Patrick Hayes writes in "Spiked",
‘In a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in The Hague.’ [Archbishop Desmond Tutu]
He was explaining that his reason for refusing to speak at a recent seminar alongside British ex-prime minister Tony Blair was the ‘staggering cost’ of Blair’s decision, alongside the then US president George Bush, to go to war in Iraq. ‘More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict since 2003 and millions have been displaced’, Tutu claimed. ‘By the end of last year, nearly 4,500 American soldiers had been killed and more than 32,000 wounded.’ Tutu believes it is grossly unfair that while some demand that ‘Robert Mugabe should go to the International Criminal Court, Tony Blair [joins] the international speakers’ circuit’.
Tutu is right to highlight the double standards of The Hague. Judging by the track record of the International Criminal Court (ICC), it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that it is a racist institution. As it stands, all of the 29 individuals indicted in the ICC – including the 16 people brought before the court, and the one person who has been sentenced – have been African. Indeed, being Arab Africans, Muammar Gaddafi and his close relatives are the only people to have been indicted who aren’t black.
This fact has led British QC Courtenay Griffiths, who acted as a defence lawyer for Liberia’s former president Charles Taylor at a recent ICC trial, to ask: ‘How is it possible that we have a situation where every indicted individual at the ICC is African and every investigation is, guess where, Africa? The ICC was set up to try those lesser breeds without the law – the Africans. This is the same civilising mission from the late nineteenth century and I find it, as a black man, totally objectionable.’
Not only is it almost entirely black people who are indicted by the ICC, but the countries where the majority of ICC-indicted individuals come from are some of the poorest in the world. It’s as if the ICC sees itself as a legal equivalent of a soup kitchen, spooning out indictments to countries starved of true justice. But the solution does not lie, as Tutu believes, in taking a more consistent, colourblind approach towards who gets indicted to The Hague. Bush and Blair being ‘made to answer for their actions in The Hague’, as Tutu puts it, wouldn’t redress the balance and make the ICC any more fair. The real problem with the ICC is the extent to which it operates apart from the populace, in an elevated legalistic bubble, where international judges assume authority over political matters.
Tellingly, the unaccountability of the ICC to the demos – any demos – is not what troubles many commentators, even those opposed to the Iraq War. The question, for many, isn’t whether Bush and Blair did the right thing by invading Iraq, it’s whether or not they broke any laws in doing so. As one Guardian commentator wrote this week: ‘There was also a moral case for not invading Iraq… But a moral case (and who has launched an aggressive war in modern times without claiming to possess one?) does not provide a legal basis.’
Even radical writers like Slavoj Zizek choose to place their faith in the ultimate temple of justice that is The Hague, rather than wanting to see brutal dictators being tried by their own people. During the Arab Spring last year, Zizek did not call for the Egyptian people to pass judgement upon Mubarak, the despot who had ruled over them for decades. Instead, argued Zizek, Mubarak should be sent ‘to The Hague’. ‘If there is a leader who deserves to sit there’, he concluded, ‘it is him’.
Such an attitude is also shared by a wide range of Western commentators towards the desire of the Libyan people to try the son of dictator Muammar Gaddafi, Saif, on their home soil. Better, many think, that he’s extradited to The Hague where true justice, free of the prejudices of the people who engaged in a messy political struggle against him, can take place. Should this happen, the capacity to self-govern would be ripped out of the hands of the Libyan people, and given to their supposed superiors in the West who can show them how it should be done.
Tutu’s calls for Blair and Bush to face trial at The Hague are likely to go unheeded for now. But on 1 January 2017, the ICC is expanding its remit to cover ‘crimes of aggression’, at which point it is likely to face a deluge of demands by campaigners to put the Iraq warmongers in the dock. Not in the name of morality, though, but to see if they can be hung using legal rope.
Showing posts with label Hague Invasion Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hague Invasion Act. Show all posts
Sunday, October 07, 2012
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act
S. 3081 Act of 2010
111th Congress 
Administrative law and regulatory procedures, Crime and law enforcement, Criminal investigation, prosecution, interrogation, Detention of persons, Intelligence activities, surveillance, classified information, Military law, Terrorism
2009-2010
Courtesy Of "Gov Track"A bill to provide for the interrogation and detention of enemy belligerents who commit hostile acts against the United States, to establish certain limitations on the prosecution of such belligerents for such acts, and for other purposes.
