On the Karadžić Judgment

In July 2008 I remember running into the office of my favorite professor, out of breath from both running and excitement, saying “They got him! They got him! Karadžić!” I couldn’t believe it!

My childhood had been filled with images of the atrocities committed in Bosnia: of men starving in the Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje concentration camps;  of dead bodies and burned down villages; and of women and children arriving in Tuzla from Srebrenica telling stories of how thousands of the men and boys were executed thought to have been executedby Bosnian Serb troops. I also remember seeing countless images of Radovan Karadžić, President of Republika Srpska, Bosnia’s breakaway republic, and Supreme Commander of its armed forces, the VRS (Vojsks Republike Srpske) (often accompanied by Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladić, aka ‘the butcher of Bosnia’). Seeing the same man before the judges at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), having to answer for what happened under his watch, was a huge deal. Indeed, it has by some commentators have called it “the most important war crimes ruling in Europe since Nuremberg.”

Before his arrest, on 21 July 2008, Karadžić evaded justice for 13 years, living in Belgrade under an assumed identity as Dragan Dabić, new age doctor and spiritual healer. He was transferred to the ICTY nine days later and his trial began in October 2009.

The process of the Karadžić trial included 498 trial days. During this time the court heard testimony from 434 witnesses and received written testimony from another 152. A total of 11,469 exhibits were admitted into evidence. The complete trial record amounts to over 48,000 transcript pages, over 95,000 pages of filings and over 190,000 pages of admitted exhibits, totaling to over 330,000 pages of trial record.

Last Thursday the trial judgment came out. Because Serbian president Slobodan Milošević died before the judgment in his case was rendered, I think many of us felt relief at the fact that the ICTY was able to issue a judgment against Karadžić – the highest ranking official after Milošević to be tried by the Tribunal and the highest ranking official to be convicted for crimes committed during the wars in the former Yugoslavia. 

Karadžić was charged with 11 Counts in total: two Counts of genocide, five Counts of crimes against humanity, namely persecution (Count 3), extermination (Count 4), murder (Count 5), deportation (Count 7), inhumane acts (forcible transfer) (Count 8), and four Counts of violations of the laws or customs of war, i.e. war crimes, namely murder (Count 6) terror against civilians (Count 9), unlawful attacks on civilians (Count 10), and taking of hostages (primarily of UN personnel) (Count 11).  Regarding the counts of genocide, Count 1 alleged that genocide was committed in the municipalities of Bratunac, Foča, Ključ, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Vlasenica, and Zvornik, while Count 2 concerned allegations of genocide in Srebrenica.

In the indictment, the Prosecution alleged that Karadžić participated in four different joint criminal enterprises (JCEs): (1) to permanently remove Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb claimed territory in Bosnia and Herzegovina through crimes charged (Overall JCE); (2) to spread terror among the civilian population of Sarajevo through a campaign of sniping and shelling (Sarajevo JCE); (3) to eliminate the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica (Srebrenica JCE); and (4) to take United Nations personnel as hostages (hostage JCE).

In addition, the Prosecution had charged Karadžić under Article 7(1) of the ICTY Statute (individual criminal responsibility) for planning, instigating, ordering, committing, and/or aiding and abetting the alleged crimes, and under Article 7(3) of the Statute (command responsibility) for the crimes charged.

The Trial Chamber found Radovan Karadžić guilty on 10 of 11 Counts (he was acquitted on Count 1) and sentenced him to 40 years of imprisonment.

For those of you who (unlike me) had better things to do last Thursday than to watch a 2-hour live reading of the judgment, below is a recap of the findings of the Trial Chamber.

The Overarching JCE

The Chamber found that many crimes were committed in the municipalities of Bijeljina, Bratunac, Brčko, Foča, Rogatica, Sokolac, Višegrad, Vlasenica and Zvornik in Eastern Bosnia; in the municipalities of Banja Luka, Bosanski Novi, Ključ, Prijedor, and Sanski Most in the Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK); and in the municipalities of Hadžići, Ilidža, Novi Grad, Novo Sarajevo, Pale, and Vogošća in the Sarajevo region.

