The world’s mightiest progressive transnational institution of justice takes on a rag-tag gang of psychopathic thugs. Score: 0-1.
Now the question is not whether the ICC can win, but whether by winning its justice game, everyone else must pay. At issue is whether the principle of “let bygones be bygones” (AKA ‘finding a partner for peace’) trumps International Law. One former victim of the Lord’s Resistance Army grew angry when an ICC arrest warrant arrived just as the LRA was in the middle of negotiations with the government.
Moreno-Ocampo, humanity’s avenger, talks softly and quickly. “We help in Africa, we protect Africa’s victims, Africa has called on us for aid,” he says.
But Calvin Ococa, for one, never asked them for help. “Western criminal justice doesn’t bring us any closer to peace,” he says. “We could have had peace a long time ago without The Hague.”
Moreno-Ocampo’s warrant came precisely at the point when Kony’s emissaries were sitting with the government at the negotiating table, just when some observers thought that a peace agreement might be within reach. Kony refuses to sign an accord while the ICC arrest warrant remains in effect. He has gone into hiding in the Democratic Republic of Congo, just across the border, where he rules as a jungle prince with up to 60 wives and an estimated 1,200 loyal fighters.
Over the past few weeks, the army has recommenced shelling, but that hasn’t stopped the atrocities. Recently, over 400 people were reportedly murdered by the rebels during massacres around Christmas. The week before last, the LRA cautiously enquired in Kampala if it might be possible to resume negotiations.
Some lawyers worry that emphasizing “reconciliation” over justice lets war criminals go scot-free. But as a practical matter, the first thing any armed gang will ask for in return for laying down their arms is amnesty. Since the “international community” is caught between a burning thirst for justice and an equally burning desire to avoid force at all costs, groups like the LRA can simply abandon negotiations and resume their depredations. With only two instruments available to the Guardians of Justice — arrest warrants and ceasefire agreements — the bad men of the world are free to roam between the cracks.
Specialists in international law are taking a critical look at the African approach to reconciliation. Cologne-based law professor Claus Kress, who works as an adviser to the ICC, conducted a study on whether the widespread tendency of politicians to link peace talks with amnesty pledges has created a new “lex pacificatoria” (”law of the peacemakers”) in international law — a new let-bygones-be-bygones principle that puts reconciliation before justice. “Political decision-makers must work according to the assumption that international criminal law takes priority,” says Kress. “This rules out automatic amnesties, at least for those who are chiefly responsible.”
Please don’t think for a moment that Hamas must be “brought to justice”. That’s different. It’s always different. Maybe what the International Justice people secretly crave is a deniable force which will get things done without the necessity of soiling their hands. Now with BHO as President and HRC as Secretary of State, the international progressives may once again possess the means to chase warlords, Serbian genocidaires, Haitian gangs and the Lords Resistance Army with a secret smile and a public frown. The fact is that everybody secretly cheers when the Israeli Air Force ‘illegally’ destroys a Syrian nuclear facility. Who knows but that champagne corks are surreptitiously being popped in Brussels every time a Hamas building goes up in smoke. But don’t suggest it. Don’t even speak of it.
The world really wants it both ways. We want ‘things’ to be done and we want to punish the men who do these things at our secret bidding afterward. This is the moral bargain on which much of modern civilization is founded. In the film “A Few Good Men”, Tom Cruise plays a lawyer who eventually convicts a Colonel Jessep, played by Jack Nicholson, whose actions he would rather not know about. But when he gets Jessep to admit it in court, the Colonel must go to jail of course. It’s not the act; it’s the admission. But even the jail time is part of the bargain; perhaps that’s the last duty of a “few good men”. But what is good then? Maybe we should ask Dostoevky’s Grand Inquisitor who believed it was necessary to keep the secret of damnation to a few so that the many could be saved.
Kaffee: *Colonel Jessep, did you order the Code Red?*
Judge Randolph: You *don’t* have to answer that question!
Col. Jessep: I’ll answer the question!
[to Kaffee]
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I’m entitled.
Col. Jessep: *You want answers?*
Kaffee: *I want the truth!*
Col. Jessep: *You can’t handle the truth!*
[pauses]
Col. Jessep: Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.
Kaffee: Did you order the Code Red?
Col. Jessep: I did the job I…
Kaffee: *Did you order the Code Red?*
Col. Jessep: *You’re Goddamned right I did!*
PJM Home
38 Comments
1. Gordon:“International law” is an oxymoron, an inversion of reality. Fundamentally, the only “international” law is “might makes right”, the law of the jungle.
