One of the most cited concerns when refugees were allowed into Western countries was national security. There was uncertainty in the background of these refugees and whether or not they would bring violence and radical ideologies with them. Even if we chalk up allowing war criminals from the wars the refugees were fleeing into the country to administrative ignorance \u2014 and the lack of their ability to do procure intelligence about foreign wars to accurately vet the people they were letting in \u2014 why was nothing done afterwards when the country had evidence of someone\u2019s war crimes? I wonder if it is a threat to National security to have a war criminal walk freely on your soil \u2014 I cannot imagine it not being so \u2014 what if they continue to cause (as the cases cited in the reveal podcast show) in the host country. Another question that I am asking \u2014 which may be our of sheer ignorance \u2014 is why the war criminals don\u2019t face deportation or expulsion from the country altogether? Will that also require prosecution first? Are there laws against letting war criminals in if that is known at the time of their admission into the host country\u2019s borders?<\/p>\n
And even if not before, why don\u2019t host countries care to identify and prosecute war criminals not just with the motivation of punishing them for egregious actions \u2014 but for the sake of them not perpetrating them in whatever form against the refugee community now in the country. Why are Western host countries that champion human rights so apathetic to war criminals? Something else emphasized so rightfully in the commons post is this: \u201cIs it more important to prosecute Putin for aggression in Ukraine? Certainly, but at the cost of consecrating the idea that there is one justice for the West and there is another justice for enemies of the West?\u201d The self-proclaimed vanguards of human rights commit them under that banner but when an enemy they paint as an encroacher of human rights they now demand a different\u00a0 reaction. \u201cInternational justice kicks in against enemies and outcasts,\u201d says Reed Broody. Paraphrasing Phillipe Sands said on the podcast, if western powers are to create a tribunal that can prosecute the crime of aggression what if this tribunal is then used to prosecute them? Can they claim immunity? And if not, will they ever agree to its creation? If a truly effective universal system is to be set up it requires the cooperation of western powers but with powers slipping from their fingers on an international level by the creation of such a tribunal \u2014 it is unlikely they will agree. So we\u2019re stuck in this cycle where hypocrisy fuels selective justice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
One of the most cited concerns when refugees were allowed into Western countries was national security. There was uncertainty in the background of these refugees and whether or not they would bring violence and radical ideologies with them. Even if we chalk up allowing war criminals from the wars the refugees were fleeing into the<\/p>\n