Fun WIth Anonymous Sources

Scott Horton has an interesting article in The New Republic about the likelihood that Bush administration figures will face indictment abroad for war crimes and thus, as Larry Wilkerson put it, "Haynes, Feith, Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales and--at the apex--Addington, should never travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel." Horton writes:

Is it likely that prosecutions will be brought overseas? Yes. It is reasonably likely. Sands's book contains an interview with an investigating magistrate in a European nation, which he describes as a NATO nation with a solidly pro-American orientation which supported U.S. engagement in Iraq with its own soldiers. The magistrate makes clear that he is already assembling a case, and is focused on American policymakers. I read these remarks and they seemed very familiar to me. In the past two years, I have spoken with two investigating magistrates in two different European nations, both pro-Iraq war NATO allies. Both were assembling war crimes charges against a small group of Bush administration officials. "You can rest assured that no charges will be brought before January 20, 2009," one told me. And after that? "It depends. We don't expect extradition. But if one of the targets lands on our territory or on the territory of one of our cooperating jurisdictions, then we'll be prepared to act."

Doesn't it seem overwhelmingly likely that the anonymous magistrate here is Baltasar Garzón of Spain, the king of universal jurisdiction?

Comments

And the right wing hated him when he had Pinochet arrested? Gawrsh, Garzon would be portrayed as the evilest of the evil judges.

Posted by El Cid | June 20, 2008 2:23 PM

No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Posted by Gabriel Ramirez | June 20, 2008 2:25 PM

Oh this is good diplomacy. I'm sure the American publics' enthusiasm for trade and multilateral cooperation will go way up when they start arresting our diplomats, regardless of the justification. Hopefully someone along the line has some sense.

Posted by Wilson | June 20, 2008 2:28 PM

@wilson
They're not talking about arresting diplomats.

Posted by wiredog | June 20, 2008 2:30 PM

Since Horton has talked to "two investigating magistrates in two different European nations", why would the likelihood be overwhelming?

Posted by KCinDC | June 20, 2008 2:30 PM

Is it likely that prosecutions will be brought overseas? Yes.

That's wild. I guess you reap what you sow.

But of course, it won't be hard for those who may be indicted to avoid paying the piper, or anything.

Posted by Swan | June 20, 2008 2:34 PM

Man, if Baltazar is going after people, they better watch out. It's seriously a bad thing if we need a Spanish judge to prosecute our criminals. Not about him being Spanish, but because we can't police our own. Rather pathetic, really.

Posted by Jeremy | June 20, 2008 2:36 PM

@wilson

1) The American publics' appetite for free trade is not quite as great as you may think it is.

2) "Regardless of the justification" Well, the justification is the rule of law. enough said.

3)As previously noted, these are not diplomats' nor are they very popular in America. If you told the 70 percent of American's that hat this war that a bunch of faceless (sans Gonzalez) bureaucrats responsible for the war will be prosecuted, I don think they care.

This is great news, by the way. One can only hope that we roll farther up the tree to the big dawgs.

Posted by jeff | June 20, 2008 2:36 PM

That was my thought too. "Pro-Iraq war" was the clue to me.

Of course, it's pretty mainstream opinion, in the rest of the world, that people shouldn't commit war crimes, so it wouldn't be a shock if it were someone else in Spain.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | June 20, 2008 2:37 PM

Dear Rummy et al, If you want to see Barcelona, I suggest you go before January.

Posted by LFC | June 20, 2008 2:46 PM

If I were Baltasar Garzón I would not be flying on any personal or private jets ... they do have a habit of falling out of the sky when big energy is involved. And BushCO definitely has, um, ties to big energy.

Posted by DAS | June 20, 2008 2:51 PM

So what would an Obama administration do in response? Would they push for our guys to be released? Would they pressure our Allies not to bring charges in the first place?

Posted by Ronnie Pudding | June 20, 2008 2:54 PM

My first guess was Italy. They were pissed off enough about that kidnapping that they indicted a CIA station chief.

