It appears that the target has moved so far from the original topic that I can no longer recognize it. This discussion started with an argument that current operations in Afghanistan warrant war crime trials....
Well, that just is not true, NWP.
The source article was not limited to "current operations" in Afghanistan.
Boyle told the Puerto Rican conference that President G.W. Bush had shamelessly exploited the 9/11 tragedy and "set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under "bogus pretexts." These pretexts included fighting a war against "international terrorism" or "Islamic fundamentalism", eliminating weapons of mass destruction, the promotion of democracy, and humanitarian intervention, Boyle said.
The serial aggressions of the U.S. violate such basic documents of international law as the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, Boyle said. As well, they violate the Pentagon's own U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 on The Law of Land Warfare, which applies to the President himself as Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
They break their own rules? Well, there is no honour among thieves.
U.S. administrations since 9/11 may be charged with "crimes against peace" for their attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria...Boyle said.
The eminent international authority went on to charge that the war crimes included "torture, enforced disappearances, assassinations, murders, kidnappings, extraordinary renditions, "shock and awe' (bombings), and (the use of) depleted uranium, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, drone strikes," and the like.
It is true that posters here have mentioned many, many war crimes by the United States government antedating 9/11, but I think they may be justified, in the legal terminology so dear to your heart, as "establishing a long-standing pattern of behaviour in the criminal