Overview
|
Question & Answer  Can you answer any of these questions posed by other users? Think of it as a civic good deed. You can submit a short question too. Apr 7, 2010 7:18 AM - Does this act allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens without trial indefinitely? - Read Answers |
Subject Areas
Sources of Influence
MAPLight.org reports that the following organizations have taken a stance on this bill:
| Support | Oppose |
|---|---|
| (none) | Campaign for Liberty Cato Institute Amnesty International Arkansas Libertarian Party |
Follow the link to MAPLight.org to see if campaign contributions from employees of these organizations are correlated with how Members of Congress voted on this bill.
Because the U.S. Congress posts most legislative information online one legislative day after events occur, GovTrack is usually one legislative day behind. For more information about where this data comes from, see About GovTrack.us.
Monday, April 06, 2009
Spain Investigates What America Should
Marjorie Cohn
Monday, April 6, 2009
Courtesy Of The San Francisco Chronicle
A Spanish court has initiated criminal proceedings against six former officials of the Bush administration. John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes and Douglas Feith may face charges in Spain for authorizing torture at Guantánamo Bay.
If arrest warrants are issued, Spain and any of the other 24 countries that are parties to European extradition conventions could arrest these six men when they travel abroad.
Does Spain have the authority to prosecute Americans for crimes that didn't take place on Spanish soil?
The answer is yes. It's called "universal jurisdiction." Universal jurisdiction is a well-established theory that countries, including the United States, have used for many years to investigate and prosecute foreign nationals for crimes that shock the conscience of the global community. It provides a critical legal tool to hold accountable those who commit crimes against the law of nations, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Without universal jurisdiction, many of the most notorious criminals would go free. Countries that have used this as a basis to prosecute the most serious of crimes should be commended for their courage. They help to create a just world in which we all seek to live.
Israel used universal jurisdiction to prosecute, convict and execute Adolph Eichmann for his crimes during the Holocaust, even they had no direct relationship with Israel.
A federal court in Miami recently convicted Chuckie Taylor, son of the former Liberian president, of torture that occurred in Liberia. A U.S. court sentenced Taylor to 97 years in prison in January.
Universal jurisdiction complements, but doesn't supersede, national prosecutions. So if the United States were investigating the Bush officials, other countries would refrain from doing so.
When the United States ratified the Convention Against Torture, it promised to extradite or prosecute those who commit, or are complicit in, the commission of torture.
President Obama, when asked whether he favored criminal investigations of Bush officials, replied, "My view is also that nobody's above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen."
"But," he added, "generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backward." Preoccupied with the economy and two wars, Obama reportedly wants to wait before considering prosecutions that would invariably anger the GOP.
Evidence that Bush officials set a policy that led to the torture of prisoners at Guantánamo continues to emerge.
According to ABC News, Gonzales met with other officials in the White House and authorized torture, including waterboarding.
The Office of Professional Responsibility, which reports to the U.S. attorney general, drafted a report that excoriates Yoo and Bybee for writing the infamous torture memos. Haynes, Addington and Feith participated in decisions that led to torture. The release of additional graphic torture memos by the U.S. Department of Justice is imminent.
It is the responsibility of the United States to investigate allegations of torture. Almost two-thirds of respondents to a USA Today/Gallup Poll favor investigations of the Bush team for torture and warrantless wiretapping. Nearly four in 10 support criminal investigations.
Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora told Congress, "There are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq - as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat - are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo." Providing impunity to those who ordered the torture will be the third recruiting tool.
If the United States refuses to investigate now, it will be more likely that some future administration will repeat this scenario. The use of torture should be purged from our system, much like we eradicated slavery.
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law," and co-author of "Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent."
This article appeared on page A - 13 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Monday, April 6, 2009
Courtesy Of The San Francisco Chronicle
A Spanish court has initiated criminal proceedings against six former officials of the Bush administration. John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, William Haynes and Douglas Feith may face charges in Spain for authorizing torture at Guantánamo Bay.
If arrest warrants are issued, Spain and any of the other 24 countries that are parties to European extradition conventions could arrest these six men when they travel abroad.
Does Spain have the authority to prosecute Americans for crimes that didn't take place on Spanish soil?
