Phillipe Sands says yes, here and here. He might be right, but there are grounds for skepticism.
First, some background. International law carves the world into states; within each state, the national government takes primary responsibility for enforcing the criminal law when crimes occur on its territory. States also claim jurisdiction when nationals commit crimes in foreign countries and sometimes when nationals are victims in foreign countries—leading to overlapping jurisdiction that is sorted out in various ways. States typically do not exercise jurisdiction over foreigner-against-foreigner crimes that occur in foreign territory. If a Russian murders another Russian in Russia, then travels to the United States, American authorities will not prosecute him, no matter how horrible the crime.
There is an exception to this rule—the principal of universal jurisdiction, which applies to certain international crimes. In the old days, the rule applied to piracy, which took place outside the territory of any state, and hence did not naturally fall within any state’s jurisdiction. Today, many international lawyers claim that universal jurisdiction applies to a poorly defined group of crimes that includes genocide and probably torture. Thus, in principle, Spain could exercise jurisdiction over certain international crimes committed by Americans against Afghans in Guantanamo Bay. A former Bush administration official or soldier or CIA agent who travels to Madrid in order to take in the splendors of the Prado could conceivably find himself staring at a cell wall.
I write with more hesitation than most international lawyers would. They have been persuaded by the Pinochet case that universal jurisdiction is now an accepted part of international law. In 1998, Pinochet, the then-former, now-dead, Chilean dictator, traveled to Britain for medical treatment, where he was detained on account of an extradition request filed by the Spanish judge, Baltasar Garzón. The British high court ruled that the extradition request was valid, rejecting the argument that Spain’s assertion of universal jurisdiction violated international law. Riots ensued in Chile, where a fragile democracy existed thanks to a tenuous amnesty program that protected Pinochet and his supporters (many in the army), who had killed and tortured thousands during Pinochet’s regime. Despite the high court’s ruling, the British government sent Pinochet home, claiming that he was too ill to stand trial. Pinochet would linger on for another six years after his release in 2000.
The denouement was a disappointment but the precedent had been set, and it is on this basis—plus the existence of laws in various countries that claim universal jurisdiction, and a handful of treaties—that the principle of universal jurisdiction rests.
It doesn’t count, as far as the international lawyer is concerned, that the British government engineered Pinochet’s escape and hence that he was never tried. Nor does it count that Spanish courts refrained from relying on universal jurisdiction when reviewing Garzón’s legal moves. It doesn’t count that when Garzón turned his sights on Spain itself, and sought to scare up Franco’s ghost, which had been so carefully laid to rest in Spain’s transition, the Spanish government showed as much enthusiasm for this inquiry as the Chilean rioters showed for Garzón’s earlier effort, and squelched it. It is all very well to prosecute a traveling foreigner from a developing country whose political system rests on a fragile compromise between authoritarians and democrats, but when it comes time to investigate our (much worse) crimes, well, forget about it!
Nor does it count that the various statutes that assert universal jurisdiction are, by design, limited, to say the least. The Belgian parliament emasculated its statute when Donald Rumsfeld pointed out that western governments would not want to hold NATO meetings in a place where government officials might be indicted—at the time, Ariel Sharon was under investigation, and (possibly frivolous) complaints had been filed against American generals and President George H.W. Bush, on account of the first Gulf War. Other countries, like Germany, ensure that complaints can’t lead to investigations without the consent of government authorities, in a departure from civil law criminal procedure. Amnesty International claims that most countries recognize universal jurisdiction in domestic statutes, but the number of successful prosecutions based on that principle is extremely low. The political risks of prosecuting foreigners for their crimes against foreigners on foreign soil are usually just too high.
All of this suggests that the hoped-for foreign trials of former Bush administration officials will not happen anytime soon. But this is not to say that such trials are impossible. Pinochet’s lawyers did not expect his apprehension in Britain. European countries have independent judiciaries, and they are capable of acting in ways that their governments—which, for reasons I explained in my last post, have no interest in prosecuting former Bush administration officials—disapprove. Still, the short, undistinguished history of universal jurisdiction so far might give pause even to crusaders like Garzón.
Will it take another attack like 9/11 so that lunatic articles such as this are written? The radical jihadists may oblige.
Heck, before you know it, we might see foreign countries prosecute Americans just for writing words that are deemed to be "offensive" to some favored sect. Oh wait...
We need to begin to lead the fight against the phony concept called "international law." The term itself gives legitimacy to naked exercises of power which are not actually based on any recognized and widely accepted source of law.
You might want to go back and read that sentence again, in context, before you go too crazy.
The French decided to get involved because the plane's crew was French, and have charged Ms. Kabuye (part of the rebel group) with murdering the crew of the plane. According to the government's theory, a Rwandan killed a Frenchman in Rwanda, but they can claim jurisdiction.
Furthermore, Article 6, Section 1 requires signatories to take into custody alleged torturers found in their territories:
Professor Posner is likely correct that political considerations will stop some signatories from honoring these treaty obligations. But will all signatories? I think that Bush Administration officials involved in torture, or in authorizing torture, would be well advised to exercise caution in traveling abroad.
I imagine many other countries have similar laws, although I don't know for certain. If I was a former or current US official who might be suspected of torture I wouldn't take any international trips.
Domestic kidnapping charges could also come into play over rendition.
However, I have an extremely difficult time seeing any such thing happening for purely political reasons. The forces that would control such prosecutions want to continue to enjoy the benefits of international travel. Detaining the former head of a country without worldwide offensive capability is a far different matter from arrest and trial of a former POTUS. It would not surprise me if such an attempt would result in a military rescue effort, even for someone as currently unpopular as GWB. The precident of allowing such a prosecution to go forward would have extreme implications for US foriegn policy considerations.
I don't agree with the argument that universal jurisdiction erodes national sovereignty. If former U.S. government officials want to avoid prosecution in other countries, the solution is simple: don't travel outside the U.S. Also note that the U.S. does claim a kind of universal jurisdiction in civil cases under the Alient Tort Claims Act. Robert Mugabe and banks that hold accounts of the now deceased Ferninand Marcos are two of the more recent defendants in cases under this law.
International law that allows prosecutions like that of Pinochet is extremely dangerous, as PatHMV points out.
The Pinochet case is a good example, because Pinochet, a relatively minor despot by world standards, was singled out - probably because he was "right wing" and visible.
Meanwhile war crimes, torture and mass murder are carried out all over the world frequently, with no outcry for prosecution in almost all cases. The very nature of the heterogenous modern world is destined to cause highly selective prosecutions. Naturally, Americans will be the most likely targets, since we have the largest military and security footprint in the world.
