The recent presidential powers hearing (read that as an "impeachment hearing") held by the House Judiciary Committee again raises the issue of war crimes. I have always viewed the impeachment approach to the Bush Administration's crimes as a non-starter because 1) loss of office is not real punishment for the murderous crimes in question, and 2) a Democratic Congress impeaching Bush and Cheney and installing under the law of succession Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be a ludicrous reversal of the results of the 2004 presidential election, something as politically palatable as the Supreme Court selecting George W. Bush president in 2000.

Nevertheless, talking up impeachment helps create an anti-war climate. And even filing a Bill of Impeachment and sending it to the Senate is worthwhile, since it might thwart an attack on Iran. But alas we have a Congress short on creative strategies and led by gutless Democrats more interested in the power game than justice.

The likelihood of seeing justice in the United States for the war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression committed by America's leadership is unlikely in the normal political course––even if the Democrats win the presidency and win overwhelming control of the Congress. Lest we forget, the Democrats controlling the Senate supported the Lieberman-AIPAC resolution authorizing Bush et al to invade Iraq, thus making them complicit in these war crimes, especially since these Senators had independent access to intelligence and knew that Saddam Hussein was not the threat to our nation's safety that was being misrepresented by the Bush Administration to the American people.

Our only hope to see justice for the deaths of thousands of American and allied service members and the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani citizens is with the ICC. The world community's moral indignation and outrage for the lies and perjury committed by the United States leadership has to find expression through legal actions initiated with the ICC.

It was the ICC legal justice system that Americans so vehemently lauded when it brought Slobodan Milosevic to justice after U.S.-led NATO forces deposed him as president of Yugoslavia. This same justice system is now trying Charles Taylor, the deposed president of Liberia, for crimes in Sierra Leone. This same justice system now holds and will try Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, who killed so many in the three-year siege of Sarajevo. This same justice system has just indicted sitting Sudanese President Omar al Bashir for genocide in Darfur and will eventually bring him to trial. All of these prosecutions are supported by the people of the United States.

The ICC has already received over 200 complaints of war crimes carried out in Iraq since the start of the invasion in March 2003. Most of these complaints relate to crimes allegedly committed by British troops, since Britain is signator to the Rome Treaty, which created the ICC. Peace groups have also filed numerous documents with the ICC charging war crimes and crimes against humanity with respect to Iraq. So it is clear that the ICC has plenty of material in its files to initiate an investigation.

Obviously, the question of jurisdiction comes into play since the U.S. is not party to the ICC. In 2000 President Bill Clinton signed the treaty, but never put it before the Senate for approval. He wanted to "wait and see" how the court worked out in view of the domestic political risks. Four years later President George W. Bush "unsigned" the treaty. The criminal chooses to leave the jurisdiction of the crime. But it's not that easy. The jurisdiction is civilization itself and all nations are covered whether they like it or not. There is no fleeing the moral norm of civilized human conduct. That was the lynchpin of the Treaty of Rome yet to be really finalized by the human race.

In its attempt to flee jurisdiction, U.S. officials have been running around the world pressuring countries to enter into Article 98 Agreements, granting Americans bilateral immunity for actions we choose to commit, an obvious insult to the agreeing party forced to accept the moral superiority of superpower. In February 2005 the provisional government in Iraq announced it would ratify the ICC. However, two weeks later, the Iraqis rejected the ICC amid wide speculation that the Iraqis had been pressured by U.S. officials.

Does it matter that neither the United States nor Iraq has signed onto the ICC? Yes, but there are alternatives. A case could be pursued against the British and any other of the willing allies who are signators to the ICC, whether directly involved in the hostilities or party to the secret prison rendition program. Such actions would certainly focus global embarrassment on the prime culprit of the war crimes––the Bush Administration.

Vincent Bugliosi's thesis in his recent book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder" http://www.ProsecutionOfBush.com may well work in tandem with an ICC effort. He reasons that any state prosecutor whose jurisdiction has suffered the death of a soldier in Iraq can prosecute the president and that no statute of limitations would apply. Even if the nation's political leadership were to thwart such efforts, the prosecutions themselves would stimulate world opinion's thirst for justice that even our superpower status would find difficult to quench. http://www.ProsecutionOfBush.com/video.php

The moral credentials of the United States' global leadership have been severely tarnished these last eight years. Our moral leadership and respect for our goals will not be regained by grandiose speeches and a continued foreign policy of American imperialism. Only one act will prove to the world that we are prepared to offer exemplary moral leadership and treat all nations fairly in search of justice; that would be to subject the United States' political and military leadership to the investigatory and prosecutory powers of the ICC. Anything short of this will hollow out whatever moral leadership we offer the world and underscore our hypocrisy.