A debate familiar to Americans, at least, has arisen in the International Criminal Court, where Thomas Lubanga, accused of various offenses related to the drafting and deployment of Congolese child soldiers, faces trial as a war criminal: This is the sort of thing that, in American courts, stirs a vociferous faction of the law-and-order crowd to frenzy. According to Simons, "The judges said they issued their ruling 'with great reluctance,' particularly if this meant canceling the trial which involved issues 'of significance to the international community.'" In American history, there is a long list of defendants who avoided trial or escaped conviction because of prosecutorial improprieties ranging from coerced testimony and confessions, evidence corrupted or withheld, and other behaviors related to diverse investigatory and prosecutorial procedures. Many an angry letter to the editor has decried these "technicalities", and our society certainly does not lack attorneys willing to pursue such remedies on behalf of their clients. Indeed, the guilty will sometimes walk free, and the intent is that such a sacrifice becomes necessary compared to what is widely perceived as an even greater injustice, the conviction and incarceration (and even execution) of an innocent person. The ICC judges rejected as illegal the prosecution's intent to introduce "confidential" evidence at trial; Lubanga and his lawyers, as well as the court, should have been told of and given the opportunity to review such information. Curiously, among the American justifications for withdrawing from the ICC was a concern that defendants would not enjoy such protections as they might expect under the United States Constitution. And yet, here stands a widely-despised defendant on the verge of walking free for reasons that ought to be familiar to those who give even a modicum of attention to the American justice system. In what is widely known as the "post-9/11 world", though, the judges' decision seems at odds with what is becoming our modus operandi vis a vis terrorism: The episode, as we presently understand it, echoes in an eerie context what we in the United States regularly struggle to come to terms with. Indeed, you might think this was an American moment in history. To the other, Americans have not been entirely unique in this context. Our British neighbors, at least, would have some experience with these questions; indeed, the Irish Troubles were stained by evidence appearing coerced, withheld, or even manufactured. To the other, I'm unsure to what extent such irregularities occur in the British system, or in other courts throughout the Western world, but we Americans, whether we sympathize with or denounce the court's decision, are very familiar with travesties such as seems to be occurring in the Lubanga prosecution. Over at The Lede, Mike Nizza writes about the Lubanga case under the title, "Global Justice Gets Off to Rocky Start". Rocky, perhaps, but justice is never simple, and its journeys never smooth. The International Criminal Court, if it intends to be taken seriously, must strive to prevent future fiascoes of this magnitude. _____________________ Notes: Simons, Marlise. "Trial of Congolese warlord may be thrown out of International Criminal Court". International Herald Tribune. June 16, 2008. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/16/africa/17hague.php Nizza, Mike. "Global Justice Gets Off to Rocky Start". The Lede. June 16, 2008. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/global-justice-gets-off-to-rocky-start/
International court of justice is a contradiction of term. There is no justice which is international. This court is nothign less than a monument to despotism.
