I should declare my bias here-not only am I a supporter of the International Criminal Court but coincidentally it came into existence (was born) the same day, albeit forty years later- as I did(July 1, 2002). The ICC's recent conviction of Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga( its first) and its refusal to act on charges the Palestinian Authority has made of alleged Israeli "war crimes" committed during "Operation Cast Lead" in 2008 on the ground that it(the PA) is not a recognized member state of the UN( due to the US's blocking its application in the Security Council) highlights the fact that it will celebrate its first decade of existence this summer.
The Bush Administration of course claimed that the ICC "infringed on American sovereignty"( how?) and posed a threat to US servicemen and policymakers due to "frivolous/politically motivated lawsuits"( repeated requests by me to the Wall Street Journal which has frequently echoed such claims to define any "frivolous/politically motivated claims" have gone unanswered)-the only politically motivated lawsuits aimed as US policymakers or officials I can think of are the attempted impeachment of US Presidents like Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton( in 1868 and 1999 respectively) which had NOTHING to do with the issue of war crimes/crimes against humanity in general or the Court in particular.
Holocaust survivor Raphael Lemkin once quipped that when somebody dislikes mustard on principle he or she can always find an excuse to do so after their previous reason has been discredited. In this case the case against the ICC seems pretty much like a case of contradictory arguments( ie it is too weak but we shouldn';t make it stronger in case it becomes too strong). I personally take the Scottish verdict- not proven- towards the ICC. Anybody else think as I do?
Terry
Log in to comment