The Chambers further found that there was a common plan during the war, to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb-claimed territory through the commission of crimes and that Karadžić significantly contributed to the common plan. In fact, he “was central in outlining the goals of the Bosnian Serb leadership including separation from Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, the take-over of Bosnian Serb-claimed territory, and the creation of a largely ethnically homogeneous Bosnian Serb state.”

The Chamber further found that that Karadžić knew that the common plan, whereby thousands of non-Serb civilians were expelled en masse from their homes during and after the forcible take-over of towns and villages, and detained in facilities throughout the Municipalities, was carried out in a context of inter-ethnic animosity and violence. Furthermore, he knew that there was a climate of impunity for crimes committed against non-Serbs.

Consequently, the Chamber held Karadžić individually criminally responsible pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute for persecution, extermination, murder, deportation and forcible transfer as crimes against humanity; and murder, as a violation of the laws or customs of war in relation to the above-mentioned municipalities.

The Prosecution had also alleged that in seven of the Municipalities, namely Bratunac, Foča, Ključ, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Vlasenica, and Zvornik, the persecutory campaign included or escalated to include conduct and intent which amounted to genocide. However, the Chamber found that it didn’t have “sufficient evidence to find beyond reasonable doubt that genocide was committed in these municipalities.” Karadžić was therefore acquitted on Count 1, genocide, in relation to these municipalities.

The Sarajevo JCE

During the war in Bosnia, the capital Sarajevo was under siege by Bosnian Serb forces for a total of 1,425 days, from 5 April 1992 to 29 February 1996 - the longest siege in modern warfare.

The Trial Chamber found that from late May 1992 until October 1995, the civilian population of Sarajevo was deliberately shelled and sniped by members of the Bosnian Serb Forces, namely the Sarajevo Romanija Corps (SRK). The practice of sniping and shelling of civilians continued for over three years. Bearing in mind the longevity and the nature of the practice, the Chamber found that the intention of Bosnian-Serb units, and their commanders, was to target civilians and use indiscriminate or disproportionate fire on the city.

The Chamber therefore found that members of the SRK committed murder, unlawful attacks on civilians, and terror as violations of the laws or customs of war and also murder as a crime against humanity. The Chamber then discussed Karadžić’s responsibility for the crimes.

The Chamber found that there was a common plan, which emanated from the Bosnian Serb political and military leadership, to spread terror among the civilian population of Sarajevo through the campaign of sniping and shelling. The Chamber further found that Karadžić significantly contributed to the plan, through his support to Mladić’s strategy in Sarajevo, as well as through his position as Supreme Commander of the VRS and his de jure control over the SRK and VRS.

Throughout the existence of the Sarajevo JCE, Karadžić was informed about SRK attacks on civilians in Sarajevo. The Chamber found that instead of ensuring that the attacks be stopped, he denied that the SRK was responsible. Furthermore, according to the Chamber there was not a single attempt to prosecute SRK soldiers for opening fire on civilians in Sarajevo, showing a culture of absolute impunity within the SRK. The Chamber also found that Karadžić only attempted to limit the targeting of civilians when he came under pressure by the international community, or threat of NATO intervention. 

In the end, the Chamber found that Karadžić “was so instrumental in the Sarajevo JCE that without his support the SRK attacks on civilians in the city could not have occurred.” Accordingly, the Chamber found Karadžić individually criminally responsible pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute for murder, unlawful attacks on civilians, and terror, as violations of the laws or customs of war and for murder as a crime against humanity, in relation to the Sarajevo JCE.

Hostages JCE

On 26 May 1995, following NATO air strikes against Bosnian Serb military targets in Pale, UNPROFOR and UNMO personnel in Bosnia and Herzegovina were detained by Bosnian Serb Forces and taken to various locations throughout Bosnia.

During their detention, UN personnel were threatened that they would be harmed or killed if NATO continued the airstrikes. This was communicated to the UN. Some of the UN personnel were handcuffed outside locations of military significance to the VRS.

The Chamber found that all UN personnel who were detained by Bosnian Serb Forces were entitled to the protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, including the prohibition against hostage taking, as they were not a party to the conflict and took no active part in hostilities.

According to the Chamber, the detention of the UN personnel was intentionally carried out for the purpose of obtaining a concession, namely the end of airstrikes against Bosnian Serb military targets. The Chamber therefore found that the elements of the crime of taking hostages as a violation of the laws or customs of war, under Article 3, were met.

The Chamber also found that a JCE existed with the common purpose of taking UN personnel hostage in order to compel NATO to abstain from conducting air strikes against Bosnian Serb targets and that Karadžić was a member of this JCE. According to the Chamber, the only possible inference from the evidence it received with regard to Karadžić’s statements, acts, and conduct was that he not only intended to detain the UN personnel but also intended for threats to be issued against them during their detention in order to achieve the objective of stopping the NATO air strikes.

The Chamber also found that Karadžić significantly contributed to the common purpose to take UN personnel hostage in order to deter NATO from engaging in further air- strikes and that he was the driving force behind the hostage taking and an active participant in every aspect of the events. Consequently, the Chamber found Karadžić guilty for the crime of taking hostages pursuant to Count 11 of the Indictment.

Srebrenica JCE

And as the facts of what happened in Srebrenica are since previously well known, I will try to make the following section as short as possible, although I am afraid it might be impossible.

As seen above, there was a common plan to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb territory and that Karadžić significantly contributed to this plan.

In March 1995, Karadžić issued Directive 7, ordering the Drina Corps to “create an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival or life for the inhabitants of Srebrenica”, many of whom had fled there after attacks on nearby villages in earl 1993. Following this, restrictions on humanitarian aid and UNPROFOR re-supply convoys intensified, resulting in disastrous conditions in the Srebrenica enclave.

On 9 July, one day after the arrival in Srebrenica of General Mladić, Karadžić was informed that favorable conditions for extending the attack on Srebrenica had been created. Karadžić approved this and ordered the take-over of Srebrenica, which fell to Bosnian Serb Forces by the end of 11 July.

What followed the Srebrenica take-over is by now very well known. The Bosnian Muslim population had already fled the relentless shelling of Srebrenica earlier that day. The vast majority of the able-bodied men formed a column and departed the enclave on foot in an attempt to reach Tuzla, while the women, children, and elderly men moved north to the UN Compound in Potočari (about 7 kilometers or 4.3 miles). As they fled, the group moving towards the UN Compound was shelled.

Between 12 and 13 July, approximately 30,000 Bosnian Muslim women, children, and elderly men were bussed from Potočari to Bosnian Muslim-held territory. After the first convoy departed Potočari, Bosnian Serb Forces began to separate Muslim men and boys from the rest of the people meant to leave, forcing them to leave behind their families as well as personal belongings like ID cards, and detained them – first at a building known as ‘the White House’ and, when this became full, at different locations in the town of Bratunac (a 5 kilometers or 3.1 miles from Potočari). At the same time Bosnian Serb Forces began to receive information about the column of Bosnian Muslim males attempting to reach Tuzla and began to take steps to intercept it by way of ambush or shelling.

Large scale killings of Bosnian Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb Forces began on 12 July at different locations and continued until the 17^th. It is estimated that around 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys from Srebrenica were killed by Serb Forces during these days.

On 13 July, between 1,500 and 2,000 Bosnian Muslim men from the column mentioned above, who surrendered or were captured, were detained by Bosnian Serb Forces at various locations. They were then taken either to Bratunac or to the Kravica Warehouse, where Bosnian Serb Forces later that day killed between 755 and 1,016 Muslim men. On the evening of the 13 July, thousands of Bosnian Muslim men and boys were bussed from Bratunac to Zvornik, where they were first detained before being killed in the coming days. In the days following the conclusion of the killing operation in Zvornik, members of the Bosnian Serb Forces continued to kill Bosnian Muslim males who came into their custody.

