Custom Search

War Crimes Paradox

Paul Craig Roberts

I hope you will read not only the article by Paul Craig Roberts, below, but

also the "cover letter" by John Whitbeck, which has some additional

information of some significance.

Best,

TO: Distinguished Recipients

FM: John Whitbeck

In the COUNTERPUNCH article transmitted below, Paul Craig Roberts deals with

the fundamental question posed by the war crimes charges formally launched

against Omar al-Bashir rather more directly than Rami Khouri was able to in

his article in the INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE.

One very peculiar aspect of this affair has not, so far as I am aware,

attracted=2 0the attention which it deserves. While the chief prosecutor of

the International Criminal Court applied to the court for an arrest warrant

against the President of Sudan this Monday, his intention to do so was

publicly announced several days earlier ... by, of all sources, the United

States Government. Since the ICC is supposed to be an independent

international tribunal, one would think that it would be deemed scandalous

that ANY government should have prior knowledge of the chief prosecutor's

intentions. Yet the United States is not even a signatory of the Treaty of

Rome or a member state of the ICC and, since the court's inception, has done

everything in its power to sabotage and denigrate the court.

If the United States has succeeded in suborning the chief prosecutor and

putting him in the American pocket (which would NOT be surprising -- indeed,

which, since the commission of war crimes has become "as American as apple

pie", would almost certainly be a preeminent American "national security"

objective), why would it wish, by publicly leaking its inside information,

to make the world aware of this achievement? One would think that it would

wish to keep such an achievement top secret.

I hope that one or more of the journalists among my distinguished recipients

will dare to look into this intriguing issue.

http://www.counterp <http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07162008.html>

unch.org/roberts071

62008.html

July 16, 2008

Little Crimes Get Punished, Big Ones Don't

War Crimes Paradox

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

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 UN 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 UK, 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 Milosovic 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 US 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 US military.

I raqis 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, Milosovic 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 Suda n, something that 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 US, where he has lived for 53

years, because Eli Rosenbaum, director of the US 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 th e White House?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan

administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal

editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor

of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/076152553X/counterpunchmaga> He

can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@ <mailto:paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com>

yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----

From: Romi Elnagar <bluesapphire48@yahoo.com>

To: Romi Elnagar <bluesapphire48@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 5:40 pm

Subject: [Face_The_Nation] Fw: Paul Craig Roberts: "War Crimes Paradox"

(COUNTERPUNCH)