Question for the lawyers on my flist/reading circle...

[selenak]

...American or otherwise. I'm aware the US never agreed to the International Criminal Court, even before 9/11, but it did sign to uphold the Geneva Convention (I remember this being brought up back when the Abu Ghraib news exploded) , and even if you postulate this "only" counts for prisoners of war, this article mentions that Reagan signed and the US ratified the United Nations convention against torture, which covers every human being, pow or not. So, in theory, shouldn't it be possible to sue Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al for authorizing and encouraging torture? Even within the US itself? I mean, I'm aware it would never come to any convictions. I'm not that naive. But it could maybe make it more difficult for a while longer for these guys to rewrite the past.

Also, there's some legal precedent. In 2003, Abu Omar, an Egyptian cleric who had been granted asylum in Italy, was kidnapped in Milan. The CIA then secretly transported him to Egypt. In November 2009, an Italian court convicted 22 CIA agents, one US military official and two Italian intelligence operatives to at least five years imprisonment for their role in the kidnapping. The CIA agents were convicted in absentia and never extradited, but they were convicted, and presumably can't work in Europe anymore for a while. Would it be too much to at least limit Rumsfeld etc.'s ability to travel in the same way?

Comments

[endeni]

Oh, yes, I remember the Abu Omar case, what a mess...

[selenak]

At least it set a legal precedent, though. Though alas I fear not many judges in other countries, including my own, will have the courage to follow through...

[princessofgeeks]

Yes, it's legally possible but there is no political will to make it happen.

[selenak]

That's what I thought, alas.

[ratcreature]

I've seen a suggestion that there could at least be given a pardon like what Ford did for Nixon, or Bush Sr to cover Reagan's people for Iran-Contra, because that way there would be no persecution, but it would be at least acknowledged as a crime that needs pardoning. It's kind of a low bar, but at least it would be something.

[selenak]

Indeed, and I've seen the suggestion, too, I think, in the NY Times. But it would have to be Obama because I bet the next Republican President, whoever he'll be, won't and might even hand out decorations instead.

[ratcreature]

Yeah, and Obama seems quite unwilling to even call it torture without weakening the statement (like that he considers it torture instead of saying it *was* torture etc.), so I'm not holding my breath on him making that gesture.

[selenak]

I think he's too afraid of precedent, and that otherwise he in turn will be held responsible for the drones, the surveillance and other things. It's really depressing all around.

[ratcreature]

Yeah. The adage "eine Krähe pickt der anderen kein Auge aus" proves to be true once again.