Enforcement of the Convention Against Torture

Perhaps the winds of change are blowing through the District of Columbia, for a change. Professor Manfred Nowak has spoken publicly about his belief that George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld should be brought before a court because of the conditions of imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay. A video of an interview with CNN's Rick Sanchez is posted for context below.



For those readers unfamiliar with the various levels of complicity, such as John Ashcroft's infamous quote, Condoleeza Rice's admission, or Dick Cheney's admission from Taxi to the Dark Side, a few highlights are presented below by liberal pundit Rachel Maddow, for a quick brief.

To summarize the argument even further into condensed legal flavor, Article 4 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment compels member states to prosecute allegations of torture, casting a wide net to catch everyone between the interrogator to those who knew about it and did nothing, in theory. The Text is quoted below.

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.

This, to state the obvious, is the largest test of the new administration. How will Obama handle these allegations? I hope this is a question that is being asked again in the White House and in various agencies of the Federal Government, to the logical conclusion that these allegations must be investigated as a matter of legitimacy. How the Rule of Law is enforced will set the tone, as it a lack of credible enforcement of the law as it is written set the tone of the Bush Administration. Simply issuing a subpoena to  former officials will not work, just ask Karl Rove. There can be no pleading and begging for a notionally independent branch of government for morsels of information and the respect due such an august body. Flaunting of Congressional subpeonas must stop, and the words of the anointed, yet not confirmed, Attorney General, Eric Holder, are encouraging, if unsettling to certain people, such as Alberto Gonzalez. Unfortunately for the shamed former AG seems to rest precariously on the words of John Yoo, former counselor in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. 

A Tropical Vacation

The recent firestorm of controversy surrounding the forthcoming trials of six inmates has forced the mainstream media to consider the military commissions system, as established by the Military Commissions Act. The disparity between the rights enjoyed by defendants in our domestic criminal legal system and those enjoyed by those tried before a military commission are incredible. Arbitrarily, the president of a commission can cloak the proceedings of a trial in national secrecy, beyond the purview of those accused. Moreover, the rules about what evidence is admissible is also more favorable to the prosecution, as statements made under duress, as in made while being tortured, are admissible as evidence. Unfortunately for the unfortunate souls subject to this system and the American people, said evidence will probably be classified. Here is an amusing response from the fashion community to the system.

On the other hand, if the information no longer exists, then there is no need to bother with the bureaucratic wrangling required to classify thousands upon thousands of hours of operations within the detainee detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, encompassing everything from the routine to the interrogations. All of them. As one might imagine, there are some lawyers and a judge that are justifiably upset. Unfortunately, the judge's question seems worded in such a way as to prevent any sort of burden being placed on the Bush Administration. In addition to receiving an extension on a previous deadline, administration officials only have to reveal whether or not the information destroyed was pertinent to the trial of Hani Abdullah, who is before him. If the Administration is bold enough to claim that the life and times of each and every individual in the facility for the entire time they were at the facility would definitely be pertinent to any trial, if for no other reason than to evaluate the statements made during the interrogation process, our constitutional checks and balances, specifically the checks of the judiciary over the executive, will be further eroded, if not made entirely irrelevant. The aforementioned trial was already made more complicated by Mr. Abdullah's attorneys' allegations that their client's personal effects were seized by the government, in violation of attorney privilege. For some additional reading, try the Executive Order outlining the form and procedure of the Military Commissions or the Executive Order outlining the ways in which the United States will cooperate with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

If one follows the most recent rhetoric in the daily White House press feeds regarding Guantanamo Bay and its status, such as June 22, 2007 and Feb. 11, 2008, Ms. Perino says that the Government is working on closing the facility and return the detainees to their home country or other third country. As one might expect, however, there are a few conditions, namely that the detainees have to be held in whatever country they are released to. Why would this matter? Well, if Country X feels that citizen John McY was wrongly imprisoned by Country Y, X might go to the UNSC, b/c pbiab.

