<div>The article first posted regarding court proceedings in Spain against Bush administration officials involving torture, made no mention of legal proceedings in a "World Court," unless I missed it. Anyway, if you read the source at the bottom of this post, it indicate the US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in the Hague. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, the same source at the bottom of my post outlines critical principles involved in the differences between "Natural Law" and "Legal Positivism" theory, referencing the legal reasoning in the Nuremberg trials, and the fact many Germans were following the laws of Germany at that time, which made some of the Nazi crimes "legal." Following the legal reasoning in the Nuremberg trials, Bush administration officials, down to CIA underlings and US military personal, are likely guilty of war crimes.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The source immediately below might offer legal background for the prosecution of Bush administration judicial branch officials involved in legalizing torture:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/alstoetter.htm">http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/alstoetter.htm</a></div>
<div>---------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But unless I misunderstand, the Spanish legal proceedings that might lead to arrest warrants for US Bush administration officials involved in justifying or committing criminal torture, are not aimed necessarily at a trial in a "World Court" such as the International Criminal Court in the Hague, Netherlands. And in fact, I am inclined to think, the case might still be brought regardless of US law on this issue, or what international treaties or conventions the US has signed regarding torture. I suppose the fact the US has agreed to international legal guidelines regarding torture, and has restrictions regarding "cruel and unusual punishment" for prisoners, is important, but I wonder if these facts are necessary to bring the case in Spain.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The issue is what Spain's laws state, and what international treaties and conventions Spain has agreed to involving torture. Crimes, according to Spanish law, were committed against Spanish citizens. If US citizens are guilty of these crimes, they are criminals under Spanish law. If they were convicted in absentia in a Spanish court, the US could refuse extradition. But if they came to Spain, they could be arrested.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>To restate differently as a hypothetical question: If US law explicitly stated that torture is allowed to get information from terrorist suspects, and the US had not signed any international treaties or conventions that limit torture, if the Spanish citizens involved in this case were tortured with the complicity of the US, are those involved criminals under Spanish law, allowing arrest warrants to be issued in Spain? </div>
<div>--------------------------------</div>
<div>The source below outlines Natural Law vs. Legal Positivism and these theories relation to international law and war crimes and crimes against humanity:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/law/lecture16_lp2.html">http://www.westga.edu/~rlane/law/lecture16_lp2.html</a></div>
<div>--------------------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett </div>
<div>--------------------------------</div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/30/09, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:bear@moscow.com" target="_blank">bear@moscow.com</a></b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:bear@moscow.com" target="_blank">bear@moscow.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Tom, Donovan, and Vision 2020 Readers,<br><br>This is in response to the comment:<br>"The only "police force" that I feel has it within their jurisdiction would<br>
be Interpol. Perhaps a group of nations could file charges with Interpol against George<br>Bush.<br>How would you foresee these nations proceeding against Bush?"<br><br>AND<br><br>"It would be a very bad idea to put OUR leaders up for trial in a Kangaroo World Court for<br>
<br>several reasons.<br>1) Our leaders are elected to do things that are something bad for other countries.<br>2) Our leaders hold national security information that could be exhorted from them<br>3) It allows other nations to determine what values and beliefs we should hold<br>
4) It allows others to establish laws higher than US laws, which we do not have input into<br>5) Our elected leaders would be pressured to do what is best for other nations over ours<br>out of<br>fear of punishment.<br>6) It would inconvenience our leaders from doing their jobs if they could be kidnapped and<br>
<br>moved to another country.<br><br>I suggest instead, we try our own leaders and allow other countries to do that same."<br><br><br>I think that looking for an arresting agency is putting the cart before the horse, but it<br>
is a good<br>comment.<br><br>First, we have to find a judicial agency of government, preferably the US Government, that<br>has<br>jurisdiction and brings charges. Not a big hurdle IF the US has the will to show the world<br>
at<br>large that we are in fact a nation of laws and that no one is above the law.<br><br>The Constitution of the US, Article VI, Paragraph 2, establishes the Constitution,<br>Federal<br>Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." On 18 Apr 1988, the United<br>
States<br>signed the "United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or<br>Degrading<br>Treatment or Punishment", which was ratified by the Senate on 21 Oct 1994, which by<br>incorporation makes it a US law, not just some international treaty that we haven't signed<br>
or<br>ratified. That step gets us into a court where the matters can be looked into. Once that<br>is<br>done, US law enforcement can take over from there. Once there is a legitimate information<br>or<br>indictment against the accused individuals, there are many domestic agencies that can<br>
execute<br>an arrest warrant and get the individuals before a court.<br><br>What that does is give the rest of the world the message that we do not hold our leaders<br>and<br>policy makers above the law. IF there are members of the US government, past or present,<br>
that<br>are accused of crimes, and at this point they are only accusations, they will be brought<br>before a<br>legally constituted court to answer those accusations.<br><br>Boy, what a message that sends not just current and past politicians, but what a message<br>
it<br>sends to the rest of the world in shaping its opinion of the US and just what kind of<br>people we<br>are. WE, the US, pushed the concept of no one being above the law when involved in<br>conflicts.<br>In the last 60 some years we can look at the Nuremberg Trials, flawed as they were, all<br>
the way<br>up through the arrests and trials of Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein. What is good for<br>one<br>country is good for others, otherwise we are just out there preaching "Do what I say, not<br>what I<br>do". Would go a long way to raising the stature of the US in the eyes of the world.<br>
<br><br><br><br><br><br></blockquote></div>