Unless we have an international democratic government, and we are far from it, international law of this sort should be resisted in all cases.
There is no strong basic for international law - it doesn't arise from Democratic processes, has no checks and balances, and is used capriciously.
It is ripe for abuse, as we will probably see shortly regarding Bush and officials.
No, it relied on kidnapping, as did the US prosecution of Noriega. Certainly Eichmann and other deserved what they got, but the world doesn't deserve for this sort of thing to be common or accepted.
There's international law for you. Those with the biggest guns...
Everyone treated him deferentially. I didn't get called upon to ask a question, and I'm ashamed I didn't have the guts to suggest we call the police.
What has Europe done for Rwanda, Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and other former colonies? What enforcement mechanisms - i.e. armed forces and the will to commit those militaries - have they committed to international law?
The law, absent enforcement mechanisms, is what, exactly? It was either the ICC or the ICJ that prosecuted one or two of the genocidists in Rwanda, ex post facto and additionally after European and U.N. forces knowingly refused to intervene and begin to stop the genocide from occurring in the first place. Europe didn't even intervene militarily in their own backyard, in the case of Serbia/Kosovo, which is why Clinton came around to intervening. With a few exceptions only (e.g., Britain, Denmark, Lithuania) E.U. states don't even help out much in Afghanistan.
Likewise, the obverse side of the coin. In what sense should intl. law be instituted and deemed actionable against those who fail to intervene when they should - i.e. against forms of negligence in the international arena? Why is the subject of negligence in this field never broached in the first place?
Here's a subtle hint. Those Euros, they do love to wring their hands with moralistic self-regard and furrowed brows ... after the dead have been buried.
And if negligence were deemed an actionable offense, they wouldn't be able to furrow their brow with such comfortable, aesthetic abandon. Oh dear, that would be a problem, because that comfortable abandon, with furrowed brow, is one of the primary, unspoken objectives in the first place. But we're all suppose to pretend otherwise.
Kidnapping was the method of getting these people into custody. It wasn't what the prosecution "relied" on. Without jurisdiction, there is no case, so universal jurisdiction was needed to try Eichmann. The remedy for an illegal arrest has never been the release of the person arrested if there is a valid charge against the arrested. That is established precedent and was cited by the Israeli court when ruling on the legality of holding Eichmann for trial. And if you are going to call Noriega a kidnap victim, you would have to call every person who has ever been in Guantanamo a kidnap victim as well. Do you advocate the release of everyone in Guantanamo?
Ricardo, the Allies prosecuted as the Occupying Powers of, and thus sovereign government in, Germany, not under any theory of universal jurisdiction.
The charges included both war crimes and crimes against humanity. For the latter category, since they are not war crimes and were not necessarily crimes under German law at the time, the court would have needed to claim some form of expansive jurisdiction to maintain legitimacy. The idea of prosecuting a crime against humanity was a major point of departure and is usually the starting point for discussions of universal jurisdiction.
Here is Phillipe Sands closing his article, the Green Light, by partaking in the fantasy of arresting Bush administration officials abroad:
For some of those involved in the Guantánamo decisions, prudence may well dictate a more cautious approach to international travel. And for some the future may hold a tap on the shoulder.
It’s a matter of time,” the judge observed. “These things take time.” As I gathered my papers, he looked up and said, “And then something unexpected happens, when one of these lawyers travels to the wrong place.
Ah yes, the dangers of traveling to Europe and being captured by small-minded Europeans. The story certainly has a familiar ring to it:
"I attempted to rise, but was not able to stir: for as I happened to lie on my back, I found my arms and legs were strongly fastened on each side to the ground; and my hair, which was long and thick, tied down I the same manner. I likewise felt several slender ligatures across my body, from my armpits to my thighs. I could only look upwards, the sun began to grow hot, and the light offended mine eyes. I heard a confused noise about me, but in the posture I lay, could see nothing except the sky."
- Jonathan Swift, Gulliver's Travels, Part 1, Ch. 1
I certainly hope Mr. Sands and his compatriots don't waste too much time measuring rope for Gulliver.
International law that allows prosecutions like that of Pinochet is extremely dangerous, as PatHMV points out.
The Pinochet case is a good example, because Pinochet, a relatively minor despot by world standards, was singled out - probably because he was "right wing" and visible.
Prosecution of Pinochet might have been selective, but it was hardly frivolous. Selectivity and frivolity are not the same thing.
Among his many other crimes, Pinochet had two people murdered by car bomb in Washington, D.C. One of them was an American.
If they want to indict and try Bush, Cheney, or other high ranking US officials, I hope President Obama has the courage to respond by closing all American military bases in Europe, bringing home our troops, and cutting legal immigration from Western Europe to 0.
Funny, I thought the states existed prior to international law.
P.S. I highly doubt that anyone will ever get prosecuted for anything they did in or under the Bush administration.
P.P.S. I hope you agree with me that we should hold the US to a higher standard than some two-bit third world country.
Agreed. The "rule of law" is so very 18th century.
Huh? How did you get from what I wrote to that? Or are you arguing that we should go and prosecute all torturers. (That seems to be the minority position, so far, but I'd be more than happy to start a conversation on how that might be done.)
"... if you can find a prosecutor who thinks it's worth the hassle."
It seems like it's never worth the hassle when communists torture people.
"The latter is more a political question than a legal "one, and therefore not very interesting for this blog."
The whole thing is basically a political and not a legal question. Ignoring the political aspect makes the whole discussion theoretical.
"P.P.S. I hope you agree with me that we should hold the US to a higher standard than some two-bit third world country."
I absolutely do not agree with you. We should not have two standards of justice, one for the US and Israel, and another for most everyone else. Holding third world countries to a high standards would be even more efficacious than the big powers because we have more of a chance of changing their behavior. Torture hurts just as much in the third world as it does in the first. Besides the US and Europe are headed towards becoming third world countries themselves if you look at where their economies are headed. If you think such a thing is impossible, I give you Argentina. Argentina was once about the fourth richest country in the world (certainly in the top 10), but became a third world country by the 1970s, and really fell off the cliff in 2002. I don't think we should change our standards if the US becomes poor.
Well as I understand it, the rule of law is about equality of all before the law, and protections against arbitrary enforcement. From your comments you seemed to be suggesting that the US should be selectively prosecuted for torture, presumably because they're a powerful, advanced democracy. Seems like a tension to me.
