FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Crime Without Punishment

Boulder, Colorado

The risk, of course, is that the International Court of Criminal Justice might agree with United States Military investigators and decide to prosecute. That would be most unwelcome. It was all brought to mind again when the United States abstained from a vote on how to deal with events in Darfur. But first a bit of history.

One of the first things George Bush did when he was elevated to the White Palace, from which he now rules, was to remove the signature of the United States of America from a treaty. The treaty pertained to the International Court of Criminal Justice that was established through an agreement reached in Rome and signed by 78 nations. It was signed by Bill Clinton, Mr. Bush’s predecessor. With the affixing of the signature, the U.S. became a party to the treaty subject to its being ratified by the U.S. Senate.

Following his ascendancy, Mr. Bush said to his counselors, although not in these exact words: “Can no one rid me of this troublesome treaty?” Eager to please, John Bolton, newly designated U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, but then undersecretary of state for arms control and international security (a title that subsequent events such as 9/11 suggested was more of a joke than a description of what he did) fetched an eraser and erased Mr. Clinton’s signature. He was later quoted as saying that erasing the signature was “the happiest moment in my government service.” (If wielding an eraser was the most fun thing he ever did while in government service one has to wonder whether he won’t find serving as a U.N. ambassador a bit of a let down.) Notwithstanding the erased signature, that was not the last Mr. Bush would see of the treaty and most recently it came back to haunt him during the dither over what to do about Darfur.

Darfur is the part of Sudan in which 2.4 million people have been displaced and more than 300,000 people killed during an internal conflict that is less than 3 years old. The United Nations has decided that something should be done and on March 31 voted to send those accused of war crimes there to the International Criminal Court in The Hague. The vote was 11 in favor and four abstentions among which was the United States. It had first been thought that the U.S. would veto the resolution since it doesn’t believe in magic or in the International Criminal Court. Following amendment of the resolution to provide that Americans would not be subject to the court’s jurisdiction, the United States agreed not to veto the measure.

Commenting on the United States’ action, Anne W. Patterson, the deputy U.S. ambassador to the U.N. said: “We have not dropped and indeed continue to maintain our longstanding and firm objections and concerns regarding the I.C.C.” Her principled statement may have been motivated in part by a bit of news that came out a week earlier that might have had implications for the United States were it a signatory to the treaty.

On March 25 recommendations made by army investigators looking into the deaths of three prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003 and 2004 were made public. The Army Criminal Investigation Command concluded 17 soldiers should be charged with murder, conspiracy and negligent homicide. Among the deaths that were investigated was the death of an Iraqi colonel who was lifted from his feet by a baton pushed into his throat. Of all the methods of hoisting someone into the air this would seem like one of the least desirable and it proved so. The colonel sustained throat injuries that contributed to his death.

Not all the men that investigators thought should be charged got off scot-free. One of them received an official letter of reprimand and another was discharged. If the U.S. recognized the jurisdiction of the ICC, the court might agree with the Army Criminal Investigation Command and bring charges against the soldiers that the American commanders thought should be ignored. The men might even be found guilty of the charges that were recommended and end up going to prison. The unwillingness of their own commanders to prosecute them would not afford them any protection. They would find they were subject to the rule of law even though the people they killed and abused were foreigners. That would come as an unwelcome surprise to Mr. Bush. It would be a welcome surprise for the rest of the world.

There won’t be any surprises. Mr. Bush doesn’t believe in them.

CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI is a lawyer in Boulder, Colorado. He can be reached at: Brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu or through his website: http://hraos.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail