For months, the allegations of mistreatment of prisoners in Iraq have been dismissed as baseless, groundless, politically-motivated and (of course) unpatriotic.

It's amazing what a few pictures broadcast on national TV will do.

All of a sudden, there's the Prez, saying such Dukakisian things as "I shared a deep disgust" and "Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people." And while his assessment of the American perpetrators of this abuse ("I think they'll be taken care of") falls a bit short of his usual cowboy rhetoric--I think this particular situation called for a "hang 'em high," at the very least--it's at least an acknowledgment that somebody in an American uniform did something wrong.

Seven soldiers have been reprimanded for their actions in one Iraqi prison. A reprimand may not sound terrible, and it is not a criminal punishment, but it is a heavy price to pay. The six soldiers with the strongest reprimand will likely be forced out of the service and discharged in a less-than-honorable fashion. No pension, no lifetime medical benefits, no access to the PX. Not the end of the world, but a stiff blow nonetheless. Especially when you consider that these soldiers were encouraged, if not ordered, to perform the abuse.

Military intelligence officers, CIA agents and private contractors ran the section of the prison in Abu Ghirab where the "substantiated" abuses took place. This section is where those prisoners considered most likely to have information useful to our cause were held and interrogated. It's likely that the stripping of prisoners, posing them in sexual positions, wiring them up, etc., was intended to "break" them psychologically so that they would provide information more freely.

These actions may not add up to torture (though as-of-now unsubstantiated allegations of rape and the actual use of electrical current certainly would), but they are war crimes.

That's right. While probably not the most grievous violations of the Geneva Convention, simple humiliation of prisoners is against international law. If the Prez wants to really set an example for the rest of the world (and in particular, those in the Arab world who believe we act as if we are accountable to no one other than ourselves), then he should authorize the military to send the cases to the International Criminal Court in the Hague.

I know, the United States hasn't ratified the treaty establishing this court. I understand that it would be problematic, to say the least, to proffer such cases to a court that our Congress doesn't recognize. But it would be one hell of a gesture, wouldn't it?

Understand, if these cases aren't any more dire than what we know now, my guess is that the court would find the soldiers not guilty or simply state that it has no jurisdiction. I've looked over the statues, and while I'm no lawyer, mere humiliation doesn't seem enough to trigger the court. If more significant abuses occurred, however, then we ought to send those guilty to the Hague to face international justice after they've served their time in the American brig.

It is important that we judge these people first. Believe it or not, the punishments available to the U.S. military for such offenses are generally tougher than those that would be meted out by the ICC. We need to show that we are capable of disciplining ourselves. And part of that discipline is subjecting ourselves to the judgment of the international community. When we (and every soldier serving in the armed forces anywhere in the world is representing all of us) are guilty of wrong-doing, then we must accept the full punishment. Even if that is humiliation in front of the rest of the world.

Some might argue that court martialing a soldier and then sending that same soldier to the ICC to face similar charges amounts to double jeopardy. Okay, then why is Terry Nichols, already convicted for his involvement in the Oklahoma City bombing, facing trial again? Our justice system recognizes the difference between state and federal charges; we ought to recognize the difference between U.S. and international charges as well.

Others will claim that we are giving up our sovereignty by sending anyone to any sort of international court. Well, of course we are. That's part of being a member of the world community. Those same people would prefer that the U.S. be an isolationist power, though those two words don't fit together very easily. Our power on the world stage is derived from our international deeds. If we are to remain powerful, then we must continue to engage the rest of the world. And in order to engage the rest of the world on the most agreeable terms, we must atone for our mistakes. We must send those who commit war crimes, even our own soldiers, to the Hague. It's not that unthinkable, After all, we asked Serbs to turn in Don Slobo and pals, right?.

If we are to be true crusaders for democracy and the rule of law, then we must submit to the rule of law just like everyone else. No person, and no nation, is perfect. And from time to time, all of us need to be humbled and admit our faults. In this case, the ICC provides the perfect confessional.

Jon Worley was imperfect just yesterday. He intended malice toward a cat.