The nature of the concept of universal jurisdiction is a legal question, not a political one. The same goes for the exact obligations of the signatory states of the Convention against Torture when it comes to crimes committed outside their territory by a non-citizen against other non-citizens. (Many more legal question arise here, these are just two examples.)
As for my different standards remark, (BTW, equality before the law is not a core part of the concept of rule of law) I would suggest that problems should be tackled in their order of importance. If the goal of bringing freedom and democracy to Cuba should require that its leaders be given immunity from prosecution, that is a good deal. In the US, which is already a free and democratic country, going after those allegedly responsible for torture should come much higher on the list.
The other sense in which I meant my remark was that in Cuba so many crimes are already committed that go unpunished, that it should hardly be surprising if no one gets prosecuted for this either. In the US, the criminal justice system is more active than anywhere else in the world, so why should the people of the US put up with their prosecutors making an exception for torture (wherever committed, by whomever committed, etc.)?
"Heck, before you know it, we might see foreign countries prosecute Americans just for writing words that are deemed to be "offensive" to some favored sect. Oh wait... "
Like when the US arrested that British gambling executive who visited our shores? Even without international law, we are capable of being asses about our own moral eccentricities just fine.
"If the goal of bringing freedom and democracy to Cuba should require that its leaders be given immunity from prosecution, that is a good deal."
So how come that doesn't apply to Pinochet? The whole deal was to give him immunity so Chile could get rid of a dictatorship. If you believe what you say then you should be opposed to the attempt to prosecute him. Similarly you should oppose the whole idea of universal jurisdiction.
Eh? Wikipedia lied to me? Say it ain't so!
Many torturers and murderers travel the world on their own countries's dimes and are welcomed in other countries who have nutcases muttering about prosecuting Bush.
Anybody who claims this is about justice is not fooling anybody, not even themselves.
And, as one poster pointed out, O has committed more war crimes in a week than Bush did in his first six months. No telling how much further O will go. No money on whether any self-righteous moron is going to suggest arresting O, either.
My quote is from earlier in the article, so I win!
If "international law" allows for prosecuting U.S. officials for authorizing the waterboarding of about 3 terrorist suspects like KSM, while ignoring (for any practical purpose) officials of other countries who burned genitals, permanently maimed, and otherwise really tortured individuals whose only crime was to speak out against the dictators of those countries, why should I have the slightest bit of respect for "international law"? Where is the "law" in that circumstance? Where are the protections against prosecuting individuals simply because they are politically unpopular in the circles who control such "august" international affairs?
For crimes of universal jurisdiction, the question of whether it is opportune (Dutch legal lingo) to prosecute should be left with the prosecutor in the same way that it is for all other crimes.
Or perhaps NY Times news stories are enough.
I can't speak for Richard Aubrey, but I think one of the fundamental points is that these "universal jurisdiction" laws are going to be very selectively enforced. If Bush, or Israel, or bogeyman Pinochet does something, it's wicked. If Obama does the same thing, it's OK.
I've argued for years the Mikhail Gorbachev ought to be at the very least questioned in Lithuania for his role in the events of January 1991. But the same people who think it was virtuous to hound Pinochet to his grave are strangely silent about Gorbachev. And since the January 1991 events happened on Lithuanian soil, it's far more natural for legal proceedings to occur there than it is for Pinochet to have been prosecuted in Spain.
Terrorists are not subject to protection by Geneva/Hague conventions. Protections are only extended to those who follow the Geneva accord. If the US extended protection to those who didn't follow the Geneva accord, the US would be in violation of the Geneva accord.
For example, Hague convention forbids use of expanding bullets intended to create greater harm, so soldiers in war are restricted to full metal jacket bullets, but this restriction does not apply to police forces. Police can and do use hollowpoint bullets, because kindness to someone bend on destructive evil is misplaced and immoral.
Those are the facts.
Wow. Really? One of the most famous criminal trials under international law ever conducted was Slobadan Milosevic, Communist leader of Yugoslavia.
I agree - we should go to war, even nuclear war, with any nation that arrests An American.
Thomas Lubanga was the first person ever arrested on a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court. He's an ethnic militant, but could also be considered "left wing" or "Communist."
I like the scare quotes here, as though international law is some fictitious thing.
The paranoia and derangement in this forum is amazing.
My point was two-fold. One is that, if what Bush is going to be accused of is a war crime, the O should be accused as well because he's doing the same things.
The other point, less overt, is that there is no way on this green earth that anybody is going to use the same standards to reproach O and Bush. No way in hell.
I wanted to get that on the table so there won't be a lot of time wasted.
To make an example from the recent presidential campaign: The media were all over Palin's $150k wardrobe thing. But nobody knows where the Chicago Annenberg Challenge $150 mill went because NOBODY ASKED. Imagine $150 mill disappearing in Chicago, leaving no impact on the kids' education, and everybody presuming that IN CHICAGO, it's all copacetic. Nobody wanted to know how O and company pissed away $150 million. So NOBODY ASKED.
Different standards, you see. So, while I hold no hope for the same standards to be applied here, I did want the two-standards folks to know in advance that there is nobody who doesn't know better. Only question is whether one tries to pretend to principle.
Lubanga is African so he gets arrested. Europe likes to prosecute weak African leaders because they can be moral without risk to trade or anything important. His left wing status does not matter much.
How many Communist leaders from China were prosecuted for Tieneman (sic) Square? Or Cuban leaders? Or Communists from other than Serbia?
Now, is it because these people were leftists that they were not prosecuted? That is an open question. I personally think it is because they come from countries where prosecution will entail risks to trade and other interests.
It is the weak that are tried. Which is why no trials for Americans.
While domestic statute can from time to time get penumbred the fact of the matter is that there is a huge and formal system of checks, balances, and appeals to counter the wayward reaches of a few nutcases. In I-Law, on the other hand, a communist local judge in Spain can create an international incident.
Technically, such implementing statutes are not necessary in the US, since art. VI (2) of the Constitution the US has a monist system of international law, meaning that treaties (can) have direct effect. Still, because of the Supreme Court case law undermining this principle, many treaties do have implementing statutes.
As you aware we have a federal prosecutor in place in the name of John Durham who right now is working on the question of the obstruction of justice aspects of the destruction of the Al Qahtani torture tapes. He was put in place by AG Michael Mukasey in one of his last acts.
You are free to plead the case of persons who have authorized torture in this space in as many ways and in as many creative arguments to encourage our acquiescence and give it legitimacy.
International law has bite if we insist it has bite. As with any law.
