I know I’m a bit late noting this but given our past interest I want to remark this development in the John Yoo episode:
Baltasar Garzón, the counter-terrorism judge whose prosecution of General Augusto Pinochet led to his arrest in Britain in 1998, has referred the case to the chief prosecutor before deciding whether to proceed…. The officials named in the case include the most senior legal minds in the Bush administration. They are: Alberto Gonzales, a former White House counsel and attorney general; David Addington, former vice-president Dick Cheney’s chief of staff; Douglas Feith, who was under-secretary of defence; William Haynes, formerly the Pentagon’s general counsel; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who were both senior justice department legal advisers.
13 comments
April 7, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Spike
This is good, but I’d like to see Cheney and Bush on the list as well, instead of only their henchmen.
April 7, 2009 at 5:23 pm
kid bitzer
just think of it as an ordinary mafia/organized crime prosecution.
you don’t start by indicting the capo. you start by nabbing a small fish or two.
then you squeeze them, and roll them, and get them to turn on their contacts.
then you put the pressure on the next level up, getting more and more evidence and testimony, building your case bit by bit.
only at the end do you have a case against the bosses.
give garzon time. he’s a pro.
April 7, 2009 at 5:38 pm
kevin
War crimes trials are alright, but for these guys, I think it’s time to bring back crucifixion.
April 7, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Jason B.
Line’s on the left. One cross each . . .
April 7, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Megan
I will be glad for justice, however it arrives. It would be a shame, though, if the UC doesn’t expel Yoo of their own doing.
April 7, 2009 at 7:10 pm
ben
The wheels of god grind slow,
But they grind extremely fine.
Though with patience he stands waiting,
With exactness grinds he pine.
What? He was a carpenter.
April 7, 2009 at 7:11 pm
ben
Also, I believe it’s “mills”.
April 7, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Tyler Blalock
I have very mixed feelings about this.
It is good that this will be investigated, even if not by Americans. And if John Yoo and others find it as hard to travel internationally as Kissinger does, I won’t feel sorry for them at all.
But I have serious ideological reservations about the legal doctrine of universal jurisdiction which is being used to justify an investigation into this case. It inserts the the worst aspects of domestic law into international law. International law has international reach, but is subject to some kind of international consensus about what the law is: it is generally derived from both treaties and case law, but in both cases generally considered legitimate by most people other than the defendants. The judge in Spain asserts that not only does his jurisdiction have international reach, but that he can apply the laws and judicial procedures of his own country to the citizens of another. Those procedures were not internationally agreed to – they were created and assented to by the Spanish, and are legitimate in Spain. Why should we accept that their legitimacy extends internationally?
If Yoo and others are ever tried (probably in absentia), questions about the legitimacy and fairness of the trial will linger forever and the neoconservatives will always be able to claim that they were martyred in a kangaroo court. Why give them that opportunity?
None of this would be necessary if we would just try Yoo and the others in our own courts.
April 7, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Martin Wisse
Hey, America has always reserved the right to prosecute whoever it wants wherever in the world they comitted their crimes, so that horse has bolted. (One notorious case over here being the Amsterdam taxi driver accused of selling dope to undercover narcotics agents, in Amsterdam who had to stand trial in the US.
And America has also opposed the international court of jutice to the point of proposing an invasion of the Netherlands if ever an American had to stand trial there, which does provide an international, sanctioned alternative for prosecuting these sorts of crimes under controlled circumstances, so it’s their own fault if more civilised countries, unsatisfied with the corrupt justice system in America itself, get creative.
Of course, just because country A thinks their laws gives them the right to prosecute citizens of country B for warcrimes or crimes against humanity, doesn’t mean other countries have to indulge them; just don’t go to Spain on holiday f you’re John Yoo.
April 8, 2009 at 2:04 am
ajay
One notorious case over here being the Amsterdam taxi driver accused of selling dope to undercover narcotics agents, in Amsterdam who had to stand trial in the US.
????
I’m not doubting you, but can you provide details?
April 8, 2009 at 4:35 am
Anderson
But I have serious ideological reservations about the legal doctrine of universal jurisdiction which is being used to justify an investigation into this case.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see why “universal jurisdiction” need even come in:
The lawsuit also points to a direct link with Spain, as six Spaniards were held at Guantánamo and are argued to have suffered directly from the Bush administration’s departure from international law.
Does Spain not have the right to indict suspects who torture its own citizens?
April 8, 2009 at 7:18 am
The Wrath of Oliver Khan
Crucifixion’s a doddle …
April 8, 2009 at 8:56 am
Anderson
Slate has a pretty good article on the various issues, btw.