wants to probe.

The US government, which keeps reminding us that "human rights are a fine thing," should recognize the court's authority, rein itself in by conscious self-limitation, and defer to the sense of moral justice.

There are, however, reasons why Bolton thinks the court has no jurisdiction to examine American actions in Afghanistan. The US voted against setting up the ICC in 2002 and has not signed up yet. He claims the US has its own highly effective system for prosecuting violations of the laws of war, although he refuses to name any recent examples.

Let's be real here, the US has lost its "moral beacon status." It's a fantasy that American officials would ever find themselves at the ICC dock over "torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity and rape." The US government, which has enthusiastically supported ICC war crimes prosecutions of foreign leaders, will never allow it to happen.

As per the American Service-Members' Protection Act of 2002, the president will exploit "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court."

For Washington, there are only war criminals on the losing side - mainly civilians living in the provinces of Kabul, Nangarhar, Faryab, Helmand and Kandahar, the most affected by the conflict. The US will resist ICC oversight of its myriad misdeeds and insist that Americans are immune from ICC prosecution. This has tended to work in the past, as the ICC has so far not made any serious moves against any US citizen.

A nation cannot impose sanctions on other nations over human rights violations if it is not held accountable to its own human rights violations. Failing to indict American forces sends the message that the US is above the law.

The ICC, however, has the power and authority to prosecute American officials and commanders, and rein in their war machine. The court can and should dismiss the threat of sanctions and continue its work "undeterred." The international court, as an independent and impartial institution, should not be intimidated or dissuaded from its global task. 

As maintained by ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, there is a "reasonable basis to believe" war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed in Afghanistan and that all sides in the 17 year long conflict would be inspected, including members of the US military and the CIA.

Washington's threat is not only in direct contradiction to this principle of accountability for war crimes, but reinforces the Trump administration's repugnant policy of exceptionalism, where it demands adherence to international law by all countries, except itself.

Such policy is straight out of an authoritarian playbook, condemnable under international norms.

Perhaps this has to do with centuries of white supremacist brutality, at home and abroad, which have accumulated into a spectrum of shared consciousness that includes war glorification, indifference, delusion, denial, and numbness. 

Whatever this is, let us be clear that those who are fighting in Afghanistan or support those occupying troops have decided to do so. They made a choice and it was wrong. A good number of US soldiers chose to 'kill, torture and rape' civilians. The scars of that alone cause pain and suffering to this day, including to US soldiers themselves. 

Unfortunately, the US has no intention to play a deliberate positive role in world affairs. It relies on a catastrophic foreign policy that feeds on chaos, geopolitical instability, human rights violations, disregard for international laws and treaties, and the triumph of militarism and brinkmanship over diplomacy, which only serves as a recruiting poster. Bolton and other "merchants of death" who shore up American exceptionalism and hypocrisy, outsource US war-making, and narrow the options for dealing with the Taliban to either war or war, ought to own up to its terrible deeds.