I was talking about the general nuttery of Europe’s high and mighty jurisprudence back in July, when British courts were trying Afghan warlords and Spanish courts were chasing Pinochet. Now, we’re witnessing the inevitable result of this silliness — a Spanish judge has issued international warrants for the arrest of US soldiers for the shelling of Hotel Palestine in Baghdad in 2003.
A Spanish High court judge on Wednesday issued international warrants for the arrest of three US soldiers who are connected to the death of a cameraman in Iraq. Judge Santiago Pedraz has issued the warrants against Sergeant Thomas Gibson, Captain Philip Wolford and Lieutenant Colonel Philip de Camp for their involvement in the death of José Couso, who died when Baghdad’s Hotel Palestine, where he was staying, was shelled by US forces on April 8, 2003.
This is why US fears about the International Criminal Court are valid. What about North Korea? Or the thugs in Myanmar? Or the regime in the Sudan? What about Somali pirates or Congo rebels? The ICC has no interest in going after these guys. Like Europe’s international war crimes jurisprudence, the ICC would only target those who may have made mistakes in the enforcement of real international justice.
Big Cheese agrees completely.
As even Big Cheese agrees, the ICC is political, so what do you expect?
Thanks for yet more solid evidence that the ICC is bad idea and that the US’s misgivings are completely justified.
Before we get too excited, is there any evidence that the ICC would take any notice of what a loony Spanish lefty judge did? While this will support those with concerns that the ICC may be an unfriendly venue for the US, such foolishness is surely not “solid evidence”….
In fact the first ever indictments by the ICC have just been handed down: five members of The Lords Resistance Army in Uganda
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/ce9140728612c6e058ac554757866685.htm
It seems a popular move, albeit with implications for the fragile peace process….
If you want to read more about the actual incident in question go ahead and access the link below:
http://jetiranger.tripod.com/BLOG/index.blog?entry_id=1256429
It is clear IMHO that these three soldiers are not war criminals and the Spanish courts are using the indictments to score their own political points with their public knowing full well the US will not hand over these soldiers. I am confident the ICC would do the same thing if the US were to sign on to their treaty.
So the international laws shouldn’t be binding to the US military? What’s the point of comparing US and Myanmar or Somalia in this case? This post was lost before it was born…
So the international laws shouldn’t be binding to the US military?
Well, they are so binding on the Iranian hostage takers… The international community’s response to that sure proved IL was a vital subject!
IL is a form of counterveiling power — a tool to give weak states stand-off capability against strong ones. It is as morally neutral as lead bullets, and should be recognized as such.
Regardless, the ICC and the Spanish claims are only loosely related.
Jim: You’re running a global current affairs blog and you can’t see the difference between US soldiers shelling Hotel Palestine during wartime and totalitarian regimes in Burma and North Korea exterminating millions of people? Any prosecutor or judge in the US that targeted jaywalkers while ignoring serial killers cases would be thrown out of office. That’s the “point” between the comparison.
That is also the difference between focusing on grossly evil international crimes, like genocide and crimes against humanity, whereas war crimes are inevitably defined by either the winner or non-participants. See Robert McNamara in the Fog of War — “we were behaving as war criminals, but what makes it immoral if you lose but not if you win?”
“Any prosecutor or judge in the US that targeted jaywalkers while ignoring serial killers cases would be thrown out of office. That’s the “point”Â? between the comparison.”
So the US don’t have to acknowledge the ICC or ICJ, because there are worse regimes in the world?
And before we all live in a “global village” it’s hard to make a case for international law to become binding to every single state / government w/o compromising their natural right to sovereignty.
Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » French Judge issues warrant for Rwandan President
Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Lest I be criticized for being soft on Nazis…