In France, the group is seeking to press charges against Rumsfeld for authorizing torture at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq under the 1984 Convention Against Torture, which France has used in previous torture cases. As part of their complaint, the group submitted 11 pages of written testimony from a former U.S. army brigadier general, Janis Karpinski.If you recall, Karpinkski was the commander of Abu Ghraib prison during the scandal and has subsequently blamed Major General Geoffrey Miller who was sent to Abu Ghraib from Guantánamo to improve interrogations at Abu Ghraib (nicely done). She has also claimed to have seen a letter signed by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that authorized the use of sleep deprivation, auditory bombardment, and others tortures.
While Rumsfeld is safely out of France, the question remains: is this one of the pitfalls of universal jurisdiction or the consequence of immunity for a role in the authorization of torture?
Jack Balkin of the Balkinization blog writes:
The Congress twice bestowed immunity in the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act. Even if these immunities do not extend to civil lawsuits, such lawsuits are likely barred by a combination of immunities created for government (and military) personnel... The Administration has been quite careful to ensure that its members-- and those obeying its orders-- will never be held to account in any American court of law.So what happens when suspected war criminals are immune from prosecution in domestic courts? Henry Kissinger has the answer in his classic 2001 piece, "The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction":
...when the government under which the alleged crime occurred is not authentically representative, or where the domestic judicial system is incapable of sitting in judgment on the crime, the Security Council would set up an ad hoc international tribunal on the model of those of the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda.Yea right. Rumsfeld can rest easy without the fear of prosecution. After all, its only his conscience he has to live with.
-AS
(Courtesy of www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com)
2 comments:
The wonders of hegemony my friend. Maybe, and that's a big maybe, the subsequent administration will be more amenable to abiding by norms and conventions laid out by the international community. However, I am all to fully aware of the trappings of American exceptionalism that color almost every facet of our dealings with the world around us. Sigh...
I don't think universal jurisdiction is a norm and convention of the international community, but refraining from torture certainly is. My feeling is that if there was meaningful legal means to try government officials in charge of torture policy, then human rights groups wouldn't have to resort to universal jurisdiction. This immunity is antithetical to equal protection under the law, as these officials are more protected and for such heinous policies, too. -Angad Singh
Post a Comment