Spanish judge resumes Guantanamo investigation
Spanish judge resumes Guantanamo investigation
January 13, 2012
MADRIDA Spanish judge says he is proceeding with a probe into human rights abuses at the U.S. prison for terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, after Washington failed to respond to requests for information.
The probe stems from torture complaints filed by four Muslims who are either citizens or residents of Spain and were once held at the prison.
The probe had been on hold while Judge Pablo Ruz awaited a response from the United States. Ruz said Friday he had received no answer from the U.S. and had thus decided to continue the case.
The judge asked prosecutors to report back to him with the names of U.S. officials who should be targeted in the probe.
the rest:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2012/01/13/spanish_judge_resumes_guantanamo_investigation/
MADem
(135,425 posts)People may not like it, but that's not going to change anything.
SlimJimmy
(3,180 posts)between the United States and Spain.
stances :
When the offense in respect of which the extradition is requested is
regarded by the requested Party as an offense of a political character,
or that Party has substantial grounds for believing that the request for
extradition has been made for the purpose of trying or punishing a person
for an offense of the above mentioned character. If any question arises
as to whether a case comes within the provisions of this subparagraph,
the authorities of the Government on which the requisition is made shall
decide.
(warning: .pdf)
http://untreaty.un.org/unts/1_60000/23/4/00044167.pdf
MADem
(135,425 posts)They're making a point, but nothing will come of it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)At least those who were harmed by Bush's alleged violations of international law at Guantanamo will have a day in a court. That may help to educate all of us about what happened there, and that is good.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)SlimJimmy
(3,180 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)Yeah, that's why the Geneva Conventions prevented the bushes from torturing POWs. Oh wait, they didn't.
This is how it works.
Laws and treaties are passed to apply to the common man only.
If you are really, really rich and you gave some of your unneeded money (that you probably stole from someone poorer than you) to someone powerful, then laws and treaties do NOT apply to you.
If you are just a common man with a little bit of money, then all the laws and treaties apply to you.
The bushes, and people like them, have much unneeded money that they pass around to powerful people. So, they are exempt from all laws and treaties. Pinochet was a fluke and the US government has made provisions to ensure laws and treaties are not applied to the really, really rich people ever again.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Article VI:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Look, you're mad, that's fine. Bush was a bad guy. Life isn't fair. I get it.
That's what I meant. I also meant that if you expect the US government to subordinate themselves to any international body willy-nilly, it is just not going to happen. We maintain absolute right to the catbird seat. You might not like it, but you're not going to change it--count on that.
If you want to fight with Bush, fine--here's his POV, courtesy of FRONTLINE: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/etc/faqs.html
You can send him a letter, if you'd like.
I'm not going to get dragged into a discussion where I'm persuaded to take his side purely from a standpoint of existing law and how we do things (like it--or not). It is what it is, though.
Don't shoot the messenger. It never helps.
Hosnon
(7,800 posts)For one, the Constitution trumps all treaties.
And as between conflicting legislation and a treaty, the most recent trumps.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)could rule out certain acts of as terrorism which could technically be classed as political acts.
SlimJimmy
(3,180 posts)I'm not agreeing that they should do that, but the language is ambiguous enough to allow it.
DCKit
(18,541 posts)Many of us wish to see them in The Hague, but totally destroying their revisionist history has got to come in a close second.
MADem
(135,425 posts)a distinctively different narrative. Useful for historians, certainly.
DCKit
(18,541 posts)Mosaic
(1,451 posts)You just want to show how tough the united states is. Move on.
MADem
(135,425 posts)What kind of "type" am I, precisely, for pointing out the obvious?
I think if anyone should be doing any moving on, it's not me.
Heckuvajob!
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)That's what happens when moral compasses are in short supply.
MADem
(135,425 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)was bullshit.
MADem
(135,425 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)"Eat your peas."
[IMG][/IMG]
MADem
(135,425 posts)because your sanctimony does absolutely nothing for me.
You have one of those nice, self-satisfied days, now, hmmmm?
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)I find that purposefully crude, rude, and offensive.
Let's add it to the list of things pragmatic liberals find acceptable:
Tax cuts for the rich
Cuts to LIHEAP
Indefinite detention for US citizens
Assassination of US citizens (including children) based on suspicion of terrorism
Drone strikes
Protection of a fraudulent banking system
Maintaining a politicized (Republican) Department of Justice
Damn, with pragmatic liberals like you, who needs Republicans?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Yes, I've overlooked all the positive reasons for allowing torturers to escape prosecution.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)"This is just for show"
These are excuses. Excuses for allowing torturers to escape prosecution. But you can rationalize all sorts of heinous things, can't you?