These trials in The Hague are nothing but kabuki, a feel-good exercise, a triumph of form over substance. The outcome depends totally on whose force backs the verdict. An international law would needs be backed by an international police force, with an international legal system, etc.
People like the LRA spit on this sort of thing.
Jan 14, 2009 - 4:55 pm 2. lc:It is sort a reflection of how lawyers (is an out-of-work lawyer any more useless than an employed lawyer?) confound rather than resolve.
A long read but might be worth it, ref to Colonel Jack Broughton, who wrote the excellent “Thud Ridge” and “Going Downtown”, court-marshalled in a similar context:
http://www.historynet.com/air-force-colonel-jacksel-jack-broughton-air-force-general-john-d-jack-lavelle-testing-the-rules-of-engagement-during-the-vietnam-war.htm
Jan 14, 2009 - 5:38 pm 3. Wadeusaf:I suppose the good fellow can be forgiven for not knowing that as a fellow charged with crimes against Humanity or other War Crimes the chances were greater that he would die of old age than from any determination or punishment to be handed out by the Hague. Live free or…die old and pampered, I wonder what his choice would have been had he known.
Jan 14, 2009 - 6:49 pm 4. Wadeusaf:I suppose too, that is Hamas thinking, or Irans thinking, in not winning but never loosing either.
Jan 14, 2009 - 6:51 pm 5. Utopia Parkway:I’d like to see Israel capture a few Hamas bigwigs, give them a fair trial for crimes against humanity, and hang them. O man would the left go nuts.
The thing about the ICC is that it’s not a court at all. It’s a political organization. It has a political agenda based on international humanitarian law. Any American or Israeli that was to go before that tribunal would be guilty as charged before their defense was begun.
Jan 14, 2009 - 8:25 pm 6. Brock:Bad example. Santiago was one of Jessep’s men; a man that was killed because he wasn’t fit for the post he had been assigned. It was unfortunate that Santiago didn’t have what it took to be a Marine, but the punishment for that is not death. Jessep deserved what he got.
As for the ICC, they can go hang in the wind. Gordon recognizes the key point - a Court without police power over its jurisdiction isn’t a Court; it’s a debate club. They’re full of themselves, and cause harm to the world with throwing around their pretensions and confusing the matter as to who is in charge. There can only ever be one police power in a jurisdiction; any attempts to create a second one always results in chaos and violence.
The world really wants it both ways.
Not the whole world. Just Old Europe and its American fan club.
Jan 14, 2009 - 8:29 pm 7. programmer:How did a bunch of Eurocrats in Belgium get to be an International Court anyway? Did a bunch of them sit down one day and tell every one, “Hey guys, we’ve got this great idea. You give us all your power and soveriegnty, and then when you want to do something, just ask us and we will tell you whether you can or not, OK?” It boggles my mind that France, England, Germany, etc. would go, “Yeah, why didn’t we think of that? What a great idea, Belgium. OK.”
Jan 14, 2009 - 9:26 pm 8. programmer:In fact, excuse my ignorance, but where in Hades is the center of International justice located? Belgium, Netherlands, ???? Or if we trace it down, is it merely a web site maintained on GoDaddy?
Jan 14, 2009 - 9:28 pm 9. Lifeofthemind:The question is really simple. At what level does sovereignty lay? If it is at the nation-state level then either Uganda should deal with him for offenses against its laws or if it can be proved that he in some manner injured a person (corporeal or corporate) that belongs to another country then that country could take an interest in him. Such a claim could be satisfied by several means, such as extradition followed by trial, or extraction followed by trial, or demanding prosecution pursuant to a treaty, or by threatening a breach in relations up to declaring war if satisfaction is not made. That satisfaction is normally made by a financial compensation leaving the offending individual to his own country. Given that money flows from wealthier countries to Uganda in the form of aid demanding compensation for the crimes of her citizens seems to be a waste of time. Under the system of the sovereign nation-state there is room for an International Court of Arbitration to settle disputes between countries, including disputes over the misconduct of their nationals, but not disputes in which one party is an individual. Individuals do not have standing in International Law, they need a State to act for them. Pirates are subject to execution when encountered because they are outside the protection of The Law of Nations.
The current ICC has attempted to turn this system on its head which is why the US was wise to stay out of it. We now have a bastard child of an affiliate of the United Nations (The World Court that was formed for the arbitration purposes described above) aggregating unto itself jurisdiction over the nationals of states, as individuals. There is no guaranty that the rights that are expected within a national system, such as Grand and Petit Jury, protection from self incrimination, right to face accusers, fairness and impartiality of the Judges etc. will be of the level enjoyed in the defendants’ home countries. This may include over nationals of countries that have not recognized the court’s authority. Efforts will be made to bring Americans and Israelis before the Court. Obama may solve that technicality for General Petreaus or Dick Cheny by submitting to the Charter of the Court.
Jan 14, 2009 - 9:38 pm 10. Alexis:The world really wants it both ways.
That is the essential basis of prostitution.
Imagine if men were allowed to pay for sex on condition that the contract for each appointment gets printed in the local newspaper. It would be a rather terrifying prospect for most clients, enough to drive the market underground. That’s because the men aren’t really paying for sex, but rather they are paying for deniable sex, sex with a woman who is paid to keep her mouth shut.
Professional criminals thrive whenever there’s a market for a deniable product. Whenever buyers seek a deniable product, that’s when a culture of criminality flourishes.
We want ‘things’ to be done and we want to punish the men who do these things at our secret bidding afterward. This is the moral bargain on which much of modern civilization is founded.
The whore is a woman who accepts that so-called “moral bargain”. That “moral bargain” is at the heart of what creates the professional criminal, the liar, the cheat, and the confidence man. And for that matter, the drug dealer. One should not underestimate the high mindedness of those who demanded the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment.
Jan 14, 2009 - 9:46 pm 11. Alexis:wretchard:
What you’re talking about is an awful lot like an old joke told on folks from Kansas, Texas, and Mississippi. “They’ll vote dry and drink wet so long as any citizen can stagger to the polls.”
Whenever folks vote dry and drink wet, chances are you’ll wind up with a smiling wise guy such as Al Capone running the show.
Jan 14, 2009 - 11:18 pm 12. Dave:The only people the ICC can possibly prosecute are citizens of countries that
are already living under some kind of rule of law. The lawless lands are way beyond its reach.
For that reason it is a somewhat dangerous
Jan 15, 2009 - 12:26 am 13. gokart-mozart:organization. It can (shall???) wind up as
de facto protector of the very worst.
Law is an attribute of sovereignty. The law requires a lawgiver.
In the case of the United States, the sovereign is the People of the United States. The sovereign has delegated ALL legislative power to a Congress, and has delegated its judicial power to a supreme Court, and to “inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish”.
Therefore, there can be no such thing as “international law”, at least not in the form presented by the “ICC” or other such pretend organizations. The US Supreme Court ruled in Reid v. Covert (1957) that treaties cannot amend the Constitution (obviously), nor can they reach or deface the rights of US citizens.
Jan 15, 2009 - 3:42 am 14. Michael Hoskins:As I sit here inside the Highest Court of the Land, I wish all a good morning. Nothing else of use comes from THIS building.
Jan 15, 2009 - 6:07 am 15. Mike K:Eh, it looks like a regular every day thing to me. If they get their peace deals. Then weapon purchases will go decrease… we can’t have that
Jan 15, 2009 - 6:34 am 16. Herb:lc @ 2
“is an out-of-work lawyer any more useless than an employed lawyer?”
More perverse. An employed lawyer is constantly distracted by that for which he is paid. The unemployed has all his tools and nothing better to do than mischief.
Jan 15, 2009 - 8:14 am 17. Herb:The problem I see with these International courts of whatever is that they are not creatures of any true organic entity (religious or national), but are created out of whole cloth by a group of self-appointed wise men who aren’t, particularly. The problems they are to solve have been being solved messily and inefficiently by Marines and their kin for ages. Hanging Saddam didn’t cure what ails Iraq. That’s a blood price that’s still in accounts receivable. It wont solve the _________v. ______ problems in Africa for the same reason.
Successful courts and governments grow out of the people which they govern by their consent (where did I get that idea?). These experiments are perverse let the interest run on the receivables and are the creatures of underemployed lawyers.
When the cost gets great enough for the people under stress, they’ll sort it out if the have the resources. I think sometimes however that Marines can sometimes level things out with some resources.
Jan 15, 2009 - 8:29 am 18. John Work:“the ‘international community’ is caught between a burning thirst for justice and an equally burning desire to avoid force at all costs”.
Maybe the latter, but hardly the former. What really is this “international community”? The term is used as though it somehow represents the mindmeld of the entire population of the world, but what is this group really? Based on the opinions and desires ascribed to it, it’s more likely the groupthink mindmeld of the predominately Leftist ruling “elite” of the countries of the world. But it’s very unlikely that their (whoever they are) idea of justice is something that most of us would recognize. And the law, either here in the US or elsewhere, has very little to do with justice (even assuming that we could all agree on the meaning of the word justice).
