Amnesty International's had a great couple of weeks, accusing America of human rights violations in Guantánamo, AI's Sec. Gen. Irene Khan calling the camp "the gulag of our times," apparently because AI favors extending the Geneva agreements to unlawful combatants, and US AI boss William Schulz doubling the bet by urging "foreign governments to arrest any [US] official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them." This outrage's been well covered by the WaPo, Washington Times, Austin Bay, NRO twice, Publius Pundit, Roger Simon, The Anchoress, SC&A three times, Paul Mirengoff, Ed Morrissey, Noon Shadow--and President Bush.
I've only got four additions:
1) Geneva doesn't apply--on purpose. Even if (though they're not) the detainees were treated as POWs. Think about it: did Col. Hogan get a German lawyer or a hearing?
2) Contrary to Dingo, this demonstrates yet again why Bush and Clinton agreed the US can't join the ICC.
3) Khan and AI have done it before, most notoriously accusing Britain and America of "a cold and calculated manipulation" of Amnesty International's documentation of Saddam's human rights violations by citing it as justification for the invasion of Iraq. Khan called that misusing AI reports for "political" purposes; kinda amusing -- in a tragic way -- since political influence is Amnesty International's raison d'etre.
4) We're at war. Get a life. See Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 768 (1950); Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 28-35 (1942).
Une autre:
5) Jimmy Carter wants Gitmo closed. QED.
(via The Art of the Blog)
2 comments:
so, please explain to me how the suit in the Dutch court would have been any different if the US were part of the ICC? The suit was brought in a sovereign Dutch court, not the ICC. The ICC has no power over the Dutch court and the Dutch court has no power over the ICC. You are comparing apples to rocks.
Additionally, I'll refer you to the Rome treaty.
Article 17
Issues of admissibility
1. Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:
(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;
(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;
(c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;
(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.
Dingo:
My reply is here.
Post a Comment