When an international crime is committed by an individual, with the name of say, an Obama, Bush, Clinton, et al., in the name of hegemonic nation state economic/political ideology, and thousands of unarmed, defenseless innocents, who just happen to be going about their daily business in their own sovereign country, unwittingly find themselves in the line of fire of a premeditated foreign policy and are en masse brutally assassinated, the dastardly deed alone makes headlines. How come?
In cases such as this there never is 'perpetrator', but a commander-in-chief, perhaps even one with a Nobel peace prize given prior even to his venturing on his eight-year peace odyssey.
If the killing is mentioned at all, it is cited in polite conversation, as collateral damage and tolerable, given what 'we' stand to gain. Think here of Madeleine Albright's comment all those years ago, about the half million or so Iraqi children whose deaths were worth it; to 'US'!
If punishment were actually meted out according to how tortured one's road has been, then perhaps the Las Vegas culprit may indeed have a case for leniency, if mitigating factors can be found on his personal behalf. But who of us cares anything about a lone gunman on our home territory; after all he has already been described by those in the know as a lone nut.
A preposterous surmise you say. Just as preposterous as no people with power ever having to pay a price for their despicable deeds.
What do the likes of Obama, Bush or Clinton know personally of tortured lives? If they did would they be capable of inflicting such pain on 'others' without blinking an eye.
Go figure! The enemy is 'US'!