The US just violated International Law by passing the Torture Law.
I’m starting this open thread specifically for discussion of International Law and Torture. I need someone that understands International Law to fill us in on the specifics.
-What is does International Law actually say?
-What is the next step is regarding a citizen’s responsibilities in upholding International Law?
-What are we now required by International Law to do to get the US back in compliance.
I was just thinking about this as I was driving home. Which takes precedence? Is it possible for BushCo to ever be prosecuted under international law (I know, not real likely).And then there’s the fact that BushCo refused to join the International Criminal Court…now we know why.
“”This is not a sufficient report,” said Ann Fagan Ginger, Executive Director of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute based in Berkeley, California.
“The government continues its arrogant and illegal refusal to report major violations…in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere in Iraq and Afghanistan,” she told OneWorld Friday.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was signed by the U.S. in 1992 and outlaws torture or degrading treatment.
The treaty mandates signatories to submit reports on their compliance with the treaty every five years to the Human Rights Committee, which reviews reports and presents its findings to the United Nations. The U.S. reports were many years overdue….”
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1029-03.htm
Constitution say treaty obligations take precedence over Congressional Action
“Combating Torture
A Manual for Judges and Prosecutors
By Conor Foley”
http://www.essex.ac.uk/combatingtorturehandbook/manual/1_content.htm#2
“General prohibition
1.7 The prohibition of torture is found in a number of international human rights and humanitarian treaties and is also regarded as a principle of general international law. The prohibition of torture is also considered to carry a special status in general international law, that of jus cogens, which is a ‘peremptory norm’ of general international law.2 General international law is binding on all states, even if they have not ratified a particular treaty. Rules of jus cogens cannot be contradicted by treaty law or by other rules of international law.
1.8 The prohibition of torture is found in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and a number of international and regional human rights treaties. The vast majority of states have ratified treaties that contain provisions that prohibit torture and other forms of ill-treatment. These include: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966),3 the European Convention on Human Rights (1950),4 the American Convention on Human Rights (1978)5 and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (1981).6 The texts of the Articles relating to torture from some of these treaties and a table of country ratifications of selected universal treaties are included in the Appendices to this manual.
1.9 A number of treaties have also been drawn up specifically to combat torture. These are:
* the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 (Convention against Torture)
* the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1987
* the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture 1985.
The absolute prohibition of torture and ill-treatment is underlined by its non-derogable status in human rights law. There are no circumstances in which states can set aside or restrict this obligation, even in times of war or other emergency threatening the life of the nation, which may justify the suspension or limitation of some other rights.7 States are also restricted from making derogations which may put individuals at risk of torture or ill-treatment — for example, by allowing excessive periods of incommunicado detention or denying a detainee prompt access to a court.8 This prohibition operates irrespective of circumstances or attributes, such as the status of the victim or, if he or she is a criminal suspect, upon the crimes that the victim is suspected of having committed.9
1.10 State officials are prohibited from inflicting, instigating or tolerating the torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of any person. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification for torture.10 States are also required to ensure that all acts of torture are offences under their criminal law, establish criminal jurisdiction over such acts, investigate all such acts and hold those responsible for committing them to account.11…”
I hope somebody who is learned in international law (which I’m not) will post here about “universal jurisdiction.” That is a principle that if a country flagrantly violates basic norms of international law, such as the prohibition against torture, any country in the world has power to detain and bring charges. That would make for an interesting headline: Rumsfeld seized upon trip to Germany! Bush seized upon trip to Canada!
From the text of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
“Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”
http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm
The US ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992. The terms of the Int’l Covenant on Civil and Political Rights takes precedence over Congressional action.
And the U.S. Constitution also takes precedence over congressional action. It says, of course, that duly ratified treaties are the law of the land.
Seems to me there was something about cruel and unusual punishment.
Oh wait, that was for those convicted of crimes, but we don’t try, much less convict “enemy combatants”. After all, they might get off on technicalities. Innocence, for instance.