Posted on 05/06/2003 2:49:46 PM PDT by Caleb1411
The International Criminal Court, like most international institutions, is a wonderful idea. A noble idea. All it needs to work is planetary government, worldwide democracy and the triumph of reason over tribal loyalties, political doctrines and individual ambition. In other words, it requires that we all live in the world described by the "Star Trek" television shows.
Some think we already do. One of the more fascinating characteristics of those devoted to international law is their insistence that such a thing exists. Oh, it does, but it's something we all accept without too many questions, like Michael Jackson's popularity.
International law is enforceable only as long as a nation consents to it. The United Nations or the European Union or the World Trade Organization can pass a law against genetically modified popcorn, but they can't send cops to your house to take evidence from your microwave.
Good nations sign the treaties and obey the law; bad nations sign them and flout them. Hence high-minded concepts like an international criminal court aren't used against Fidel Castro or Robert Mugabe -- that's like shaming a cat for eating a bird. No, you use the law to beat the real war criminals.
Like Tommy Franks. Good thing the United States didn't submit to the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction, or you'd see more of this:
Jan Fermon, a Brussels-based lawyer representing 10 Iraqi civilians, plans to ask a Belgian court to indict Franks under a Belgian law allowing foreign officials to be sued on accusation of war crimes.
Says a Washington Times dispatch: "The complaint will state that coalition forces are responsible for the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians, the bombing of a marketplace in Baghdad, the shooting of an ambulance and failure to prevent the mass looting of hospitals. ... If arrest warrants were issued, U.S. officials could be arrested on entering Belgium."
So? Who needs to visit Belgium for anything other than advice on the best way to lick a Frenchman's hand? Well, NATO has a few offices there. At least at press time. We could move those to Qatar as well.
To lefty Euros like Fermon, there are two kinds of American generals.
There's the dead-eyed company man with a foot-long cigar screwed in the corner of his mouth. Informed that a missile has hit a market, he says, "That'll teach 'em to shop during a war." Hearty laughter from the subordinates.
The other cliche is the rabid-eyed, bull-necked brute who believes that the best way to win the hearts and minds of the enemy is to splatter the same all over the public square. He'll bomb a market to get one soldier, because that's war; war is hell, and hell is where he hangs his hat.
Both archetypes are criminals! Both deserve to stand in the dock!
Pity that these archetypes have little relationship to reality. You want war crimes? The military could have MOABed any quarrelsome town and saved itself much bother. Resistance in Basra? Boom. Problem solved.
But that wasn't how it worked this time. Given the care that went into targeting government headquarters, you wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Tomahawks shouted PARDON ME or HOT STUFF, COMIN' THROUGH in Arabic as they made their way across town -- and dropped leaflets that gave a toll-free number to call in case you wanted reparations for collateral damage.
But what of the marketplace bombing? Could have been a rocket the Baathists sent up with their usual disregard for where it would come down. It's quite possible the market was hit by coalition munitions -- but not because Gen. Franks had a yen to give Al-Jazeera a week's worth of war-porn. Either a rocket went astray, or an anti-radar missile homed in on a mobile radar the Baathists had driven to the market and parked near the shoppers.
Has anyone pressed the Belgian court to indict the various Baathist officials the United States has in custody? You know, the ones whose government forced pregnant women to strap explosive belts around their wombs?
If the United States hadn't destroyed Saddam's regime, every day in Iraq would have seen a violation of every human right the United Nations professes to uphold. Page through the 10 kajillion laws the United Nations has passed and you'll probably find one that outlaws jails for children, or corrective genital electrotherapy for dissidents.
But that's not the crime. The crime consists of deposing that regime without the consent of a Belgian court.
Who died and made them Capt. Kirk?
As for Kyoto (the other agreement Bush rejected) the Europeans failed to meet their CO2 reduction goals (to stop the runaway global warming) for the year. The reson given for European failure? The Winter was one of the coldest on record.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.