Tag: war crimes

Posted on

Crimes, Misdemeanors, and Legitimacy Crises

Fresno Bee, March 25, 2023

Trump and Putin cases put justice systems under stress tests. 

The law is a human creation. It works best when we all believe it is fair. But the legal system is a limited and imperfect tool for achieving justice. This past week, stories involving Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump remind us that “the rule of law” is limited by political power. In both cases, we’ve heard the phrase “no one is above the law.” But that is an aspiration, not a fact.

Consider the indictment of Russian president Vladimir Putin for war crimes. The International Criminal Court in The Hague claims that Putin is responsible for the crime of unlawfully deporting Ukrainian children to Russia. Putin is likely responsible for a variety of other war crimes. The United Nations has accused Russian forces of war crimes including killing noncombatants, rape, and torture. The U.S. has made similar accusations.

But the ICC cannot go to Russia and arrest Putin, bring him to The Hague, and put him on trial. The jurisdiction of the ICC is not recognized by Russia. Nor is it recognized by the United States, China, or Ukraine. The court is basically powerless to bring to justice any war criminal from those countries. This shows us how far away we are from a global system of criminal justice that would promote world peace.

As the Ukrainian tragedy unfolds, a comedy plays out in the U.S. starring Donald Trump. Trump warned he would be indicted in New York this last Tuesday for paying porn star Stormy Daniels to stop claiming she had an affair with him. The GOP candidate for president called for his supporters to protest and “take our nation back.” In his all-caps rants on Truth Social, Trump claims that the justice system is run by “animals and thugs” and “racists” who let “murderers, rapists, and drug dealers walk free” and who are “purposefully destroying our country.”

In response, barricades were set up around the Manhattan courthouse, the D.A.’s office, and around Trump Tower. And then, nothing happened on Tuesday. Perhaps the D.A. flinched. But the fact remains that Trump’s strategy is to discredit the entire legal apparatus.

And yet, there is the risk of this American comedy devolving into tragedy, if Trump is indicted. What if Trump refuses to appear in the Manhattan court — a court whose legitimacy he rejects? What if his supporters surrounded Mar-a-Lago trying to prevent him from being arrested and extradited? And what if Kevin McCarthy, the speaker of the House, joined Trump at Mar-a-Lago? McCarthy has also accused the Manhattan district attorney of “an outrageous abuse of power” in the porn-star case. What then would Florida governor Ron DeSantis do? Would he refuse to extradite Trump?

These what-ifs may seem unlikely. But after the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol, these things are not unimaginable. And it’s not only Jan. 6 that exposes the fragility of our system. Many Americans seem to agree with Trump’s basic complaint that the American justice system is unjust.

On the left, critics complain about police brutality, racial profiling, racial disparities in sentencing, and white supremacy in the criminal justice system. On the right, critics complain of a “weaponized” FBI, maintaining that the U.S. Department of Justice has tyrannized the “patriots” of Jan. 6. Trump has also claimed that the Manhattan D.A. — who is Black — is racist against him, while suggesting that the Federal DOJ is a “Department of Injustice.”

Our domestic distrust and polarization runs parallel to the problem with Putin and the ICC. Russia and the U.S. refuse to recognize the ICC. And in the U.S., leftists and Trumpians each question the legitimacy of the American system. But systems of justice do not work if there is no agreement about the impartiality and jurisdiction of the courts.

This crisis of legitimacy is dispiriting if we believe in “liberty and justice for all.” Of course, the law has never been perfect. The legal system is a human creation, built out of crooked timber. It depends on the good will of legislators, judges, lawyers, cops and citizens.

History reminds us that when good will is lacking, these systems fail and collapse. These are cynical times. But it’s still up to “we, the people” to fix what is broken and imagine how we might create fairer, and more universal systems of justice.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article273527440.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

Wrong to Bomb Cultural Targets: Trump Threatens War Crimes against Iran

Fresno Bee, January 12, 2020

It is good that tensions with Iran have cooled for the moment. But the heated rhetoric of the past week shows a moral deficit in our thinking about war.

The president threatened to destroy cultural targets in Iran if it retaliated for the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. President Trump threatened, in his words, “disproportionate” violence in response to Iranian retaliation. He explained, “They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites? It doesn’t work that way.”

But morality does indeed work that way. The enemy is not “allowed” to do these things. We should rightly condemn them for it. And we must understand that it is immoral to return evil for evil.

Proportionality is key. The law of retaliation says you may demand eye for eye, and life for life. But justice says you can cannot demand more. To threaten disproportionate violence and escalation is immoral.

A higher, more humane morality goes beyond retaliation. Humanitarian morality calls upon us to give mercy to our enemies with the goal of restoring peace.

So-called “realists” reject this. They say anything goes in war, so long as it is effective and you can get away with it. But the “just war theory” developed over the past millennia, which calls for moral restraint in war.

The just war theory has roots in ancient Greek, Roman, and Christian sources. These ideas are woven into contemporary international treaties and conventions governing the laws of war. These ideas were used by Americans to prosecute war crimes after the Second World War. Until recently, the United States was a leading proponent of these ideas.

The just war theory prohibits disproportionate violence. It seeks to avoid the escalation of tit-for-tat reprisals. It prohibits torture and abuse of prisoners. It rejects deliberate attacks on innocent civilians and on cultural heritage sites.

Realists reject all of this. They see war as a matter of power. If you win, you do what you want. And if you lose, well, judgment does not matter to the dead.

The realist view of war is immoral and too narrow. All wars end. Soldiers return to civilian life. Communities are rebuilt. And history will render judgment after war.

Thousands of years ago, the Greek historian Polybius condemned the wanton destruction of temples and statues in a war led by Philip V. The historian said this was how frenzied tyrants fight. Good men do not make war with the goal of destruction and annihilation, he said. Rather, good men wage war in order to reform evil and create justice. Tyrants are ruthless and cruel. Good rulers earn people’s love with humanity and beneficence.

Future historians will judge our country’s actions as either tyrannical or benevolent. But judgment also occurs in the short-term among soldiers and those who love them. When soldiers are asked to behave immorally, they suffer from moral injury.

The soldiers who would be asked to carry out immoral orders are our students, friends, and loved ones. These are human beings with consciences. It would be wrong to ask them to violate morality by delivering disproportional harm or by destroying cultural heritage sites. Soldiers come home from war. We should want them to come home whole and morally intact.

It would, of course, be better if there were no wars at all. But an important step in the direction of peace is to understand the need for moral restraint in war. As Augustine said in a passage quoted with approval by Thomas Aquinas, “we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.”

Moral restraint in war helps to create a just and lasting peace. Cruelty creates hatred, enmity, and escalating violence. Tyrants ignore this to their peril. So let’s encourage our leaders to learn the lessons of the just war theory. And let’s hope they cherish the moral integrity of the soldiers they command and that they consider the judgment that history will render.