SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
The news passed almost without notice. Yesterday, Zalmay Khalilzad reported that a resolution would soon be introduced in the Security Council to create a special tribunal to judge the killers of Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister of Lebanon, dead in a massive car bombing in 2005. An impressive investigation, led by a German prosecutor, found solid evidence linking the Hariri assassination to officers of the Syrian state security service, and the obvious lingering question is what role Syrian President Assad played in the deed. I strongly support the notion of taking action that gives meaning to the conclusions of the German prosecutor. Indeed, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, a figure of otherwise almost astonishing mediocrity and silence, hits precisely the right note when he says: “I am of the view that there should be no impunity for the perpetrators of political assassinations.”
But does it not strike anyone as strange that the Bush Administration, which has openly embraced a strategy of more aggressive techniques–almost certainly including targeted assassinations–would push the issue with such a heavy hand? The administration has established the notion of impunity as its very hallmark. It violates the Geneva and Hague Conventions and flouts the nation’s own traditions continuously, and when charges are leveled, it offers the same consistent answer: we have immunity. It seems clear at this point that in the selection and appointment of federal judges, one consideration has taken precedence before even abortion, and that is impunity for the Bush Administration.
Yes, by all means, let’s support a special tribunal to look into acts of political assassination. Let’s include a smidgen of fairness in the process: let’s give it authority to address cases of political assassination which have occurred anywhere in the Middle East, and let’s declare that the United States will not shield its own political leadership from scrutiny in the press. The Syrian assassins of Prime Minister Hariri should be held to account, and there should be some senior figures from other governments in the dock right beside them.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”