In view of the latest releases of torture related documents from the Bush-Cheney era and the concomitant outrage they have engendered, it seems fitting to explore the varieties of legal redress that may ensue.
I'll rule out an inquiry such as a Truth and Reconciliation Commission as
such commissions, while excellent methods of inquiry, lack teeth to bite the offenders. My interest is in legal bodies that have jurisdiction to try the various players from the Bush administration who were involved in promoting torture of suspected terrorists, primarily those detained at Guantanamo and secret sites outside of the U.S.
Probably painfully obviously, I bring no particular legal background to this diary; I am simply a citizen outraged and offended that my country has apparently, contrary to the Geneva Convention and in violation of any civilized morality, tortured and murdered people whom it has deemed to be terrorists. And in some cases, the Bush/Cheney torture movement has been revealed to have been so rabid, it has mistakenly targeted innocents.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
We are promised that soon, images of systematic mistreatment of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. will be released by the Pentagon in response to a FOIA request by the ACLU.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/...
These disclosures and admissions are creating a groundswell of revulsion inside and outside the U.S.A. that demands to be legally and socially remedied. Where this can be adjudicated is my inquiry.
I don't know the answers, but I will put out some possibilities and let the community reply. First of all, already underway in Spain, is the upcoming indictment against Alberto Gonzales and five other Bush/Cheney accomplices for allowing and designing the torture of 5 Spanish citizens at Guantanamo Bay prison camp.
http://www.casavaria.com/...
What this opens up is the possibility that any country may choose to do the same on behalf of its citizens who have been held at Guantanamo. How many countries might that be? Here's the list: Afghanistan, Algeria, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Chad, China, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Indonesia,....enough? We're not even half done; there are 45 such countries.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/...
Admittedly, not all these countries may have the inclination or wherewithal to bring a lawsuit, but certainly if Spain can, many of the others may be emboldened to follow suit.
Then there is the International Criminal Court, aka, the World Court which deals with war crimes and crimes against humanity. The U.S. signed the Rome Statute which established the court but has since "unsigned" so it is not participating, but, theoretically, I think, U.S. citizens could be tried in it. Its seat is The Hague, Netherlands, but can convene anywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Moving on, we can consider the "other" World Court, the International Court of Justice, the judicial body of the United Nations. I suspect this is more suited for settling disputes between nations and is, anyway, strongly influenced by the U.S., although its location is in The Hague, (as well). I hope a legal eagle among us can help sort this out.
My own pet theory, which I hope won't be dismissed without consideration, is that the War on Terror is a racket. It is not an original assertion. Check out Butler's theory from the 1930's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
I'd like to see this war prosecuted in U.S. courts under the RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations)which is designed to clamp down on organized crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Let's try the whole organized crime outfit ourselves from top to bottom.