US Justice On Trial

A judge hearing an Abu Ghraib case against a US soldier says Donald Rumsfeld will not be called to testify over Iraq abuse:

"I fail to see a connection between this group and the authorities in Washington. I'm not saying there is no link, but you have not shown sufficient evidence," said Judge James Pohl.

Defending lawyers argue that their clients were following orders and referred to memos which showed Rumsfeld had approved hooding and stripping of prisoners, who could also be put in stress positions and subjected to "physical conduct".

"As insurgencies increased, the need for actionable intelligence increased. These techniques were approved by Donald Rumsfeld," one of the lawyers said.

Rumsfeld's memos have already been widely publicized (and criticized). The recent Abu Ghraib report has criticized commanders at the jail and indicated that Rumsfeld's policies "created some confusion at lower levels of the military" (to say the least!).

How much more evidence does the judge need?

Who and what is really on trial here? Not just the soldiers who served so cruelly in Abu Ghraib, not just the Gitmo detainees like Australia's David Hicks, but also the US justice system itself.

The USA led a pre-emptive invasion based on bogus intelligence. They now claim some inherent moral superiority as their justification for the invasion, even though the people of Iraq (and Afghanistan, for that matter) are no better off than before. What sort of morality is this, when there is no honesty, no accountability and no justice?

The world is watching.