Instead of dragging what's left of the Democratic party into the sewer, why don't you just declare yourself a Republican? They already believe the same things you do.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Even with the repetitive posts, I am disinclined to engage you. You are behaving in an uncivil fashion. Go on and "rationalize" that, if you'd like.
Have one of those nice days, now!
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)I'm being told that I am behaving in an uncivil fashion!
Coming from someone who makes excuses for allowing torturers to go free, that really means a lot.
MADem
(135,425 posts)well, either.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)It's the New Democrat way.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Response to MADem (Reply #66)
Post removed
MADem
(135,425 posts)images.
Beyond that, you've said nothing of substance. Your petty little Frank Luntz insult isn't clever--it just shows me that you've got no game.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Good for the Judge.
May this eventually expose the Bush Administration forever.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Airc, there was a list of six accused war criminals from the Bush administration. They probably will not be extradited. But torture is a war crime and it's about someone did something about it.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)sitting in the Taguba hearings, lying their brass off, and swearing that there was no torture program.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)This prosecution, unless it's different, has been put off by pressure from the Bush administration and then we found out sadly, through pressure from this administration several times. One of the judges was harassed and finally had to quit the case.
But if there is a really fair trial, (hope they can be tried in their absence as no way will they be handed over), who knows who else will be implicated. Isn't that how prosecutions often work, the top guys are the hardest to get so they start with the lower elements and work their way up.
Here's some history on what went on with this case. It's been a few years now since we first heard Spain was planning to prosecute them:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/wikileaks-obama-pressured-spain-dropp
Soon after the request was made, the US embassy in Madrid began tracking the matter. On April 1, embassy officials spoke with chief prosecutor Javier Zaragoza, who indicated that he was not pleased to have been handed this case, but he believed that the complaint appeared to be well-documented and he'd have to pursue it. Around that time, the acting deputy chief of the US embassy talked to the chief of staff for Spain's foreign minister and a senior official in the Spanish Ministry of Justice to convey, as the cable says, "that this was a very serious matter for the USG." The two Spaniards "expressed their concern at the case but stressed the independence of the Spanish judiciary."
Two weeks later, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) and the embassy's charge d'affaires "raised the issue" with another official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The next day, Zaragoza informed the US embassy that the complaint might not be legally sound. He noted he would ask Cándido Conde-Pumpido, Spain's attorney general, to review whether Spain had jurisdiction.
On April 15, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), who'd recently been chairman of the Republican Party, and the US embassy's charge d'affaires met with the acting Spanish foreign minister, Angel Lossada. The Americans, according to this cable, "underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the US and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship" between Spain and the United States. Here was a former head of the GOP and a representative of a new Democratic administration (headed by a president who had decried the Bush-Cheney administration's use of torture) jointly applying pressure on Spain to kill the investigation of the former Bush officials. Lossada replied that the independence of the Spanish judiciary had to be respected, but he added that the government would send a message to the attorney general that it did not favor prosecuting this case.
Shameful they way they have tried to stop this. Actually it should be done here, but we know now that will never happenl. There have been different judges, this is a new one. They went after Garzon airc, a highly respected judge, in an attempt to smear him. I guess they will try again, but I hope they fail. So sick of these criminals being treated like respectable members of society here. And maybe witness testimony will lead all the way to the top.
Cheney must be shaking with rage right now. He is a dangerous criminal so I hope they are protected.
The Six Accused of Torture:
1. Alberto Gonzales
2. David Addington
3. Douglas Feith
4. John Yoo
5. William Haynes
6. Jay Bybee
Seems like a good start, but only a start.
.
SlimJimmy
(3,180 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177
The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)been struggling hard to pretend that torture is not torture, obviously concerned about his 'legacy'. Someone should tell him that once he's gone, all the blood money in the world, cannot protect his historical reputation.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)why the Obama administration stopped Spain's original investigation.
Obama hearts torturers.
annm4peace
(6,119 posts)Robert Delahunty actually started the memo's.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002144850
unlike John Yoo, Robert Delahunty had experience and maturity to know memos do matter and have consequences.
THE MEMO:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.01.09.pdf
Jan 9, 2002 - Department of Justice memo concerning the bearing of international laws prohibiting torture on President Bush and the U.S. military
The memo, entitled "Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees,"
was written by lawyers John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty. *
It states: "Any customary international law of armed conflict in no way binds, as a legal matter, the President or the U.S. Armed Forces concerning the detention or trial of members of al Qaeda and the Taliba." The memo concludes that suspected terrorist detainees can be prosecuted for violating these same laws: "We do not believe that these courts would lose jurisdiction to try members of al Qaeda or the Taliban militia for violations of the laws of war, even though we have concluded that the laws of war have no binding effect on the President."
* Delahunty is Prof of Law at MN's St Thomas University. (can you imagine the twisted logic of his students ?)
(how ironic it is a Catholic University)
http://www.stthomas.edu/law/faculty/bios/delahuntyrobert.htm
Deputy General Counsel at the White House Office of Homeland Security in 2002/2003.
He spent most of his legal career before joining the UST faculty, however, at the Office of Legal Counsel, where he was made Special Counsel and a member of the Senior Executive Service in 1992. His work and writing at the Office of Legal Counsel focused on the constitutional law of foreign relations, Presidential war powers, public international law, treaties, and immigration law. His usual clients included the Office of the Counsel to the President, the Office of the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council, the Office of Management & Budget, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Office of the Legal Adviser to the State Department
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)But reading your links, I'm not sure why not. I don't know where he got the idea that the US, a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, is not bound by International law. I agree regarding the twisted thinking of such a person being taught to students is pretty disturbing to day the least. Thank you for the research. I had forgotten about him.
hack89
(39,171 posts)L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)this has happened before. The US will simply lean on the Spanish government and they will reign him in. Remember that Spanish camera man that was killed in Baghdad? Same thing again.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)kidnapped any of their citizens and tortured them for years, without charges and without trials, because most of them were innocent of doing anything wrong, as the latest round of Embassy Cables released by Wikileaks proves.
This could be the first country attempting to get justice for their citizens. Britain, Canada, Afghanistan and any other country whose citizens were snatched off the streets of their countries or countries they were visiting and renditioned to Guantanamo and then tortured, have the jurisdiction to charge the war criminals responsible.
This case is old, as the Bush and then Obama administrations put pressure on the judges and prosecutors to drop the charges, NOT because they did not have jurisdiction btw, they do.
It's a start, Spain gave the US the option to try them here, but it hasn't happened and it's time to get some justice for the wrongfully arrested whose lives were destroyed by the actions of these criminals.
I'm glad too that they are not going after the usual scapegoats, that they are starting with those who in power. And hopefully these trials will eventually lead to the top of that Criminal Enterprise run by Cheney/Bush et al.
Victims do not forget no matter how much criminals try to cover their crimes. In South America right now, decades after the war crimes, some justice is finally happening for the victims. It's necessary to do this and a shame the US refused to do it themselves. As predicted, if we do not deal with our war criminals, others will.
hack89
(39,171 posts)his subpenas are useless here. My only point.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)criminals to us, we are now the kind of country that protects the worst kind of criminals.
Still, it won't matter, the trial can go on and they can be convicted which will certainly restrict their travel as countries allied with Spain eg, would have to hand over convicted criminals if requested to do so. Actually they don't even need to be convicted, just wanted for trial. Maybe Interpol will issue a warrant unless of course they are pressured not to. They have lost much of their credibility over the past year or so.
Btw, why are we arguing about this? Do you support not prosecuting War Criminals?
hack89
(39,171 posts)the ICC is the venue for war crime prosecutions.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)you don't think this country could not prosecute that criminal even if s/he is somewhere else? Was Sweden wrong then to issue a warrant for Julian Assange (and in his case with no charges)?
The reason Spain has jurisdiction in this case is because several of their citizens were tortured by the US. Should they not be concerned also for the welfare of their citizens?
hack89
(39,171 posts)between private citizens breaking the law and government officials acting in their official capacity. Remember -president Obama and Congress don't think those officials committed war crimes. This one judge thinks that the US government has committed crimes. The US government rightfully will tell him to pack sand.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to do with the charges. This case was started at least three years ago. This judge had zero to do with it, he has been assigned to the case.
Second, several victims have been able to prove they were wrongfully kidnapped and tortured in violation of their human rights and of International Law. The US has abandoned the rule of law so the case has been taken up elsewhere.
Many human rights organizations were involved in getting the Spanish Justice system to first, look at the case, and then bring it to court.