Posted by Njorl | June 20, 2008 2:58 PM

This has already been tried in both France and Germany (and it failed). It would be rather amusing to see tried again, though.

Posted by Al | June 20, 2008 3:04 PM

But this is our job. If we do not prosecute our own war criminals, however high their offices may have been, then truly a new, and dark, era will have dawned in American history.

If you don't think we are going to have to grapple with what has been done in the past seven years, then you're whistling past the graveyard. It won't work. The republic of laws will be broken if we do not deal with this. The Orwellian rhetoric of "We do not torture" lives and propagates more lies so long as we fail to face up to what has been done in our name.

Posted by elle loco | June 20, 2008 3:17 PM

This is a wonderful new "power" that certain "international law" prosecutors imagine they have gained themselves in the last two decades.
In their minds, if a nation has committed "crimes against hummanity" and fails to try those people according to a foreign nations tastes or sense of social justice - then the heroic prosecutors who stand for the good of all humanity may waylay officials from that nation. And, such lawyers from amy small insignifican nations wee themselves as completely equal in "legal power" while their little corner of the Earth barely merits a mention otherwise.
The problem is, then it is not rule of law, but judicial aggression against another nation - made in the guise of claims that the nation must accept officials that served it waylaid and imprisoned -to show they respect Rule of Law (which is code for bowing to tyranny of lawyers and judges).

Such Belgians and Spaniards of course have shrunk like poodles being led to a cold bath when matters of "universal jurisdiction" come up about officials from Muslim nations with active terror cells in Europe, 3rd World Leftist butchers, China, and of course the Russians with a hand on the oil and energy valve that supplies Europe. If it is a nation they think is not "safe to fuck with", then Baltasar Garzón and pals are smart enough to keep their mouths shut and not mess with visiting Iranians, Mugabe henchmen, Russian officials that blew up Grozny summering in Ibeza.

I would say that they miscalculate if they think America is "safe" to fuck with - there is little patience after the Tehran Embassy takeover for foreigners anywhere to hold present or former US officials as hostages.

Posted by chris ford | June 20, 2008 3:40 PM

Italy was my thought also for the second nation. Rumsfeld and Cheney better stay home too.

Posted by Mimikatz | June 20, 2008 3:40 PM

Is it likely that prosecutions will be brought overseas? Yes. It is reasonably likely.

Oh yes, I'm sure they're just terrified at the prospect of these joke "prosecutions." Just like Bill Clinton was when a Canadian law professor filed a complaint with the International Criminal Tribunal, charging him with "war crimes" for his role in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

If you don't think we are going to have to grapple with what has been done in the past seven years, then you're whistling past the graveyard.

Oh, grow up.

Posted by Mixner | June 20, 2008 3:43 PM

This is a wonderful new "power" that certain "international law" prosecutors imagine they have gained themselves in the last two decades. - chris ford

Two decades? It's been longer than that since the trials at Nuernburg.

I imagine you would have been against those trials too?

Posted by DAS | June 20, 2008 3:44 PM

Oh this is good diplomacy. I'm sure the American publics' enthusiasm for trade and multilateral cooperation will go way up when they start arresting our diplomats, regardless of the justification. Hopefully someone along the line has some sense.

Hey Wilson:

Stop whining and get used to it.

Posted by MCGuff | June 20, 2008 3:52 PM

Spain was an authoritarian fascist dictatorship until 1976. Much of the city of Antwerp in Belgium was built with blood money raised during the Congo Free State days when Belgium ran a slave-state where millions died - possibly the worst crime against humanity ever committed. As recently as 1964, Belgium was assassinating the democratically elected president of the Congo and in spite doing everything they could to ruin their former colony contributing to its misery today.
Spain and Belgium are today the most self righteous nations on Earth, sentencing other countries government leaders to jail time. These sanctimonious hypocrites sure have short memories. As soon as European countries make it right for all the suffering caused by their colonial adventures, they can pass judgment on our leaders for crimes far, far, FAR less than anything they ever did. And further, they wouldn't even exist as independent countries if not for the US unilaterally overthrowing foreign governments such as Nazi Germany. On this particular issue, if you're on Spain's side and not on George Bush's, you're a jackass.

