Kuala Lumpur — It’s official; George W Bush is a war criminal.
In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes.
Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia.
The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
(Read more)
So where is Roman’s comment on this?
Where is the moral clarity?
Here is Brian Crenshaw’s comments:
Moral Clarity by Bryan Chenshaw
We want to protect the environment but meet
needs of industry. There is conflict in needs for
public services and exercising responsibility in
taxation.
When we move to the personal level we find the
same type of conflict. Every day we are called
upon to make choices about the moral issues of
life, about right and wrong. How do we make
such choices?
Of course we have the classic guidelines — the
Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount,
the Golden Rule. But even with these we sometimes
find ourselves confused as we deal with gray areas,
and have difficulty in decision making.
Let me suggest a series of questions which might
be helpful as we seek to make decisions about
right and wrong.
Ask first, “Does it have to be concealed?” Evil loves
darkness, goodness loves light. When something is
wrong it likes to slip around in dark corners. When
something is good it can stand the scrutiny of broad
daylight.
A second question: “Where does it lead?” The
person who chooses a path also chooses where
that path comes out. Therefore, one needs to think
not only about a specific act but the direction in
which that act leads. If the direction is wrong the
destination can never be right.
Young people should be especially sensitive in this
area. So many wrongs are lightly accepted by
society, and it is easy to drift into situations which
bring disaster.
A third question: “How does this affect other people?”
We like to think we live alone and what we do is our
business and no one else’s. This is simply not true.
Almost everything we do has an effect on many other
people.
Each of us can recall many instances where one
person’s wrongdoing has brought disastrous
consequences upon others — effect which could
have been easily foreseen if the person had
stopped to think.
The next question: “Would it be all right, and would
the world be just as happy and well off if everyone
did this; or am I trying to give myself special privilege?”
We remember Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative
which asked, “What would be the result if everyone
did as I do?” And Paul’s admonition, “love does not
purse selfish advantage.”
To be aware of these questions is not enough. For
them to be effective there needs to be three additional
things.
First, a moral sensitivity which remembers to ask the
right questions at the right time.°
Second, a moral decisiveness, to know what is good is
not enough. There is a difference between waking up
and getting up. There must be specific decision for the
right.
Finally, there needs to be a moral stamina. To be
sensitive and aware is good. To make proper decisions
is better. To be aware of economic truths is not enough.
There has to be a willingness to state the truth in the face
of disbelief and derision. There must be specific decision
for the right. To be sensitive and aware is good. To make
proper decisions is better. The way of victory is to maintain
a moral stamina which continues.