Pressure was placed on the Spanish Prosecutor by the Bush admins to not go forward with it, the Spanish court decided to wait until the change of admins to give the US a chance to file its own charges.
Unfortunately we now know (those of us who believe in the rule of law and who expected the Obama administration to begin investigations into the Bush War Crimes) that this administration has no intention of even talking about these crimes. Worse, the Wikileaks cables revealed that THIS administration also put pressure on the Spanish Court to abandon the charges.
The US does not rule the world. And Governement Officials who commit crimes are treated no differently than any other criminal in democracies. Dick Cheney has brazenly admitted to breaking the law. Hopefully he too will be prosecuted.
There will most likely be other countries seeking justice for their cirtizens. Maybe because you are here where torture is apparently acceptable, you are not aware of how seriously other people in other actual democracies, take these kinds of crimes.
They are war criminals. The US can avoid this embarrassment by doing what it should do. This will not go away. There are far too many victims and they will not give up, one year from now, ten years from now. And this country has been diminished in stature not just because of the criminal Bush administration, but because it failed to deal with those criminals.
hack89
(39,171 posts)President Obama will not allow such a precedence to be set. I am willing to bet on it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Nor is he the president of Spain. These sovereign nations have their own governments and systems of justice.
And it would be to his shame if he interferes again in the prosecution of war criminals, so I hope he refrains from even attempting to do so. We were assured during the Bush years that once Democrats had control of the WH and Congress, justice would be done. Sadly that has not been the case. Now other countries are moving towards getting that justice for their citizens.
The fact that you are correct that 'no one will go to jail', is a stain on this country. I would not be boasting about it.
President Obama, if you read the Wikileaks cables, already attempted to stop these prosecutions. Apparently the world doesn't agree as now they are going forward.
It is reprehensible to allow these criminals off the hook and millions of people around the world whose own citizens were tortured, some to death by those criminals, will never let it rest until justice is done.
I am at a loss as to why you would want to protect these Bush war criminals. This country has been shamed by them.
hack89
(39,171 posts)when it comes to war and the war on terrorism, can you name a single thing that the Bush administration did that Obama is not doing? Would you support a Spanish prosecution of President Obama?
I do not support universal jurisdiction. If Spain thinks war crimes were committed, there is a recognized international venue to pursue prosecution. Don't you think Spain should do every thing possible to strengthen the ICC?
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)Bush is a criminal. Obama has made some unfortunate decisions but I don't think that in his heart he is a criminal. But nobody including Obama should be above the law. If this Spanish judge's investigation finds any personal culpability on the part of Obama then so be it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and Obama has significantly increase the use of drones in the WOT.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Has anyone in the Obama administration manipulated the laws on torture, written memos to make torture legal? Has he directed his attorneys to do any of these things in order to cover for him to violate both National and International laws?
The US opted out of the ICC before the Iraq War. Bush knew he was going to commit war crimes and pre-empted any attempt by the ICC to prosecute US troops or officials. But yes, that is something that needs to be changed. Clinton did not opt out of the ICC.
Spain is not claiming 'universal jurisdiction'. They are merely seeking justice for their citizens which every country has a right to do.
If eg, the Indian Government kidnapped and tortured US citizens for years, without charges, would the US have the right to prosecute those responsible? Or should they just forget it?
But, that is a good question. The US tried Taylor (son of Liberia's dictator) for crimes against humanity. What jurisdiction did the US have in that case? Why was it not sent to the Hague?
We cannot tell others to not do what we are doing ourselves.
hack89
(39,171 posts)he has actual blood on his hands. Which is worse - torture or the murder of women and children?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)yet. If they do, then I'm sure people will be discussing it. In Pakistan civil suits have been filed against the US for the killing by drone of eg, one man's brother and the family of a 15 year old killed by drones is considering filing a lawsuit also.
hack89
(39,171 posts)if he is found guilty in their system of justice? We have to accept their verdict - right?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The issues in this case are about Bush era torturers and those who made a concerted effort to get around both National and International Law.
Your claim, airc, was that no other country has the right to prosecute Americans especially public officials. I asked you why then the US was able to prosecute the son of a Liberian Dictator.
If you want to talk about something other than the actual topic of this thread, then I suggest you start a different OP.
Obama is in no way involved in this case, sounds as if you wish he were?? Although why, I cannot imagine.
hack89
(39,171 posts)because he will not set a precedent that can be used against him.