The Chamber found that, noting in particular the mobilization of busses which took place as Bosnian Serb Forces consolidated control over the Bosnian Muslims gathered in Potočari, as Srebrenica fell, the long-term strategy aimed at removing the Bosnian Muslim population from Srebrenica, began to be transformed into a concrete common plan to eliminate them.

The Chamber also found that these killings were carried out pursuant to a systematic and highly organized plan, which was overseen by VRS staff of all levels of command. According to the Chamber, Bosnian Serb Forces began to obtain detailed intelligence regarding the presence of Bosnian Muslim males amongst the population in Potočari on the night of 11 July and, around the same time, began to receive reports about the existence and movement of the column of Bosnian Muslim men and boys attempting to make their way towards Tuzla.

The Chamber considered that the manner as well as the systematic and highly organized nature of the killings showed a clear intent “to kill ever able-bodied Bosnian Muslim male from Srebrenica.” The Chamber further noted that “killing every able-bodied male of a group results in severe procreative implications that may lead to the group's extinction” and found that the only reasonable inference was that those orchestrating this operation intended to destroy the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica.

The Chamber found Karadžić’s establishment of Bosnian Serb structures in Srebrenica demonstrated intent to permanently and forcibly remove the Bosnian Muslim population. The Chamber noted that throughout the Srebrenica operations Karadžić received information from various high-ranking VRS officers and that he received regular written reports, including daily VRS combat reports, which revealed that the Bosnian Serb Forces observed relatively few able-bodied Bosnian Muslim males in Potočari and described the actions taken by the Bosnian Serb Forces in pursuit of the column.

The Chamber considered that as President of the RS and Supreme Commander of the VRS, Karadžić was the sole person within the RS with the power to intervene on behalf of the Bosnian Muslim men and boys and to prevent them from being killed. However, instead, the Chamber found that Karadžić ordered that the Bosnian males who were being detained in Bratunac be transferred elsewhere to be killed; they were then taken to Zvornik and killed.

According to the Chamber, Karadžić “knew that the thousands of Bosnian Muslim male detainees being held by Bosnian Serb Forces in the Srebrenica area constituted a very significant percentage of the Bosnian Muslim males from Srebrenica.” However, he did nothing to intervene to stop the killings that occurred between 13 and 17 July. Consequently the Chamber considered that the only reasonable inference was that Karadžić had the intend to kill every able-bodied Bosnian Muslim male from Srebrenica, “which, in the Chamber’s view, amounts to the intent to destroy the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica as such.”

However, the Chamber could only conclude that Karadžić agreed to expand the common purpose of the Srebrenica JCE to eliminate the Bosnian Muslims by killing men and boys after 8pm on 13 July and that therefore he could not be held responsible under Article (1) (individual criminal responsibility) for killings and related persecution that occurred before that time. Nevertheless, regarding these killings the Chamber found that Karadžić knew or had reason to know that crimes had been committed by his subordinates in the aftermath of the fall of the Srebrenica enclave and that he failed in his duty as Supreme Commander to take necessary and reasonable measures to punish the commission of genocide, murder, extermination, and killing as an underlying act of persecution. He was therefore criminally responsible for such failures pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Statute (command responsibility).

However, since the Chamber already found Karadžić guilty of genocide on the basis of his participation in the Srebrenica JCE, the judges declined to enter a conviction pursuant to Article 7(3) in relation to Count 2.

What happens now remains to be seen; Karadžić’s lawyer has already said he will appeal the judgment. No doubt the Prosecution will also want a shot at appealing the acquittal on Count 1.