Posted by Nathan | June 20, 2008 4:08 PM

I don't know who the source is, but that dude is wearing a kick ass Brioni jacket. The awesome lapel roll is a dead give away. James Bond would approve.

Posted by dizzyg | June 20, 2008 4:11 PM

I will give Nathan credit for knowing about being a jackass, but not the ability to identify this characteristic in anyone other than himself, nor does he appear capable of being able to tell the difference between officials of the Bush administration and "the United States".

The unnamed magistrate is not, as far as anyone has suggested, reportedly considering charging U.S. officials for having fought WWII, nor 'cause they like think America's like evil & stuff.

But then there are a lot of raving jackasses who think that any attempt to force U.S. politicians to behave lawfully or to risk the same consequences for themselves that they often assert upon those of other nations is some sort of statement that all Americans are evil.

Posted by El Cid | June 20, 2008 4:17 PM

How do you think the public would react if Gonzales was arrested?

Do you think Obama could politically survive doing nothing? Good God, the Republicans would go absolutely insane.

Posted by MNPundit | June 20, 2008 4:34 PM

Spain and Belgium are today the most self righteous nations on Earth,

The French, the Dutch and the British give them a good run for their money. If the Europeans ever get serious about cleaning up the messes they left behind from their colonial adventures, then they might be in a position to lecture the United States about foreign policy. I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by Mixner | June 20, 2008 4:36 PM

The 'universal jurisdiction' doctrine seems not to have emerged from the Nuremburg Trials; altho that was my first thought also. The winning side in 1945, we recall, included this fairly repugnant creature named Stalin so the western powers were probably wise to leave it alone back then. A quick (superficial, I guess) search points to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1674 of 2006 as a legal source but there are further paths to the 2000 Millenium meeting of world leaders at the UN. Most of the cased are from Europe (think Slobedan Milosevic).

It's also worth noting that one of the most outspoken critics of universal jurisdiction is Henry Kissenger. No surprise there; he has to avoid French territory to stay out of the pokey.

As rhetoric, every serious person acknowledges our responsibility for injustices such as genocide. Clinton admits he shirked this duty regarding Rawanda. GeoWBush has used the brutality of Saddam Hussein as justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Personally, I'd travel across the world to try to watch GeoWBush brought to trial. Just imagining it sets me all aglow.

Posted by JohnMcC | June 20, 2008 4:39 PM

I'm someone who inclined to agree with Nathan's point on other issues: it's really rich hypocrisy when a European (or even the US) nation gets on the case of some poor country trying to get ahead by doing the same sorts of things (protecting infant industries, transfering ethnic groups, etc.) that the US and Europe were doing as recently as 60 years ago.

For the US and Europe to have clean hands and not be hypocrites when we complain about certain actions when undertaken by other countries, we really need to face up to our history, especially when we benefit from the fruits of our sordid history. We need to make reparations to descendents of slaves and Native Americans. Europe needs to face up to how it continues to benefit from its colonial past (and stop pretending like they are a bunch of innocent lotus eaters), etc, before we can have full moral authority to criticize, e.g., what Israel is doing vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

However, there is no such hypocrisy here. Spain is not benefitting from Franco's legacy (it's been a drag on Spain, hasn't it?) even as a certain Spaniard likely is trying to prosecute Americans who have used quasi-Franco-esque tactics (which, FWIW, have not benefitted the US). This is not a case of "we in Spain have had our fun and continue to profit from it, but we'll prosecute people in other countries who do the same". The issues involved are ones from which Spain has not profitted nor ones from which we are not profitting (unless you buy into whack-job righty-tighty rhetoric about the war on terror).

