As Stephen Harper contemplates his course of action in response to the conflicting evidence regarding the Canadian military's culpability on the torture of Afghan detainees, (such a weird word that - like they missed the 6:17 and are waiting for another) he is aided by Noman Spector's no-doubt sound advice to get on with a public inquiry before the ICC does it for him. That said, there was, I thought, a certain irony in Spector's pointing to reporting in a Wall Street Journal article as the basis for his advice. The piece, consistent with that paper's "America-first" editorial stance, points to the ICC's investigation of NATO troops as further evidence of the inadvisability of the Americans suborning their sovereignty to an international court.
"Although the prosecutor's preliminary examination may not result in a formal investigation of Americans, the mere potential of a legal confrontation between the court in The Hague and Washington should be disconcerting to the White House, not to mention to all Americans… Why, in other words, when the [ICC's]task is to end the impunity for the worst war crimes, does [it]spend his limited resources on the most advanced democracies in the world - which operate under strict rules of engagement, have their own chain-of-command investigations and swift prosecution of criminals?"
The Journal asks a legitimate question one which Stephen Harper would do well to ponder alongside the counsel of my esteemed colleague.