Bush Offers Himself Amnesty for Human Rights Crimes
http://www.alternet.org/rights/42093/
The United States is following the lead of "dirty war" nations, such as
Argentina and Chile, in enacting what amounts to an amnesty law
protecting U.S. government operatives, apparently up to and including
President George W. Bush, who have committed or are responsible for
human rights crimes.
While the focus of the current congressional debate has been on Bush's
demands to redefine torture and to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions,
the compromise legislation also would block prosecutions for violations
already committed during the five-year-old "war on terror."
The compromise legislation bars criminal or civil legal action over
past violations of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions,
according to press reports. Common Article 3 outlaws "violence to life
and person," such as death and mutilation as well as cruel treatment
and "outrages upon personal dignity."
The legislation now before Congress also would prohibit detainees from
citing the Geneva Conventions as a legal basis for challenging their
imprisonment or for seeking civil damages for their mistreatment.
Since U.S. courts generally limit plaintiff status to people who have
suffered definable harm, these provisions amount to a broad amnesty law
for Bush and other administration officials who have engaged in human
rights violations since the 9/11 attacks.
Given the scope of Common Article 3, covering abuses ranging from
personal humiliations to death, the legislation could prevent -- or at
least severely complicate -- any legal accountability in U.S. courts
for officials who have committed these offenses.
Though administration officials have said these provisions are meant to
protect CIA and other government operatives in the field, the
provisions also could shield senior officials up the line of command
who granted the authority for acts of torture and other abuses.
These implicated officials could include Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales and administration legal advisers who supplied rationales for
the abuses, as well as officials who signed off on the human rights
violations, such as military commanders and President Bush.
'Dirty war' precedents
In effect, this legislation could be interpreted as a broad amnesty
law, like those enacted by legislatures in Argentina and Chile to give
cover to government officials who waged "dirty wars" against leftists
and other political opponents in the 1970s.
Because of those amnesty laws, many perpetrators of torture,
"disappearances" and extrajudicial killings were spared punishment even
after the grisly details of their crimes against humanity emerged from
the secret records.
In some cases, the amnesty laws were later repealed or courts struck
down some provisions. But the legal delays frustrated demands for
justice from victims and often the aging perpetrators then cited
infirmities to prevent ever being brought to trial.
For instance, Chile is still trying to untangle the amnesty protections
that were used to shield dictator Augusto Pinochet from prosecution.
Pinochet, who is now 90, has also employed the infirmity defense.
The legal delays have had political consequences, too, especially in
the United States where complicit American officials escaped virtually
all accountability, even to their reputations.
Some countries, such as South Africa, have combined amnesty for human
rights violators with requirements that the guilty cooperate with truth
commissions. That way, at least the historical record can be assembled
and the crimes of state can be exposed as lessons for future
generations.
The emerging U.S. amnesty law would be unusual in that it wouldn't
explicitly acknowledge that offenses had been committed, nor is the
word "amnesty" used. Nor have there been public hearings in Congress to
determine what the Bush administration might have done that requires
amnesty.
Nevertheless, the legislation, which seems to be gaining bipartisan
support, would create broad areas of legal protections for Bush and
other human rights violators for past crimes. By also barring victims
from seeking enforcement of the Geneva Conventions in U.S. courts, the
bill would give the Bush administration wide latitude for future acts
of abuse.
Yet, this troubling "amnesty" signpost -- for an America rushing down a
path marked by previous "dirty war" states -- has been passed with
barely a comment on its significance.
.
|