Nu? There is no jack-ass hypocrisy here.

Posted by DAS | June 20, 2008 4:42 PM

DAS,

Unless Spain rights its own foreign policy wrongdoings, it doesn't have the moral authority to attack America for what it alleges to be ours. Pot, kettle, etc. Ditto for all the other self-righteous, sanctimonious, hypocritical Eurotrash critics of U.S. policy and their sycophantic American fellow-travelers.

Posted by Mixner | June 20, 2008 5:25 PM

If memory serves, universal jurisdiction in the common law dates to piracy cases tried in the Star Chamber in the 1600's.

Read some of those cases and discover why we have several of the rights in the bill of rights. The jury instructions were along the lines of "[y]ou must convict, not like that pack of scoundrels that acquitted the Defendant in the first trial."

Posted by PSP | June 20, 2008 5:51 PM

I always find it ironic that when veiled threats of prosection like this are issued (mostly by European courts) they are never against malefactors of the old Soviet bloc countries. Guys like Putin, Castro etc never seem to have to worry about this

Posted by Campesino | June 20, 2008 6:25 PM

"except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel." Best not go there, either. Plane might break down and have to land in, I don't know, Spain, maybe.

Posted by Jose Padilla | June 20, 2008 6:34 PM

What about all the neocon journalists and pundits like Judy Miller, David Brooks, Krauthammer, Kristol, ad nauseum who shrieked for the blood of Muslims to be shed so long as the dumb goyim were doing the fighting. When are we going to start stringing THEM up? When are we going to take care of our own war criminals?

Posted by Trevor | June 20, 2008 6:35 PM

Also, there are a bunch of countries Henry Kissenger cannot travel to. In 2001 he had to turn down an invitation to Brazil because they could not guarantee him immunity from arrest. He also doesn't travel to Britain. Apparently, he gets legal advice before he travels. People like Al should realize that the rest of the world views America differently than he thinks it does.

Posted by Jose Padilla | June 20, 2008 6:43 PM

"Let he who is without sin..." Really? Hypocrisy is a worse injustice than war crimes gone unpunished? I would rather it was the ICC and not a Spanish prosecutor (or whomever) bringing this case, but how can it be worse than not even attempting to hold these criminals to account?

Posted by phensley | June 20, 2008 6:51 PM

Unless Spain rights its own foreign policy wrongdoings, it doesn't have the moral authority to attack America for what it alleges to be ours.

Uh huh. And unless the silly glibertarian boy subjects his own principles to the standard he demands of others, he has the moral authority of bubonic plague.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 20, 2008 6:54 PM

A prosecution by the International Criminal Court makes sense. An Obama administration would be under a great deal of international pressure to join it. And because Obama is a constitutional lawyer, I don't see how he could reasonably say no. I don't know how much say the Senate would have in this regard, but I seem to remember that the Clinton administration wanted to join, but was blocked by Congress. I would think that the United States joining the ICC would open Bush administration officials to prosecution. (That possibility would encourage Republicans to block such a move, of course.)

In this sense, if judges in, say, Spain and Italy are building such cases, it could have the benefit of the cases being ready to file with the ICC.

General Tacuba, the investigator of Abu Ghraib, just stated that the United States had in fact committed war crimes. The less the United States does to prosecute these war criminals, the more incentive there is for prosecutors in other countries to bring cases. Spain and Italy are certainly the most likely places, but other European countries and countries elsewhere could also do so.

The charge of hypocrisy cannot be sustained. If Europeans are to be ruled out because of colonialism, what right then did the United States have to prosecute Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg after its own bloody record of slavery and genocide against Native Americans? Those who make this argument see self-righteousness when it is simply the law being applied.

It is precisely because previous Italian and Spanish governments were complicit in supporting the invasion of Iraq that some of their judges might be concerned that U.S. war criminals not get away with their crimes.

