Five Dollar Media Journal

I'm clearing out the semester before I see what this new Blogger is up to. There are some interesting things to take advantage of here.

With the Abu Ghraib prison investigation in full gear, more reports of shunned responsibility are appearing. The courts-martial offer just one measure of protection—every low-ranking soldier that pleads guilty or accepts a plea bargain represents a lost chance to trace responsibility for the Iraqi abuses/tortures to those in charge. After drawing up plans for the contrived war against Iraq, the Bush adminstration looked into other ways to reduce their accountability for what they must have realized would be criminal actions on the international theatre.

The United States sought exemption from war crimes prosecution from a Hague tribunal by refusing to endorse a United Nations treaty.

Washington at first signed the treaty establishing the court but later backed out, saying it feared the tribunal would be politicised and that its troops abroad could be charged for war crimes.

The United States has since persuaded more than 60 countries to agree to bilateral immunity deals, lobbying hard and threatening to cut military assistance to those that do not sign an accord.

Under the draft resolution, nations which have not ratified the court's founding statute would be exempt from investigation or prosecution for 12 months.

It also specifies that the one-year period is renewable "for as long as may be necessary." Diplomats said the United States would try to push for a vote Friday.

The Bush Administration also sought to subvert the United States' very own 1996 War Crimes Act, which offers the penalty of death for those who violate the Geneva Conventions with fatal intent. (Curiously, it was drafted by a Republican Representative, Walter Jones Jr. of NC.) By declaring Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters outside the coverage of the Conventions (is this possible? legal?!), Bush officials hope to declare themselves outside the reach of law.

The private contractors from Halliburton, Titan Corporation, CACI International, have also been shielded from responsibility—JAGs, certain military officials, and the International Red Cross were kept at bay while contractors ordered the brutal interrogations and other possibly unheard violations.

The opinion I am gathering is that, like war protesters, Bush and company is not waging war in their name. They intend to shift responsibility upon individuals who have little-to-no true knowledge of the risks involved in this ongoing war, i.e. regular Americans. They broke the pottery, but aren't willing to buy it.

I think it's interesting to note that President Bush did not actually apologize for the prisoner abuse by American soldiers and contractors. What was given to the press was a statement claiming he apologized to Jordan's King Abdullah II, which does contain the words I'm sorry. But the context of the statement indicates that he did not formally address the Iraqi people, nor any other national body, and that he did not express responsibility for the actions of the soldiers or contractors. He simply turns around and offers praises, ignoring the issue of abuse.

A few news outlets were keen to the façade of apology, but most have mistakenly reduced Bush's words as an actual apology (i.e. "Bush's apology..."). The burden of scrutiny now lies on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who may end up taking full responsibility for the Abu Gharib abuses, among others. If this move is successful then Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other government and military officials will be spared from any further accusations. The private contractors (i.e. Halliburton) installed to effectively oversee security may also be distanced from wrongdoing if the charade is successful.