I’m reading a very interesting book “Freedom and the Law” by Bruno Leoni. He describes the problems that are created by loose definitions of terms and poorly understood differences in meanings of words like freedom and justice both within the same language and to an even greater degree between European languages and cultures. He shows how these problems have caused fundamental changes in our legal systems, moving them in the past few hundred years away from their original foundations in Anglo-Saxon and Roman case law toward what he calls “legislative law”, which has much less to do with justice and more to do with social re-engineering and central planning.
So when we hear the “international community” cry out for justice, perhaps we should remember that that word for them means something other than what we might think. Leoni quotes Lewis Carroll as an example of this:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master - that’s all.”
Jan 15, 2009 - 8:30 am 19. Blindman:Sad as it has turned out the ICC has become a court for roadkill on the highway of history.
The jackals and vultures get a kangaroo court dinner theater along with dinner. It is about not being the loser.
For those who go up on the wall there is no choice but to keep looking in. The fear is that if you look behind you might see those want to push you in.
Why would some one do that the soldier might ask. Why would anyone want the gates of hell unguarded he asks.
You answer that “you want it both ways ” as then the knife slips in.
Jan 15, 2009 - 8:36 am 20. buckets:W, a good example, but I would note for the record that the screenwriters of A Few Good Men really intended for Jessep to be the bad guy.
I’ll throw out “The Dark Knight” as perhaps more representative of the principle espoused by our host. And for those of you that haven’t seen it, don’t be fooled into thinking it’s just some movie about a comic book hero in tights. “The Dark Knight” has articulated one of the strongest arguments I’ve ever heard for an unbending and ruthless approach to fighting non-state terrorists.
Civilization does need brutal men who will fight its dirty battles, so the rest of us can keep to our system of laws and morals.
James Gordon Jr.: Why’s he running, Dad?
Jan 15, 2009 - 8:47 am 21. njcommuter:Lt. James Gordon: Because we have to chase him.
James Gordon Jr.: He didn’t do anything wrong.
Lt. James Gordon: Because he’s the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we’ll hunt him because he can take it. Because he’s not our hero. He’s a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.
I’m coming in a bit late, but it’s true that “international law” isn’t law in the sense most of us understand. The attempt to make it so was (largely) the work of Woodrow Wilson and Edward M. House. To those who have the fortitude to read Bobbitt’s Shield of Achilles, I point to the chapter in the middle of the book: Colonel House and a World Made of Law. (If you do take the book up, read the introduction as many times as you need to before going on; if you can’t say “Yes, that should be obvious,” there is no point in reading the rest of the book.)
Jan 15, 2009 - 9:04 am 22. Richard Aubrey:Code Red was built around a mistake. Col. Jessep in reality would have known by the time he was a company commander how to move the unsat guys to some other unit. The kid would have made a good supply corporal or something.
Jan 15, 2009 - 9:36 am 23. Alexis:Ordering a Code Red is fiction.
Unnecessary. Santiago’s problem was not attitude, but a physical shortcoming–cardiac, iirc.
Having disposed of the reality of the movie, the problem with the ICC is that they have a double standard. Barbarians are excused for the reason that not excusing them is embarrassing, since you can’t catch them.
So they have to concentrate on the representatives of civilized nations whose offenses are weak tea, in comparison to those whom they can’t catch.
Whenever somebody refers to “the international community”, I want to know who that person is talking about. I want names.
Jan 15, 2009 - 9:55 am 24. Agoraphobic Plumber:“Whenever somebody refers to “the international community”, I want to know who that person is talking about. I want names.”
Even names of countries would do. Also, when somebody claims that somebody else violoated “international law”, I always want to know which “law”.
And when somebody says somebody else violated the Geneva Convention, I always want to know which specific article, and whether the “victim” had met the standards for protection under the convention.
It’s all a load of crap.
Jan 15, 2009 - 10:03 am 25. E. Nigma:Crowd-fearful pipe-bender:
Saying “it’s all a load of crap” is pretty much double-plus ungood. The ICC may take a dim view of those sorts of attitudes, making you an international outlaw. Certainly not an enlightened trans-national progressive.
And that’s the way we’re heading.
Jan 15, 2009 - 10:54 am 26. whiskey:I’d argue that this is a problem of the elites, the transnational priesthood or “Gentry” as one NYT columnist dubbed them, who have as their only means of action indictments and “peace talks.”
Because the military action is that of conservatives.
Eventually this will become unsustainable. Because while the Lord’s Resistance Army is something that bothers only Central Africans, the collapse of Pakistan, or nuclear Iran, or the collapse of Mexico, or any other number of things are not amenable to “fixing” with indictments or peace talks. And the cost is likely to be dead Western cities or millions of armed refugees in US states.
