Kangaroo Court

Just as I predicted years ago, it now appears that the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague is getting ready to bring indictments against Israeli officials and, possibly, President George W. Bush. (To be completely forthcoming about my prediction, I specifically said that the ICC would someday be coming after Ariel Sharon. But since he’s still laying in a coma somewhere in Jerusalem, it wouldn’t be very good publicity for the ICC to indict him.) I made this prediction to The Daily Pander and Viachicago, among others, at the time that then Secretary of State Madeline Albright was running around the globe telling anyone who would listen that it’s okay for the United States to give up some of its sovereignty for the greater good of the world community. Fortunately, upon taking office in 2001, President Bush withdrew the United States from the treaty creating the ICC.

There is plenty wrong with the ICC, besides the ceding of national sovereignty to an unelected international body. First, once again, we have that pesky thing known as the US Constitution. Article III, Section 1 states, “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Any participation in such an international court that subjects American citizens its jurisdiction would violate the express words of the Constitution. How could an American general, cabinet security or Commander-in-Chief acting in his official capacity be subjected to an international tribunal without the right to appeal to the US court system? It does not seem possible under Article III, Section 1.

Next, as the world’s only superpower, the United States has taken on responsibilities across the globe that other nations cannot. With our global reach, other nations will always object. Any international criminal tribunal will turn into a kangaroo court for smaller, less powerful nations (including those that sponsor terrorism) to harass American government officials and military officers.

Also, the member countries of the ICC include Chad, Jordan, Venezuela and Nigeria. It is ironic that there are member nations that have no history of the rule of law at home. Yet, somehow, this institution that is made up of dictatorial regimes is attempting to impose “justice” on the world. I do not know many Americans who would feel comfortable with the notion of Jordanian justice.

Finally, the political agenda of the so called “international community” is often at odds with the security interest of the United States and Israel. We have all seen how most of Europe has put its head in the sand in regard to the treat of Islamist terror. Anytime a nation, such as Israel or the United States, acts to protect itself from this threat, the whining of the Europeans is almost deafening. This would just afford these passivises another vehicle by which to try to stop Israel, in particular, from defending herself.

Of course, this is not to defend the likes of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir. He should be brought to justice, but it should be done by his own people at a time when they are, hopefully, able to do so. International efforts would be better spent trying to undermine his government in favor of a democratically elected government that will not engage in mass killings and the slave trade.

The reason that the war crimes trials after World War II were appropriate was that they dealt with a specific incident and lasted for a finite period of time. The were also run by the victorious Allied Powers, all of whom had a long tradition of the rule of law. An international criminal court with no specific charge and that is made up of a bunch of despots and dictators doesn’t result in justice. It does just the opposite by handicapping free countries in their efforts to defeat those that do not respect the rule of law. Unfortunately, Benjamin Netenyahu better have his attorney’s telephone number handy.