Thank You, International Criminal Court

No. Really. Of course I am kidding.

There is absolutely nothing to thank the International Court of Justice for, nor could there ever really be a compelling reason for adopting one. When the United Nations fails to pound the United States on the head with some form of insanity disguised as a UN resolution, and decides that gaining money for a few French diplomats is far more important than democratization of the Middle East (and, for the record, and for the erstwhile Barbara Boxer, the Bush Doctrine does not simply include making a pile of rubble out of Baghdad, in case you missed the memo. Bush Doctrine for Dummies: Democratic nations don't kill each other because it interferes with their ability to be democratic, but that's not the point of this article).

There is simply one objective of the ICC/ICJ, to annoy the crap out of the United States. Its no joke, really. Its a very old global relations tactic. When you are not able to control militarily, you control with International Law. Back in the day, when this country was still figuring out how much parchment it needed to write up the Articles of Confederation, we were all too aware that England could jump the pond and try a second time if we decided to pick a fight on the High Seas, so instead of tempting the worlds foremost military power into kicking our butts, we tried, in every way we could, to force England, France and the other crazy powers to succumb to Maritime Law (International Law before International Law). We discovered, as a weak power, that we had a great ability to make them do what we wanted with that because in the eyes of the law, we are all even (remember that chick with the blindfold and the scales: yeah, that's what that means).

Now imagine that you are Europe in the Twenty First Century. You suck. Sure, you are a great trade power, sure you have really cool architecture, and sure you can lay claim to the entire indicted bunch in the Oil-for-Food scandal, but you can't lay claim to the whole Military Thing. When it comes to dealing with the US, if you were to poke a stick in us, we'd pretty much be able to cream you. So you do what you can to control us. You use International Law. Only now, you have a bunch of touchy-feely scholarly liberal wonks standing behind it, telling the United States that the International Criminal Court is the only way to improve our image in the world. Lets succumb to its jurisdiction! Lets let it pound our brains in and indict our leaders! Because you end up which such desirable decisions as thus:

A judge has issued an international arrest warrant for three U.S. soldiers whose tank fired on a Baghdad hotel during the Iraq war, killing a Spanish journalist and a Ukrainian cameraman, a court official said Wednesday.

Okay, so first of all, Couso, the Spanish journalist, was reporting from a hotel which was the home base of some Iraqi insurgents and Baathists who were shooting at the tank when the tank (whoa!) shot right back at them. The fighters used Couso and other journalists and civilians in the building as human shields, which is hardly a new tactic for Jihadists, lets face it.

The soldiers were cleared by the US military, and they were sent on their way, matter settled, but hey! when you can use your authority to express your Socialists governments annoyance with the Iraq war, what's the problem with victimizing a second set of people!

The judge wanted cooperation from the US, but suprisingly, didn't get it, so he decided to take it upon himself and issue the warrants, and frankly, he might be justified if, for example, this were an internationally recognized crime like genocide or specific war crimes, but the accidental death of a journalist, no matter how tragic, is not an internationally recognized crime, especially when the home government of the perpetrators has taken it upon themselves to launch an investigation and dispense their own justice. Here the Spanish judge has not only exceeded his authority, he has undermined and made a mockery of the authority of the United States over its own military. No matter how much these countries like it when the US saves their butts in conflict, they do not have the right to exercise any modicum of control over the troops that volunteer as US citizens for an entirely volunteer US army.

And Spanish soldiers stood right alongside US soldiers in that very battle. Should they too be prosecuted? I'm sure that, in all the ruckus, and knowing the propensity of the Islamic Freedom Fighters we know better as terrorists for following the Geneva convention as far as using civilians, religious sites, and oh! human shields , that NO civilians EVER died as a result of a Spanish bullet.

Sure. Not to mention the stupid Spaniards pulled their troops out of Iraq as soon as the terrorists made them pee their pants and vote Socialist. They've made Iraq a more dangerous place as a result, first because there is a large chunk of Allied force missing, and second because the Spanish showed the terrorists what they have to do to get a force to pull out. Can they really prove that they have never contributed to the death of a single innocent Iraqi citizen? No. They can't. In fact, I think you could really say that Americans have died as a result of their cowardice. You could say that for every single Spanish soldier who may have lot his or her life in Iraq, an American soldier, a son or daughter of an American citizen has died in his or her place. For every post that a Spanish soldier was supposed to be guarding, there is a post unguarded. For every Iraqi citizen a Spanish soldier was once guarding, is there a guard? Who knows? But the chances are that there is some Iraqi citizen lying dead because of Spanish action or inaction.

For that matter, the terrorist-tolerant government in power in Spain is probably making it easier for Fundamentalist Muslims to move closer to the center of Europe, made it easier for terrorists to travel across international boundaries, to obtain passports, to get into places where they should not be. They have compromised security by their stupidity.

I say we sue them, the whole lot of them. They said they would be there and they weren't. They said that they would help and they didn't. They said that they would pull their weight, and maybe now, we are worse off in Iraq because they were too stubborn and too liberal to recognize this fight for what it is. Sue them for breach of contract, for breach of good faith, for endangerment, maybe for the murder of innocents, for Americans.

Would the ICC do this? No. We know, as Americans that the ICC would likely side with the idiots in the Spanish judiciary, comfortable knowing that they can drag Americans into their power, subject them to monkey justice, and believe that they are on the higher moral ground.

Ironically, the Spanish court can do this. It all has to do with treaties, laws and jurisdictional issues which could possibly allow these soliders to be haled into Spanish court. They will have to spend a great deal of time staring at the inner borders of the US if they want to avoid Spanish justice. But luckily, Bush pulled out of the ICC deal that Clinton signed in his last days, so there isn't a chance that the United Nations can use this to annoy us even more.

I can only imagine what would happen if he hadn't. My guess is that Kofi Annan wouldn't be standing trial for his little nepotism-Iraq bribery issue.

Cross-posted at The American Princess.