I don’t think the ICC’s actions have been biased as much as proportionate and pragmatic. While one could potentially make a case for pursuing Rumsfeld, one would have to admit that his actions have been in violation of international law far less clearly than those of, say, Joseph Kony. And even if Rumsfeld did force-feed victims to each other, he would certainly have the good sense (or advisors’ input) to do so without leaving behind incriminating evidence. A case against Rumsfeld would surely flounder, regardless of America’s dislike of the ICC.

And on a more emotional level, having been to Northern Uganda, I find it hard to compare any Western nations’ leaders (or terrorists, for that matter) with the dedicatedly malicious people on the Court’s short-list. This isn’t about “civilized people” and “barbarians”: this is about bringing justice in response to deliberately evil acts.

Plus, from a purely legal standpoint, the ICC has no jurisdiction in the United States or in Iraq (whether or not Iraq’s decision to pull out was forced by the United States). I fully agree that the American position vis-a-vis the ICC has been hypocritical; but that does not, in my view, make the ICC itself or its past actions hypocritical. (Maybe biased or politically motivated, but even then within a healthy margin of doubt.)