The answer is yes. It's called "universal jurisdiction." Universal jurisdiction is a well-established theory that countries, including the United States, have used for many years to investigate and prosecute foreign nationals for crimes that shock the conscience of the global community. It provides a critical legal tool to hold accountable those who commit crimes against the law of nations, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. Without universal jurisdiction, many of the most notorious criminals would go free. Countries that have used this as a basis to prosecute the most serious of crimes should be commended for their courage. They help to create a just world in which we all seek to live.
Israel used universal jurisdiction to prosecute, convict and execute Adolph Eichmann for his crimes during the Holocaust, even they had no direct relationship with Israel.
A federal court in Miami recently convicted Chuckie Taylor, son of the former Liberian president, of torture that occurred in Liberia. A U.S. court sentenced Taylor to 97 years in prison in January.
Universal jurisdiction complements, but doesn't supersede, national prosecutions. So if the United States were investigating the Bush officials, other countries would refrain from doing so.
When the United States ratified the Convention Against Torture, it promised to extradite or prosecute those who commit, or are complicit in, the commission of torture.
President Obama, when asked whether he favored criminal investigations of Bush officials, replied, "My view is also that nobody's above the law and, if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen."
"But," he added, "generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backward." Preoccupied with the economy and two wars, Obama reportedly wants to wait before considering prosecutions that would invariably anger the GOP.
Evidence that Bush officials set a policy that led to the torture of prisoners at Guantánamo continues to emerge.
According to ABC News, Gonzales met with other officials in the White House and authorized torture, including waterboarding.
The Office of Professional Responsibility, which reports to the U.S. attorney general, drafted a report that excoriates Yoo and Bybee for writing the infamous torture memos. Haynes, Addington and Feith participated in decisions that led to torture. The release of additional graphic torture memos by the U.S. Department of Justice is imminent.
It is the responsibility of the United States to investigate allegations of torture. Almost two-thirds of respondents to a USA Today/Gallup Poll favor investigations of the Bush team for torture and warrantless wiretapping. Nearly four in 10 support criminal investigations.
Former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora told Congress, "There are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq - as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat - are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo." Providing impunity to those who ordered the torture will be the third recruiting tool.
If the United States refuses to investigate now, it will be more likely that some future administration will repeat this scenario. The use of torture should be purged from our system, much like we eradicated slavery.
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law," and co-author of "Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent."
This article appeared on page A - 13 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Sunday, February 15, 2009
'Invasion Of The Hague Act'
Dutch Still Wincing At Bush-Era 'Invasion Of The Hague Act'
Staff writer of The Christian Science MonitorFrom the February 13, 2009 Edition
Courtesy Of The Christian Science Monitor
The Hague - In 2002, Congress passed a law enabling United States forces to unilaterally storm into peaceful Holland to liberate American soldiers held for war crimes.
Coming in the early days of the war on terrorists, and as the International Criminal Court was being formed here, the measure provoked controversy and seemed to the Dutch – stout US allies – an absurd example of America's "with us or against us" foreign policy.
The law is still on the books.
Formally titled the American Service Members Protection Act, the measure is widely and derisively known here as the Invasion of The Hague Act.
Odd as it may seem, the law allows the US to constitutionally send jack-booted commandos to fly over fields of innocent tulips, swoop into the land of wooden shoes, tread past threatening windmills and sleepy milk cows into the Dutch capital – into a city synonymous with international law – and pry loose any US troops.
Today, the Dutch mostly treat the issue as a joke, a cowboy American moment. But it is widely felt that if President Barack Obama's foreign policy team wants to achieve a symbolic break with the previous White House, it could rescind the invasion law.
As a Dutch Ministry of Justice official put it, "I wouldn't overstate how seriously we take this any more, but it does seem a bizarre symbol."
'Invasion Act' Had Little Legal Basis
In 2002, Dutch diplomat Harold DeWitt wrote to colleagues: "We are quite alarmed to hear about the impending invasion of the Netherlands. Our military is on high alert. We would really value you forwarding any news and relevant information as soon as it comes to your attention and, in particular, as it regards the timing. I would like to be able to notify my superiors … prior to any invasion."
