By David K. Shipler
It used to
be sadly comical when Russia took a holier-than-thou posture on human rights.
But the United States has fallen so far that Americans don’t get to smirk much anymore.
In the recent tit-for-tat over rights abusers who are being declared unwelcome
in each other’s countries, at least three of the former top U.S. officials
fingered by the Russians are, in fact, true violators of basic liberties. They
have been branded legitimately. In the aftermath of today’s bombings at the
Boston Marathon, it is worth remembering how easy it is, in the face of such
tragedy, to deviate from the rule of law.
The three
are David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s legal counsel, who evaded the
law and the Constitution to engineer torture and illegal surveillance; John
Yoo, who wrote infamous memos for Bush’s Justice Department defining torture so
narrowly as to give the CIA practically a free hand; and Geoffrey D. Miller,
who as an army major general commanded both Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons,
where suspects were abused and humiliated, generating iconic photographs.
They are
among the eighteen Americans listed by Russia.
The rest include another Guantanamo commander and an array of prosecutors, investigators, and a federal judge who seem to have performed properly in drug and weapons cases against several Russians. Moscow had to overreach to get the total up to eighteen, in retaliation for the eighteen Russians the U.S. banned for their alleged involvement in the detention and prison death of a Russian lawyer, Sergei L. Magnitsky, 37, who had been arrested as he was looking into a client’s embezzling accusation against Russian officials.
The rest include another Guantanamo commander and an array of prosecutors, investigators, and a federal judge who seem to have performed properly in drug and weapons cases against several Russians. Moscow had to overreach to get the total up to eighteen, in retaliation for the eighteen Russians the U.S. banned for their alleged involvement in the detention and prison death of a Russian lawyer, Sergei L. Magnitsky, 37, who had been arrested as he was looking into a client’s embezzling accusation against Russian officials.
The latest bannings
were issued under the so-called Magnitsky Act, passed overwhelmingly by
Congress last year to deny visas to Russians implicated in rights violations
and to freeze any assets they might hold in the U.S. It was a gratuitous piece
of legislation, and a redundant one, since immigration law already gave the
government broad power to restrict entry, which had been used quietly after
Magnitsky’s death to bar visas for dozens of Russian officials thought to be
involved. Russia didn’t react then. Once the new law was signed by President
Obama, however, Moscow retaliated dramatically by prohibiting U.S. citizens
from adopting Russian children.
Now comes
the next round of action and reaction. An orchestrated uproar had been
generated in Russia over the drug and weapons cases investigated and prosecuted
by most of the eighteen Americans now banned. It was an old tactic, familiar in
Soviet times: Moscow was insulted by American accusations—in this instance
about the politicization of the Russian criminal justice system—and so turned
the charges around to accuse the U.S. of doing the same or worse.
The main cause celebre was Viktor Bout,
an international arms trafficker caught in a federal undercover operation, one
of those stings that use agents or informers to create a fictitious plot and
then nab the willing, sometimes hapless, would-be participant. The method can
border on entrapment, but claiming entrapment works only if the accused can
show that he had no “predisposition” to commit the crime.
Bout displayed no lack of
predisposition. The feds had been after him for a long time for sending weapons
to Rwanda, Angola, and the Congo; he faced sanctions by the United Nations. And
according to the Justice Department’s sentencing memo after his conviction,
Bout jumped at “a lucrative, long-term business opportunity” when the Drug
Enforcement Agency sent informants to pose as representatives of FARC, the
Colombian guerrilla movement. They requested and he arranged to “provide a
breathtaking arsenal of weapons” the government said, “including hundreds of
surface-to-air missiles, machine-guns, and sniper rifles—10 million rounds of
ammunition, and five tons of plastic explosives,” plus “a team of instructors”
and “advice on how to launder the FARC’s drug-derived cash.” He suggested
amounts and types of weapons far beyond the informants’ requests. In labeling
as rights violators the federal agents and prosecutors who nailed him, Russia trespasses
into the preposterous.
Addington, Yoo, and Miller are
another story, though. They deserve the label. They need to be remembered, for
as the country picks itself up after the Boston blasts, and as investigators
untangle the crime, there will again be temptations to take shortcuts past
legal and ethical values.
Oddly enough, those three men now banned from Russia displayed some of the behavior that characterized Soviet officials. One was to
manipulate the law so that it supported policy, rather than to adjust policy so
that it conformed with the law. This was a hallmark of Soviet thinking, and
Addington exemplified the mindset in the Bush administration.
He made no secret of his impatience
with legal restrictions, particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, which required judges to approve clandestine warrants for monitoring
communications by agents of foreign powers. “We’re one bomb away from getting
rid of that obnoxious court,” Addington told Jack Goldsmith, a conservative
Justice Department official who seemed stunned by Addington’s contempt for the
law.
Yoo and Addington also rationalized
a proposal to have the army, rather than the FBI, arrest a group of young men
in Buffalo, New York, for terrorism and hold them in military custody. Cheney
put the plan to Bush, who mercifully rejected it.
General Miller had another unsavory
role. Besides presiding over the well photographed abuses at Abu Ghraib, he distinguished
himself as commander of Guantanamo by signing on to suspicions about a Muslim
chaplain, Captain James Yee, whose only crimes appeared to be his ability to
speak Arabic, to explain Islamic tenets and customs to prison staff, and to urge humane treatment of prisoners. Yee came under the same shadow as Lev
Kopelev, a Soviet Army officer who spoke German and tried to stop advancing Soviet
troops from raping and looting toward the end of World War II. Both Yee and
Kopelev were arrested on trumped up charges. The difference was that Yee spent
76 days in the brig, shackled in solitary confinement, before the charges were
dropped, and Kopelev spent nine years in the Gulag.
This is obviously no small
difference, and it marks the enormous chasm between the United States and
Russia—even the freer Russia that exists today. But the similarities are
striking among officials with limited experience of the world, whose narrow
patriotism fosters suspicion against those who speak the enemy’s language, know
his customs, or respect his human rights.
Inadvertently, and on this sad day,
Russia reminds us how good it used to feel to be holier than thou.
Thank you, Dave, for detailing the pedigrees of these individuals, which seem to exemplify "self righteous individualism", compared with the paranoid individualism you wrote about in your previous article.
ReplyDeleteWhat is disheartening is the apparent purpose, focus, and robust vigor with which these individuals and their respective governments accomplished these abuses. The dollars involved must be staggering. These individuals don't even qualify for the rogue/villian that American audiences have historically loved to idolize in movies and literature and, yes, homeland security. They are dark and dirty.
After WWII our country applied purpose, focus, and robust vigor to helping others with programs like the Marshall Plan and the Food for Peace Program (PL480). Our heads were held high be those we were helping; no smirking was required. I'd bet the $$$ we spent overall on those programs would turn out to be only a fraction of what has gone down the proverbial drain in the abuses you describe. Our leaders in Washington seem mesmerized by clandestine activities rather than seeing the big picture of hunger, poverty, and decaying infrastructure in our own country. We need a domestic Marshall Plan and Food For Peace program for our national wellbeing. Until then we cannot smirk or hold our heads up in our own country.