Posted by John Raymond | June 20, 2008 7:24 PM

"Let he who is without sin..." Really? Hypocrisy is a worse injustice than war crimes gone unpunished?

Right. "War crimes" like the bombing of Yugoslavia by U.S. President Bill Clinton and his fellow NATO leaders. When will justice ever be served, dammit!

Also, there are a bunch of countries Henry Kissenger cannot travel to. In 2001 he had to turn down an invitation to Brazil because they could not guarantee him immunity from arrest. He also doesn't travel to Britain.

Good grief. So how does "war criminal" Tony Blair, notorious for his role in the "illegal" War in Iraq, escape arrest? Is he in hiding? And let's not forget those other notorious "war criminals," Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who voted to authorize the "illegal" war. String 'em up!

Anyway, enough of this namby-pamby "prosecution" nonsense. That's not enough. Let's issue a Fatwa.

Posted by Mixner | June 20, 2008 7:27 PM

would rather it was the ICC

Neither Iraq or the U.S. are member states so it's out of their jurisdiction.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 20, 2008 7:37 PM

A prosecution by the International Criminal Court makes sense. An Obama administration would be under a great deal of international pressure to join it. And because Obama is a constitutional lawyer, I don't see how he could reasonably say no.

Someone else has partaken of the crazy kool-aid, I see. Here's an idea: why don't you email the Obama campaign and ask them if he favors the prosecution of Bush, Cheney, etc. by the ICC for "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" or whatever hilarious charge it is that you seek. Be sure and let us know what they say in response.

If Europeans are to be ruled out because of colonialism, what right then did the United States have to prosecute Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg after its own bloody record of slavery and genocide against Native Americans?

The United States did not prosecute Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg.

Posted by Mixner | June 20, 2008 7:39 PM

Nathan: "...US unilaterally overthrowing foreign governments such as Nazi Germany".

Unilaterally? Wow.
Bring them freedom fries.

Posted by ao | June 20, 2008 8:40 PM

Matt, here's a "request": Given the McClatchy series this week and the Congressional hearings on torture, how can we NOT move forward inexorablly to the prosecution of this rot that has already been traced all the way into the basement of the White House?

It's going to be a long road, and it won't be easy...but how can we not go there? The gravity of the law is not as suspendable as is the reality principle surrounding groupthink.

Posted by elle loco | June 20, 2008 9:07 PM

The thought that Kissinger has to check with his lawyers which countries he's allowed to travel to makes me infinitely happy. Even if the whole international jurisdiction movement will only ever achieve symbolic victories like this, it is a worthwhile effort.

Also, I'd like to put in a request for smarter trolls.

Posted by novakant | June 20, 2008 9:19 PM

I knew it wouldn't take long for Herr KKKris Ford to weigh in against the injustice of the Nuremburg trials.

Posted by McKingford | June 20, 2008 9:22 PM

Still waiting for you to explain why you're not going after Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Tony Blair, Gerhard Schroder etc. for their "war crimes" relating to Yugoslavia.

After all, the Independent Commission of Inquiry to Investigate U.S./NATO War Crimes Against the People of Yugoslavia found them guilty of "nineteen separate Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, other international agreements and customary international law."

The "prosecution" was lead by Ramsey Clark, former United States Attorney General under Lyndon Johnson.

Posted by Mixner | June 20, 2008 9:57 PM

If the Spanish Battlestar Galactica is after us, we don't stand a chance.

Posted by Mario | June 20, 2008 10:18 PM

Mixner, the past tense of "lead" is "led"--like, uh, Led Zeppelin. Dude. C U in the Hague, and let's call Hitch in for fun pub games!

Posted by elle loco | June 20, 2008 10:31 PM

loco,

Well done for spotting that. Do let us know of any other typos you find while you're trying to figure out your excuse.

Posted by Mixner | June 20, 2008 10:37 PM

"So what would an Obama administration do in response?"

Bend over and let the Carlyle Group ream his butt, that's what he'll do.