The act was passed in the time between the Afghan and Iraqi wars. Pentagon officials wanted to avoid war crimes arrests by an untested world court – a body they feared might make anti-American political statements, rather than stick to its legal knitting.
In retrospect, jurists say, US officials over-read the power of the court. Under basic ICC rules called "complementarity," the ICC is powerless to prosecute war crimes the US is willing to investigate.
"The argument for The Hague Act was always very weak," says Mark Ellis, head of the International Bar Association in London. "Under the ICC statutes, if soldiers' [are charged with] war crimes, all the US has to say is that it is undertaking a good faith effort to investigate. That automatically sets aside ICC jurisdiction."
In the past six years, no US soldiers have been indicted by the ICC; and in cases such as Abu Ghraib, the US military has been willing to investigate.
In The Hague, The Fury Has Subsided.
"The Dutch were a little bit offended. We consider ourselves the legal capital of the world, and your major ally not only threatens you, but tries to blackmail you," says Max van Weezel, a well-known political columnist and author. "If the Obama administration can reverse this law, we Dutch would think the Americans are becoming a little bit normal again. But I don't know if he can."
The Court Struggles To Show Viability
In recent days, ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has caused a stir in Israel by suggesting he may investigate alleged war crimes in Gaza. The Palestinian Authority continues to press the court to do so – with some 200 requests. Yet such an act is widely seen as dubious in legal circles. Neither Israel nor the Gaza entity is a signatory to the ICC. To investigate Israel for the Gaza attacks, the ICC would have to recognize Gaza as a state; moreover, both the prosecutor and the court would have to agree that it has jurisdiction in Gaza by such recognition.
"I don't think that legally [a Gaza trial] can be upheld, and politically it is dangerous for the court," Mr. Ellis says. "If the ICC were to push the boundaries of legal parameters, it risks looking political and that could harm its viability."
The US did not sign the ICC-enabling Rome treaty in 1998. President Clinton did sign at the end of his term, but President Bush repealed it. The Hague invasion act, passed under Sen. Jesse Helm's Foreign Relations Committee, calls for "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by … the International Criminal Court."
Richard Dicker, of Human Rights Watch in New York, says the act was part of an "ideological jihad" inside the Pentagon. "Passing a law enabling America to invade an ally was a … belligerent but not realistic posture; the meaning of The Hague act was more symbolic in its virulence against the ICC."
A Symbolic Law's Lingering Impact?
It is not lost on diplomats here that in recent years the Netherlands has been one of the most resolute states not to accept detainees now housed at Guantánamo. Some speculate if this position could be due in part to lingering resentment from the 2002 law. It is also unclear whether Dutch troops will stay in Afghanistan past 2010.
One controversial offshoot of the invasion law is called "bilateral immunity" – a policy requiring all states except Israel, Egypt, Taiwan, and those in NATO to sign a waiver stating that they will contravene the ICC if any Americans are arrested. Countries that don't sign the waiver forfeit US military assistance. The policy pressured small states to comply – whether or not they felt it proper.
Kenya did not and lost US antiterrorism equipment in the years after the bombing of the US Embassy there. Trinidad-Tobago forfeited some drug-detection equipment. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated in 2006 that the waiver policy was ill-advised; the US now supports the ICC, including a Security Council vote to investigate Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir.
Ellis suggests that Obama, a constitutional scholar, "realizes what this law means…. But we will have to wait to see how quickly [the new administration] can backtrack."
In Yugoslav tribunal, welling up of conscience 08/30/2008
Though Largely Symbolic, The Law Could Be Having Lasting Implications.By Robert Marquand
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Courtesy Of The Christian Science Monitor
The Hague - In 2002, Congress passed a law enabling United States forces to unilaterally storm into peaceful Holland to liberate American soldiers held for war crimes.
Coming in the early days of the war on terrorists, and as the International Criminal Court was being formed here, the measure provoked controversy and seemed to the Dutch – stout US allies – an absurd example of America's "with us or against us" foreign policy.
The law is still on the books.
Formally titled the American Service Members Protection Act, the measure is widely and derisively known here as the Invasion of The Hague Act.
Odd as it may seem, the law allows the US to constitutionally send jack-booted commandos to fly over fields of innocent tulips, swoop into the land of wooden shoes, tread past threatening windmills and sleepy milk cows into the Dutch capital – into a city synonymous with international law – and pry loose any US troops.