States of all kinds of structures participate in the development of internatonal law - as has the United States in myriad areas. If we were willing to give up the state structure and form a universal legislature then we could have votes and all that but I am not sufficiently deranged yet to think that such a world will be possible anytime soon.
The fact that the world does not have a universal legislative here is therefore used to dismiss law that the entities we do agree to have in place - states - have put in place in agreements and in their actions, seems to be a straw person argument. And remember, international law forms part of the law of each state - including the United States.
Best,
Ben
There probably isn't a story about CAC's $150 mill?
Isn't that circular? Nobody asks, so there's no story, so nobody asks.
You really think anybody would believe there's no story in the expenditure of $150 mill in Chicago whose ostensible purpose, the improvement of education, failed? IN CHICAGO? Let me emphasize that. IN CHICAGO?
Do you have any evidence that anybody looked and decided there's no story? Not that there is a story we don't want to publicize. Not that there is a story under the standards of normal governance but, this being Chicago, no biggie.
But that the $150 mill was spent well and the books are straight.
Didn't think so.
Point is, right there we have a double standard. If nobody complains because nobody asks, everything's okay. On the other hand, if we have to fake crap up about Palin, well, politics ain't beanbag.
You really think people don't see this?
Back to B and warcrimes. O will not be prosecuted because the standards will be different. That is, if O does it, it's not a crime and if it is a crime, that's okay, too. Besides, as with CAC, nobody's going to look.
O has opened a CIA exception for harsh interrogation. Since nobody's going to look into it, no torture will be alleged or demonstrated. Pretty simple.
Collateral damage from missile strikes into Pakistan is unfortunate, but war is war and those things happen. Nobody's going to prosecute O, or even talk about it, because there will be separate standards.
I suspect the left is getting vexed enough to say what everybody knows. "Of course there are two standards, dummy. That's how we go after Bush. What, were you born yesterday?"
martinned, your comment is confusing. Are you saying that the double standards and lack of prosecution of Cuban officials is a result of efforts to "bring freedom and democracy" to Cuba? If so, those efforts appear to have been very ineffective and pursued in a most secretive and peculiar manner, since most European countries do not appear particularly interested in freedom and democracy in Cuba (particularly if labor and economic freedoms in Cuba would interfere with the cheap vacations for Europeans).
On the other hand, if you are saying that immunity for Cuban officials in the future would be a good idea if it is necessary to bring about freedom and democracy, then you should be particularly troubled by both the attempted prosecution of Pinochet after his immunity deal (which led directly to freedom and democracy in Chile) and the lack of any serious threat of prosecution of Cuban officials, without which any offer of immunity would simply not be credible. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.
I've yet to see an explanation for this "leftists are exempted from prosecution" claim.
After WWII, Emperor Hirohito and the entire royal family was exempted from trial, but dozens of other Japanese leaders were tried (and executed).
Thus, Hirohito was off the hook because he's a "leftist" and his military commanders were tried because they were "right-wingers," right?
Also, a UN-created tribunal is set to try senior Khmer Rouge (Communist) leaders for their horrible crimes. Trial starts in a couple weeks.
If you loonies want to claim the poor Khmer Rouge as victimized "right-wingers," go ahead.
Do you share similar thoughts on the Clinton Administration's use of like tactics? What about the case made by Hitchens et al that the bombings surrounding the Lewinsky deal were war crimes?
Best,
Constantin
It's probably unrealistic to except the Crown to bring charges any time soon, but it would be very interesting to see what would happen if a private citizen swore an information. I would expect that if there was a reasonable case the public pressure on the AG not to stay the charges would be fairly intense.
I expect it's more likely than not that at least right now the Crown would ultimately stay the charges, but I don't think there's much doubt that American officials visiting Canada are in potential legal jeopardy. It would be very interesting to know if Mr. Stimson considered that before his trip (unless of course he has diplomatic immunity).
That was the first war crimes (i.e. international law crime) trial ever in Afghanistan.
[Although it's true that Euro-socialist-sissies complained about faulty procedures].
I wonder why he didn't use his "I'm a Communist" get-out-of-jail free card?
Wow, only 30+ years after the fact...and only 30 years or so after their falling out with their North Vietnamese patrons.
No, the Khmer Rouge certainly were not right-wingers. They were popular indigenous intellectuals whose alleged crimes were simply fabrications made up by the CIA and its corrupt cronies...just ask Noam Chomsky.
I think the other factor that distinguished Pinochet was that he actually stepped down from power voluntarily after he restored elections and lost whereas most of the left wing despots like Castro stay in until the bitter end. The lesson then isn’t just to make sure you have the “correct” politics when you commit atrocities, it’s to never give up power!
No, I'm not sure that I agree with that. If a school with 100 students wants to improve its test scores to some minimum level and there are 10 students getting A’s, 10 getting B’s, 10 getting C’s, and 70 students getting D’s and F’s, it makes more sense to try to raise the scores of the 70 that are doing poorly or failing than it does to concentrate your efforts into raising the B students to A-level or the C students to a B or A-level.
If this international law that we’re discussing is really about anything other than providing a club to bash the United States for our policies while giving a pass to actions to countries that do far worse things by pretty much any standard other than the fact that they’re not the United States, then it ought to be about setting some minimum standard of behavior. In which case then going after members of the Bush administration – if one believes that what they allegedly did violates some applicable law – ought to be pretty far down the list of actions that should be investigated and/or prosecuted to bring countries on average closer to this minimum level of behavior.
I get it now. The Communist get-out-of-jail-free pass expires after 30 years. Got it.
Here's another interesting legal question: Does article 6 of the CAT trump the international law on diplomatic relations or not? Here's what it says:
Given that the ban on torture itself is normally considered a rule of ius cogens, putting it at the very top of the law pyramid, and that this convention is of a later date (1984) than the law on diplomatic immunity (the Vienna Convention on Consular relations dates from 1961), an argument can be made that torturers cannot claim diplomatic immunity. (Pinochet did claim immunity, but not diplomatic immunity, so there is no direct precedent.)
P.S. I notice that Pinochet was prosecuted in Chile upon his return. While I don't know the details, on first impression I would say the should not have done that.
As to putting criminal prosecution of my own leaders far down the list because some bad things have happened in some other country somewhere in the world by their bad leaders, puh-leeze. Maybe 7 years of listening to people preening in word gymnastics to do torture in my name ticks me off a little more.
Best,
Ben
Of course, if there was evidence that an American actually committed crimes against Afghans in Guantanamo Bay, Spain would turn the American over to the Afghan authorities. Cheaper than a trial.
