World Court goes on trial

By Peter A. Brown
Orlando Sentinel
A Spanish judge's effort to extradite three American soldiers in connection with the deaths of two journalists in the Iraq war is worth noting -- and not because the United States is likely to turn over the three men involved in a 2003 firefight in which two journalists, one a Spaniard, were mistakenly killed.
It is important because it illustrates the wisdom of the U.S. decision not to join the International Criminal Court.
We should remember this when, as surely as the sun rises in the east, the 2008 presidential campaign will see the ICC issue resurrected by those who think the United States needs to repair its global image by trading on our sovereignty.
Obviously, countering the view around the globe that the United States does what it pleases regardless of the consequences would be a good thing. And, historically the United States has supported the idea of post-war panels to discipline those who commit genocide.
But a full-time world court is another matter. Especially when it requires that American troops doing their job during wartime be subjected to the whims of those who don't share U.S. views and values.
Political motivation
Simply put, this warrant for the soldiers is a typical example of a politically motivated case that might well be brought before the ICC were the United States to be a party to it.
Thankfully, President Bush rejected U.S. participation in the court, calling it flawed, despite the efforts of his opponents who have much more faith in world bodies in general than do he or I.
Since Congress never ratified the agreement setting up the court, the United States is freed from having to respond to its orders or findings.
Yet, there has been both open and veiled criticism that rejecting U.S. participation and jurisdiction for the ICC reinforces a perception of American arrogance in much of the world.
Frankly, they are correct about the public-relations aspect, but the well-being of U.S. servicemen is a lot more important than public opinion in Madrid or Mozambique.
The Spanish judge is investigating the deaths of two journalists killed when an American tank shelled their hotel, one known to house journalists.
Two military U.S. military investigations, and one by a journalist group, cleared the three men because they were responding to what they thought was enemy fire.
Whether you like George W. Bush or hate him, or think the war in Iraq was smart or stupid, should have nothing to do with your thinking on the question of giving a foreign court jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers.
War is a terrible thing and people -- many of them non-combatants -- get killed. As a journalist, I am concerned about the safety of my colleagues. Yet, no one forced them to take the assignment, and they knew the risks.
But U.S. soldiers should not have to worry that a judge or jury in a country where trashing Americans is a spectator sport is going to target them.
What justice?
The idea of a world court, where the judges and prosecutors -- how can I say this nicely? -- have a different definition of justice and view of political events than we do, has always been a nutty notion.
Which is why this case is important. It involves a court in Spain, not the ICC. But the concern is the same.
Opposition to the Iraq war led to a pro-Bush government being thrown out of office in Spain. U.S. foreign policy is often an issue in many nations.
Bill Clinton signed the treaty that created the ICC. But Clinton could count. He had the good political judgment not to submit it to Congress to get approval to submit U.S. citizens to its jurisdiction.
Yet that hasn't stopped him recently from telling audiences, "I was for the International Criminal Court against war crimes and they (the Bush administration) weren't," and using a speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention to rally the faithful to vote against Bush because of the issue.
His wife, Hillary Clinton, is the odds-on favorite for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. And, in the finest family tradition, she has been trying to walk both sides of the line on the issue of the ICC.
This is not an issue in which politicians can have it both ways.
X Peter A. Brown is an editorial page columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.