I once saw an episode of Law & Order* where a rich, older man committed murder (I believe in self-defense). This man was highly respected within the elite circles of New York City, and because of his past accomplishments, and his ongoing political contributions, he expected to receive some favorable treatment from the DA’s office.

As the show progresses, Sam Waterston argues with his boss about this, and unsurprisingly he eventually decides that providing favorable treatment wouldn’t be right: the law is the law, after all. And so the rich man is prosecuted, and then he’s convicted, and then we’re treated to some of Waterston’s patented moralizing on equality before the law. Cue the theme music, roll the credits.

* No, I actually didn’t, but I assume they’ve had an episode along these lines at some point in their long history.

The moral of the story, of course, is that everyone is equal before the law. No matter how much good you’ve done in the past, no matter how rich or influential or respected you are, when you break the law, you should be held accountable. Would anyone disagree with that?

So why is everyone so shocked by Amnesty International’s call for foreign governments to arrest and try Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, and a host of other high-level U.S. policy makers for their supposed role in promoting torture?

I’m not saying that AI is right. (I happen to think that they’re wrong regarding the Geneva Conventions, for example). But why are we surprised? Did we expect special treatment just because we’re the United States? (Well, yes, from foreign governments - actually detaining any of our officials would be very serious indeed, and is highly unlikely - but from NGO’s operating on the sidelines?)

As I see it, there are three reasons why we might be shocked and appalled by AI’s proclamation. First, we might dispute the validity of international law generally. Second, we might think that AI is calling for the selective enforcement of international law, and that’s not fair. Third, we might disagree with AI’s interpretation of international law on the merits.

With respect to the first claim, the general validity of international law (and the related right to enforce international law) is obviously hotly debated. It’s also a highly complex subject, so I’ll leave that for a future post.

With respect to the second claim, it is unquestionably true that AI-USA’s enforcement is selective. Why single out the U.S., while ignoring Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il? AI might respond by arguing that there’s a realistic chance of effecting change in the U.S., by pointing out that we have a global influence that those other nations lack, and by saying that we should be held to a higher standard because we put ourselves forward as a beacon of human rights. All of these are valid points. But I think that there’s something else lurking behind AI-USA’s targeting of the U.S. in particular. It reminds me of something that Chesterton once said:

“A man who says that no patriot should attack the Boer War until it is over is not worth answering intelligently; he is saying that no good son should warn his mother off a cliff until she has fallen over it. But there is an anti-patriot who honestly angers honest men, and the explanation of him is, I think, what I have suggested: he is the uncandid candid friend; the man who says, ‘I am sorry to say we are ruined,’ and is not sorry at all. And he may be said, without rhetoric, to be a traitor.”

– G.K. Chesterson, Orthodoxy, pg. 74.

A lot of people feel, and I agree, and Amnesty International is the “uncandid candid friend” - they proclaim their neutrality and impartiality, while in fact they are so partisan that their complaints should not be taken at face value. This point can’t be proven either way, so I leave it at that.

With respect to the third claim, then, I will admit that AI’s interpretation of international law is the majority opinion among scholars of international law. But, then again, that is not exactly a group that can claim intellectual diversity - how many of those scholars voted Republican, do you imagine? How many opposed Bush’s actions, but supported Clinton’s actions in Kosovo, which were clearly illegal under international law? Can the double standard be satisfactorily explained? I doubt that it can.

(And, of course, the strong suspicion that AI’s opposition to the Iraq war is based substantially on opposition to the Bush Administration’s politics generally strengthens the earlier argument regarding selective enforcement).

Where does that leave us? Most Americans will be angry with AI, some Americans and some Europeans will feel vindicated, and the rest of the world will shrug it’s shoulders at AI’s increasing irrelevance. What we should not be, however, is shocked or surprised. I’m frankly shocked that this didn’t happen sooner.

And we should not expect to get a free pass under international law just because we’re America. If our officials break the law, they should be held accountable — just as Pinochet was (sort of) — and punished. In fact, if we believe in international law (and the U.S. has historically been a powerful supporter of international law, especially international humanitarian law) we cannot accept anything less.

It’s a big mess. In summary, then, I think it needs to be said that the good people at Amnesty International do not “blame America first”, as some have suggested.

They have their morning coffee first, and then they blame America.

(Apologies to Bill Maher).