SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (198818)8/23/2006 5:50:09 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
A free pass on war crimes?
David Irvine

.....As proposed by Mr. Gonzales, everything that has been done at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (except murder and rape) would not be a war crime. However, since the exact language is still evolving, the true objective is unclear. Is this a back-door attempt to nullify the McCain anti-torture amendment which received overwhelming congressional support last year? Is it an effort to shield top military commanders and Cabinet officials from prosecution for war crimes?
If the real objective is to carve out immunity from prosecution for administration officials (going back to 2001) for war crimes that they may have ordered, the effort could fail because of the jus cogens doctrine under international law.
No matter what Congress might do, jus cogens (higher law) does not recognize any country's effort to adjust its laws in order to sanction outrages that the rest of the world deems to be crimes against humanity. Principles of universal jurisdiction still allow any nation that obtains personal jurisdiction over an alleged war criminal to prosecute that defendant for war crimes.
Mr. Gonzales says he's concerned about "rogue prosecutors" in the United States who might target someone like, say, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller (who was responsible for "Gitmo-izing" Iraq). However, Gen. Miller's greater exposure to potential jeopardy might be from travel abroad after he retires.
What makes this misguided project so dangerous is that whatever its purpose, the legislation takes center stage at a moment when America's Middle East foreign policy is teetering on the edge of disaster.
At this delicate moment, the attorney general, who seems to be speaking for the White House, is announcing to the world that the United States intends not to be bound by Common Article 3 (so-called because it appears in all four Conventions) to which we previously bound ourselves and which most other nations accept as international law.

sltrib.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News