Bush wants an Iraqi court to prosecute an American citizen

[bigtree]

Seems like only yesterday that Bush was scrambling for an excuse for his refusal to sign on to the International Criminal Court where his criminal administration would face prosecution for war crimes in Iraq and elsewhere. But, now he has this American he's been holding without charges and without a lawyer . . .


Thursday, February 9, 2006
U.S. wants Iraqi court to prosecute American

The Associated Press

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/news/national/020906b1_iraqtrial

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government wants an Iraqi court to prosecute an American citizen who is being held in Iraq on suspicion that he is a senior operative of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The man's lawyers said he is innocent and likely to be tortured if handed over.

The case is the first known instance in which the government has decided to allow an American to be tried in the new Iraqi legal system.

Shawqi Omar, 44, who once served in the Minnesota National Guard, has been held since late 2004 in U.S.-run military prisons as an enemy combatant. He has not been charged with a crime or been given access to a lawyer, said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer representing Omar's family in the United States.


Here's Bush on this a while back:

U.S. WILL NOT SIGN ON TO INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT, BUSH SAYS

Date: July 2, 2002
http://www.useu.be/Categories/Justice%20and%20Home%20Affairs/July0202ICCCourtUSBush.html

President Bush says the United States will not sign on to the International Criminal Court (ICC) because as the nation works to build peace around the world its diplomats and soldiers could be dragged "into this court and that's very troubling."

". . . the one thing we're not going to do is sign on to this International Criminal Court," Bush said.

President Bush, Ari Fleischer explained, "thinks the ICC is fundamentally flawed because it puts American servicemen and women at fundamental risk of being tried by an entity that is beyond America's reach, beyond America's laws, and can subject American civilian and military to arbitrary standards of justice."


'Arbitrary standards of justice?' That's so 2002.

[MADem]

1. Awwwww, shucks, he ain't one-a them REAL 'Murican citeeezens!!

He's one a-them Eyyy-rabs, ya see!!! We done gave him that piece a paper, an' we can take it away--heh, heh!!!!!

Everything is relative with these clowns. It's beyond egregious.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Would turning an American over to a proven torture-happy government...

... to be tried on allegations that he broke American law count as treason? How the bloody hell can this be legal?

[FloridaPat]

3. * concern for the ICC was for his trial, not anyone else's.

How can there be enemy combatants in Iraq? This now makes 2 Americans without Constitutional rights. Where is congress on this? How about the Democrats? Unbelieveable. More treason by * and his pals.

[Arkansas Granny]

4. So, an American citizen is being held on "suspicion", with no

lawyer and no charges being filed and the Bush administration wants to turn him over to the Iraqis for trial. And these are the same people who want us to trust them to conduct warrantless surveillance on Americans due to suspicion of talking to Al Qaeda. Who will try these suspects?

[Nimrod2005]

5. Courts have been telling * he can't do shit to US citizens

So he outsourced the job to Iraq. The American will get his day in court, you will see.

[bigtree]

6. outsourcing imperialism