Opinion> Paul Craig Roberts> Little War Criminals Get Punished Big Ones Don T

	26 Mar 2010 Washington Murdered Privacy at Home and Abroad In the Swiss newspaper Zeit-Fragen, Professor Dr. Eberhard Hamer from Germany asks, "How Sovereign is Europe?" … Read More.
	19 Mar 2010 American Naifs Bringing Ruin to Other Lands According to news reports, the U.S. military is shipping "bunker-buster" bombs to the U.S. Air … Read More.
	17 Mar 2010 The Offshored Economy In the 20th century, Detroit, Mich., symbolized American industrial might. Today it symbolizes the offshored economy. Detroit'… Read More.

Little War Criminals Get Punished, Big Ones Don't

National Public Radio has been spending much news time on Darfur in Western Sudan, where a great deal of human suffering and death are occurring. The military conflict has been brought on in part by climate change, according to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Drought is forcing nomads in search of water into areas occupied by other claimants. No doubt the conflict is tribal and racial, as well. The entire catastrophe is overseen by a government with few resources other than bullets.

Now, an International Criminal Court prosecutor wants to bring charges against Sudan's president, Omar al-Bashir, for crimes against humanity and war crimes.

I have no sympathy for people who make others suffer. Nevertheless, I wonder at the International Criminal Court's pick from the assortment of war criminals. Why al-Bashir?

Is it because Sudan is a powerless state, and the International Criminal Court hasn't the courage to name George W. Bush and Tony Blair as war criminals?

Bush and Blair's crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarf, at least in the number of deaths and displaced persons, the terrible situation in Darfur. The highest estimate of Darfur casualties is 400,000, one-third the number of Iraqis who have died as a result of Bush's invasion. Moreover, the conflict in the Sudan is an internal one, whereas Bush illegally invaded two foreign countries — war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard.

Bush's war crimes were enabled by the political leaders of the United Kingdom, Spain, Canada and Australia. The leaders of every member of the "coalition of the willing to commit war crimes" are candidates for the dock.

But of course the Great Moral West does not commit war crimes. War crimes are charges fobbed off on people demonized by the Western media, such as the Serbian Slobodan Milosevic and the Sudanese al-Bashir.

Every week, the Israeli government evicts Palestinians from their homes, steals their land, and kills Palestinian women and children. These crimes against humanity have been going on for decades. Except for a few Israeli human rights organizations, no one complains about it. Palestinians are defined as "terrorists," and "terrorists" can be treated inhumanely without complaint.

Iraqis and Afghans suffer the same fate. Iraqis who resist U.S.

occupation of their country are "terrorists." Taliban is a demonized name. Every Afghan killed — even those attending wedding parties — is claimed to be Taliban by the U.S. military. Iraqis and Afghans can be murdered at will by American and NATO troops without anyone raising human rights issues.

The International Criminal Court is a bureaucracy. It has a budget, and it needs to do something to justify its budget. Lacking teeth and courage, it goes after the petty war criminals and leaves the big ones alone.

Don't get me wrong. I'm for holding all governments accountable for their criminal actions. It is the hypocrisy to which I object. The West gives itself and Israel a pass, while damning everyone else. Even human rights groups fall into the trap. Rights activists don't see the buffoonery in their complaint that President Bush, who has violated more human rights than any person alive, is letting China off the hook for human rights abuses by attending the Olympics hosted by China.

President Bush claims that the enormous destruction and death he has brought to Iraq and Afghanistan are necessary in order for Americans to be safe. If we are accepting excuses this feeble, Milosevic passed muster with his excuse that as the head of state he was obliged to try to preserve the state's territorial integrity. Is al-Bashir supposed to accept secession in the Sudan, something that Abraham Lincoln would not accept from the Confederacy? How long would al-Bashir last if he partitioned Sudan?

Last October, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a photo on its front page above the fold of an elderly man with mikes shoved in his face. Paul Henss, 85 years old, is being deported from the United States, where he has lived for 53 years, because Eli Rosenbaum, director the U.S. State Department's Nazi-hunting bureaucracy, declared him a war criminal for training guard dogs used at German concentration camps. Henss was 22 years old when World War II ended.

A kid who trained guard dogs is being deported as a war criminal, but the head of state who launched two wars of naked aggression, resulting in the deaths of more than 1.2 million people, and who has the entire world on edge awaiting his third war of aggression, this time against Iran, is received respectfully by foreign governments. Corporations and trade associations will pay him $100,000 per speech when he leaves office. He will make millions of dollars more from memoirs written by a ghostwriter.