A Divisive Judgment

Karadžić’s trial and conviction (because seriously, who thought he’d get off scot free??) was always going to be divisive and problematic, which is true more often than not of most war crimes trials. This has been particularly true for the Balkans where not much has happened in terms of reconciliation between people of the different countries, or as in the case of Bosnia and Croatia between different ethnic groups in the country. For one side the accused will often be considered a hero. His/her trial will therefore be seen as hugely unfair simply because of its existence and any conviction will be seen as unfair and often as an attack on the particular country or group the accused belongs to. On the other side are the victims, who often look to these courts and tribunals, as these are often the only institutions willing and able to provide some measure of justice.

However, victims’ expectations are often high (sometimes unfairly or unreasonably, but understandably, so I would say). Victims are often disappointed that indictments don’t cover exactly all the crimes they believe the accused to be guilty of; or they are upset that the person they consider responsible for what happened to them is indicted. However, prosecutors can only charge what they believe they will be able to prove. This of course doesn’t mean that an accused wasn’t involved in said crimes, but it would be irresponsible of the prosecution, and a waste of resources, to charge a person with crimes they don’t think can be proven. The same goes for the choosing of who to indict. Legally speaking prosecution is not a matter of prosecuting everyone, or the same amount of people from each ethnic group involved in a conflict, or even a number of people according to which side committed the most or the worst atrocities. Those are political considerations. International courts like the ICTY and the ICC need to be legal institutions where prosecutors and judges approach each case in a purely legal fashion, while of course understanding the political aspects of the case or the situation. To do anything else would make a mockery of the justice these tribunals aim to administer.

In cases where domestic courts are unable or unwilling to deal with the crimes, it is understandable that victims put all their faith into an international court or tribunal. Nevertheless, however upsetting and crushing an acquittal may seem to victims and their families, it doesn’t mean some great injustice has been done. A court can, and should, convict only when there’s no reasonable doubt and when the there’s enough evidence to make a reasonable finding of guilt.

Needless to say the Karadžić judgment will be divisive in Bosnia, and in other Balkan countries. In Republika Srpska, and Serbia, Karadžić is still very much a war hero and anything other than an outright acquittal is difficult to accept for many people there. However, many (victims but also activists and legal professionals) had hoped that this case was the case that would show that genocide occurred all over Bosnia during the war, not only in Srebrenica. The fact that the Trial Chamber acquitted Karadžić on Count 1 if of course a source of deep disappointment in this regard. Indeed victims gathered at the ICTY on the day of the judgment expressed disappointment and disbelief that the Chamber didn’t consider what happened in Bosnia genocide. Karadžić’s lawyer has already said he will appeal the judgment. No doubt the Prosecution will also want a shot at appealing the acquittal on Count 1. However, whatever the outcome is from an appeal this, too, will be hugely divisive.

It is also important to consider a few things.

First, while some will interpret the acquittal of Count 1 as a denial by the Court of the facts, this is untrue. As stated by one commentator, “the judges accepted the facts and described them in hundreds of pages of horrific detail. What they concluded is that the facts amount not to genocide, but to multiple crimes against humanity.”

Second, Karadžić was found guilty of six crimes against humanity in the municipalities charged for Count 1: murder, persecution, extermination, deportation, forcible transfer, and ‘other inhumane acts’, including rape and sexual violence, because of his participation in the Overarching JCE. As importantly pointed out by the same commentator, crimes against humanity are not minor crimes, and not necessarily lesser crimes than genocide. And it is meaningful that on the basis of facts established at trial Karadžić was convicted of major crimes, even if the conviction was not for every count that was sought.

Third, while the Trial Chamber in this case found that genocide had not been committed in the municipalities as charged, this doesn’t mean that had the Court found that genocide had occurred, Karadžić would have been found guilty. I am not familiar with all the evidence presented so it’s impossible for me to say what I believe, but even if the Chamber would have found that genocide had occurred the prosecution would still have had to link Karadžić to the crimes charged and prove that he had the intent to commit genocide. This is no small feat.

