Do We Have the Will to Prosecute War Crimes?
After returning from a brief respite last week, Andrew Sullivan has been on a tear regarding torture, the Bush Administration, and prosecuting the latter for the former — penning (by my count) 12 posts on the subject since yesterday morning, a number that may have increased by the time you read these words.
Sullivan builds a compelling case, especially when you consider VP Cheney’s unabashed confessions to ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl.
If the same acts had been condoned and conducted by a non-American group of authorities, I suspect there would be a more significant hue and cry, a relentless push for justice. But not here. Not now. Not this time. In fact, I’ll predict — on credentials no more impressive than several decades of cynicism — that our collective discomfort with what happened, combined with our overwhelming national desire to “move on,” will result in a punishment for the perpetrators that is no more severe than history’s harsh consensus.
I’m not accepting that scenario as “good enough.” I’m merely guessing it will be the final verdict rendered. React as you will.
19 Responses to “Do We Have the Will to Prosecute War Crimes?”
Pete I agree.
If anything is pursued, it would necessarily have to be initiated as a Republican-lead effort. I applaud the outspokenness of John McCain in the past and the present on this issue, but it would have to be more than him.
Anything coming from the Democratic party would be seen as purely partisan, and will be avoided at all costs. Not only Andrew Sullivan, but Glenn Greenwald has been on a tear about this issue, for some time now. He has some interesting suggestions regarding “how to proceed,” and an abbreviated televised appearance with Bill Moyers that can be viewed here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
As “9/11 changed everything,” most of our heads are probably still spinning on the blatant and subtle things done in the name of safety-from-terrorism.
Pete Abel:
“I’ll predict — on credentials no more impressive than several decades of cynicism — that our collective discomfort with what happened, combined with our overwhelming national desire to “move on,” will result in a punishment for the perpetrators that is no more severe than history’s harsh consensus.”
I am saddened to have to agree with you, Pete. But, just think of what our society would be like if we had the same “let's move on” or “Let bygones be bygones” attitude toward murders and rapes, etc. Some will say “But, but, it is not the same….” Well, isn't it? Does our collective desire for reconciliation, national untiy, etc., trump the rule of law–our Constitution???
Dorian
Dorian
If the goal of the Democratic Congress is to appeal to the most leftist elements, and ensure that they are voted out in the next Congressional elections, then by all means go forward with these ideas.
I am not commenting on the morality involved, just the simple political realities. The majority of Americans do not want to see such trials, nor do they want Congress and the new President getting bogged down in this, rather than focusing on the economy.
The other reason it will not happen is the Pandora's box it would open up for all future administrations. Do not kid yourself. Every single President has had to issue secret orders that violate International law.
The best solution, since apparently we don't hate war crimes when we commit them, is that Bush and friends are prosecuted elsewhere. Plenty of foreign nationals have now been kidnapped, tortured and released without charges. They are from all over the world and many of their home countries have extradition treaties with us. What right would we have to deny extradition for war crimes?
Let France prosecute them. Or Iraq. Imagine Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld imprisoned for life at Abu Graib. Now THAT would be justice.
If there is no penalty for torturing defenseless civilians and prosecuting illegal wars that kill hundreds of thousands and displaces millions of people , then it will be done again and again until some day someone whose country we have destroyed will ram a plane full of Nukes into the Sears Building or the Empire State Building, unless they just decide to stick it in the bottom of a cargo ship and detonate it in some US port.
GD – you ready to send Clinton and Gore out for prosecution?
According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:
'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: “Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'
DQ -
Please tell me how the war was illegal? It had both UN and Congressional approval.
Don Quijote:
Yes.
But I'm not sure that would be causative, or prosecution for war crimes would be a deterrent, to another attack on US soil. It would seem to potentially inflame resentment, I agree.
I would think that the Republican party would be front and center regarding these potential crimes (through the example of John McCain,) and would at least call for an independent counsel to investigate the claims, before politicizing this as just “speculation” and, as so many have posted all over blogs regarding this subject, claiming that these so-called-breaches are just inventions of partisan politics, and bitterness over the 2000 election.
There is a lot at stake about this issue, in regards to domestic and worldwide respect for the rule of law here and abroad. Presidential pardons away, if we must, but by all means let's call it what it is and be responsible for our actions and consequences, and pardons. Let's at least have the gall to look at what we've done.
I agree Pete. I'm afraid that you're right that nothing will happen. People go and see the murderer of their loved one at their trial and sentencing because it feels good to see the just punishment of someone who has betrayed you and hurt you. I feel like we as a nation need that sort of healing. Bush's approval rating is in the toilet, while Cheney's is even lower, and the more the country learns about what they've done, the sicker and more betrayed we feel. I think there is a bigger chance of backlash if the dems don't actually go do some root cause/corrective action. I think Obama should make a big show of it — distance himself from all of it by saying, “I expect that if I break the law, I will be held accountable too”, and give back all those little and not-so little liberties Bush took for himself as president.
A) Congress did not declare war.
B) If it was legal, why did we need a coalition of the willing.
C) far greater legal minds than mine have determined that the Iraq War was illegal.
Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law?
DQ – you are tilting at windmills, and have your facts wrong. Instead of Kofi's personal opinion, which carries the legal weight of a bag of shit, let's look at the facts:
From the UN legal perspective – “There is no debate that Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes UN Member States “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.” [5], just debate about what that resolution actually means. The only legal jurisdiction to find “aggression” or to find the invasion illegal rests with the Security Council under United Nations Charter Articles 39-42. The Security Council met in 2003 for two days, reviewed the legal claims involved, and elected to be “seized of the matter”.[6] The Security Council has not reviewed these issues since 2003.”
From the Congressional and US legal perspective – “Iraq Resolution” and “Iraq War Resolution” are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] a joint resolution (i.e. a law) passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing the Iraq War. The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in order to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”
Fact are truly an inconvenient thing to the Left.
US constitution Article 1 section 8
No declaration of war, therefor war is illegal.
Respect for the law is truly an inconvenient thing to the Right.
I don't think I need to keep this going. Anyone who is so delusional as to say a resolution passed by Congress and signed into law authorizing the President to “to use the Armed Forces of the United States “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” is un-Constitutional is truly well named as Don Quijote – barking mad.
Me and Ron Paul
Since DQ and AR can't agree, let's take it to court. That's how we decide on matters of law, not by vote or public opinion poll or blogosphere debates.
And yes, AR, if Clinton or Gore are guilty of war crimes, they too should answer for it. However, in the decade since then, no cases have come up and no country with which the US has an extradition treaty has indicted either of them or sought extradition. Bush and company's actions on the other hand, have resulted in cases that may well have enough solid evidence to indict and indeed, to convict. Rumsfeld, you may recall, had to flee France to avoid arrest for war crimes.
I'm still amazed that many republicans, apparently including commenters here, condone kidnapping, torture (in all the reprehensible forms approved specifically by Bush and Rumsfeld) and wars of aggression. Our troops will suffer the same fate as our prisoners, and it appears you're OK with that. Well, except for the 4,300 troops already dead in this war and the tens of thousands with shattered lives.
GD – let's go back to the top of this thread. My comments started out talking about the political realities surrounding these issues, and the potential fall-outs, and why it wouldn't be pursued. I never condoned, in this thread, their actions. I have expressed my views on that issue in the past, though, but that is not the focus of my reply.
My position was and is that being President, by the very nature of the job, eventually forces choices that are not 'legal and by the book' on ALL Presidents. That is why Obama, along with long-term Washington insiders, know this can't really result in trials.
And no, I do not think Gore or Clinton, or any other previous administration, need to be on trial either. That was merely an example, admitted to, of actions by another administration that clearly points out the fact that these decisions do and have to occur.
As for taking the President to court over whether or not he was authorized, based on Public Law No: 107-243, well, that was tried, and the courts rejected that argument.
And the only body authorized to rule on the UN issue has had 6 years to revisit their decision, and has chosen not to. That, at least, can still be considered an open issue, though.
ps – yes, I do indeed, in my mind, condone all the acts you listed GD. I don't like them, I wish they were not necessary, but we live in a world where they are, and we we always have and always will.
You're forgetting the estimated half a million dead Iraqis, the estimated two million Iraqi Refugees and the uncounted wounded Iraqis, but that's OK, they are not Americans.
If there is no penalty for starting wars of aggression and occupation, and I doubt that there will be (to many ARs out there), get ready for the next one, it will be here faster than you care to imagine. If the Democrats had not swept the crimes committed by the Reagan/Bush Administrations under the rug in 1992, criminals like Elliott, Reich and Negroponte would not have been there to start new wars.
Sadly, DQ, you're right. We have legitimized wars of aggression and have zero moral authority to say or do squat if others follow OUR path. Go for it, Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran. Apparently, that quaint old world order is no longer important to us. BTW, I didn't forget the Iraqi dead. I just figure if Americans don't care about being lied into sacrificing their own children, who cares about a million dead foreigners?:
It saddens me to inform you that our nation has no “collective discomfort” over this issue. When our authorities–with the full support of the citizenry–take glee in operating the largest prison/rape system in the world, where nearly every sense of human comfort is denied in the name of security (sound familiar?), what do you expect? When the police operate like brown-shirts with complete immunity while trampling our constitutional rights, what do you expect? Look at how entertained we are by the tactics used against even our own fellow citizens on television programs like “Jail”. This is a now a juvenile culture lacking any conscience or sense of decency.