“Returning hate for hate multiplies hate,” Martin Luther King Jr. wrote. “Violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.” Though King was assassinated the day after my third birthday, his words continue to inspire.

Understandably angry and grief-stricken, the American people now seem ready to support a full-scale war of revenge, not just against those who appear to have organized the horrible events of September 11, but against anyone who happens to be in the way. Such an approach will not erase the horrors of that day, but merely add to them. It will not prevent future terrorism, but may actually make such terrorism inevitable.

To understand George W. Bush’s approach to dealing with terrorism, one really has to examine his history as governor of Texas. Other than giving the state the worst environmental record in North America, his most significant accomplishment in five years in office was to execute more people than any other public official since the death penalty was restored by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1977. Between 1995 and 2000, George W. Bush signed more death warrants than the other forty-nine governors combined.

In January 2000, Illinois Governor George Ryan imposed a moratorium on executions in the state because of what he admitted was “its shameful record of wrongful convictions.” A study by the Chicago Tribune had concluded that “capital punishment in Illinois is a system so riddled with faulty evidence, unscrupulous trial tactics and legal incompetence that justice has been forsaken.”

The system in Texas was and is even worse than that of Illinois, but no moratorium was ever contemplated by Bush. Not only does his state have the highest rate of execution, but it does not have a state-wide public-defence system and has demonstrated clear racial bias in sentencing. Texas also has a Board of Pardons and Parole that allows members to fax in their votes without hearing any evidence from the defence.

The connection between Bush’s approach to criminal justice and his approach to global justice is simple: both demonstrate the stupidity and inhumanity of killing people to demonstrate that killing people is wrong. Prior to one of Bush’s 150 executions, the speaker of the French parliament, Raymond Forni, urged Bush to postpone the execution. “I cannot believe that the victory you hope for, to lead the largest democracy on earth, should be paid for with the blood of your fellow countrymen.” Bush is now hoping to pay for his next election victory with the blood of those from other countries.

In the summer of 1999, Bush openly mocked Karla Faye Tucker’s pleas for clemency in an interview with Talk magazine. “Please. don’t kill me,” Bush whimpered, his lips reportedly “pursed in mock desperation.” That kind of frightening arrogance can now be seen in his flippant dismissal of those who argue for a more peaceful approach to world conflict. “Wanted: Dead of Alive” remains Bush’s mantra as he moves to the world stage.

George W. Bush also blatantly ignored the Geneva Convention when he refused to overturn or delay the execution of Canadian Stanley Faulder.

Faulder was never informed of his right to contact the Canadian consulate after his arrest and the Canadian government did not become aware of his status until nearly ten years after his conviction and death sentence. Small wonder that the President has no intention of letting international law stand in the way of his current quest for vengeance.

In the May issue of Mother Jones, American writer Christopher Hitchens drew attention to other examples of the United States behaving as “a rogue nation” (one that ignores international law). For example, it still refuses to sign the convention banning landmines. “What was the reason given by the United States for being the primary holdout country? It was candid enough: We quite like landmines, and may need or choose to employ them. You don’t just have to be a very big country to say that. You have to be a very arrogant one. Time and again, the United States exempts itself from the standards that are applied to others.”

Hitchens cites numerous examples of America’s failure to accept or obey international agreements, including the Kyoto Protocol and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. For those who are concerned about the human cost of the pending war, the United States’ opposition to an International Criminal Court is most troubling. This kind of body would seem to be the ideal place to try Osama bin Laden or whoever else is found to be responsible for the killing of over 6,000 people. “And what is the reason given for opposing the establishment of an International Criminal Court?” writes Hitchens. “Why, such a court might impede the orderly conduct of American foreign policy. Think about it. What kind of implicit admission is that?”

Scott Piatkowski writes a weekly column for both in the Waterloo Chronicle and the Woolwich Observer, where this piece originally appeared. He has also written for Straight Goods, This Magazine, Canadian Forum, Our Times, The Toronto Star and the Kitchener-Waterloo Record.

picture-2299.jpg

Scott Piatkowski

Scott Piatkowski is a former columnist for rabble.ca. He wrote a weekly column for 13 years that appeared in the Waterloo Chronicle, the Woolwich Observer and ECHO Weekly. He has also written for Straight...