ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero argues that the war criminals in the Bush administration should be pardoned because Mr. Obama is not inclined to pursue prosecutions. Even though the thought makes his stomach turn, its, he claims, the only way to ensure that the American government never tortures again. This has got to be one of the most backwards and morally obtuse arguments Ive read since the gruesome report of Bush administration atrocities surfaced. Romero apparently cant take the position of the UN High Commission on Human Rights which recently stated that there should be no impunity or statute of limitations for torture (Reuters). Further, note the benefits that Romero sees in a pardon: it will close the Pandora’s box of torture once and for all, it would make clear that crimes were committed, and it would [signal] to those considering torture in the future that they could be prosecuted. Notice what views are omitted from consideration in this entire Op-Ed, namely the views of the torture victims and their families. The entire criminal enterprise is interpreted here as a problem that must be dealt with in such a way that ensures Romeros version of accountability is met (a version that doesnt include trials, a prison cell or execution chambers) while reducing the risk of a political fallout (infuriating powerful people). This is the essence of what Glenn Greenwald described as Americas two-tiered justice system, where the powerless are punished mercilessly while the powerful are exonerated. Quite apart from signaling to future torturers that they will be punished, granting a pardon will send the opposite message: that torture is legitimate. But suppose Obama did issue a pardon on Romeros terms. Obama has a pretty impressive criminal record himself (drone killing, aggressive war, force-feeding at Gitmo). Why would he establish a standard, even the weak one Romero proposes, that would make him vulnerable to criminal prosecution when he leaves office? We cant imagine someone arguing that Saddam Hussein should not have been punished for the crimes he carried out in the 1980s because of the political fallout in the Baathist Party so why do legal minds like Romero think such a standard is acceptable for US killers who have committed far more egregious crimes in terms of scale and lasting impact? Its about time legal and political commentators vigorously endorse criminal prosecutions of US war criminals. Not just the gangsters in the Bush administration but older ones as well. Another option is to just concede we live in a criminal state and were fine with that (though it makes our stomach turn). But dont insult peoples intelligence with articles like this.
Posted on: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:41:00 +0000