Some time ago, nine of the prisoners who had been held at various US military prisons in the Middle East sued Donald Rumsfeld and other military leaders, holding them personally responsible for the US torture campaign, and the torture that these nine in particular endured. The suit seemed destined to fail, based on commentary from the judges. Rumsfeld himself (through attorneys, of course) cited governmental immunity.
Yesterday, we found out that Rumsfeld is, in fact, immune from prosecution on this issue. This is not just because the plaintiffs were not US citizens. Chief Judge Thomas A. Hogan of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling that, in part, concluded:
U.S. officials were immune from lawsuits stemming from actions taken "within the scope of their official duties."
This is not good. Posturing by senators, and fiery, patriotic speeches mean little.
"There must be a full accountability for the abuse of Iraq detainees and important questions must be asked of the chain of command to understand what happened, how it happened, when it happened and how those in positions of responsibility either ordered, encouraged or authorized -- or maybe looked the other way -- such conduct."-- Senator John Warner (R-Va), Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing May 19 2004
Democrats did no better:
"All of those up and down the chain of command who bear any responsibility must be held accountable for the brutality and humiliation they inflicted on the prisoners and for the damage and dishonor that they brought to our nation and to the United States armed forces, which is otherwise filled with honorable men and women acting with courage and professionalism to bring stability and security and reconstruction to Iraq."-- Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich), Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing May 11 2004
Rhetoric spouted from both political parties does little in the face of this type of a decision.
If government officials are not accountable for their actions, how do we ensure that they do not violate basic human rights on an even more egregious scale? |
Posts
2 Responses - Click Here to Comment:
Shouldn't that same right also have been extended to Saddam Hussein?
Yes, it is a reprehensible thought, as he killed many thousands of people, but if he and his government felt that it was a necessary act in order to protect the State of Iraq, was he not acting "within the scope of his official duties.", and therefore immune from prosecution as well?
Could or should any heads of foreign states ever be tried for "war crimes" again?
Vezinni,
What you are describing is the reason that nobody likes Universal Morality, even though it is inherently obvious that it is true... It has the unfortunate side effect of requiring that all people be treated equally.
Post a Comment