I repeat my question from yesterday. Does anybody here really think that an Obama administration will really try to find out what sort of crap the Bushies have done for the last eight years - AND tell the public about it? AND do something about it?

No chance. They're going to be doing the same things themselves.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 20, 2008 11:03 PM

Well, actually Mr Mixner the United States did in fact prosecute Nazi war criminals at the Nuremberg Trials. Sigh--and it is so easy to avoid appearing stupid. Google 'London Charter' of August 1945, for example. See!!! You no longer appear foolish.

Posted by JohnMcC | June 20, 2008 11:28 PM

JohnMcC - It's also worth noting that one of the most outspoken critics of universal jurisdiction is Henry Kissenger. No surprise there; he has to avoid French territory to stay out of the pokey.

It is worth noting that other outspoken critics of universal jurisdiction claims by any ambitious prosecutor in any pipsqueak Euro country arguing they have a right to hold international leaders for trial include Kofi Annan (complicit in the Rwandan and Iraq Sanctions "genocides", Colin Powell, Madilyn Albright (Iraq sanctions and "illegal war of aggression" in the Balkans), Turkisg leaders (the Kurd genocide). But amazingly enough, the judicial bully-boys seem to avoid talking about arresting Arab leaders, Chinese, Burmese, Cuban, the Russian "butchers of Grozny" - for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity or new delicate Euro sensibilities - like the plague.

Seriously, what are the odds of the Belgian or Spanish puffed-up lawyers wishing to lay hands on Chinese or Russian officials for their "atrocities" having the actual balls to do so? Or the French arresting "crimes against humanity" Saudis, Iranians, Algerian, Sudanese officials while they are on Parisian shopping sprees blowing 100s of millions in jewelery, high fashion, and 3,000 Euros and hour model hookers?

More from Obama minion labeled JohnMcC - As rhetoric, every serious person acknowledges our responsibility for injustices such as genocide. Clinton admits he shirked this duty regarding Rawanda. GeoWBush has used the brutality of Saddam Hussein as justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Hard to see how sitting on your asses cowering behind legal rhetoric and US armor while wailing and carping on "moral complicity" by doing nothing on genocide, human rights violations applies to US Presidents... But not to craven Lefty lawyers from Belgium, France, Spain or the well-heeled Lefty US Jews from wealthy families that are so active in "Human Rights" legal advocacy groups. Who, to a man, never risked their precious Armani-covered asses liberating anybody or stopping any genocide.
In fact, lets not forget that the modern genocides in Spanish Morocco and Rwanda were triggered with the cowardly retreats of Spanish and Belgian troops - and subsequently replaced by self-righteous lawyers who operate in safety because nations that do fight bravely or were ready to.

More Obama minion - Personally, I'd travel across the world to try to watch GeoWBush brought to trial. Just imagining it sets me all aglow.

If you do, be sure to take out some life insurance. The thought of the full US AF and Navy assets plus several thousand special ops and Marine armor brigades storming into action to free US hostages - even if they and the hostages and several hundred Lefty courtroom attendees die in the process - really warms my heart.

Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch, Ramsey Clark, a pack of Euro-lawyers and baying lefty activists whacked in combat during a rescue attempt? It would be celebrated in song and legend right up there with "the shores of Tripoli" , D-Day invasion, and raising the flag on Iwo Jima.

Well, actually Mr Mixner the United States did in fact prosecute Nazi war criminals at the Nuremberg Trials. Sigh--and it is so easy to avoid appearing stupid. Google 'London Charter' of August 1945, for example. See!!! You no longer appear foolish.
Posted by JohnMcC

I believe Mixner will point out that it was largely a sham prosecution, with a military tribunal and made up new legal rules the victors agreed on would not apply to the actions of their own forces. With no right of appeal or cross-examination of witnesses for the allies. All other nations outside Allied combatants and a good share of peripheral allied countries - were told they would not participate.

