Re: Judgement at Malaysian hearing may help push case at ICC; Obama in violation for not pursuing indictment

Obama doesn't see any political advantage



On 5/31/12, OccupySpring <soprano.olivia07@gmail.com> wrote:
> Francis Boyle is a Professor of Law at the University of llinois
> School of Law, where he currently teaches courses on Public
> International Law and International Human Rights. * I would say he is
> the EXPERT on this issue*
>
>
> JAY: So how were you able to get something going at the ICC, and where
> is it at?
>
> BOYLE: Right. Well, numerous complaints have been filed against Bush
> and the rest of them at the International Criminal Court, but they got
> nowhere, because the United States government is not a party to the
> Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. And I was the first
> one to figure out a way around this conundrum by filing a complaint
> against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Bybee, Yoo, Tenet,
> and Rice for their policy of so-called extraordinary rendition, which,
> as I pointed out to the ICC, is really a euphemism for the enforced
> disappearance of human beings and torture, both of which are Rome
> Statutory crimes. And as I pointed out to the ICC, these defendants
> have committed Rome Statutory crimes in Rome party states. Indeed most
> of Europe, where these extraordinary renditions in part took place,
> are parties to the Rome statute, as well as Afghanistan. And therefore
> I argued to the ICC that the court did have jurisdiction to prosecute
> them and should exercise that jurisdiction.
>
> JAY: Well, how has the ICC responded to your arguments?
>
> BOYLE: They responded to me saying they gave me a docket number, they
> were inquiring into the matter, and they would get back to me in
> writing
>
>
> JAY: Right. Now, what is the obligation, if any, on the Obama
> administration in regards to all of this? I mean, when President Obama
> was elected, he said it's time to look forward, not back, which, you
> know, a lot of people have suggested that would mean no crimes of any
> kind would ever be punished, 'cause it's always happened already. But
> is there any legal obligation on the Obama administration to
> investigate/prosecute? And if so, the fact that they haven't, what
> does that mean?
>
> BOYLE: Yes, the Obama administration has all along had an obligation
> to prosecute Bush and the rest of them under the Convention against
> Torture, including U.S. implementing legislation for that convention,
> making torture a crime, a felony, and in some circumstances punishable
> by death if death has occurred, which it has, although I don't support
> the death penalty. But it does give you an idea of the severity of the
> crimes. And also the Obama administration has an obligation to
> prosecute these individuals under the four Geneva conventions of 1949,
> including the U.S. implementing legislation, the U.S. War Crimes Act.
> So there is an obligation by Obama to prosecute. Perhaps in a second
> term they might. We'll just have to see what happens.
>
> You are correct to indicate that so far they said they were looking to
> the forward and not to the past. I pointed out then to the ICC
> prosecutor that this is definitive proof that the Obama administration
> is not going to prosecute at this time and therefore satisfies the
> element known as subsidiarity, which requires the ICC to defer to the
> national state for prosecution before the ICC steps in. And if you
> already have Obama and Holder saying they're not going to prosecute,
> that satisfies that requirement and puts it firmly in the hands of the
> ICC.
>
>
> JAY: And is the Obama administration then itself in violation of the
> law by not pursuing this?
>
> BOYLE: That's correct. It's clearly in violation of the Convention
> against Torture and the four Geneva conventions of 1949, and, I regret
> to report, technically this would make them accessories after the fact
> to these offenses.
>
>
> http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=8348
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
> To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Debate Political Forum IMHO" group.
To post to this group, send email to OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to OpenDebateForum-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/OpenDebateForum?hl=en