Keeping up with appearances

Earlier this week China lost a dispute over control of parts of the South China Sea. The Philippines filed suit in an international tribunal over violations of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Despite being a signatory of the agreement, China balked at its language when it came to parceling out disputed regions of the South China Sea. And (hypocritical) political figures in the U.S. and Britain pontificated on why the Chinese should heed the decision.

But here is the rub. How is this decision to be implemented? If there is no enforcement mechanism then the decision of the tribunal isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

But while the decision is legally binding, there is no mechanism for enforcing it, and China, which refused to participate in the tribunal’s proceedings, reiterated on Tuesday that it would not abide by it.

And that is the problem with international law. Sure, we can set up tribunals to rule on a variety of disputes around the world - but if all the winner gets is a piece of paper, what's the purpose?

Unless every country agrees to be governed by a particular mechanism and agrees to an enforcement protocol, the law doesn't mean a thing. The United Nations is not capable of enforcing the agreement and neither is any government.

In fact, no one wants an international body that's capable of enforcing international "law." What world leader in their right mind would cede national sovereignty over such issues? What world leader would voluntarily subject his own government to the various prohibitions that the U.N. has produced over the years? If such a body existed is there any reason to doubt that George W. Bush would have been charged with violating international law? Is there any reason to doubt that President Obama would soon join him in the dock?

On torture, war crimes and hypocrisy

So Democrats in Congress are up in arms about revelations that our government tortured inmates as part of the War on Everything Terror. It's not like this was new information. We've known about it for years. Books have been published based on government documents. Those senators and representatives on the various intelligence committees and oversight committees knew all about it.

But now that the Senate Intelligence Committee has released a summary of its findings, we must all show a renewed sense of indignation. I'm sure there are a few poor souls out there who had no idea this kind of thing must be going on and who are relying on Fox News to shape their opinions and give them some talking points to defend illegal behavior.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Cal), among others, has railed at the CIA and the Bush Administration for implementing the program. But, where is that same indignation at the innocent bystanders killed by unmanned US drone attacks in the Middle East? Where is that same indignation when a Hellfire missile tears apart the bodies of women and children out in the fields?

For all of her pontificating about the evils of the torture program (and don't misunderstand my point, those who carried out the program are all guilty of war crimes and should be held to account for their actions), Ms. Feinstein has been a champion of killing innocent men, women and children in illegal missile attacks in foreign countries.

And where has President Obama been through this? He stood in front of a microphone and said we needed to look forward instead of placing blame for past sins. Of course this is the standard line uttered by all presidents when confronted with the illegalities of the prior administration. His pledge to look forward only serves to protect those who have committed illegal acts in his administration - for if he isn't looking to prosecute those who did bad before him, whoever next occupies the White House won't throw the book at members of the Obama administration.

And that's how we undermine the idea that our nation operates under the rule of law.

Serving two masters

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. -- Hippocratic Oath (English translation)

When a person becomes a doctor, or other health professional, they take the Hippocratic Oath vowing never to do anything to harm a patient. A doctor's ethical duty is to do what's in the best interest of his or her patient. 

After the US government declared its War on Everything Terror after 9/11, the CIA began its programs of rendition and torture. In order to determine the most effective method to extract information from a prisoner, the Department of Defense looked to its Behavioral Science Consultation Teams made up of behavioral scientists - including psychiatrists.

Psychiatrists are considered to be medical professionals. They have a medical degree and they take the same Hippocratic Oath as a pediatrician, internist or neurologist. 

But, instead of following their ethical obligations to do no harm to any patient, they jumped at the opportunity to put together interrogation programs designed to humiliate, degrade and cause physical harm to prisoners. Other medical professionals who worked for the government provided assistance to the regime of torture by advising interrogators how far they could go in a given "interrogation technique." They treated prisoners and nursed them back to health so they could be tortured again. They also assisted the government by forcibly inserting feeding tubes into prisoners who were on hunger strike so they wouldn't die on the government's dime.

Even more galling is the fact that not one of the doctors, nurses or other medical professionals who witnessed and participated in the torture program ever raised their voice in protest against what can only be described as a crime against humanity. Not a one. 

They were more than willing to sell their souls - and their ethics - to win the War on Terror. 

The Institute of Medicine as a Profession and the Open Society Foundations conducted a two-year study that looked into the role medical professionals played in the torture regime initiated by President Bush and continued by President Obama. What they found should turn the stomach of anyone who hasn't yet drank the government's koolaid.

The US government would like us to believe it's no big deal. They would like you to believe that the oath these men and women took upon joining the team trumps the one they took when they became doctors and nurses. I hate to break it to you, but it doesn't work that way.

A doctor takes an oath to serve his or her patient. The doctor didn't take an oath to serve another power. He didn't take an oath to serve a publicly-held hospital corporation. He didn't take an oath to serve an insurance company. He took that oath to put his patient first.

The medical professionals who provided assistance to those who tortured prisoners may very well have gone into government service for the very best of motives. But they were blinded by the pre-packaged patriotism that we are fed like turkeys being fattened up for the holidays.

They violated the oaths they took when they helped design torture regimes. They violated the oaths they took when they monitored prisoners during the torture process. They violated their oaths when they strapped prisoners down and forced feeding tubes down their noses. They violated their oaths when they kept their mouths shut about what they had seen and what they had done.

A lawyer takes an oath to represent his client as zealously as possible (with the exception that a prosecutor takes an oath to see that justice is done). Everything that a lawyer does in a particular case must be weighed against that duty. A lawyer serves his client - and his client alone. A lawyer can't have two masters. And neither can a medical professional. Once you start trying to serve two masters you will find that you can't do it and act in the best interest of your client - or your patient - at the same time.

Those medical professionals who assisted the torture program betrayed not only the prisoners they were supposedly there to assist; they also betrayed society.

Missing the point entirely

A little bit over a week ago Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch released reports that humanized the victims of US drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen. The reports presented case studies of the people who were victimized by the "surgical strikes" carried out by unmanned drones flying high overhead.

The debate in the media afterward, however, was restricted to two viewpoints - is it more humane to send troops into Yemen and Pakistan to kill suspected militants or to fire missiles at folks whom the US thinks are militants?

With the exception of the progressive media, and shows such as Democracy Now!, no one questioned whether the US had any right to invade the sovereignty of another nation and kill its citizens based on nothing more than a belief that someone was up to no good. No one questioned whether killing folks without some semblance of due process of law was right. No one questioned the notion that anyone who happens to be hanging out with someone the US thinks is a terrorist is fair game for a missile strike.

Even more obscene was the notion that the only thing that matters in the calculus of making the decision between troops and drones is the expected casualty rate of American soldiers. No one gave a second thought to the innocent men, women and children who have been victimized by drones flown by anonymous personnel sitting in an office in the United States. As far as they were concerned, they were nothing more than collateral damage - and, since they weren't Americans, they didn't matter anyway.

The real question is not about reducing potential American casualties. The real question is will anyone ever be held accountable for the gross violations of human rights caused by the United States? Will the people who "flew" the drones ever be held accountable? Will their military commanders ever be held accountable? Will the President ever be held accountable?

Pakistan and Yemen are sovereign nations. The US has no business flying lethal killing machines over their airspace. Just imagine, for a second, the utter outrage that would result from another country sending armed drones into US airspace to take out someone they suspected of plotting some type of terror attack. Just imagine the reaction of our elected "leaders" when innocent men, women and children who had nothing to do with any planned attack were killed, maimed or wounded as a result of a missile attack in a populated area.

This notion that we have the authority to go into any country and do as we wish to anyone we suspect of being a terrorist is a remnant of imperialism. This idea that the US can do as it wishes when it comes to the War on Everything Terror is the ultimate example of hubris.

The right to live is the most basic human right of them all. Even the most repressive nations have some type of mechanism for arresting, charging and trying those suspected of breaking the law. Those mechanisms may very well not be perfect but a framework exists.

But when the US decides to kill someone they suspect of being a terrorist, there is no mechanism to arresting, charging or trying that individual. There is no semblance of due process. Without so much as a hearing to determine probable cause, the president can order a drone strike. Even worse are the so-called "signature strikes" in which the person ordering the murder doesn't even know who he's killing. Check off enough boxes and you can claim that all signs indicate that John Doe is a terrorist and needs to be blown to bits. And what of those folks around him who had absolutely nothing to do with his alleged acts? They don't even merit a second thought.

The double standard of international law

Charles Taylor will spend the next 50 years (should he live that long) cooling his heels in a prison in England, not because he committed war crimes against the people of Sierra Leone, but because he is from Africa.

Mr. Taylor was the president of Liberia in the late 1990's when a civil war began brewing in Sierra Leone. Mr. Taylor provided support to the rebels in exchange for a piece of the profit obtained from the sale of so-called blood diamonds. During the course of the civil war the people of Sierra Leone suffered unspeakable atrocities.

In 2002, Mr. Taylor was driven from office and an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court was issued. His trial on war crimes began in 2007 and ended with a conviction in 2012 that resulted in a 50-year prison sentence. Last week his appeal was denied.

During the course of the trial, Mr. Taylor was found to have provided arms to the rebels in Sierra Leone. He was also found to be responsible for murder and rape as well as the recruitment of child soldiers.

I won't argue that Mr. Taylor did nothing wrong. I won't argue that he shouldn't be punished. After all, if we want to live in a world governed by the rule of law, those who attempt to crush dissent by the law of rule must be brought to justice.

But what about George W. Bush? He launched wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan with no justification. He sent in troops who killed innocent men, women and children. He ordered bombs dropped over urban areas that resulted in widespread death and destruction.

Under President Bush we saw the development of secret CIA prisons in which inmates were abused and tortured. We saw suspected terrorists - who had never been charged with a crime - secreted off to third countries whose security forces committed unspeakable atrocities. We operated a prison on US property in which men have been held for over a decade without every having been charged and where they were tortured on a regular basis.

And what of President Obama? He escalated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He escalated the use of unmanned drones to rain missiles down on those suspected of being terrorists - as well as those who were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Under President Obama we have used drones to fire missiles into Yemen and Pakistan. The United States was the prime mover in the overthrow of the Libyan government.

Where is the International Criminal Court now? Why hasn't a warrant for the arrest of George W. Bush been issued? Anyone care to guess whether a warrant will be issued for Barack Obama when he leaves the White House?

There never will be, I suppose. And that's the problem with the entire notion of international law. Unless the law applies equally to all nations and people, it will never be anything more than a joke. You will never see a politician from a major western nation standing in the dock facing decades in prison for the death and destruction his or her policies caused. That fate will be left to leaders of the Third World - those who don't have the ability to defend themselves against the powers of the West.

Two wrongs don't make a right

The Congress shall have the power ... [t]o declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal,  and make rules concerning captures on land and water.  

-- US Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8

*****     *****     ***** 

WAR noun, often attributive

a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war

b : the art or science of warfare

c (1) obsolete : weapons and equipment for war (2) archaic :soldiers armed and equipped for war
2
a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism

b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end war against disease;

c : variance, odds 3— war·less  adjective 

-- Merriam Webster dictionarynoun, often attributive \ˈwȯr\

*****   *****   *****

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me. 

-- "War" by Edwin Starr

I don't care what you call it. Limited strikes. Targeted strikes. It doesn't matter. It's still war. Whether you want to say the bombing campaign will only last a few days. So fucking what. You're still declaring war on Syria.

And why?

Because somehow the national security of the United States of America is at stake? Really? I don't care if you made some ad lib about chemical weapons and a red line. That's a "you" problem. Do you really expect us to buy your argument that because you made a comment about a red line that it's now a matter of national security that we drop bombs and fire missiles on Syria?

I still can't fathom how Barack Obama not only won, but was even nominated, for the Nobel Peace Prize. He has taken George W. Bush's lead and run with it. Instead of ending the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, he extended them. Instead of closing the US torture camp at Guantanamo Bay, he kept it running. Instead of looking for a humanitarian way of ending the slaughter in Syria, hr has chosen to perpetuate it.

No one has ever deserved the Nobel Peace Prize less than President Obama. There are few bigger hypocrites than our President (though John Kerry rates a close second).

Syria has descended into a brutal civil war. That's what happens with dictatorial regimes. No one in Washington cared as a hundred thousand Syrians were killed. No one cared until someone used chemical weapons. What difference does it make how a civilian is killed. You are just as dead if you are shot in the head as if you breathe in poisonous gas. What makes the use of chemical weapons so special?

Back in 2012 I had to sit through a presentation at the Rusty Duncan Advanced Criminal Law Seminar (put on by the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association) in which TCDLA President Gary Trichter introduced a man who piloted a plan whose mission was to drop bombs on Tokyo in World War II. We were supposed to hail this man as a hero since he was able to eject himself from his plane and make it to safety.

But how much honor is there is dropping bombs from high up in the sky on cities in another country? This wasn't the story of a war hero - it was the story of a war criminal. I was appalled at the presentation. We look at the Japanese pilots who dropped bombs on US ships in Pearl Harbor as evil people, yet we celebrate people who set out to drop bombs on civilians.

There is no justification for dropping bombs or firing missiles on Syria. There is no humanitarian purpose served by dropping bombs or firing missiles. The military's function is to destroy - not to build.

The high price of exposing the truth

Yesterday Col. Denise Lind sentenced Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison for exposing the truth. He exposed the lies, deceit and criminal acts perpetrated by our government. He exposed human rights abuses. He exposed war crimes.

Yes, the documents he provided to WikiLeaks embarrassed the US government. Yes, it put government officials in tricky positions after their lies and deceit were exposed to the world.

Bradley Manning never stood a chance at trial. The convictions were a foregone conclusion. The only question was whether Col. Lind would play along and convict Mr. Manning of aiding the enemy. While she made the right call on that charge, she gave the government its bone with the sentence she pronounced.

President Obama told the world - before the trial ever began - that Mr. Manning was guilty. Damn the evidence, full speed ahead, Mr. President. Let's just gloss over the fact that Mr. Manning didn't pass the documents to the "enemy." His actions hurt no one. He wanted to foster debate on the policies of our government. He wanted to let the world know the truth about what has been done in our name.

Among the materials he provided to WikiLeaks was footage of an American helicopter gunship mowing down civilians - including journalists and a father and his children.

Mr. Manning was subjected to torture by his own government while awaiting trial. Of that there is no question. It's the reason that Col. Lind gave Mr. Manning additional credit for the time he served before trial.

So, while Mr. Manning is serving his 35-year sentence for exposing the truth, there are five men who acted with the intent to harm Americans who are serving shorter sentences for their crimes.

David Hicks is an Australian national who fought alongside the Taliban. He was captured, sent to Guantanamo Bay and sentenced to seven years in prison.

John Walker Lindh, the so-called "American Taliban," was captured fighting alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mr. Lindh was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Noor Uthman Mohammed was convicted of providing material support to terrorists and was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri is a Qatari citizen who was living in the United States on a student visa. He admitted to providing material support to terrorists and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Kevin William Harpham is a white supremacist in the US who pled guilty to trying to bomb a Martin Luther King Day parade in Seattle in 2011. He was sentenced to 32 years in prison.

So, while Barack Obama campaigned for the White House in 2008 on a platform in which he promised to end the wars in the Middle East, to close down Guantanamo Bay and to promote greater transparency in government, President Obama stood up and declared Bradley Manning to be an enemy of the United States. Bradley Manning followed a higher duty than preventing the US government from being embarrassed. He followed a higher duty than covering up the war crimes committed by US military personnel in the Middle East.

For that he is looking at spending the next 30-plus years behind bars.

Sometimes the price we pay to expose the truth is quite high. Bradley Manning deserves praise and thanks for what he did - not 35 years behind bars.

The (show) trial of the century

US Army Col. James Pohl is faithfully doing the bidding of his masters. The man who will preside over the trial, in military court, of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, granted the government's request to treat any mention of torture as classified.

Sure, we all knew the fix was in from day one. There was no way that anyone involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks would get anything resembling a fair trial. There was no way that our government was going to let anyone walk out of the courtroom a free man.

Previously Col. Pohl ordered that there be a 40 second delay in the audio feed just in case someone let slip something that was embarrassing to the government confidential. That provision, in essence, closes the courtroom to the public. The public which, by the way, has a right to observe the proceedings and to see just what their government is up to.

These are, for all intents and purposes, nothing more than show trials. I'm only surprised they haven't announced the sentences prior to the beginning of trial.

The judge added that “without limitation, observations and experiences of an accused” would also be treated as classified information as they emerge from a defendant’s mouth.

Just think of the absurdity of that statement for a minute or two.

Our courts decided a long time ago that we would not allow confessions obtained by the use of coercive measures to be admitted into evidence. The Fifth Amendment - which applies to "people," not just citizens - says that we have the right to keep our mouths shut when the government wants to ask us questions. If a person says they don't want to talk, there is nothing more the police can do.

The use of torture violates international law. It violates the Geneva Convention. If you're the head of a developing nation and you waterboarded political dissidents, you could find yourself hauled in front of the International Criminal Court once you're out of office to answer charges (of course if you're the President of the United States, or acting on his behalf, you can do any goddamn thing you want and tell the ICC to go fuck itself).

“The government wanted to ensure that the American public would never hear the defendants’ accounts of illegal CIA torture, rendition, and detention. The military judge has gone along with that shameful plan.” -- Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's national security project

There is no denying the fact that Mr. Mohammed was tortured. He was waterboarded some 183 times. He was also subject to other physical and psychological torture while in US custody.

Mr. Mohammed is entitled to have every statement he made as a result of coercion deemed inadmissible at trial. So are his co-defendants. That, of course, would leave very little concrete evidence. And we certainly can't have that, can we?

But to deem any testimony from Mr. Mohammed about the manner in which he was mistreated in custody as confidential information is a travesty of justice. The American people have a right to know what the government has done in their name. Mr. Mohammed has a right to tell his story. Mr. Mohammed was not a part of US intelligence. He wasn't a part of the military. He wasn't a part of George W. Bush's inner circle who thought this was a good idea. Mr. Mohammed was the victim of torture.

These trials should not be held in front of military tribunals. They should be held in open court where the world can witness the depraved behavior our officials sanctioned and carried out. The evidence should be heard and those responsible should have to answer to humanity.

Col. Pohl is but a tool of a government hellbent on shredding the Bill of Rights. In so doing he has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. For his complicity in this farce, Col. Pohl should be court martialed.

When the chickens come home to roost

Back in 2003, Abu Omar, an Egyptian cleric living in Italy, was kidnapped, flown back to Egypt and tortured. The kidnappers were 23 Americans, all but one were CIA agents. The Americans did their deed with the assistance of five Italian intelligence agents.

Because kidnapping and torture sound like bad things, the US government coined the term extraordinary rendition to refer to the practice of kidnapping foreign nationals and shipping them to secret prisons where they would be held incommunicado and tortured around the clock.

The big, bad arrogant Americans figured they could do whatever the fuck they wanted to, regardless of where they were because they were, well, Americans, and this was President Bush's War on Everything Terrorism.

But apparently someone forgot to send a copy of that memo to the Italians who weren't altogether happy that US agents were running roughshod on Italian soil. Despite pressure from both Washington, and Rome, prosecutors in Milan carried on with the case and the 23 Americans were all convicted in absentia in November 2009.

Now, almost three years later, the highest appellate court in Italy has upheld the convictions - and urged the prosecution of the Italian intelligence agents for their roles in the kidnapping of Mr. Omar.

The convictions are largely symbolic as the Italians have never sought to extradite the Americans - not that the American government would ever allow its agents to be extradited to another country to face criminal charges for their conduct. That's what we do to them.

Just imagine the furor, if you will, that would arise should a foreign government kidnap an American citizen off the streets of some town over here and take them halfway around the world to face criminal charges for some act carried out under cloak of national security. Imagine the reaction if a former US president was ever indicted, arrested and brought before another country's court to face charges of crimes against humanity.

Yet we have no problem kidnapping people in other countries and taking them somewhere where representatives of our government torture, humiliate and shame them for no other reason than they can.

I say good that something decided to grow a backbone and stand up to the inhumane and illegal practices of the US government. If our leaders and representatives thought they could be arrested and charged with crimes against humanity somewhere else in the world, maybe, just maybe, they might think twice before acting like a bunch of thugs for whom the law doesn't apply.

Priorities, priorities

He further considered whether the prosecution of the defendant in furtherance of the protection of the rights of others was “necessary in a democratic society”, and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. It had been convincingly shown that the conviction of Connolly was necessary in a democratic society. 

The defendant’s right to express her views about abortion did not justify the distress and anxiety that she intended to cause those who received the photographs. Of particular significance was the fact that those who worked in the three pharmacies were not targeted because they were in a position to influence a public debate on abortion. 

-- Connolly v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2007]  EWHC 237 (Admin)

On March 6, 2012, six British soldiers were killed in Afghanistan by an improvised explosive device. Apparently not everyone in England showed the proper level of commiseration.

Azhar Ahmed posted his thoughts on his Facebook page. More than a few folks were a bit upset when he wrote that "all soldiers should die and go to hell" two days after the attack.

In the face of criticism, Mr. Ahmed apologized for his comment and thought the matter was over with. Boy, was he wrong. For you see, over there across the pond, it's illegal to send a "grossly offensive" message whatever the hell that is.

Mr. Ahmed told the court he realized the message he posted was unacceptable but he denied that it was grossly offensive. The judge told him that his comments were both derogatory and inflammatory. The court then convicted Mr. Ahmed of the offense of causing someone to get their panties in a wad.

So fucking what if someone thought his comment was insensitive and inflammatory? I happen to find war to be grossly offensive. The use of unmanned drones to drop bombs out of the sky on unsuspecting civilians is inflammatory. The use of weaponry to kill those with whom one disagrees is inflammatory. Holding suspected enemy combatants incommunicado indefinitely and torturing them is highly inflammatory.

But will anyone ever be held responsible for the war crimes committed in our name in Afghanistan? I'm sure that George W. Bush and Barack Obama will live out the rest of their days without fear of being arrested and hauled before the international criminal court. But Mr. Ahmed, on the other hand, will live out the rest of his days with a criminal record because he spoke his mind.

He didn't kill anyone. He didn't drop a bomb indiscriminately. He didn't torture anyone. But he's the one in the dock.

Guilty, as charged

Our Constitution provides that anyone accused of a crime will be afforded due process of law (now that's a moving target). That means the accused will be informed of the charges against him. The accused will have the right to counsel. The accused will have the right to confront the evidence and the witnesses against him. The accused will have the right to put on evidence on his behalf. The accused will have the right to remain silent. The accused will have the right to have his fate determined by a jury of his peers.

As the presidential campaign heats up, President Obama is doing his best to show that he is tough on terrorism. He is doing his best to thwart Republican allegations that he is weak on foreign policy. In recent weeks the White House has revealed the method by which it is determined who in the Middle East will die by remote control. First we find out that John Brennan is making decisions on who lives and who dies. Now we find out that the President of the United States is playing judge, jury and executioner.

According to an article in the New York Times:

It was not a theoretical question: Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.

There it is. President Obama is taking responsibility for placing names on the death list. Mr. Obama is a lawyer and certainly he is aware of the law of parties. According to the law on parties, every person who participates in a conspiracy to commit murder, or every person who participates in a murder, regardless of how small the contribution, may be held accountable for the murder.

The Lone Star State doesn't care if you pulled the trigger or just drove the car. They'll kill you just the same. In fact, the driver often gets the worse end of the deal when the actual killer cops a plea and rats out everyone else involved.

The United States has used drones to murder people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen during the Obama presidency. Those murders were committed without affording due process to those accused of being terrorists. Those murders were committed without evidence being presented in a court of law. Those murders were committed without the unanimous verdict of twelve citizens.

The government and the media like to use the term "extra-judicial killings" instead of calling the murders what they are. But, by accepting responsibility for deciding who needs killing, President Obama is accepting responsibility for the murders of innocent people - including three Americans.

They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr.

Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.”

President Obama has admitted culpability for the murders. He has violated the Constitution in at least three instances. He is guilty of depriving three American citizens of their due process rights. That, my friends, is far more worse than a "high crime" or misdemeanor.

I wouldn't shed a tear if one day Barack Obama finds himself in the dock at the International Criminal Court at The Hague charged with crimes against humanity for his actions in his War on the Constitution Terrorism. But I won't hold my breath. After all, the only folks who find themselves on the wrong side of the "v" are those who lost, are weak or out of power. Crimes against humanity are those things that They do; we are just defending freedom (read: tyranny).

Barack Obama should be charged with murder. His actions violated the sovereignty of Pakistan and Yemen. His actions have led to the deaths of women and children. He shows no remorse for his actions. But who will avenge those deaths? Who will take up the torch for the Rule of Law?

How much is a life worth?

On November 19, 2005, in the Iraqi city of Haditha, a bomb went off and killed an American soldier, Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas. In the aftermath of the explosion, an Iraqi cabdriver and four teenagers were shot and killed by US troops under orders of Sgt. Frank Wuterich.

Upon arriving at the scene, Lt. William T. Kallop ordered the troops to seize a house from which he believed shots were being fired. The marines stormed the house and killed 19 unarmed civilians, including seven women and children, through the use of rifles and grenades.



The original story was that the dead were part of a group of Iraqis who opened fire on the Americans. But questions were asked when the dead were found wearing their nightclothes.

But when witnesses were asked to recount the events of that day, a startlingly different picture emerged. Tim McGirk of Time Magazine broke the story in March 2006. The account of 9-year-old Eman Waleed is harrowing:

 "We heard a big noise that woke us all up," she recalls two months later. "Then we did what we always do when there's an explosion: my father goes into his room with the Koran and prays that the family will be spared any harm." Eman says the rest of the family—her mother, grandfather, grandmother, two brothers, two aunts and two uncles—gathered in the living room. According to military officials familiar with the investigation, the Marines say they came under fire from the direction of the Waleed house immediately after being hit by the ied. A group of Marines headed toward the house. Eman says she "heard a lot of shooting, so none of us went outside. Besides, it was very early, and we were all wearing our nightclothes." When the Marines entered the house, they were shouting in English. "First, they went into my father's room, where he was reading the Koran," she claims, "and we heard shots." According to Eman, the Marines then entered the living room. "I couldn't see their faces very well—only their guns sticking into the doorway. I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head. Then they killed my granny." She claims the troops started firing toward the corner of the room where she and her younger brother Abdul Rahman, 8, were hiding; the other adults shielded the children from the bullets but died in the process. Eman says her leg was hit by a piece of metal and Abdul Rahman was shot near his shoulder. "We were lying there, bleeding, and it hurt so much. Afterward, some Iraqi soldiers came. They carried us in their arms. I was crying, shouting 'Why did you do this to our family?' And one Iraqi soldier tells me, 'We didn't do it. The Americans did.'"

Eight marines, including Sgt. Wuterich, were charged with murder and dereliction of duty. The cases almost immediately began to fall apart with military investigators recommending that charges against the soldiers be dismissed or reduced to just dereliction of duty. The investigation uncovered instances that the defendants had destroyed or withheld evidence.

Of the eight, one was acquitted and charges against six others were dismissed. In the last case, Sgt. Wuterich pled guilty to negligent dereliction of duty. The manslaughter and assault charges were dismissed. As punishment, Sgt. Wuterich was demoted to private.

And so the question remains, what's an Iraqi life worth? According to the military court, one American life was worth the lives of 24 Iraqis; but the lives of those Iraqis was only worth a loss of rank.

I do think Sgt. Wuterich was being made something of a scapegoat in this affair. He, after all, wasn't the one who ordered the marines to storm the houses. But no one ever went after Lt. Kallop. As a result we have 24 dead civilians who were killed as the result of a war without purpose entered into by President Bush.

War isn't about fighter jets and targeted bombs. It isn't about smart bombs and surgical strikes. War is about death and destruction. Collateral damage is just a sanitized why of saying "We fucked up."

For more background, see:

"Investigating the Haditha Killings," NPR

Letting go doesn't mean forgetting

The constant clamor for a guilty verdict before the evidence has even been presented. The call for someone to pay for what happened. A verdict that stuns the folks expecting to celebrate a conviction. The inevitable cries that the jury didn't know what it was doing.

The Casey Anthony trial in Florida?

No.

The Sandor Kepiro trial in Budapest.

But who is Sandor Kepiro, you might ask.

Mr. Kepiro was accused of being a Nazi war criminal responsible for the deaths of 36 Jews and Serbs in Novi Sad in 1942. He was acquitted this week.

In 1944, Mr. Kepiro was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison, but that conviction was overturned  after a coup d'etat put the fascists in power in Hungary. Mr. Kepiro fled the country and eventually found himself in Argentina. In 1946 the newly installed Communist government tried Mr. Kepiro in absentia and, surprise, convicted him.

Mr. Kepiro returned to Hungary in 1996 and was charged for his alleged role in the massacre in 2009. Those charges were later dropped. He was charged once again earlier this year. 


Mr. Kepiro's chief accuser, Efraim Zuroff of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, wasn't particularly happy with the verdict.

As he left the courtroom, Mr Zuroff said he found the verdict "outrageous, absurd" and that the Simon Wiesenthal Center would do "everything possible to see that it's overturned".

He said Mr Kepiro had "devoted all his energy to the murder of innocent men, women and children" and that the Wiesenthal Center found it "absolutely outrageous that a person like this was never punished for his crimes".

"We'll continue to do whatever we can so that Sandor Kepiro doesn't end his life sitting in peace and tranquillity... but ends his life where he belongs, in a Hungarian jail. This is a joke."

For true believers, the thought that a rational thinking person could come to a contrary conclusion is heresy. The only possible explanation is that the judge or jury hadn't the foggiest clue as to what they were doing.

We are talking about an incident that took place almost 70 years ago. There can't be many witnesses left - Mr. Kepiro is 97. The case must be built on documents - documents that may not even exist anymore. Maybe Mr. Kepiro escaped justice -- and just as likely he did not.

The larger issue, however, is at what point does it end? I have no doubt that there are Nazi war criminals that have escaped justice. I'm equally certain that, at some point, we just have to call it a day. Whose interest is served in putting a 97 year-old man on trial for a crime that occurred in 1942?

The genocide that took place at the hands of the Nazis cannot be excused and must never be forgotten. But we must also acknowledge that, there is no purpose served in hunting down men in their 80's and 90's and trying them for crimes committed during the 1930's and 40's. These men are old - and, more importantly, they aren't the same men who presided over the killings of millions of people.

At this point in time our children and their children are better served by documenting the atrocities that took place and examining how and why they were allowed to occur.

Always remember that history is written by the victors. No one prosecuted President Truman or any of the soldiers involved in dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killing thousands who had no role in the war. No one prosecuted Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon, or their military commanders, for the slaughter of innocents in Southeast Asia. No one will prosecute Presidents Bush or Obama or their minions for the torture inflicted upon detainees in the witch hunt after 9/11.

Closure is an illusion. Sometimes you just have to move on.