So after supporting a terrorist, performing an abortion, and then kicking a puppy I was listening to some Chomsky, as I’m wont to do, and as an aside he flatly stated that every American president since World War 2 could easily be sentenced as a war criminal under international law. As I mentally went backwards from our current office holder I nodded with each crime I could recall, but I hit a roadblock at Ford and Carter. I skipped them and continued all the way back to FDR with ease. I had to do a little searching for Ford and I’m still not totally convinced you could get the man himself. You could certainly get many of his advisors, and there were certainly some really bad situations, but it’d be a tough case compared to a slam dunk case like a Clinton, JFK, LBJ, or Reagan.
But Jimmy Carter? I can’t think or find anything on how he could be considered a war criminal. He said a lot of stupid things but AFAIK he didn’t pull coups, back death squads, invade countries on a whim, perform economic warfare, or go out of his way to give enormous sums to brutal dictatorships in order for them to clamp down on the local population. I could be wrong, of course. Does anyone have any ideas? I’m guessing if there’s a reason it’ll have something to do with Latin America…
Maybe he could be conviced of gross negligence for the failed rescue attempt? I’m pretty sure that during the 4 years he was in office there had to be at least one covert OP by the CIA somewhere that you could get him on…if you are Chomsky that is.
On Ford’s watch there was the Mayaguez Incident – wherein Marines attacked Cambodia, at a cost of 41 American lives and 60 Cambodian, to rescue captured merchant marine sailors who, in fact, had already been released before the attack began – but even by Chomsky’s standards, I should think, that was not a war crime but an oopsie.
It could also be that Chomsky feels that any president who allowed aid to be given to Israel could be considered a war criminal. Or aid to Egypt or aid to…
Thanks, Captain Amazing. I was under the impression the really bad stuff in East Timor and U.S. arms happend with Ford and then it died down under Carter, but it looks like I was wrong.
Would that be an actual war crime, though? I was never really clear on this area of foreign policy, of supplying arms to another country who is massacring people. It seems like it should be, but is it?
I know. I wouldn’t mind if a CIA trained and armed death squad killed my family and burned my house down. I certainly wouldn’t consider whoever ordered it a war criminal. Chomsky is just a mean old man who probably hates America. The World Court does too, apparently.
I very much doubt it, otherwise you’d see a lot more brouhaha about who supplied what to various regimes. Even breaching a UN arms embargo is no big deal, judging by how often its done by every Tom, Dick or Harry with a few spare guns.
Well, the arms embargo against the non-Serbian former Yugoslav states did do a lot, recently, to show how an arms embargo can really put one side in a conflict at a major disadvantage IMNSHO.
No, It’s merely saying that Carter isn’t a war criminal because someone used U.S. weapons in a war crime. Is there any international law that says he is?
ETA: the arms embargo against Serbia took place in a cold war world. The Indonesians could have bought weapons from China or Russia.
Well, let’s see here. You own a knife shop. You sell knives to a guy whom you know is a serial killer, who is using those knives to kill his victims. If you didn’t sell him the knives, he could get them somewhere else, sure. But I think a lot of people would blame you for knowingly selling the motherfucker the knives.
I’m pretty sure that during the 4 years he was in office there had to be at least one covert OP by the CIA somewhere that you could get him on…if you are Chomsky that is.