Bravo to President Bush (The ICC, Part II)
The President’s role as Commander in Chief gives him ultimate responsibility for the deployment of our troops, and his decision to pull the plug on UN peacekeeping missions unless our soldiers receive a waiver from the International Criminal Court is the proper exercise of that responsibility. From its own website, the ICC provides proof of the Court as a playground for mischief. To question, “Why does the world need the ICC?” the site provides the following answers, full of the nebulous language that poses a threat to Americans, Israelis and anyone else who runs afoul of UN groupthink:
The President’s role as Commander in Chief gives him ultimate responsibility for the deployment of our troops, and his decision to pull the plug on UN peacekeeping missions unless our soldiers receive a waiver from the International Criminal Court is the proper exercise of that responsibility. From its own website, the ICC provides proof of the Court as a playground for mischief. To question, “Why does the world need the ICC?” the site provides the following answers, full of the nebulous language that poses a threat to Americans, Israelis and anyone else who runs afoul of UN groupthink:
To achieve justice for all [Define “justice.” Arafat’s version is inimical not only to the security requirements of Israel, but to the rights and freedoms of the Palestinian people. Bin Laden’s version included killing thousands of Americans – and if you think the Court would accept our definition, think again.]
To end impunity [“Impunity” could mean national leaders doing what they believe to be in the best interest of their people. Sponsoring homicide bombers would be a good reason to haul Arafat before a tribunal, but don’t hold your breath. President Bush’s declarations about international terrorism and Prime Minister Sharon’s use of force to disrupt terrorist networks in the disputed territories are more likely to be tried.]
To help end conflicts [Which conflicts on whose terms? The world is fixated on Israel’s purported “crimes” and “justice” for the Palestinians. Who doesn’t think Israel would be the first target?]
To remedy the deficiencies of ad hoc tribunals [The biggest deficiency of ad hoc tribunals has been the failure of the UN to hold them – Cambodia and Sierra Leone loom large here.]
To take over when national criminal justice institutions are unwilling or unable to act [“Unwilling” is an opening the ICC can drive a tribunal through. If the US is “unwilling” to try American soldiers for their legitimate roles in peacekeeping missions, but the ICC decides their behavior was criminal, will the unwillingness of the US to engage in farce be grounds for the ICC to kick in? What if Israel is “unwilling” to try itself for depriving the Palestinians of the “justice” the ICC demands?]
To deter future war criminals [If Serbian war criminals weren’t deterred by NATO’s physical presence, or the US air war, why would they be deterred by words on paper?]
The Europeans say, “Don’t worry, everything will work out.” We say, “Don’t worry. The President won’t let us find out how.