Charles McArthur Emmanuel Taylor was a US citizen. He was prosecuted under a 1994 US law allowing prosecution of American nationals charged with torture outside the United States.
National law is our responsibility. International law the responsibility of the ICC. Spain has no jurisdiction and should be rebuffed.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And you still haven't explained how the US managed to prosecute Taylor, a citizen of Liberia, if a foreign country does not have jurisdiction.
You are just plain wrong. And Obama has no power over other sovereign nations. He can make requests, which both he and Bush have done and managed to slow down these prosecutions. But since the US has failed in its duty to prosecute the accused, Spain has decided it is not going to happen, so are going ahead with the case.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I have told you that twice now.
And Obama will never extradite or turn over those officials to Spain - not going to happen.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)expect the US to hand them over, if not before that. But yes, you are probably right. The US has lost its moral authority and is likely to behave in the manner of a rogue state when it comes to International Law regarding their own war criminals.
But that will not stop the trials from going forward and if convicted, they will remain wanted criminals for the rest of their lives. Something every Democrat I know has been working to achieve for nearly ten years now. Of course we wanted our own government to abide by the law. But as you say, the US no longer respects the rule of Law, which doesn't mean the rest of the World does not, thankfully.
I am done with this. You are the very first democrat I have ever met who is not fully supportive of bringing the Bush War criminals to justice, for the sake of this country if nothing else.
hack89
(39,171 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)He was prosecuted under a 1994 US law allowing prosecution of American nationals charged with torture outside the United States.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Obama called on the former general chairman of the RNC to stop Spain's investigation of US torture crimes.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html
MIAMI It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:
Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH
6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.
Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH
4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.
Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177
The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.
Eric Holder got the message.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1
As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.
"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/
This is how one of the darkest chapters in U.S. counterterrorism ends: with practically every instance of suspected CIA torture dodging criminal scrutiny. Its one of the greatest gifts the Justice Department could have given the CIA as David Petraeus takes over the agency.
Over two years after Attorney General Eric Holder instructed a special prosecutor, John Durham, to preliminar(ily) review whether CIA interrogators unlawfully tortured detainees in their custody, Holder announced on Thursday afternoon that hell pursue criminal investigations in precisely two out of 101 cases of suspected detainee abuse. Some of them turned out not to have involved CIA officials after all. Both of the cases that move on to a criminal phase involved the death in custody of detainees, Holder said.
But just because theres a further criminal inquiry doesnt necessarily mean there will be any charges brought against CIA officials involved in those deaths. If Holders decision on Thursday doesnt actually end the Justice Departments review of torture in CIA facilities, it brings it awfully close, as outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta noted.
On this, my last day as Director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us, Panetta wrote to the CIA staff on Thursday. We are now finally about to close this chapter of our Agencys history.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
Part I
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 3
No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler" or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Article 4
1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
Article 5
1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
1. When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
2. When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
3. When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.
Article 6
1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.
Article 7
1. The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.
Article 8
1. The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
2. If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
3. States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
4. Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.
Article 9
1. States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
2. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.
...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It's interesting, because US officials and Holder, are avoiding the fact that those accused are for the most part, those like Yoo who wrote the torture memos, NOT CIA operatives who actually carried out the orders to torture:
So, why are they objecting to the prosecutions of those who GAVE that legal advice? And why is it not happening here. Clearly Spain was waiting to see if the US would do its own work in bringing war criminals to justice. But as your links demonstrate, there is no hope of that any more.
Also, Holder is using the 'they were just following orders' excuse, something that has been universally rejected since the Nuremberg trials.
Solly Mack
(90,762 posts)vminfla
(1,367 posts)Since he does not have jurisdiction, is he running for office in Spain or is just an attention hound?
dougolat
(716 posts)justice seeking the truth about torture? Int'l. law is not just a concept. Indictments would serve notice that torture is wrong. But maybe you are just seeking some attention?
vminfla
(1,367 posts)Kitchen table courts are silly.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Too bad for the war criminals, I won't shed any tears for them. Other countries whose citizens were abused by them may also be seeking justice. It may take decades, but crimes this egregious will not go unpunished, justice requires that, even if it takes a while.
lovuian
(19,362 posts)for America
Gore's presidency stolen from him by a Corrupt Supreme Court
and a Corrupt and Rotten to the core Congress
and Rotten to the Core Federal Reserve
They ruled America but they didn't rule the world
libodem
(19,288 posts)Spot on!