Fortunately, the war crimes of the Nazis and the even more bestial but less lethally efficient Japanese were grave and unquestioned.
But it was victor's justice. With Nazi admirals hanged for unrestricted U-boat warfare, while the US got a pass for doing the same in the Pacific. Various leaders condemned to death for "war of aggression" by some of the very Soviets that had participated in the invasion of Finland, the Baltics, and the partitioning of Poland. Coventry, London, and Rotterdam bombings came up, but not Dresden or Nagasaki.

But of course you probably know all this, because the Left, in it's quest for "precious terrorist rights" and "strike at the evil Bush-Hitler" by any means necessary, has been hard at work undermining nearly every aspect of Nuremburg precindent. Along with their Jihadi and liberal SCOTUS fellow-travellers.

Posted by chris ford | June 21, 2008 1:03 AM

Bringing actual new information to the debate: I heard Sands speak when his article was just coming out, and he spoke about that singular conversation upon which this article is based. He said that, in his opinion, such prosecution was neither likely nor advisable. Rather, the interesting things are that:
1) There is a case for such prosecution and
2) Bush administration officials had left themselves open to such prosecution by granting themselves immunity, opening themselves up to the rule that was applied to Pinochet, that such international prosecution is only appropriate where there is no possibility of a domestic remedy (Pinochet had also had his regime grant him immunity).

That rule, incidentally, is why it would not be appropriate to prosecute any of the NATO-Yugoslav people, because they all hail from countries with functioning court systems where their alleged victims could have their day in court and gain redress were they guilty. While there were possibly violations of international law, I would not hang my hat too highly on Ramsey Clark's report - this is the guy who defended Saddam and was withering in his critique of that tribunal's legitimacy; it was a sad spectacle.

In the end, it is lucky that intelligent people thought these things through before guys like Mixner could bring their devastating attacks. A law degree, particularly if one studies a significant amount of transnational litigation and international law, is invaluable in such discussions.

Posted by Vermando | June 21, 2008 1:15 AM

Vermando,

That rule, incidentally, is why it would not be appropriate to prosecute any of the NATO-Yugoslav people, because they all hail from countries with functioning court systems where their alleged victims could have their day in court and gain redress were they guilty.

If that's your excuse for not going after Clinton in foreign and international courts, then it applies to Bush also. Good luck with your pursuit of war crimes charges in American courts.

Bush administration officials had left themselves open to such prosecution by granting themselves immunity, opening themselves up to the rule that was applied to Pinochet, that such international prosecution is only appropriate where there is no possibility of a domestic remedy

No one can grant himself immunity from prosecution by American courts. You don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by Mixner | June 21, 2008 1:29 AM

Jose,

About Kissinger and London.

I noticed several days ago a $25,000 fundraiser for McCain in London this coming week that is cohosted by Kissinger. I went back to doublecheck the date just now and the fundraiser was scrubbed from the site.

You can still find it on google.

Posted by oderb | June 21, 2008 10:43 AM

No one can grant himself immunity from prosecution by American courts. You don't know what you're talking about.

Bush Seeks Immunity for Violating War Crimes Act

duh

Posted by novakant | June 21, 2008 2:02 PM

novakant,

You do know what the word "seeks" means, don't you?

Duh.

When can we expect to see federal indictments of the notorious war criminals William Jefferson Clinton and Madeleine K. Albright?

Posted by Mixner | June 21, 2008 2:15 PM

Oh if only the great Mixner in his infinite wisdom had told them it was futile - you truly are an idiot.

Posted by novakant | June 21, 2008 3:44 PM

I suspect that (1) at some point a former Bush Administration official will travel to a place they should have avoided and get arrested, and (2) we will see the arguments made by conservatives here (that it is hostage taking, that universal jurisdiction is an act of war, etc.) made by the conservative movement. I further suspect, however, that the US government will not treat any such act as an act of war and instead will attempt some diplomatic means of obtaining the person's release. And I have no idea if such means will be successful or not.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 22, 2008 5:30 AM