I didn't have the heart to tell them that their attackers couldn't be tried at the international Criminal Court because Sudan was not a party to it and because the United States, even though it was Khartoum's fiercest critic, was likely to block an investigation by the court.
Why is our opposition to the ICC--for a number of quite reasonable objections--an obstacle to justice in Sudan?
Why can't an ad hoc court be established to level charges against Sudanese guilty of crimes? Why is the ICC the only body able to carry out this duty?
Or is getting the ICC to impose its will and jurisdiction over the United States more important to the ICC advocates than punishing or preventing genocide with the threat of an ad hoc court?
Will ICC advocates consider no other option? What is their priority?