If an American committed war crimes against Afghans on Afghan soil, turn him over to the rulers of Afghanistan. They know how to properly deal with criminals.
The Nazis were defeated in war.
In Canada, the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act says that:
So unless I am missing something, that would suggest that at least in Canada diplomatic immunity would not be a bar to prosecuting an official for torture.
Currently, the only people proposed for war crimes trials are those public faces who are in high leadership positions far removed from actual crimes. It seems to me that if war crimes have been or are being committed, that the people who actually committed the crimes alleged would include a vast class of thousands of military and civilian interrogators, military police, infantry and support troops, and maybe a lot of foreign nationals who helped facilitate it. The last time I checked, "I was just following orders" was rejected as a defense, as was the defense of just having played a bit part.
If this is meant to be taken seriously, then the call should be for a massive international investigation of the U.S. intelligence community and military to determine exactly what happened, when, and who did it. Y'know, like the Nuernberg trials.
Otherwise, I'd be forced to conclude that this is just political theater and not a serious attempt to get to the bottom of the vast range of warcrimes alleged.
You must be new here. I see you've already met Mr. Aubrey, that's a good start.
How about testimony of the actual alleged torture victims?
Diplomatic immunity doesn't apply to consular officials -- they're different categories.
Honor Bound: Inside the Guantanamo Trials
Inside Gitmo: The True Story Behind the Myths of Guantanamo Bay (released just yesterday)
"The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention." (Article 29)
"A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State." (Article 31[1])
"The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall, if they are not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 36." (Article 37[1])
"Members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, together with members of their families forming part of their respective households, shall, if they are not nationals of or permanently resident in the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 35, except that the immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving State specified in paragraph 1 of article 31 shall not extend to acts performed outside the course of their duties." (Article 37[2])
That doesn't answer the question of whether a state's obligation to prosecute torture under the CAT supersedes diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention. I've seen both views advanced. In a 2004 war crimes complaint against Pres. Bush, however, the Canadian government apparently took the position that diplomatic immunity applied.
Do you know how widely the VCDR applies? It says a diplomatic agent "is the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission". In practice, do you know how often foreign officials who are not on the permanent staff of an embassy would have that status?
For me, a conservative who is opposed to torture under all circumstances, the Bush administration's use of torture is especially irritating because it has permitted the left to pretend that they're opposed to torture on principle. They're not, of course; their opposition depends entirely on who is doing the torturing. If it's Bush, it's a war crime. If it's Castro, Cuba has free healthcare and 100% literacy.
So too with Obama. Nobody's perfect, sometimes torture is okay, there's an exception to every rule, etc.
You cannot be serious.
Limbaugh isn't a journalist, and to the extent that O'Reilly might be, he's an opinion journalist. Both are right-wing partisans. Sure, they'll go after Obama, but their opinions (and even facts that they turn up, if any) are easily dismissed as partisan posturing.
It is only when a partisan criticizes his own side, or an objective observer (as the MSM claims to be) reports information damaging to one side or the other, that public opinion can shift. And there's definitely a shortage of MSM outlets willing to go after Obama.
Richard Aubrey, you keep saying "NO ONE ASKED". With respect, is that really true? Has absolutely no one tried to investigate these matters? Has there been no question raised by anyone (besides your comments on this thread of course)? Why would O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Malkin etc. give a free pass on this? So Katie Couric didn't ask, or David Gregory. So what? Why didn't Chris Wallace or Carl Cameron? The Washington Post gave it a pass? Well, where's the Washington Times? It's not ALL liberal media, after all.
On the left, there are always plenty of outlets willing to investigate and document if possible what sound to me like outlandish and ridiculous claims against conservatives. Are there no such outlets on the right?
You've asked others to prove that someone investigated and said it was all ok. Can we turn that around - what proof have you that no one has ever investigated (beyond the fact that you aren't personally aware of such an investigation?)
"Go after him"....for what? War crimes? Torturing people?
Oh, you mean for being a secret Muslim communist black supremacist?
When Obama messes up, he'll get proper criticism. But he hasn't really messed up yet.
As to putting criminal prosecution of my own leaders far down the list because some bad things have happened in some other country somewhere in the world by their bad leaders, puh-leeze. Maybe 7 years of listening to people preening in word gymnastics to do torture in my name ticks me off a little more.
Best,
Ben
About what I figured after reading your deranged rants on here. Keep on rockin'.
No it isn't. Ask Maher Arar and Khalid el-Masri.
Prof. Posner, does Germany have jurisdiction over US officials that kidnapped and tortured a German citizen?
(I realise that I'm not Posner, but I'm thinking I'm more likely than he is to actually read this question.)
The answer probably depends on where this person was kidnapped from, unless a crime of universal jurisdiction is involved.
Let's modify the question a bit. The media sent, by some reports an incredible 400 reporters to Wasilla and environs to dumpster dive for anything they could find.
Even if it were only 100 reporters, it would be a huge number.
Do we have solid information that as many as one reporter went after CAC?
Malkin had a list of stories broken by bloggers, but compared to genuine media, they are few. Malkin is not herself, nor other bloggers, in a position to investigate something as arcane and twisted around Chicago politics and creative bookkeeping. But there were conservatives pointing to it and saying, "What happened?" The reponse was absolutely zero. Nobody even wanted to know why it failed.
If the media can make hay out of a question about banning books, certainly there must have been something equivalent--a coffee contract let to a buddy--in the CAC worthy of the same amount of ink. I suppose we can look at the zero reporting of anything wrong with CAC and take that as perfect and irrefutable proof that you can spend $150 mill in Chicago with nothing going wrong whatsoever. I know that's what acolytes of The One would like. In fact, we don't even know what they want us to think went right.
We can also take it for granted that it is Right and True and Always Good that gallons of ink spilled over one tenth of one percent of that amount is perfectly legitimate.
Pull the other one.
He was going to Macedonia for vacation.
"It is beautiful," said Hatim, pleased and proud over the tumult of the grass-roots campaigning and the pictures of candidates slapped on the sides of buildings.
Hatim's enthusiasm for the election is particularly telling because he's a Sunni Arab -- the once-disaffected group that largely shunned Iraq's provincial races four years ago.
Change!!! Hope!!! Change and hope that we - and both Sunni and Shi'a polities in Iraq, in addition to the Kurds in the north - can believe in!!! Thank you, George W. Bush!!!
Let me propose a silly example. Let us say that I have my own country, Blueistan. I promulgate a statute declaring that it is a war crime to Rick Roll someone. Then when my neighbor comes into Blueistan, I arrest him for being a war criminal.
It doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work is that the interpretive act of moving the international law into domestic statute binding on non-citizens never receieved any review (democratic or otherwise) from the citizens of the other contracting parties.
To reiterate: Geneva Convetion = international law. Canadian statute about the Geneva convention =/= international law.
My point is only that for many purposes what will matter is domestic law and not international law. For example, if an American official visits Canada or the United Kingdom and is charged under one of the laws cited here it would not be a defence to say that the applicable law is a misapplication of international law.
Professor Posner might be correct that the trial would not be justifiable on international law grounds (I don't know enough to have any opinion on that myself) but it would be justified by the domestic law the courts would actually be called upon to enforce. So even if Professor Posner's arguments about international law are entirely correct, his conclusion that there will not be trials in foreign countries may not be.
That's not exactly how it goes. It's a quagmire. And it won't be fixed until The One figures a way to sell it out.
means any act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person,
isn't the problem that waterboarding (or others) is an interrogation technique that reasonable people can disagree on whether a) it is always torture, or b) it depends on the application. And the weight of fickle public opinion can be easily shifted by partisans masquerading as journalists.
(E.g, "we boarded him once for one minute, it scared the crap out of him, and he squealed like a stuck pig after that", versus "we kept him on the board for a day and half, under more or less continuous inundation, until he was reduced to an incoherent babbling wreck. What do we care, he's a terrorist, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and deserved it.")
If not waterboarding, there would be some other interrogation technique that people would argue about being borderline. Without a list of allowed and proscribed techniques (e.g USA Field Manual) an anti-torture law with universal jurisdiction enables capricious and/or selective political-based prosecutions by partisans acting under the color of law.
No list = poorly (or deliberately) crafted law.
And that, Nathan, is why sober-thinking people who aren't out for Bush Administration hides should be profoundly concerned about the effects of turning every tinpot local magistrate into an instrument of international justice.
Thing is, as long as waterboarding is done for intel and the guy is let up the instant he agrees to spill the beans, it's no worse than SERE training. One of my daughter's cute, button-sized female friends insisted on SERE so that she, as an AF intel weenie, could make combat flights. Otherwise, she has to stay home or something. So she got boarded, gave up the info and passed because everybody gives up the info. In reality, she didn't volunteer for waterboarding. She volunteered for what is undoubtedly hideously worse should her aircraft be shot down.
Which, should it happen, will interest nobody but the family.
But, anyway, if you let the guy up instantly, which might or might not be happening, he got a shot of unsupportable fear and is otherwise just dandy. He determines how long it lasts and how bad it is.
I suggest that waterboarding be put in a separate category from torture and be determined to be acceptable or unacceptable on its own. That way, we don't have to argue endlessly about whether it's torture or not.
Problem with that is, it might not impress people as torture and might impress people as acceptable, and then we get good intel. And that would never do.
Do you have the same objection to negligent homicide statutes that don't come with a list of things that count as "negligent"?
What?!? With such increasingly promising and increasingly substantial news I'm expecting the whole world to begin sending George W. Bush "thank you" cards :-/
(And in point of fact, BHO is gearing his rhetoric in precisely the manner you've suggested. Heard some of it this morning - precisely in that vein. Change.)
More seriously though, it is genuinely heartening to view those two photos from the links provided, and the accompanying reports. A study in contrasts: Iraq presently and its current long-term prospects, vs. Iraq under Saddam and sons Uday and Qusay and its long-term prospects under that regime.
True. Very true.
Still, I would just like to remark that this does not somehow retroactively legitimise or otherwise excuse the US invasion.
Best,
Ben
Best,
Ben
Of course it does. They were also justified not merely retroactively but at the time as well, c. 2002/2003 - hence varied and sundry votes and quotes by people such as Hillary, Kerry and many others, during that period and previously.
All too obviously, it depends upon how "legitimise or otherwise excuse" are argued and defined, but that is prima facie obvious. I countered your assertion with another assertion.
But more substantively, the two links provided - here and here - represent substantive CHANGE!!! and HOPE!!!, as previously noted.
martinned asks:
I say no, because of the objective dead body evidence and causation analysis. To prove negligence, it's either common-sense obvious (don't play with matches), in public law, or the defendant was warned and proceeded anyway. The legislature from time to time inserts or removes items from public law to remove ambiguity (the list is there but scattered throughout the Code, e.g. no cell phone use while driving). Product manufacturers provide warnings about improper use.
Torture acts are either obvious, debatable, or application based. Interrogation techniques are (should be) enumerated powers we the people grant to public servants for limited times and situations. The list is legal safe harbor for interrogators.
Whether waterboarding, or stress positions, etc. is intrinsically torture is uncertain. But it can be defined to be torture, or limited in duration and intensity, in the public law.
Negligence is tortious acts by citizens. Allowed/proscribed interrogation techniques are enumerated powers.
The United States has ventured to the likes of Grenada, Iraq, Guatemala and similar countries to impose its brand of justice on people whose susceptibility to U.S. legal jurisdiction was slim to nonexistent. During recent years, believable reports have depicted U.S. agents kidnapping in Italy, surveilling unlawfully in the United Kingdom, handing prisoners off for torture in Uzbekistan and Syria, and the like. Is there any basis for immunity with respect to crimes committed by Americans in Europe or the Middle East, even if a frightened President and his not-quite-up-to-the-job appointees approved it?
Again, the point transcending this debate is to arrange effective methods of deterring recurrence of the tawdry shortcuts our government chose during recent years. The methods should be adequate to restrain the next president and administration tempted to abuse prisoners, surveil improperly, hide behind national security skirts in court, kidnap around the world, operate secret prisoners, cooperate with sadists, etc.
Until these issues are sorted out, if any former American official involved in abusive conduct is dumb enough to stray beyond United States jurisdiction, I see no reason to devote a dime or a drop of blood to attempting to rescue that fool from self-inflicted folly.
Please explain which actions we took in those countries that had anything to do with the idea of justice, as opposed to national defense?
It might surprise you to learn that you can pay people to do all sorts of things that would be illegal if they didn't have your consent. I have heard rumors that there are women you can pay to tie you up and severely beat you and it is perfectly legal. But for some odd reason if that same woman were to tie you up and beat you without your consent it would be illegal. Strange, isn't it?
Whether waterboarding, or stress positions, etc. is intrinsically torture is uncertain.
In 1983 the federal government prosecuted Sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies for waterboarding suspects. The Fifth Circuit referred to waterboarding as torture 12 times. So at least two branches of the federal government regard waterboarding as torture.