In the end whether Karadžić’s trial and judgment will be considered a success or a failure will largely depend on politicians in the Balkans deal with it, particularly those of Serbia and Bosnia (including Repulika Srpska). Those of you who know me know that I wouldn’t hold my breath for a breakthrough in relations or for acceptance of the past. At least not in the current political climate in Bosnia. However, the judgment “effectively does what the verdict in the trial of Slobodan Milošević should have done if the trial had not outlasted the defendant.” If nothing else it has established a record of some of the things that happened in Bosnia and who was involved. Perhaps in the end this is what we can and should expect of these trials – to provide a historical record of atrocities committed, in the hope that we will learn something from it and keep history from repeating itself.

A Final Plea to My Friends Who May Vote for Trump on Tuesday

I know our country is more divided that it has ever been before. Many people feel unable to see the other side. I am lucky enough to have friends who span the entire political spectrum so when news pundits sit there and wonder “How could this be,” I know why it’s happened… This letter is for those friends (and family members) who are still thinking of voting for Trump.  It’s an honest and sincere plea.

Dear Friends and Family considering voting for Donald Trump for President,

Let’s talk about this as two people who both respect one another and who care about our country, and let me tell you what I see going on.

I understand, sincerely, why you are attracted to Trump. He says a lot that resonates with you.  You know the political elites don’t vote for the interests of the majority, but rather for the concerns of the minority, mostly the wealthy.  You know that our industries have been shipped off to China and Mexico and that our gas and oil prices remain too connected to Saudi Arabia’s daily will. You want someone to stand up for you, to fight for your interests.  Trump seems tough.  He’s not “used to” losing (though he has a lot in his business life).  He’s wealthy, but seems to have the same anger about the political class as you do.  He says things – things about how politically correct we’ve gotten – that you agree with.  You used to have the power to say anything and others would have to live with it.  Now, you worry that what you say will be used to portray you in a bad light and have financial costs.  You know you’re a good person, and you just wish the system didn’t always make you feel like you’re fighting an uphill battle.

I get that.

But, if what you want is someone to “make American great again,” Donald Trump is not that man. 

First, he’s a salesman, right?  That’s how he got rich.  He sold and marketed real estate – he didn’t “build” it; he’s not an architect or an engineer. He’s a real estate developer, meaning he comes up with ideas, gets other people to invest in those ideas, gets someone else to do the hard work of designing and building it, and then he markets the project.

It’s fine work, but it rests on his being a master manipulator. Good salesmen know how to figure out what you need, what you want (which may be different from what you need), and then how to encourage you to do things that aren’t actually in your best interest.  You want a nice, family-sized second car? Well, I understand that, but let me first walk you three times by this beautiful, fast, two-person sports car and point out how a lot of families enjoy it as their second car because it gives them options. Of course it’s a little more expensive, but sometimes the best things in life require us to splurge a little.  It’s obviously not something beyond your means, and it’s a nice way for you and the wife to spend the few date nights you can away from the kids.

You don’t need the sports car.  You don’t want the sports car.  But now you’re considering spending more than your budget on a car that will make it impossible for you to actually afford date nights.

That’s Trump’s job.  When it wasn’t real estate, it was steaks or a University or some other business venture that mostly relies on branding his name, and that means on … selling you something. Many of those efforts failed to provide any real value or benefit to the client who bought in. This election, that client is the American people.

Most of what he does is sell you himself.  We don’t know how much he’s actually worth because he won’t publicly disclose anything that would verify his claims. Think about that for a moment: he’s selling you on himself, but can’t or won’t provide you with anything to verify his claims. If he were applying for any job other that President, would you accept that? 

To the extent he talks about his wealth, he claims he’s worth about $10 billion, but of that he’s told reporters his ‘brand’ – his own image – is worth $3-6 billion dollars (for the record, Forbes estimates his entire net worth at $4.5 billion).

That kind of net worth – the branding – is not the result of any thing he’s built or done. It does not supply a job to anyone other than himself. It’s significant money, and his brand worth should factor into his personal net worth, but it’s not the kind of transferrable business sense we need to rebuild the economy.

It also tells you what Trump cares about the most: his own image.

