New Group Fights to End Impunity in the United States

Undermining the Rule of Law

Unchecked ICE violence and widespread official corruption marked Trump's tenure. Democrats in Congress can investigate wrongdoing. Yet, they cannot prosecute the crimes they uncover. Elections alone are insufficient for democracy. A president can be elected, but if they defy the law, democracy fails.

Systemic Weaknesses in Justice

The US system relies on independent justice. Citizens can sue a president for rights violations. But the system falters when a president or allies commit crimes. In some nations, prosecutors are independent judges. In the US, federal prosecutors work for the Department of Justice. This department answers to the Attorney General. The AG is nominated by the president and serves at his pleasure.

Trump's Weaponization of Justice

The president traditionally controlled this power with restraint. Most presidents deferred to the AG's decision. Trump did not. He used the DOJ as a weapon. He targeted political enemies. He ignored crimes by his allies, who often enjoyed effective impunity. This led to increasingly corrupt behavior. Arbitrary ICE violence went uninvestigated.

A New Fight Against Impunity

The Rule of Law Project aims to stop this impunity. It recruits former federal prosecutors and FBI agents. They investigate corruption and abuse by officials and accomplices ignored by current justice. Many former public servants joined. They do not share political views. They simply wish to continue their work.

Investigative Strategy

The project assumes cases are stronger with prepared files. They conduct witness interviews and document collection. They analyze results to build cases while evidence is fresh. They lack subpoena or grand jury power. However, many cases can use voluntary cooperating witnesses. These witnesses are vital in sensitive cases.

Path to Justice

They plan to present these ready cases to state and local prosecutors. These local officials are not subject to federal control. Many want to uphold the law but lack investigative resources. Global work showed this need. For instance, international courts lacked jurisdiction over atrocities in Syria. Syrian prosecutors were directed by the dictator. Universal jurisdiction by national courts was the only option. A typical local prosecutor lacked expertise in Syrian torture or forced disappearances. Human Rights Watch encouraged the UN General Assembly to act.