Jan 15, 2009 - 11:37 am 27. Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Thursday Highlights:[...] Kiddie soldiers and the ICC. [...]
Jan 15, 2009 - 11:53 am 28. Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e50v4:[...] Kiddie soldiers and the ICC. [...]
Jan 15, 2009 - 11:53 am 29. Peter Boston:The Eurps are sissies for a couple reasons. The horrendous wars of the 20th Century had to leave the survivors with the belief that almost anything, if not everything, is better than going through that again. Reason Two is that the Manliness Gene was knocked out of the European Genome by the loss of so many soldiers.
That leaves the sissies who get to justify their actions by invoking Reason One. You can’t hurt sending somebody a subpoena.
There is no way the sissies can stand up to the Mohammedans who are not afraid to display some testosterone when it suits their purpose. Heck, the sissies admire them because they know they can never be like them.
Jan 15, 2009 - 12:11 pm 30. Big D:I will note that Jessup’s real crime was *not* the murder of Santiago… Santiago’s death was an accident, and Jessup was *at worst* guilty of negligent homicide. If he had been honorable, he would have been allowed to retire quietly, with the whole thing hushed up as an accident.
However… what Jessup did was to actively cover up the whole thing in order to preserve his career. He forced a pair of Marines–HIS OWN MEN–to face the prospect of the death penalty to protect HIS sorry hide. THAT is Jessup’s true crime, his true dishonor. I truly wish that the movie had actually pointed that out, because it seemed so obvious in watching it what Jessup had done wrong.
And it is strikingly similar to what we see at the international level, where the perfumed princes will gladly allow thousands, even millions, to die, so that they can continue to pretend that they are the champions of justice and the common man.
Jan 15, 2009 - 1:51 pm 31. Doug:“Temperatures at the time of the crash in the city were just about 20 degrees, with the water temperature likely much colder.”
Jan 15, 2009 - 2:21 pm 32. Steynian 309 « Free Canuckistan!:—
If that’s not enough proof for ya that we got Global Warming, well then, I just don’t know.
[...] UNTIED NATIONS: “The world’s mightiest progressive transnational institution of justice takes on a rag-tag [...]
Jan 15, 2009 - 5:41 pm 33. houston criminal attorney:I still don’t think that international law has been properly defined and therefore has no teeth.
Jan 15, 2009 - 8:35 pm 34. weSwinger:Late to the party again but anyway - w. is correct in the Jessep example: This is one place where the character took over, the writers really got inside the character, and along with bad Jack’s acting gave us a very sympathetic “man in full”.
Given the superficial politics of the rest of the story, this performance stands out - we can imagine what might happen if a recruit got promoted along for some inane political reason and while being encouraged to quit, the worst happens. . . the writers are sympathetic to the fact that a military leader may be required to balance mutually exclusive interests. His political bosses just may be insane.
There is going to be a lot more of that happening under the new administration, as Doug above will certainly attest to.
Jan 16, 2009 - 3:42 am 35. 3Case:…it’s a debate club. They’re full of themselves, and cause harm to the world with throwing around their pretensions and confusing the matter as to who is in charge.
Simply put, they get themselves paid…handsomely, I am sure…plus benefits, pensions and junkets with whatever they can set up on the side for the more clever; think Kojo Annan. They are part of the Euro-monarcho-imperialist post-monarchist elite doing all they can to retain position and power not quite 100 years after their system died. They are attempting to do it as they have always, on the backs and at the expense of everyone who is not them.
Jan 16, 2009 - 6:16 am 36. veracious:As some, like UtopiaP allude to, the ICC is only powerless in enforcing _real_ law on _real_ criminals. I must state that for the BC record, that ICC will in time be found to be very good at enforcing politics upon non-criminals, e.g., US citizens and other lawful entities. …wait for it…
Jan 16, 2009 - 12:03 pm 37. NahnCee:I wish someone would give me some markers to look for regarding how we will know when Mexico has, finally, officially collapsed.
Jan 18, 2009 - 4:52 pm 38. NahnCee:“I still don’t think that international law has been properly defined and therefore has no teeth.”
The international court has no system of enforcement. There is no way the ICC could have gone into Iraq, for example, extracted Saddam and tried him.
With the pirates in Somalia prancing about untouched in ways that would make Johnny Depp cry with envy, we currently have no definition of law, nor any way of enforcing that law. Or I should say “they” since America has a lot of very good laws and lots and lots of ways of enforcing them, from freezing bank accounts to kidnapping and rendition to nuking the SOBs.
Jan 18, 2009 - 4:57 pmSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.