I'm not suggesting Canada's prohibition on torture is particularly well drafted but it's done in a similar manner to the rest of our criminal law. Aside from prohibited weapons and substances, and the specific lists there are done by regulation instead of statute, our criminal law is full of general definitions as for torture and devoid of specific enumerations of prohibited activities.
With respect to Iraq, it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of most people that attacking the wrong country had little to do with national security. . . even before the issue of botching the occupation is addressed.
National security aspects to the Noriega case? To overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran? Those were political judgments and partisan ideological crusades, not national security issues.
At least those who engineered kidnapping in Italy or consorted with torturous Uzbeks believed -- although they apparently were too scared, too dumb or too immoral to recognize the wrongfulness of their behavior -- they were addressing a threat to the United States. I find it hard to believe that even the likes of Elliott Abrams genuinely believed that equipping thugs to slaughter nuns in Central America was safeguarding the United States of America. They were settling political scores, perhaps currying petty favor, or advancing preferred ideology . . . but not defending their nation.
No it hasn't.
Lot's of people claim waterboarding is torture. From the published reports I've read, it doesn't seem to obviously cause "severe pain" (e.g. like a cat o' nine tails flogging). If applied for short periods of time, it seems to cause mental panic. If done continuously for long periods of time, it most likely rises to the level of "severe suffering", and it's definitely gratuitous infliction, and then arguably of limited interrogation value.
Most interrogation professionals (at least those that get quoted in the press) say that boarding is beneath them, and/or useless. The U.S. Goverment has evidence that it can be effective when used particularly.
That's why I think boarding is so controversial. It's right on the line.
So for all these reasons "severe pain and suffering" is not enough. Put it on the proscribed list, and the anti-torture absolutists will start over with stress positions. Put it on the allowed lists, and then the absolutists will seek to limit its use. But that's better than keeping it all ambiguous. Right now waterboarding is a cudgel for partisans (local and international) to beat their opponents with. That's not good.
martinned suggests case law determination of what is and is not torture. So once one jurisdiction gets a waterboarding conviction, it's now torture everywhere in the world? I guess I'd rather put the legislature in charge.
Perhaps in an ideal world, GC signatories would agree to an inserted provision to define torture in their laws. The next best ideal (imo) would be for the leading nations to unilaterally codify torture and acceptable interrogation techniques. I don't find judges making/finding law as martinned suggests to be very satisfactory, because of the very real likelihood of partisan abuse, selective prosecution, and international gamesmanship.
I'd just like to take a moment to correct you on this one:
So once one jurisdiction gets a waterboarding conviction, it's now torture everywhere in the world?
That is emphatically not how precedent works. A ruling of the 5th circuit court of appeals on, say, the interpretation of a statute is only binding in the states where that court has jurisdiction. It can then be overruled by the Supreme Court, which ruling would then bind all US courts. Similarly, precedent by out of jurisdiction courts on the interpretation of CAT, for example as to whether something is torture or not, can have persuasive value, but nothing else.
The link is not conclusory. Crimminal complaint was denial of civil rights, a catch-all the Feds use to selectively prosecute in high-visibility cases or when the State is unable or unwilling to. First use of torture was in quotes "water torture". All following uses were not quoted, but should be assumed to be so. The specific acts were not described.
I expect that all jurisdictions have clear procedures for detention and interrogation of suspects. Anytime the police exceed their enumerated powers, it could be a denial of civil rights case (e.g. Rodney King).
Intrinsic torture is my term of art for obvious stuff like flogging, continuous and severe electric shocks, beatings. Legally, torture is whatever we the people say our public servants can't do to detainees because it's torture, which normally includes all intrinsic torture and whatever else we decide to include.
Legally, the U.S Government has more or less decided on the USA Field Manual for POW's and unlawful combatants, although the Prez can authorize exceptions. For civil police, anything much beyond good cop/bad cop in your face yelling for 8 hours is "torture".
That' fine, though it very much is directly related to the subject of the primary post. As to the added comment, that invading a country in order to make it a democracy is not a supportable reason to go to war within jus ad bellum considerations, we agree in priciple. But we disagree concerning Iraq specifically; we disagree concerning the very premise of that statement since pointing Iraq in the direction of a working democracy was not the originating rationale of the Iraq effort, debated in 2002 and initiated in 2003.
A more stable Iraq domestically and regionally was a primary motive, the fact deterrence and containment had failed to yield more propitioius results was another reason, concerns about Saddam's larger goals and alliances with regional terrorists were a motivating factor, his conventional forces alone posed a continuing and lingering threat (e.g., Iran, Kuwait), chemical and biological weapons were a concern and, yes, WMD concerns in general. There was a concern he would sell some of these chemical and biological weapons to regional or global terrorists, he had a ballistic missile program that included SAMs as well as SCUDs. He had failed to comply with U.N. ordered directives. Etc.
The hope of pointing them in a more democratic mode was purely subsidiary to those other concerns. It certainly developed into a strategic/political offshoot of those primary concerns, but it was not a primary factor per se.
But I give you credit for acknowledging the considerable progress made and that it is heartening to observe that progress as witnessed by the photos and articles in the links previously provided.
C'mon martinned, I'm not stupid. I read the same stuff you do. It's interesting, it's a puzzle, and as a responsible citizen I want to be sure I don't allow our government to have terrible powers it shouldn't.
I don't care what other people, especially partisans (not you), conclude. I ignore their conclusions and arguments, and pay special attention to the facts. From all that I read, I don't find waterboarding to be obviously, always torture. Reasonable people, I'm sure, disagree with me. In the aggregate, we vote, and the ambiguous stuff flops back and forth across the bright line.
You do realise that none of this is a lawful grounds for war?
In fact, if you want to read the legal case for war, Yoo wrote a memo about that, too. (Sequel 1, sequel 2. N.B. I haven't read either of those, yet.) It's wrong, parts of it very wrong, but other parts come fairly close. Those are the parts that look for justification in the terms of the cease fire after Desert Storm. Since there was never a formal peace treaty, but only a cease fire, arguably a material breach of that cease fire would justify the US resuming hostilities. However, the only breaches Yoo suggested were the continuing difficulties with the WMD inspections. Those would certainly justify Clinton's air attacks, but not a full scale invasion.
Yes. And why are you pretending to not know something you've already been told?
========================
fleming:
There is a long history of US courts treating waterboarding as a form of torture (pdf).
And aside from the question of whether or not waterboarding is torture, Crawford says we tortured (without even resorting to waterboarding).
