War Crimes Hypocrisy

[marmar]

Published on Monday, March 5, 2012 by Common Dreams

War Crimes Hypocrisy
The Leona Helmsley theory of international law

by Tom Gallagher


Asked whether Syrian president Bashar al-Assad was a war criminal, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Senate Appropriations Committee that "Based on definitions of war criminal and crimes against humanity, there would be an argument to be made that he would fit into that category," although she downplayed the idea of charging him as such, in the interest of persuading him “perhaps to step down from power.” And with maybe 7,000 Syrian civilian deaths in the past year, probably few outside of al-Assad’s power apparatus would argue strenuously with her characterization. There was a rather large elephant in that committee room, though. The Senate and the Administration are accustomed to thinking that they define and enforce justice on a global basis, but doesn’t justice, like charity, begin at home?

Like perhaps with George W. Bush? Prosecuting the former U.S. President for the crime of invading Iraq would, of course, be considered absurd on Capitol Hill and is virtually ignored in the mainstream American media, yet the matter is not taken so lightly everywhere. Last November, for instance, a War Crimes Tribunal in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia convicted both Bush and former United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair of “crimes against peace.” The verdict concluded that “Weapons investigators had established that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was also not posing any threat to any nation at the relevant time that was immediate that would have justified any form of pre-emptive strike.”

Few Americans have ever heard of this tribunal, which was initiated by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, and it possesses no enforcement powers. Yet while official America may not take the idea of Americans being charged with war crimes seriously, it’s not absolutely clear that George W. Bush counts himself among that consensus. In February, 2011, he cancelled a trip to a charity gala in Switzerland for reasons that are disputed. Event organizers attributed the cancellation to demonstrations planned to protest the alleged torture of U.S.-held detainees during his presidency. Human rights groups, however, thought the cause was their announced intention to file an official criminal complaint against him with Swiss prosecutors upon his arrival (along with the call for his arrest by a right-wing member of the Swiss parliament.) A Bush spokesman declined comment at the time, but in a later story about Amnesty International’s call for his arrest during an upcoming visit to Africa, CBS News attributed the Switzerland cancellation to “fears that he may have faced legal action there.”

And the elephant in that committee room wasn’t entirely Republican, either. For Clinton, justice could literally begin at home – with her husband, Bill Clinton, who’s also been accused of war crime complicity. Now, this can be a very touchy subject because the source of the war crimes allegations is the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and that was the campaign that made a lot of liberals like war again. So a substantial portion of those willing to consider Bush a war criminal entertain no such notions about Clinton. ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/05-0

[Purveyor]

1. +1 Thanks for posting. eom

[sad sally]

2. Could the coverup by President Obama of President Bush's war crimes be considered as war crimes?

Greenwald’s slim, but powerful volume makes a strong case that George W. Bush is a war criminal, albeit one that will never be indicted for his crimes.

Why? Because he’s being protected by President Barack Obama. Unfortunately for Obama refusing to investigate allegations of torture is a war crime, according to both the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. Instead of steering the nation toward the rule of law, Obama has announced “This is a time for reflection, not retribution.”

From Greenwald’s book, “With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful”:

“Rendering Obama’s reluctance to prosecute yet more problematic is that the United States is legally required to investigate allegations of torture and to bring the torturers to justice. Not doing so is itself a criminal act. The Third Geneva Convention, which was enacted in the wake of severe detainee abuse during World War II, obliges each participating country to ‘search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and… bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts.’”

The Bush documents released by Obama make it clear that Bush authorized torture, including waterboarding. In fact, the U.S. government prosecuted Japanese soldiers in World War II for torture because they waterboarded prisoners and the U.S. government even prosecuted U.S. soldiers in Vietnam for doing the same thing.

As Greenwald notes, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, appointed by Obama, made it even clearer when he took office by stating: “Waterboarding is torture.”

Yet Obama has steadfastly refused to investigate the mounting evidence that Bush authorized torture.

http://artfulhatter.com/2012/02/28/obamas-war-crimes/

[cbrer]

3. There is another good read

From Vincent Bugliosi (Charles Manson prosecuting DA, & multiple author) making the case for a murder conviction of GW Bush.
Appropriately titled "Prosecuting George W Bush for murder".

War crimes will brought against neither GWB, or Assad. Too many correlations. Too many intersections.

On a personal level, to me HRC's politically based statement says little. Tells much. There can be no prosecution of these flagrant crimes against humanity without calling into account American & British leaders and organizations. As long as the imperialist policies of the USA & the UK commit, endorse, condone, refine, and cover up violence in our world, the "Assads" of the world will continue unabated, and unprosecuted.