Why the U.S. doesn’t prosecute its war criminals

The Peace Palace at the Hague, Netherlands, home to the International Court of Justice primary judicial branch of the United Nations. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. Author: Lybil BEr.

Why doesn’t the U.S. prosecute its war criminals? This has been on my mind for a long time, and I’m reminded of it anew after seeing Donald Trump’s threat to prosecute/jail Hillary Clinton should he become president, not to mention the chants of “Lock her up” at Trump rallies.

One bulwark against fascism in the U.S. has been our cultural adherence to “insure domestic tranquility” in the preamble to the Constitution. That adherence has in turn become part of our political culture. In particular, elections in the U.S. are ways to change leaders and policies without violence; unlike in other countries the winners in the U.S. are not expected to threaten to jail or execute the losers. Or prosecute them by bypassing the presumption of innocence. Absent these protections, history shows that not only leaders but also their followers leap to civic violence when elections do not turn out as they like.

It may be true that we carry the political custom of insuring domestic tranquility too far. I’d certainly like to see the U.S. join the International Court of Justice. I’d like to see Henry Kissinger, for example, brought before it. But as a matter of justice, not the result of an election.

So of all the things I don’t like about Trump’s candidacy, the one that’s most frightening is that a great deal of his constituency seems to believe that the fascism embodied in his statements to jail his opponent is OK. I hope that this doesn’t turn out to be an eerie replay of the destruction of the Weimar Republic. I don’t usually panic by claims that, say, electing a warmongering president will destroy the country; the country seems to get through these things, at least domestically. But now I worry that even if Trump fails, what will those fellow citizens who agree with him do? And what should reasonable citizens do to discourage the dangerous extremism of Trump and his excitable followers, who after all are our neighbors?

 ———-

Ed Agro, an occasional contributor to Engaging Peace, is administrator of the online war tax resisters online forum wtr-s. The above essay is a slightly edited version of the one that recently appeared in that forum.

 

Tomorrow’s wars: Let’s stop them now.

Battle_of_Giannitsa_(1912-11-01),_First_Balkan_War,_Greece; published in the US before 1923 and public domain in the US.

 

Part 2 in a two-part series by Dr. Majed Ashy

Leaders can use their power and authority for good or bad.  Unfortunately, some leaders promote moral disengagement by persuading the masses that the crimes of wars and terrorism are, among other things, essential, unavoidable, victimless, ways of preventing more evil, fully the responsibility of the other side, and will be the last war or act necessary to create peace.

The foot soldiers who carry out the fighting are led to believe that they are fighting for their country, race, religion, sect, tribe, peace, or whatever they are told the conflict is about—which may be something quite different from what they are told. For example, while spewing out rhetoric about patriotism and loyalty and faith, the leaders might actually be fighting over natural resources such as natural gas, gas pipelines routes, mines, or oil, drugs or drug smuggling routes, money, influence over their own people, regionally, or internationally. Or they may be seeking to obtain the votes of extremists in their group. Or they may be pursuing violence just to satisfy their own narcissistic needs or psychopathology.

 

On the other hand, the relationship between the leader and the masses can contribute to a lot of good. The grip of war and terror mongering leaders on ordinary people needs to be shaken, their intentions and motives need to be examined, and their strategies to manipulate and mobilize the masses and to fuel the conflicts need to be exposed and countered. The relationship between such leaders and the ordinary people in their domains are the main origin of all international and local wars and ills.

 

Such leaders have sometimes been deposed or convinced to end their love affairs with violence in the past, and this can happen again. The enforcement of the Hague and international law might convince some of these leaders to accept alternatives to violence and change the nature of their relationship with their people or followers.

Giving thanks for peace

Loud voices are claiming that peace is impossible, that peace agreements don’t last, and that there will always be war. War profiteers may scoff at the feasibility of peace but here are some examples of lasting peace for which we can be thankful.

Thanksgiving Square Beacon symbolizing regeneration, reconciliation, peace, and aspiration
Thanksgiving Square Beacon symbolizing regeneration, reconciliation, peace, and aspiration. Photo by David Baird, used under CC Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 license.

The Webster-Ashburton Treaty, 1842: The U.K. and U.S. settled boundary disputes remaining from the Treaty of Paris (which concluded the Revolutionary War) and ended the (non-violent) Aroostok War over Maine’s border. The Treaty produced what became the longest (still) undefended border in the world.

Treaty of the Triple Alliance, 1876: At the end of a long and bloody war, the Triple Alliance (Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay) wanted to divide up large portions of the defeated Paraguay. U.S. President Rutherford B. Hayes, playing a positive role that might amaze today’s world, was asked to arbitrate a dispute over Paraguay’s final borders. His ruling that a contested area remain with Paraguay prevailed without further warfare.

Dissolution of the Norway-Sweden Union, 1905: This nugget is not a treaty but a non-violent peace settlement to a threatened war. Norwegian feelings favoring full independence from Sweden were so high in 1905 that Norway assembled an army to fight Sweden. Cooler heads prevailed and both sides agreed to go to a Court of Arbitration at The Hague instead. The result: no war and Norway achieved its full independence.

Paris Peace Treaties, 1947: Although some of the victorious Allies (particularly the U.S. and U.K.) have been extensively involved in warfare since the end of WWII, it is not with their former enemies, the Axis Powers. Indeed, that peace agreement has been so successful that a recent U.S. President felt compelled to invent a new “Axis” (“of evil”).

Michael Corgan and Kathie Malley-Morrison