For fun, try to come up with other activities that fit the definition of torture according to the U.S. Code and put it in a comment. And, also, a tangentially related article that details the career of the first commander of Guantanamo Bay and his later career in Iraq.

Oh, and the Cuban government wants Guantanamo Bay back to end its role in the War on Terror.

Rage for Breakfast

In a case of trying to have one's cake and eat it, too, the Bush Administration, through the Departments of Justice and State (re: more political interference in the federal bureaucracy) is pushing Congress to not adopt the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act, which appears to be the brainchild of savedarfur.org . As loathesome as the conduct of the Bush Administration may be at times, this is by far the worst case of hypocricy and ineptitude that has been demonstrated thus far. I mean, it may not seem like the most pressing issue in the world to some, and I'm not going to touch upon the obvious question that this viewpoint raises. However, in this situation, even a little practical U.S. support in the form of even an AWACS or two tasked to administer a no-fly zone to support the UN Peacekeepers, could go a long way toward bringing about a sustainable resolution to the issue. Given the strong response that the crisis drew from the administration in the past, notably in the speeches of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and current Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, one would think that they might consider more than just their political backing. Which brings me to, perhaps, the most important question raised by this entire affair, just who is the administration protecting? Whose stock price stands to take a tumble after retirement funds and pension boards all over the country divest themselves of corporations doing business in the Sudan?

Rage is clinically proven to be a better stimulant than a morning cup of coffee.

shorten your briefs

Myanmar: a new internet blackout, coupled with the expulsion of the UN Special Envoy, forbodes trouble. The opposition claims that it's strength is waxing, but the military has only begun to respond. Meanwhile, a look at the govt's recruiting efforts, the life of one of the youngest members of the country's elite and his life in singapore, and why his life is about to become much more complicated.

Ivory Coast: What some see as a tenuous peace process moves at a careful pace, while questions are raised about fattening war chests.

Zimbabwe: Under the strangely opaque lighting of continuing negotiations between the government ZANU-PF and the opposition MDC, the two parties have agreed to postpone elections to March of '08. Will these negotiations lead to resolution of the crisis facing Zimbabwe? I bet on no. Phillip Pasirayi also bets on no, though for slightly different reasons.

The Bomb: A resolution will be coming soon to a UN General Assembly near you, with the usual suspects already voting in their respective ways. The world powers dispatch their representatives to London to talk about Iran's bomb. The Bush administration is trying to bully the other permanent members of the UN Security Council for license to attack Iraq, er, Iran. Sorry, I had a moment of deja vu there. North Korea, meanwhile, might soon be rid of their bomb. Germany wants a piece of the potential pie that is the Indian Nuclear Deal, which PM Singh says is only delayed. And check out Hindustan Times' "Nuclear Deal Imbroglio" page.

The Continuing Atrocities in Lebanon

There have been some interesting developments in regards to the situation in Lebanon.

Firstly, as of this posting, there is no mention of Lebanon on Reuter's home page or international page. Because of the latest terrorist fiasco, suddenly what merely a week ago was a humanitarian disaster is now a marginal issue of little interest. Your point of view has been subsumed to the major media corporations.

Secondly, although the draft text of the resolution under consideration before the UN Security Council isn't available on-line (if you find, please e-mail me), there are some interesting statements that have come out in opposition. Dan Gillekin, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, has come out against the 72-hour ceasefire proposed by Russia saying, ">a ceasefire of this type would serve only one purpose, to allow Hezbollah to regroup and recover." In the same article, John Bolton said of the Russian proposal, "I don't think it is helpful to divert attention, we are seeking to get a permanent, sustainable solution based on the approach that we and the French have been taking." The Arab League is so vociferous in its opposition to the draft resolution that the body's foreign minsters took the journey to New York to directly address the Security Council. Perhaps the most interesting part of this discussion is the way that Israel tries to characterize its target as "terror," rather than protecting its sovereignty, which can lead one to believe that their true objectives are much broader than simply eliminating Hezbollah as a threat.