"I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. It's a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial.
"And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move not to join a foreign court that could -- where our people could be prosecuted." - George W. Bush 09/30/04
"Men without conscience are capable of any cruelty the human mind can imagine." - Dick Cheney 01/26/05
David Brooks, PBS Newshour 09/15/06, arguing the Cheney-Bush administration's case for torture while pretending to feel uncomfortable about doing so:
Now, the White House case, they do have a case. One, as the president said, it's the Geneva Convention is vague. Two, that, you know, when our soldiers are - our Marines are captured, they're not going to be treated fine. The idea that there's going to be any reciprocity is nonsense. And, third, that we're in a different technological age, that if we capture somebody, they know about some plot that's about to kill millions of people, don't you want us to be able to do whatever we need to do?
And the Israeli answer - and they face this every day - is that, in that kind of extreme circumstance, you break the law, but otherwise you keep the rules. (my emphasis)
Telford Taylor, US Chief Counsel at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals, Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy (1970):
There are at least two reasons - or perhaps one basic reason with two formulations — for the pre ervation and continued enforcement, as even-handededly as possible, of the laws of war. The first is strictly pragmatic; They work. Violated or ignored as they often are, enough of the rules are observed enough of the time so that mankind is very much better off with them than without them. The rules for the treatment of civilian populations in occupied countries are not as susceptible to technological change as rules regarding the use of weapons in combat. If it were not regarded as wrong to bomb military hospitals, they would be bombed all of the time instead of some of the time.
It is only necessary to consider the rules on taking prisoners in the setting of the Second World War to realize the enormous saving of life for which they have been responsible. Millions of French, British, German and Italian soldiers captured in Western Europe and Africa were treated in general compliance with The Hague and Geneva requirements, and returned home at the end of the war. German and Russian prisoners taken on the eastern front did not fare nearly so well and died in captivity by the millions, but many survived. Today there is surely much to criticize about the handling of prisoners on both sides of the Vietnam war, but at least many of them are alive, and that is because the belligerents are reluctant to flout the laws of war too openly. (my emphasis)
Richard Falk in Crimes of War: Iraq (2006):
[R]ecourse to war, conduct in war, and the severe abuse of state power within a sovereign state are regulated by international law that deserves respect by all governments. It follows from this claim, as confirmed by the war crimes trials after World War II, that those responsible for deliberate violations of this prohibition on aggressive war making and other international legal norms should be held personally accountable. Historically, the United States government, more than any other government, has supported this approach and was the mam architect of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials of German and Japanese leaders in 1945. More recently, in the 1990s, the U.S. government was a strong advocate of establishing special criminal tribunals under the auspices of the United Nations to try individuals responsible for international crimes in connection with the breakup of Yugoslavia and those associated with the 1994 massacres in Rwanda. In these instances, the central idea is that the doctrine of sovereignty no longer trumps the Rule of Law.
It would seem that theU.S. government has now repudiated this development, at least with respect to the accountability of its own leaders. While initially backing the establishment of a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC), Washington gradually backed away from the undertaking as the ICC moved from proposal to reality. In the end, the U.S. government signed the Rome Treaty setting up the ICC in 2000, on the last day of the Clinton presidency. President Bush, accentuating his unilateralist approach to foreign policy, withdrew the American signature, something that had never previously been done with respect to a negotiated treaty. It was a gratuitous slap at the idea of individual accountability, as the Bush administration could have avoided American participation in the ICC simply by failing to submit the treaty for ratification to the U.S. Senate. Even so, it was widely known that the treaty would never have received the two-thirds vote in the Senate required for ratification. When the ICC came into being in 2002, the Bush leadership worked feverishly to conclude agreements with as many foreign countries as possible that Americans would never be turned over for prosecution to the ICC regardless of the evidence against them.
... [I]t would seem that two conclusions emerge: The Untied States government, for understandable yet not acceptable reasons, uses its power to exempt its leaders from potential international accountability for for aggressive war making and illegal conduct in wartime; at the saem time, the U.S. has not hisitation about imposing such accountability on those it considers to be its enemies [e.g., Saddam Hussein]. This manner of conduct can be understood either as "empire's law" or as simple hypocrisy. (my emphasis)
Jimmy Carter in Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis (2005):
[I]n a time of conflict, the hatred and brutality of the battlefield are very likely to be mirrored within military prison walls. Other well-known factors are that wartime secrecy often cloaks the orders and policies of superiors and the actions of subordinates, and some elements of national hatred and fear are elevated by the psychology of war.
My own family experienced the impact of these factors when my favorite uncle, navy petty officer Tom Gordy, was brutally treated as a prisoner of war after being captured in Guam by the Japanese within a month of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. After two years he was reported to be dead but was found after Japan's surrender, weighing eighty-five pounds, debilitated by four years of physical and psychological mistreatment.
The prevalence of such abuse of captured servicemen and -women during World War II induced the community of nations to come together to define quite precisely the basic guarantees of proper treatment for prisoners. These restraints are the result of an international conference held in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1949, and redefined and expanded what are known as the "Geneva Conventions." The authenticity and universal applicability of these guarantees were never questioned by a democratic power - until recently, and by America! Instead of honoring the historic restraints, our political leaders decided to violate them, using the excuse that we are at war against terrorism. It is obvious that the Geneva Conventions were designed specifically to protect prisoners of war, not prisoners of peace. ...
Aside from the humanitarian aspects, it is well known that, under excruciating torture, a prisoner will admit almost any suggested crime. Such confessions are, of course, not admissible in trials in civilized nations. The primary goal of torture or the threat of torture is not to obtain convictions for crimes, but to engender and maintain fear. Some of our leaders have found that it is easy to forgo human rights for those who are considered to be subhuman, or "enemy combatants." (my emphasis)
Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo blog 09/16/06:
The torture debate in Congress - I never expected to write such words - is as surreal to me as watching the collapse of the Twin Towers. If the Democrats are able to take control of at least one chamber in November, then surely the President's pro-torture bill will be viewed in hindsight as the nadir of the Bush presidency. If not, how much lower can things go?
I am beyond being able to assess the political implications, one way or the other, of this spectacle. Regardless of which version of the bill finally passes, this debate is a black mark on the soul of the nation. Of course passage of a pro-torture bill willdiminish U.S. standing internationally and jeopardize the safety and well-being of U.S. servicemen in future engagements. But merely having this debate has alreadyaccomplished that. Does anyone honestly believe that if Congress rebuffs the President in every respect that the rule of law and the inviolability of human rights will have been vindicated? Of course not. (my emphasis)
"The President is always right." - Steve Bradbury, Acting Deputy Attorney General, 07/11/06
No comments:
Post a Comment