Why Being “Worst President Ever” Is Not
Enough
By James Rothenberg and Otto Hinckelmann
06/06/07 "ICH" -- -- Jimmy Carter recently said, as others have
before him, that this is the worst presidential administration
ever (then he softened it some). The White House, in typical
form, questioned Carter’s “relevance”. Considering what Carter
could have said, the White House got off easy.
An unbiased look at certain, singular actions of this
administration is far more damaging. Beside it, the seemingly
larger, and unprovable, “worst” claim becomes very much beside
the point. The real point is not the administration’s relative
standing; it is the unique blatancy of its criminality.
At the end of World War 2, German government leaders were tried
at Nuremberg for some of their official activities between 1933
and 1945. These trials were deemed to have established
precedents for defining as crimes certain official acts. Some of
the acts committed by US government officials appear to fall
under the Nuremberg precedents.
At this point many readers will recoil at the suggestion that
the United States can be compared in any way to Nazi Germany.
This attitude cannot possibly be healthy for the United States.
It suggests that as long as we stay beneath the threshold of the
freight cars and the gas chambers then we can safely ignore all
similarities. Only by continuing to compare and evaluate our
actions against the Nazi’s can we insure that we do not degrade
ourselves to their moral level.
This very thought was on the mind of Supreme Court Justice
Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor of the surviving Nazi leaders
at Nuremberg, Germany. Jackson was sensitive that the trial not
be seen as being purely vindictive. He knew that the larger
purpose of the Nuremberg trials was to establish universal
principles of morality applicable to individuals acting in their
official capacity within a government. In the absence of this
universality he and the other judges sitting in judgment of the
defeated Nazis knew they would sink to the level of the Nazis
before them. In Jackson’s view his own countrymen would be
subject to the same standards as the Nazis in the dock.
As he eloquently put it: “We must never forget that the record
on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which
history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a
poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”
Then president Harry Truman gave his ringing endorsement: “I
have no hesitancy in declaring that the historic precedent set
at Nuremberg abundantly justifies the expenditure of effort,
prodigious though it was. The [Nuremberg] precedent becomes
basic in the international law of the future. The principles
established and the results achieved place international law on
the side of peace as against aggressive warfare.”
Bush administration officials responsible for Iraq (incidentally
all surviving) repeatedly and dramatically represented Iraq as
an imminent threat to the United States. This was a great lie.
Ample proof exists of this, most famously (though not here in
the States) the Downing Street Memos. The invasion took place
without UN authorization (illegally according to Kofi Annan) and
therefore was an outright act of aggression, the “supreme
international crime,” the crime for which the Nazi defendants
were condemned.
We have a modern version of the Nuremberg Tribunal, called the
International Criminal Court. It was conceived as a way to bring
war criminals to justice because crimes like these inevitably
reach beyond borders, making it the world’s problem. Even though
the United States played a strong role in elaborating the
Statute of the ICC, there were elements in it which were
considered disturbing. Namely, that it would apply to the US. So
President Clinton signed the treaty but asserted he would not
submit it to the ratification process. State Secretary Colin
Powell announced the withdrawal of Clinton's signature on the
grounds that making US officials and military personnel subject
to the ICC could subject them to "frivolous lawsuits." We are
outside its jurisdiction.
This certainly answers the question of why no member of the Bush
administration will be considered a war criminal by the ICC, but
it is hardly because of the popularly accepted notion of
innocence.
One wonders about the future of the ICC as a force for justice
in the world when the sole international superpower and its
citizens are immune from prosecution. As part of its neoliberal
model, the US pressures countries either to shun the ICC or to
simply enter into Bilateral Immunity Agreements that exempt
Americans from prosecution. Over 100 countries have graciously
accepted the offer.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales informs the Senate Judiciary
Committee that, concerning the office of the Executive, there is
no such thing as a bad inherent power. The highest legal officer
in the land granting exemptions to the highest executive in the
land (who remembers him when). One wonders if he's aware of the
assertion of the Third Reich's leading legal scholar, Carl
Schmitt, that Hitler had the authority to proclaim binding law
because he embodied the will of the German people.
The difference between the totalitarian ruler and the democratic
ruler is that the totalitarian can dispense with legal pretense.
The similarity is that both can always find legal experts who
will inevitably determine that the law permits the Leader to do
what he thinks he needs to do.
Here are some questions we might consider in this age of
immunity:
· Does the US' exemption from the jurisdiction of the ICC exempt
it from its obligations under the UN charter and does this also
exempt its officials?
· Does the legality of the execution of the Nazi officials rest
on the failure of their legal advisors to provide them with the
proper exemptions?
· Does the legality of the execution of Saddam Hussein rest on
similarly inadequate legal structures or is it legal because his
military forces, in their defeat, were unable to guarantee his
immunity?
The starting point for the observations made here was to take a
critical, unbiased look at the factual situation. Doing so soon
leads to a deeper examination of American institutions and a
society that allows such criminality to flourish. That no
government in history has ever voluntarily allowed itself to be
judged for criminality is no reason for not doing it. To not
raise the issue in the current situation is to be a "good
German."
This is not the neoconservative’s war. This war belongs to
Cornell University. To the Boston Philharmonic. To Sea World and
the New York Yankees and the Yosemite National Park. Nothing’s
exempt, because the fake dime-a-dozen exemption doesn’t work
here – doesn’t remove the blood.
The specter of what this deeper examination logically culminates
in explains in large degree the enormous resistance to
initiating it. Or having a former president declare to the world
that a great criminal act was perpetrated.
If a war crime was committed, it is elementary that those that
aid and abet this crime are also war criminals. This includes
the Congress when it repeatedly funds the operations which are
criminal. It also includes the soldiers who carry out the orders
of the war criminals. And, yes, to the extent that we don't
publicly object to it, you and me.
Otto Hinckelmann otto5@ix.netcom.com
James Rothenberg jrothenberg@taconic.net Click
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story. We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
– those including personal
attacks and profanity – are
not permitted.
See our complete Comment
Policy and use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