Does no one see the paradox of deporting Henss while leaving the war criminal in the White House?

To find out more about Paul Craig Roberts, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment

I will grant that no matter who controls the International Criminal Court, he or they may have carte
blanche to exercise lethal force. I was just perusing a new book entitled "Hiroshima". The author (from
Stanford) seems to give a fair hearing to the position that the U. S. dropping the A-bomb was immoral.
I have firmly decided to support the American action. The one argument that if only we had let the
Japanese keep the empire, they would have surrendered, and avoided the bomb. I submit that if the
Japanese were allowed to keep their empire, they would have quickly remilitarized. I firmly believe
that the Shinto religion proved itself to be almost as jihadist as the Muslims, and to have allowed them
to keep that paramount symbol of world domination perhaps would have led to a Pacific War II.
Some disciple o Jung has written a book entitled "A Terrible Love for War." In it he actually argues
that the path to world peace leads through a glorification of war. He quotes on the first page Exodus 15:2:
The Lord is a man of war. He rejects Jehovah for Mars. He recounts how he came to reject Christianity:
He had a dream of a man on a cross (presumably Jesus), with a spear coming out of his side. Apparently,
his god Mars was telling him to reject Christianity. As I refledted on Ex. 15:2 (I have long been acquainted
with it; in fact I once had a record (LP) of Handel's setting it to music), I determined that this is how Jehovah
responds to the original warmonger. It surely is the case that man invented war, and not God.

Comment: #1
Posted by: John Mark Coney
Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:17 PM

Report this post

From Niel Diamond: I am I cried; I am said I. And no one heard at all, not even the chair.
Update on Ivan Davidson, the NYPD officer who refused to take a breath test to determine whether
he was drunk when he fired at some criminal with a powerful gun: Yesterday's NYPost ran a cartoon
with Batman sitting at one end of the bar and "Davidson" sitting at the other. Batman says to the
bartender: I want what he has. As I reported this to my drinking buddies this morning (@McD's),
my laughter turned to anger (some might even say rage, although I would not so characterize my
sentiment). I shouted: Criminals of the world unite: Shoot Ivan Davidson!

Comment: #2
Posted by: John Mark Coney
Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:32 PM

Report this post

On another topic: I found a book at the Public Library entitled "Amnesty Denied" by a Georgetown Law
professor. It is the story of a Kenyan immigrant, who tried to gain entrance to the US after he had been
brutalized in Kenya for a farmer's protest. The end of his story is that he is given ordinary immigrant
status after he marries. His wife graduated from Georgetown Law; he is still working on a Georgetown
Law degree, and, I think he has an academic position somewhere. I have not read much of the story, but
I am unconvinced that our system of granting asylum would be improved by his thoughts. It is perhaps
a little ironic that a refugee is denied asylum, apparently because he travelled back to his home country
for funerals and similar family business, but gains permanent status, again apparently because he finds
a wife that already has it. This book gives the second reference to me of the real ID of 1995. I was
recently introduced to it through the magazine "Republic". I certainly have the same concern about
privacy that the "Republicans" have, although I can not support the sentiment of "I want to do business
with you, but I don't want to reveal who I am." In fact, the concern for complete privacy (actually secrecy)
of income seems to be somewhat irrational. It is a fact that none of our incomes is a secret, at least not
a complete secret. Anyone who reports his income to the IRS reveals that secret to some beauracrat at
the IRS, that is, some nameless eyes see what your income is. The only way to keep your income a secret
is to not file an income tax return. Even then, someone may be able to trace all your sources of income
without you knowing it. Local Republican activist Doug Guetzloe had a court order the release of all his
bank records to the State Attorney, who then let the Orlando Sentinel photocopy them. This indicates that
none of us has much control over our own privacy, unless you argue: just don't do anything to anger the
State Attorney.

Comment: #3
Posted by: John Mark Coney
Sat Jul 19, 2008 1:00 PM

Report this post

Is it me or does anyone else find it ironic that our government knows exactly how many of our troops have been killed or wounded, but can't seem to come up with accurate figures of Iraqi dead and wounded . The American people are in denial. The cold hard truth is, this government made up lies ,invaded a country that never threatened us , hanged their leader , and inflicted over 1,000,000 causualties. War crimes? What else would you call it.

Comment: #4
Posted by: James Reinhardt
Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:30 PM

Report this post

Already have an account? Log in.