International Criminal Court Continues to be a Joke

Moammar Gaddafi has been a brutal dictator for a long time. In addition to his typical repressive actions at home, he's also had extensive ties with terrorists. There are reports that he personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing. But now, after all this time, with Gaddafi fighting for the survival of his regime, the ICC has decided to issue a meaningless arrest warrant for him for supposed "crimes against humanity."

Not only has the ICC waited until his regime is embroiled in a civil war, where his ruthless attempts to crush the rebels are pretty standard tactics, but it waited until NATO was already trying to kill him. What's the point of this ridiculous indictment? The Libyan government responded by saying that the "ICC has no legitimacy whatsoever." Gaddafi isn't right about much, but he's right about that.

ICC Rapidly Becoming a Joke

The U.S. refrained from ratifying the treaty joining the International Criminal Court, and the wisdom of that decision is even more apparent now. The Wall Street Journal reports that the ICC is

looking into accusations of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Afghanistan to determine whether there is cause to open a formal investigation

Is it focusing on the Taliban and Al Qaeda, terrorist organizations that obey no rules or treaties of warfare, and deliberately target civilians? Of course not. Well, its chief prosecutor does say they are "also" looking at the Taliban. But their primary target is NATO in general, and the U.S. in particular.

The ICC's preliminary inquiry is "very complex," Mr. Ocampo said. The court is trying to assess allegations of crimes including "massive attacks," collateral damage and torture, he said, adding that his investigators were getting information from human-rights groups in Afghanistan and from the Afghan government.

A "massive" attack, aside from being completely subjective as to what constitutes "massive," has nothing specific to do with war crimes. Collateral damage, by its very definition is not a war crime. It occurs when people who are not targeted become casualties by virtue of their proximity to actual targets. Torture could be a war crime, such as an Abu Ghraib type situation, but those types of incidents are punished anyway by regular military organizations. Apparently the ICC is continuing the quest to make the term "war crimes" virtually meaningless, by applying a ridiculously broad interpretation.

This investigation has obvious political overtones, or it wouldn't be focused on the side that actually obeys all sorts of rules and often puts its own forces at risk rather than inflict unnecessary casualties. Rather than just another example of the usual blind legalism that has gained in popularity lately, this action is a particularly biased form of legalism that targets the side it should be supporting. The U.S. and NATO already operate under many restrictions, yet now they are expected to worry about fools parsing their every action in an attempt to prosecute them for war crimes.

The U.S. should refuse to give any support whatsoever to the ICC, and continue to deny it any jurisdiction over any of our forces. If the court persists with this nonsense, we should consider it a hostile entity.

The ICC & Sudan

The International Criminal Court ordered the arrest of President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan yesterday. The New York Times has an article up today about the reaction in Sudan, that illustrates the pointless nature of the ICC's action. The ICC declared him a criminal and ordered his arrest, even though they have no power to arrest anyone. In response, Bashir gets to posture and whine about "new colonialism," calling the ICC action "a conspiracy designed to recolonize his country." That statement is both funny and sad. It's funny, because the ICC has no power to do anything, let alone "recolonize" a country. It's sad, because the unfortunate truth is that most people in Sudan would be far better off as a colony of any western power. For Sudan, freedom and independence mean the freedom to slaughter each other in large numbers.

The ICC's action is a prime example of the type of meaningless feel-good political activity that is at best useless, and at worst counterproductive. Is Bashir a worthless human being who is responsible for various atrocities? Yes. But what good will come of this action? It allows him to claim he's being persecuted by foreigners, helps generate support from certain elements in Sudan, and complicates ongoing relief efforts. And for what?