This personal worship that he employs is where he poses a real threat.  Because he’s not telling you what he really believes (or maybe he is, but he changes positions so many times it’s impossible to know what he really believes).  He’s selling you an image of himself, and he’ll keep changing to get you to do whatever he wants.

And of course most politicians are selling you images of themselves.  But at least you can generally discern some guiding principles and values in what they do.  Trump’s guiding principle appears to be increasing his power and increasing his brand’s worth.

That’s a scary reality. 

It becomes scarier when you put it in the context of history and other countries.

When I look at Trump’s rhetoric – when I watch videos like this one from Rachel Maddow, when it gets to the compilation of Trump clips – I see the same thing I have watched happen to my friends in Egypt under Sisi, Thailand under Prayut Chan-o-cha, and Turkey under Erdogan.  I see the rise of authoritarianism.

I know that’s a loaded statement, but it’s also one I firmly believe to be true.  The rise of authoritarianism follows a pattern. 

There's first the call for nationalism – not patriotism but nationalism. Patriotism is about service and protection of the state; nationalism is about the dominance over others. The two are not the same, and the call for nationalism is one that often immediately precedes the division of those within a society.  So, you start with the discussion of how America needs to be great, and you demonize the Mexican and Chinese governments. This is already a dangerous trend as the President is our Commander in Chief, our chief Ambassador and our principle negotiator. If he is publicly demonizing other countries and their leader, they are going to be less inclined to negotiate with us in good faith. Sure, the US can often bully the likes of Bahamas, the Philippines, and Cuba; but it is going to have a much harder time bullying stable economies that are large or growing, like China and Mexico and Russia. So, his rhetoric is already making the world slightly more hostile to the US.

Once you’ve gotten people angry at outsiders, then you get them angry at your dissenters on the inside. You demonize the citizens who criticize you.

That’s the next step, and Trump is already there: you demonize those who criticize you.  That clip from Rachel Maddow shows Trump doing this.

Do you really think it’s acceptable to punch me because I have a different opinion than you?  You know me.  We’ve had a lot of differing opinions over time.  I’ve never punched you over them, and you’ve never punched me.  Why?  Because that’s not how you handle legitimate disagreements as an adult.  But, Trump is encouraging you to think you can and should use physical violence against me because I don’t follow along with his political vision.

It won’t get better when he’s in office.  Instead, my dissent will become criminal. 

Now, I know you’re thinking, “That can’t happen in the US. We have a separation of powers. He’ll have to govern with Congress, and then he’s subjected to judicial oversight. Someone will protect you.”

Look at the Weimer Republic, the German system that existed before Hitler came to power. It was a semi-presidential representative democracy.  Essentially, it was the same form of government we have but instead of only a President they had a President and a Prime Minister who were supposed to share leadership, meaning there was a less centralized leadership structure than what we use.

Before Hitler, Germany had a legislative branch that was a check on the Executive; it had a functioning judiciary that was a check on the Executive. 

Through Hitler’s regime, those checks went away.  First, they were demonized into silence, then they were replaced in favor of Hitler supporters, and finally, they were eliminated and subjected only to his rule.

Trump has already shown this tendency. Before Justice Scalia’s death, when asked who he would nominate for the Supreme Court, Trump said his sister. His sister.  Yes, she’s a Court of Appeals judge, and is probably perfectly capable, but his first inclination is to promote those he’s closest to without thinking of who is actually best qualified to be in that post.

He now says he was kidding about that, but what are his qualifications?  He hasn’t said. But it’s clear where he leans first in making those kinds of decisions.

Our system of government is vulnerable if we aren’t careful in who we elect to lead it.

But, you’ll say, we have a strong and independent military!

That’s true, but it doesn’t offer as much comfort as you think it does when you consider how Trump has responded already to the military. Trump proposed not being bound by the Geneva Conventions that spell out the laws of war, and proposes targeting families of suspected terrorists. He has suggested he would be fine ordering war crimes, and would expect the military to follow through on them.

