USS Clueless              Voyages of a restless mind

Main: normal long no graphics Contact Log archives Best log entries Other articles Site Search

Stardate 20011219.0947 (On Screen): Efforts are proceeding in the Netherlands to set up a permanent war crimes tribunal. The US ambassador has made it very clear that the US is not supporting this effort or consenting to it in any regard, and the Senate unanimously rejected the treaty, and has now voted to give the President permission to "use all means necessary" to free US citizens held by that court.

Dutch Minister Jozias van Aartsen is peeved about that; the US is raining on his parade.

Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Jozias van Aartsen said the Sept. 11 terror attacks are "precisely" the sort of crimes that should be prosecuted by the permanent court. The U.S. fears are "simply not realistic," he said.

The United States is sending the wrong signal, he said, and "will not benefit from going it alone. It will be counterproductive" in the fight against terrorism, van Aartsen said.

That particular rhetoric is past its sell-by date. Minister van Aartsen needs to read the newspapers. Seems to me that the US has actually done quite well going-it-alone so far. That's no guarantee that it's going to continue going nearly perfectly, of course, but it's clear that the US has a reasonable chance of prevailing, even if it continues to go it alone.

The war on international terrorism is not a police action, and it cannot be solved with courts. By the time the perpetrators of these attacks are in custody, the problem is already largely solved. Moreover, to really end the threat it will be necessary to take out a lot of people for which no proof exists of culpability. Such people would be acquitted in a trial and would go free, which is intolerable. The problem with a court is that by its nature it intends to punish the guilty. The primary target in this war is people who are not guilty now but intend to become guilty in the future. We're fighting to preempt future attacks, not to punish those in the past. That's outside the purview of this or any other court. (And it should be, too; I don't like the idea of a court prosecuting people for what they think.)

The primary objection to a permanent tribunal is Parkinson's Law: "Work expands to fill the time available." Create any bureaucracy with any mission and it will find things to keep itself busy. The mere fact that it has solved the problem it was assigned to deal with, or that there actually isn't any problem at the moment, won't keep it from continuing to work. If there are no war criminals, they'll look for some. I think that the US believes that it is better to form temporary tribunals as needed, and then disband them when their function is fulfilled, because that way they won't be seeking war criminals when there are none so as to justify their existence. (discuss)