August 29, 2012
How the US and Israeli justice systems whitewash state crimes
Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian:
The US military announced on Monday that no criminal charges would be brought against the US marines in Afghanistan who videotaped themselves urinating on the corpses of Taliban fighters. Nor, the military announced, would any criminal charges be filed against the US troops who "tried to burn about 500 copies of the Qur'an as part of a badly bungled security sweep at an Afghan prison in February, despite repeated warnings from Afghan soldiers that they were making a colossal mistake".
In doing so, the US military, as usual, brushed aside demands of Afghan officials for legal accountability for the destructive acts of foreign soldiers in their country. The US instead imposed "disciplinary measures" in both cases, ones that "could include letters of reprimand, a reduction in rank, forfeit of some pay, physical restriction to a military base, extra duties or some combination of those measures". Both incidents triggered intense protests and rioting that left dozens dead, back in February this year.
Parallel to that, an Israeli judge Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit against the Israeli government brought by the family of Rachel Corrie, the 23-year-old American student and pro-Palestinian activist who was killed by a military bulldozer in 2003 as she protested the demolition of a house in Gaza whose family she had come to befriend.
More here. [Photo shows Rachel Corrie.]
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 05:50 AM | Permalink
Comments
And let's include the other darling of democracy into USA Israel axis: Incredible India-- still no accountability for Kashmir Mass Graves, still in force the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act(AFSPA), which grants a blanket of immunity to the Armed Forces.
Posted by: Rafiq Kathwari | Aug 29, 2012 9:15:00 AM
While certainly the author is right to be critical of how civilian government officials violated the law with all these abuses, I think its a bit different to argue that the American judicial system failed in regard to American soldiers who are deployed. The military has its own brand of justice which is not related to the civil, civilian system: extra duty, reduction of pay (to 0$ income), confinement to post, reduction of rank all take place in the sphere of military non-judicial punishment. The American Judicial Branch is more or less irrelevant in these cases. The decision to reduce rank, pay or make a soldier work 7 days a week at over 18 hours a day is completely within the confines of the, for army at least, brigade.
Most violations of military rules and regulations fall within these non-judicial punishments -and pleading guilty in the face of a court martial can also result in non-judicial punishment. But even if the soldiers and Marines had a court martial, it would still not be under the Judicial Branch of the government. Its still within the military -so claims for "legal accountability" are kinda irrelevant because if you follow the proceedings for the deployed Marines and soldiers, it was all legal.
Posted by: Stopher | Aug 29, 2012 1:36:32 PM
The USA-Israel-India axis of democracy, imperfect as it may be, is any day preferable to the Saudi-Iran-Pakistan axis of intolerance. Kashmiriyat, after the Pandits were ethnically cleansed, has been reduced to acid thrown on the faces of women who dare walk uncovered in public.
Posted by: Sam | Aug 30, 2012 2:45:24 AM
I can't say it any better than the Guardian commenter JamesinNYC:
It seems to me that apologists for the atrocities commited by Israel and the United States deeply favor the ad hominem tu quoque approach in their commentary. Perhaps I don't quite get the meaning or proper use for that logical fallacy -- and by all means please feel free to correct me.
I just recall that when I came across the expression, it seemed perfectly to describe a family member of mine. He's exceedingly loud, obnoxious and a bit of a live wire. However, on the handful of occasions in the past when I've tried to stand firm and confront him regarding his behavior in a calm and logical manner, his responses have invariably been something along the lines of "you can't accuse me of A,B and C because you're guilty of D, E and F," as if he can only be receptive to criticism if his accuser is utterly lacking in flaws. I guess I can't blame him, because it works. I never confront him anymore because I don't want to deal with the consequences and now i just do my best to avoid being around him.
I think the great defenders of Israel and the U.S. have caught on to this trick -- consciously or otherwise -- because even the most milquetoast of critiques (which, let's face it, are the only kind one sees in the mainstream press if at all these days) are met with those overwrought mantras about the terrible injustices practiced by the very people the U.S. and Israel terrorize. Like somehow one negates the other. Or that invasion and violent subjugation can only be deemed cruel if the people being conquered are absolute paragons of virtue. Not unlike reducing every critic of Israel to an anti-Semite or a self-loathing Jew, the strategy seems to work. If you beat that drum long enough, people eventually find that they can't get anywhere with you and just leave you alone.
Yes. If one claims the moral higher ground, then one has even less of an excuse for whitewashing state crimes, not more.
Posted by: Kai Matthews | Aug 31, 2012 8:26:33 AM
Post a comment