Ordering war crimes is illegal, and members of our military have an obligation – set out in the US Uniform Code of Military Conduct – to refuse to comply with such orders. Even if the US changed this law, a war crime can be prosecuted in every country in the world, so our military could be subject to criminal trials overseas. His plans put our troops in danger – both at home and abroad.

When several former military leaders have indicated that the military would likely refuse to comply with Trump’s policies on war crimes, Trump said, “They won’t refuse me. Believe me. … I’ve always been a leader. I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it.”

You might think this is blustering. But this suggests Trump would be willing to replace military leaders who refuse him with individuals who won’t. He can do that. As Commander in Chief, Trump would be able to choose who leads the various branches of the military. So he’d choose people who aren’t going to oppose him. He’d replace them with his supporters – just like authoritarian leaders from Hitler to Stalin to Kim Jung Un have done.

But, we have the Second Amendment! The people will rise up to fight against authoritarianism! 

First, you’re talking about the counter to a Trump presidency being a civil war. Do you really want to stake the presidency on the need for a civil war?  Do you really want to risk that level of bloodshed? Look at Syria: is that what you want for the US?  Because if you’re simply relying on the Second Amendment to protect you – rather than voting for someone who won’t take you down that path to begin with – then you’re risking a civil war on a guy whose policies you actually can’t predict.

But, also, let’s talk about the Second Amendment. The story in the US is that Hitler took peoples’ guns first.  That’s not quite accurate.  He took the guns of Jewish people first.  He took the guns from targeted people (skip the introduction of this law review article and start at p. 659 if you want more historical info on this).  Do you think Americans are going to rally when Trump first proposes taking guns from Muslims and Middle Easterners?  Because that is who he will target first, we know that. And let’s be honest, at least some of you think that it’s probably a good idea to ban Muslims from owning guns in the US.

After the Muslims, it will become “black thugs” and convicted criminals. He will use the same lines you’ve seen him use about protesters: “I love the old days. You know what we used to do with thugs like that in the good old days? They’d get carried out on a stretcher from the jail. He wouldn’t get to leave and then purchase a gun.”

Then it’s the black people who don’t have access to guns.  And here’s the thing about authoritarian regimes: when your group has been targeted by an authoritarian regime, you cannot rely on your own personal history to show you’ve been a good, loyal, brave, or trust-worthy member of society.  Your status as a member of the group becomes your overwhelming identity.

It’s why a Christian pastor in Germany, Martin Niemöller, ended up writing the poem at the end of this post – because identity became the overwhelming factor in determining who was a threat, not their individual actions.

So those that oppose Trump will eventually have their guns confiscated, and the Second Amendment will be understood to apply only to “civilized members” of society.  And maybe that’s a standard you think should happen already – criminals shouldn’t have access to AK-47s.  But to have that standard in place, you need to have someone in leadership who doesn’t abuse that standard for his own benefit. You need someone who tolerates dissent. You need someone who doesn’t arrest people just for protesting.

Donald Trump isn’t that person, so the Second Amendment in his hands will become a tool of oppression, not freedom.

I know you care about this country. So be brave.  Be this guy in the middle of a crowd swept into nationalism: 

Be the one who stands firm against the rising tide of authoritarianism that is Trump’s campaign.

If you’re voting in Ohio, vote for John Kasich. I don’t like him, but if you’re a Republican who cares about this country, who doesn’t want us to fall into a fascist state, that’s who you should be voting for on Tuesday. It is critical that Donald Trump does not receive enough delegates for the nomination before the Republican Convention. Kasich is the most likely candidate to win in Ohio, which is a winner take all state for delegates. Voting for other qualified candidates is unlikely to help stop Trump but voting for Kasich could.  If you truly cannot vote for Kasich, please consider any other candidate.  Don’t abstain from voting. If you abstain, you are simply empowering the minority of voters wrapped up in the myth of Trump. 

First they Came for the Socialist

Martin Niemöller

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.