Addict (drugaddict) wrote,
Addict
drugaddict

TO: Distinguished Recipients
FM: John Whitbeck
 
Transmitted below is a clear and, hopefully, convincing article by an American war crimes prosecutor which has been published in the Washington Post.
 
Having grown up in the United States during an era when Americans could still claim with a straight face to have moral values and to respect the rule of law, I find it barely believable that Americans should now be publicly debating whether torture "worked" (as though that were in any way relevant) and that a recent New York Times poll could have shown that 62% of Americans are opposed even to the holding of hearings (let alone the pursuit of prosecutions) with respect to their government's torture policies and practices. Can Americans, even post-Bush/Cheney, really be so comfortable "walking on the dark side", alongside "the worst of the worst"?
 
The Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture (both ratified by the US Senate and hence binding American law) make prosecuting torturers, when aware of evidence that torture has occurred, an obligation, not an option.
 
If the top figures in the current administration, for reasons of political convenience and/or moral bankruptcy, fail to pursue the prosecutions which they are legally obligated to pursue, they will themselves be indictable for such failure by prosecutors in countries which still adhere to civilized standards and respect the rule of law.
 
Let us all hope that America, after this embarrassing period of hesitation, does finally do honor to itself and that foreign prosecutions of American criminals are rendered unnecessary.

 
Why We Must Prosecute
Torture Is a Breach Of International Law

By Mark J. McKeon
Tuesday, April 28, 2009

On Sept. 11, 2001, when the twin towers were hit, I was sitting in a meeting in The Hague discussing what should be included in an indictment against Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes in Bosnia. I was an American lawyer serving as a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and there was no doubt that Milosevic should be indicted for his responsibility for the torture and cruel treatment of prisoners. As the head of state at the time those crimes were committed, Milosevic bore ultimate responsibility for what happened under his watch.

While at The Hague, I felt myself standing in a long line of American prosecutors working for a world where international standards restricted what one nation could do to another during war, stretching back to at least Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials. Those standards protected our own soldiers and citizens. They were also moral and right. So I didn't understand why, a few months after the attacks in 2001, the Bush administration withdrew its consent to joining the International Criminal Court. Wasn't accountability for war crimes one of the things America stood for? Although staying with the court did mean that the United States would be subject to being charged in that court, how likely was that to happen? Surely we would never do these things. And, in any event, the court could only assume jurisdiction over a person whose own government refused to prosecute him; surely, that would never happen in the United States.

And yet, seven years later, here we are debating whether we should hold senior Bush administration officials accountable for things they have done in the "war on terror."

In 2001 and the following few years, we at the international tribunal built a strong court case against Milosevic. We presented evidence that he had effective control over soldiers and paramilitaries who tortured prisoners, and did worse. We brought into court reports of atrocities that had been delivered to Milosevic by international organizations to show his knowledge of what was happening under his command. And we watched as other heads of state were indicted for similar crimes, including Charles Taylor in Liberia and, of course, Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

At the same time, I watched with horror the changes that were happening back home. The events are now well known: Abu Ghraib; Guantanamo; secret "renditions" of prisoners to countries where interrogators were not afraid to get rough; secret CIA prisons where there appeared to be no rules. I tried to answer, as best I could, the questions from my international colleagues at The Hague about what was happening in and to my country. But as each revelation topped the last, I soon found myself without words.

I hope that the United States has turned the page on those times and is returning to the values that sustained our country for so many years. But we cannot expect to regain our position of leadership in the world unless we hold ourselves to the same standards that we expect of others. That means punishing the most senior government officials responsible for these crimes. We have demanded this from other countries that have returned from walking on the dark side; we should expect no less from ourselves.

To say that we should hold ourselves to the same standards of justice that we applied to Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein is not to say that the level of our leaders' crimes approached theirs. Thankfully, there is no evidence of that. And yet, torture and cruel treatment are as much violations of international humanitarian law as are murder and genocide. They demand a judicial response. We cannot expect the rest of humanity to live in a world that we ourselves are not willing to inhabit.

The writer was a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia from 2001 to 2004 and a senior prosecutor from 2004 to 2006.

 
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments