|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2009-01-22
© 2009 Peter Belmont
| |
It would be unprincipled to prosecute unimportant foreign prisoners for war-crimes but decline to prosecute former US administration officials for their war-crimes. It would also cement in place America’s reputation for granting immunity and impunity to those (here Americans, but usually Israelis) who violate the human rights of Arabs and other Muslims, not quite the tone we’d hoped for from our new president.
|
|
It is reasonably supposed that Barack Obama has decided not to investigate (and, where justified, prosecute) former US officials for war crimes and violations of US laws banning torture.[1]
Of course, this means granting US officials impunity and immunity for their war-crimes, while prosecuting a rag-tag group of foreigners for theirs.
By all accounts, the evidence against the Guantanamo detainees is scant and of questionable origin. But the evidence against former Bush administration officials, including perhaps the vice-president, is copious and well-documented.
One of the things that has brought the US into its present difficulties in the Middle East, or made them worse, including not only 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but also, and more pointedly, the Israel/Palestine conflict, has been America’s unrelentiong policy of granting immunity and impunity to the state of Israel (and, of course, to its leaders and military men). Mr. Obama’s presumed decision not to prosecute Americans continues this unprincipled policy.
It states that Americans and their friend Israel are above the law. It says we are the law. It destroys the Rule of Law, which public speakers love to praise (and recommend to others) when in high rhetorical form.
Democrats criticised, and properly so, the Republicans’ politicization of the Justice Department. But, really, that is exactly what Mr. Obama proposes to do with his own Justice Department, not by selective prosecution, but by blanket refusal to prosecute.
Mr. Obama is the chief magistrate of the USA, and it is his duty, acting through his Attorney General, to “faithfully execute the laws” of the USA.
He should re-think his decision not to prosecute the now departed officials who have broken the law.
If he is merely seeking to protect himself and his own administration against similar prosecutions in future, let him keep to the law and advise his officials to do the same. We are not talking about shop-lifting (or tax evasion) here, but about breaking some of the most important laws we have. And setting an example to the world.
If Mr. Obama’s purpose is to correct the world without punishing those responsible for bringing it into its present dreadful state, then let the Guantanamo prisoners go free (why punish them?) and make sure that Israel complies with international humanitarian law..
I believe that Mr. Obama should put the Rule of Law above most other considerations, and should say so. He should say that wrong-doing will not be forgotten or forgiven, even when done by US officials, and even in the heat of war. He should say that no-one is above the law, neither in a US administration or in the world at large. And he should enforce international humanitarian laws whenever and wherever he has power to do so.
US power is not unlimited. Prudence dictates that the US not squander its power on hopeless tasks (such as the Afghan and Iraq wars). But if we have power to prosecute crimes (as against various Bush administration officials) and fail to do so, Mr. Obama will be no better on the law-enforcement front than Mr. Bush was.
-----------
[1] ”Forgive and Forget?”,by Paul Krugman, NY Times, Jan 15, 2009.
|
