And so it beings...

[hrothgar]

Spain is starting criminal investigations into the behavior of several Bush administration officials including John Yoo, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, and Doug Feith.

 

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004640

 

The war crimes investigation is being lead by the same judge who convicted Pinochet. Probably be a bad idea for these guys to leave the US any time soon...

[Winstonm]

Glenn Greenwald wrote today about the firestorm in Britain over the torture issue:

 

As a result, despite the efforts of both the British Government and the Obama administration to keep concealed what was done to Mohamed, the facts about his treatment have emerged and a major political controversy has been ignited.

 

That's because torture is illegal in Britain, as it is in the United States.  But unlike the United States:  Britain hasn't completely abandoned the idea that even political officials must be accountable when they commit crimes; their political discourse isn't dominated and infected by the subservient government-defending likes of David Ignatius, Ruth Marcus, David Broder and Stuart Taylor demanding that government officials be free to commit even serious war crimes with total impunity; and they don't have "opposition leaders" who are so afraid of their own shadows and/or so supportive of torture that they remain mute in the face of such allegations.  To the contrary, demands for criminal investigations into these episodes of torture (including demands for war crimes investigations from conservatives) span the political spectrum in Britain:

 

 

I cannot see how these issues can be ducked forever here in the US.

[luke warm]

does a spanish, or any other court, have jurisdiction/oversight over u.s. laws? is that really the issue, even?

[hrothgar]

does a spanish, or any other court, have jurisdiction/oversight over u.s. laws? is that really the issue, even?

Comment 1: The Spanish are basing their case on the fact that a Spanish citizen was tortured in Guantánamo.

 

The current criminal case evolved out of an investigation into allegations, sustained by Spain’s Supreme Court, that the Spanish citizen had been tortured in Guantanamo.

 

The crux of the case isn't violation of US laws; but rather violation of Spanish law.

 

Comment 2: The NYT covered the same decision in an article yesterday.

 

Here's a rather interesting quote,

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/world/eu...ner=rss&emc=rss

 

This year for the first time, the United States used a law that allows it to prosecute torture in other countries. On Jan. 10, a federal court in Miami sentenced Chuckie Taylor, the son of the former Liberian president, to 97 years in a federal prison for torture, even though the crimes were committed in Liberia.

 

Last October, when the Miami court handed down the conviction, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey applauded the ruling and said: “This is the first case in the United States to charge an individual with criminal torture. I hope this case will serve as a model to future prosecutions of this type.”

[Winstonm]

This story in the Washington Post refutes the claims made by Dick Cheney that torture produced valuable information and stopped further attacks:

 

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

 

As for the Bush-Cheney cabal, the whole damned lot should be brought up on charges, while the Washington D.C. press corps should be held to account as an accessory.

[blackshoe]

When people use emotion-laden terms like "Bush-Cheney cabal" and "war crimes" and even "torture", I begin to wonder what their agenda really is.

 

I'm no expert on international law, but I really have to wonder how any nation can claim criminal jurisdiction over actions committed by nationals of another country outside the territorial limits of the nation claiming such jurisdiction. Nor can I see how one nation (e.g., the US) can claim such jurisdiction, while denying that other nations (e.g., Spain) have that same right.

[hrothgar]

I'm no expert on international law, but I really have to wonder how any nation can claim criminal jurisdiction over actions committed by nationals of another country outside the territorial limits of the nation claiming such jurisdiction. Nor can I see how one nation (e.g., the US) can claim such jurisdiction, while denying that other nations (e.g., Spain) have that same right.

Sovereign states get to do most anything they want...

 

Other countries can try to influence via nice-nice noises, trade embargoes, military attack what have you. However, all these mechanisms have their limits.

 

In the case of the Spanish efforts, here's how I I'd expect things to play out...

 

1. The Spanish find Yoo and company guilty of war crimes

2. The Spanish request that the US extradite (fill in the blank) to Spain

3. The US says no

4. [Fill in the blank] stops taking many foreign vacations