Also, Bush's own State Dept declared that "submersion of the head in water" is torture. Both this and waterboarding are methods of using water to asphyxiate, so it's hard to figure why they wouldn't be treated alike.
So we did it, exactly, why?
And who did that?
So your logic goes: if the majority of Americans think something is not related to National Security, then it is not related to national security. Very democratic of you, but logical it is not.
That's not a very fair description of the argument.
Too haphazard and capricious for me. I prefer bright lines drawn and enumerated powers granted only after deliberations by we the people.
War is a unitary state--it either exists or it does not. If Iraq was in breech of the treaty ending Gulf War I--and it clearly was--than air strikes or invasion were both equally permissable.
Note that I did not say wise. But an illegal attack? Nonsense. This is yet another example of why "international law" often deserves scare quotes.
That's insane. Who knew there was a "Dutch part of the blogosphere?" Legal drugs, hookers.... Why would you ever waste your time arguing with these losers?
However, since there was no peace treaty with Iraq, the US had been at war with that country since desert storm. There just wasn't any shooting for a number of years. In this context, the proportionality principle certainly applies to the question of what an appropriate punishment is for a (material) breach of the cease fire agreement.
Who financed, trained, whitewashed, shielded and encouraged Central American death squads, in Guatemala and a number of other countries? American agents, acting overtly and covertly, from the mid-1960s to the most shameful and brutal period, the 1980s.
I really, really don't like the leftist political arguments that are being made under the guise of "international law." I don't think I am alone.
You can say that had no bearing on national defense.
If you like.
During the Cold War,we were faced with a number of issues, none of which was, by itself, an existential threat. Cumulatively, eventually we could find ourselves in trouble.
For example, had the balloon gone up in Europe, half our stuff going over there would be coming through the Straits of Florida, from the Gulf ports. What it takes to close the Straits is mostly stuff not useful in the North Atlantic, the Western Approaches, or in Europe itself. Thus, the equipment the Sovs would have used would not have subtracted from their combat power elsewhere. While what it would take to fight the convoys through would be useful elsewhere. ASW ships and planes, attack subs, fighter cover. Thus subtracting from our combat power useful elsewhere.
Now, if we find ourselves unable to cover the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap due to getting aced out of Iceland, the Straits are likely to be stopped up pretty good, the Atlantic Narrows are Soviet due to basing rights and sundry other disadvantages, the Sovs might have been emboldened to take a shot. That would be a bad thing.
No one of those would be an existential threat. One could think of others, not including my examples, neutralizing Italy from NATO through Communist success in elections, or Greece, say.
But, in combination, there was potential trouble. Allowing Sov--which is to say Cuban--expansion in the Caribbean would be one non-existential threat. But if we chose to ignore each non-existential threat considered in isolation, we could find ourselves where the choices are surrender or go nuclear.
I don't think you're dumb enough not to know this. I think you hope the rest of us are.
Wrong.
I was responding to jus ad bello considerations - which are not legal considerations as such. You had suggested the progress hi-lited (here and here) did not "legitimise or otherwise excuse" the Iraq effort. I responded to that. The legal argument as such pertains to U.N. resolutions, votes in the U.S. Congress, supportive facts and intelligence, etc. I didn't comment on the legal aspect per se, outside of mentioning some of the supportive facts, the votes in Congress (with large bi-partisan majorities and citing the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act) and U.N. resolutions (which even Hans Blix, c. 2002/03, acknowledged had not been kept by the regime of Saddam & Sons.
Well said.
If one accepts his explanation, one has to believe that one of his theories is Reagan sent men to their death out of boredom!
Anyone who throws out libel like that is either uninformed, a fool, a scumbag or a combination of the three.
Have you exhausted the possibilities?
Give it some more thought.
Your claim regarding "large bi-partisan majorities" is a stretch. Most Ds in the House voted against the invasion, and 42% of the Ds in the Senate also voted against the invasion.
And hopefully you are not implying that ILA was a justification for the invasion (although many people do precisely that). The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (link) called for support to "Iraqi democratic opposition organizations," via a limited amount of money, training and equipment. It specifically indicated we should have no military role beyond that: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."
Most people understand a "large bipartisan majority" to be a large majority with substantial support from both parties, not necessarily that a majority of each party's caucus votes in favor of the measure. The recent SCHIP House vote was described as a "large/strong/wide/etc. bipartisan majority" because it was more than a 2:1 majority and a significant number of Republicans voted with the majority, even though overall Republicans voted 3.4:1 against the bill (much stronger opposition than the Iraq resolution had from Democrats in either house).
I understand. However, on quite a few occasions I've run into folks who say, or imply, that most Ds in Congress voted for the war. Therefore I thought a clarification was warranted, because I think there's some ambiguity in the phrase that was used.
But as you're so conscientious, concern yourself with Barack Obama's and friend's lies.
The Nicraguan campesinos voted for Chamorro, widely considered a contra figure.
They also declined to vote for the Christian Democratic Party in El Salvador, opting instead for ARENA, widely considered--by lefties--as the home of the death squads and their alleged leader, d'Aubuisson. The US was pushing the CDP, and the voters went 'way right of our druthers.
Maybe the dumb campesinos knew more than our lefties and MSM.
That's why they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
I responded to you in the other thread, here.
Just when I think you couldn't possibly do further damage to your already shredded credibility, you manage to outdo yourself.
I appreciate your response (except for that line at the end.) Your re-framing of the issue is more helpful to me. Of course, I can't prove that any reporters were sent to investigate the issue, and I've never claimed that any were. At the same time, you can't prove any weren't. If some reporters did investigate this and found nothing, I'm not sure that we'd ever hear about it. We'd likely only find out if there was something there to report.
I'd have to do a little more research (and I will try to do so) to see the extent of the reporting. It could be that this was checked into by local media years ago. If I find out anything (which is doubtful, I confess), I'll let you know.
Thanks again for your response
Yes, by admitting you were wrong. Good for you. Now you just need to clean up your other false statements in a similar manner. You're off to a good start, and I hope you keep up the good work.
I'll start taking advice from you about "credibility" as soon as you demonstrate that I have a problem in that regard.
While you're at it, see if this is the docdump that was resisted for so long. Possibly sterilized.
Why?
Al Qaeda deserves nothing less than a free ride to the bottom of the Marianas Trench in the Pacific Ocean.
Something wrong with interrogation of suspected bad guys, now? Where did you find this guy?
It is getting tough to keep up.
Reporters were sent to investigate the issue. Upthread I pointed to proof.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.