Today, the Dutch mostly treat the issue as a joke, a cowboy American moment. But it is widely felt that if President Barack Obama's foreign policy team wants to achieve a symbolic break with the previous White House, it could rescind the invasion law.
As a Dutch Ministry of Justice official put it, "I wouldn't overstate how seriously we take this any more, but it does seem a bizarre symbol."
'Invasion Act' Had Little Legal Basis
In 2002, Dutch diplomat Harold DeWitt wrote to colleagues: "We are quite alarmed to hear about the impending invasion of the Netherlands. Our military is on high alert. We would really value you forwarding any news and relevant information as soon as it comes to your attention and, in particular, as it regards the timing. I would like to be able to notify my superiors … prior to any invasion."
The act was passed in the time between the Afghan and Iraqi wars. Pentagon officials wanted to avoid war crimes arrests by an untested world court – a body they feared might make anti-American political statements, rather than stick to its legal knitting.
In retrospect, jurists say, US officials over-read the power of the court. Under basic ICC rules called "complementarity," the ICC is powerless to prosecute war crimes the US is willing to investigate.
"The argument for The Hague Act was always very weak," says Mark Ellis, head of the International Bar Association in London. "Under the ICC statutes, if soldiers' [are charged with] war crimes, all the US has to say is that it is undertaking a good faith effort to investigate. That automatically sets aside ICC jurisdiction."
In the past six years, no US soldiers have been indicted by the ICC; and in cases such as Abu Ghraib, the US military has been willing to investigate.
In The Hague, The Fury Has Subsided.
"The Dutch were a little bit offended. We consider ourselves the legal capital of the world, and your major ally not only threatens you, but tries to blackmail you," says Max van Weezel, a well-known political columnist and author. "If the Obama administration can reverse this law, we Dutch would think the Americans are becoming a little bit normal again. But I don't know if he can."
The Court Struggles To Show Viability
In recent days, ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has caused a stir in Israel by suggesting he may investigate alleged war crimes in Gaza. The Palestinian Authority continues to press the court to do so – with some 200 requests. Yet such an act is widely seen as dubious in legal circles. Neither Israel nor the Gaza entity is a signatory to the ICC. To investigate Israel for the Gaza attacks, the ICC would have to recognize Gaza as a state; moreover, both the prosecutor and the court would have to agree that it has jurisdiction in Gaza by such recognition.
"I don't think that legally [a Gaza trial] can be upheld, and politically it is dangerous for the court," Mr. Ellis says. "If the ICC were to push the boundaries of legal parameters, it risks looking political and that could harm its viability."
The US did not sign the ICC-enabling Rome treaty in 1998. President Clinton did sign at the end of his term, but President Bush repealed it. The Hague invasion act, passed under Sen. Jesse Helm's Foreign Relations Committee, calls for "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by … the International Criminal Court."
Richard Dicker, of Human Rights Watch in New York, says the act was part of an "ideological jihad" inside the Pentagon. "Passing a law enabling America to invade an ally was a … belligerent but not realistic posture; the meaning of The Hague act was more symbolic in its virulence against the ICC."
A Symbolic Law's Lingering Impact?
It is not lost on diplomats here that in recent years the Netherlands has been one of the most resolute states not to accept detainees now housed at Guantánamo. Some speculate if this position could be due in part to lingering resentment from the 2002 law. It is also unclear whether Dutch troops will stay in Afghanistan past 2010.
One controversial offshoot of the invasion law is called "bilateral immunity" – a policy requiring all states except Israel, Egypt, Taiwan, and those in NATO to sign a waiver stating that they will contravene the ICC if any Americans are arrested. Countries that don't sign the waiver forfeit US military assistance. The policy pressured small states to comply – whether or not they felt it proper.
Kenya did not and lost US antiterrorism equipment in the years after the bombing of the US Embassy there. Trinidad-Tobago forfeited some drug-detection equipment. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice stated in 2006 that the waiver policy was ill-advised; the US now supports the ICC, including a Security Council vote to investigate Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir.
Ellis suggests that Obama, a constitutional scholar, "realizes what this law means…. But we will have to wait to see how quickly [the new administration] can backtrack."
In Yugoslav tribunal, welling up of conscience 08/30/2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
