Seventy years ago, the
victorious Allies created an unprecedented legal system to deal with the
criminal wartime behavior of the Nazis. Nothing like the International Military
Tribunal which met in Nuremberg had ever been attempted. British and Soviet
representatives argued for summary executions of Nazi leaders. They were
worried about giving these men a platform to espouse their dangerous ideas and
perhaps whip up public support. A trial before a panel of international judges
only came about because American leaders, notably Secretary of War Henry
Stimson and Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, insisted on an open public legal
proceeding. Stimson argued that the “punishment of these men in a dignified
manner consistent with the advance of civilization will have all the greater
effect on posterity.”
In the final months of the
war, Allied negotiators not only created a new kind of court, they defined the
legal principles on which the Nazi government could be tried. “Crimes Against
Humanity” represented a new legal category, vaguely defined as “any and all
atrocities committed by the regime”.
Not new was another category of
crimes, “War Crimes”, violations of the already existing international
agreements about the proper conduct of war. In 1899, the major nations of the
world agreed to a set of “laws
and customs of war on land”. The killing of prisoners of war, the use of
poisons and collective punishment were all forbidden. After the German armies
used poison gas in World War I, another international agreement in Geneva in
1925 explicitly forbade
chemical and biological weapons. After World War II, torture was prohibited by
international laws as a violation of universal human rights. The United States
agreed to all of these rules of war.
Politicians campaigning for
votes often ignore laws and treaties in order to whip up potential voters and
prove that they are the toughest guys around. In this presidential campaign,
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz went further: they openly advocated violating these
international rules of war.
In December, Ted
Cruz said in a speech in Iowa: “If I am elected president, we will utterly
destroy ISIS. We will carpet bomb them into oblivion. I don't know if sand can
glow in the dark, but we're going to find out.” Despite criticism from both
Democrats and Republicans, Cruz liked this image, and repeated
his promise in the FOX News debate in January: “You claim it is tough talk
to discuss carpet bombing. It is not tough talk. It is a different fundamental
military strategy than what we've seen from Barack Obama.” Cruz eventually
backed down by redefining carpet bombing to mean its opposite, precision
bombing. But the image of annihilating the places where ISIS terrorists mingle
with civilians remained as Cruz’s idea of warfare.
Donald Trump openly advocated
torture of prisoners and collective punishment in the war on terror. As
late as the Republican debate on March 3, he repeated his support for
waterboarding and for targeting families of terrorists. “We should go for
waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding.” When questioned
about whether American soldiers would obey such orders, he boasted, “They won't
refuse. They're not going to refuse me. Believe me.”
In response to widespread
condemnation of this position by foreign policy and military experts, Trump
partially reversed
himself the next day. He issued a statement: “I do, however, understand
that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our
military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on
such matters.” His spokeswoman explained, “He realized they took him literally,
that's why he put out the statement.”
Perhaps the problem is that
people have been taking these politicians literally, assuming that they had
thought about their words and meant them. If that’s a mistake, I will admit to
committing it. This is not a race for small-town mayor. Every word from
presidential candidates is heard around the world.
Even in political campaigns,
where saying stupid things often seems like a good idea, threatening war crimes
is dumb. Cruz and Trump demonstrated the foolishness of their tough talk by
nearly immediately disavowing it, claiming that they really meant something
else. But their words were already spinning around the world, telling friends
and enemies that they had no respect for international law, for human rights,
or for anything outside of their desire to win votes.
Committing war crimes is a
terrible idea. It does not frighten opponents, it inflames them, ratcheting up
their motivation. War crimes are remembered for generations, tarnishing nations
which commit them long after the leaders who made those decisions are gone.
Politicians who promise
voters that they will commit war crimes reveal how unsuitable they are as world
leaders. Their words have already tarnished respect for America among nations.
Their disavowals show their lack of seriousness. Men in fancy suits who have
never seen war substitute tough talk for tough decisions. They and their
ignorant plans would diminish America for generations.
Steve Hochstadt
Jacksonville IL
Published in the Jacksonville
Journal-Courier, May 17, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment