FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Exporting Torture, Courting Prosecution … Still

Exactly two years have passed since President Obama banned the United States from torturing captives?sort of. More precisely, he banned the United States from torturing captives directly. He left intact the option of sending captives elsewhere to be tortured.

We know this because CIA Director Leon Panetta has assured us that extraordinary rendition?i.e., kidnapping someone and sending him to a Third World dungeon, where he will all but certainly be tortured?remains a tool in the president’s toolbox. If the president has availed himself of this maul, as is likely, then he has made himself a criminal no less than his predecessor in the Oval Office did.

Their common crime is violating the UN Convention Against Torture, which Congress and President Clinton made law in 1994 (after years of stalling by Presidents Reagan and Bush the elder). The law says, “It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture . . .”

Apologists of extraordinary rendition and torture have argued that our extraordinary enemy justifies extraordinary measures. But this is a canard the Convention Against Torture foresaw. “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever,” the law reads, “whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency may be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The punishment for breaking the law is a fine of unlimited amount and, if the torturer’s victim survives, imprisonment for up to twenty years. If the victim dies, the penalty could be death. The Convention Against Torture obligates its signatories to prosecute torturers within their borders, but Obama needn’t worry about a stay in the Florence Supermax anytime soon. Federal prosecutors serve at his pleasure, and any who indicted him would soon be looking for other work, not that any have shown an inclination to indict.

Foreign prosecutors, however, are not so constrained and could someday charge him under a doctrine known as universal jurisdiction. The doctrine holds that when an atrocity is (a) so grave as to constitute an assault on all peoples of the world and yet (b) goes unpunished in the country where it was committed, a prosecutor anywhere may indict and try the suspected perpetrator. The doctrine is legitimated by several international accords, including the Convention Against Torture, and by a growing body of other international and national law. It was under universal jurisdiction that Spanish magistrate Baltasar Garz?n issued his celebrated arrest warrant in 1998 for the murderous Chilean dictator Augustus Pinochet.

Is America’s outsourcing of torture so momentous a crime as to permit prosecution under universal jurisdiction? Indeed it is, for systematic torture (including systematically outsourced torture) is viewed by international law as not merely a crime but a crime against humanity. At Nuremburg we prosecuted Nazis for similarly overseeing torture?and we executed some of the guilty.

For the moment, however, Obama is safe from prosecution abroad, because the most prevalent interpretation of universal jurisdiction holds that sitting officials are immune from prosecution. But the younger Bush and Clinton enjoy no such immunity. (Clinton isn’t often spoken of as a criminal against humanity, but it was his White House that conceived of and ordered America’s first extraordinary rendition?then ordered several dozen thereafter.) Will Bush and Clinton remain uncharged? Will Obama? Only time will tell. Pinochet, after all, was not prosecuted until two decades after he committed his crimes. But already we know that Spanish and Italian magistrates have gathered evidence against senior Bush officials, and perhaps even against Bush himself, for authorizing torture. Exhibit A in their indictments might be Bush’s boasts of having been, as he might say, “the authorizer.” Exhibit B might be the similar boasts of former Vice President Cheney.

Obama has refused to investigate Bush’s crimes because, he says, he wants to look forward, not backward. While it is no doubt true that Obama views such investigations as backward-looking distractions, a fuller truth?one almost entirely overlooked by the media?is that were he to prosecute Bush, he would set a precedent for prosecuting himself and Clinton. There are as few Democrats who wish for his indictment as there are Republicans who wish for Bush and Cheney’s?and that will be true for quite some time. Which is why if America’s moral reckoning is to come sooner rather than later, it will probably come from the chambers of an Old World magistrate with a principled abhorrence of torturers-in-chief.

STEVE HENDRICKS is the author of A Kidnapping in Milan: The CIA on Trialwhich chronicles the CIA’s extraordinary rendition of an Egyptian cleric and the trial in Italy of the CIA kidnappers. His e-mail is Steve@SteveHendricks.org.

 

More articles by:

Steve Hendricks is the author, most recently, of  A Kidnapping in Milan: The CIA on Trial. His website is SteveHendricks.org.

Weekend Edition
December 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
A Tale of Two Cities
Peter Linebaugh
The Significance of The Common Wind
Bruce E. Levine
The Ketamine Chorus: NYT Trumpets New Anti-Suicide Drug
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fathers and Sons, Bushes and Bin Ladens
Kathy Deacon
Coffee, Social Stratification and the Retail Sector in a Small Maritime Village
Nick Pemberton
Praise For America’s Second Leading Intellectual
Robert Hunziker
The Yellow Vest Insurgency – What’s Next?
Patrick Cockburn
The Yemeni Dead: Six Times Higher Than Previously Reported
Nick Alexandrov
George H. W. Bush: Another Eulogy
Brian Cloughley
Principles and Morality Versus Cash and Profit? No Contest
Michael F. Duggan
Climate Change and the Limits of Reason
Victor Grossman
Sighs of Relief in Germany
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Robert Fantina
What Does Beto Have Against the Palestinians?
Richard Falk – Daniel Falcone
Sartre, Said, Chomsky and the Meaning of the Public Intellectual
Andrew Glikson
Crimes Against the Earth
Robert Fisk
The Parasitic Relationship Between Power and the American Media
Stephen Cooper
When Will Journalism Grapple With the Ethics of Interviewing Mentally Ill Arrestees?
Jill Richardson
A War on Science, Morals and Law
Ron Jacobs
A Propagandist of Privatization
Evaggelos Vallianatos
It’s Not Easy Being Greek
Nomi Prins 
The Inequality Gap on a Planet Growing More Extreme
John W. Whitehead
Know Your Rights or You Will Lose Them
David Swanson
The Abolition of War Requires New Thoughts, Words, and Actions
J.P. Linstroth
Primates Are Us
Bill Willers
The War Against Cash
Jonah Raskin
Doris Lessing: What’s There to Celebrate?
Ralph Nader
Are the New Congressional Progressives Real? Use These Yardsticks to Find Out
Binoy Kampmark
William Blum: Anti-Imperial Advocate
Medea Benjamin – Alice Slater
Green New Deal Advocates Should Address Militarism
John Feffer
Review: Season 2 of Trump Presidency
Rich Whitney
General Motors’ Factories Should Not Be Closed. They Should Be Turned Over to the Workers
Christopher Brauchli
Deported for Christmas
Kerri Kennedy
This Holiday Season, I’m Standing With Migrants
Mel Gurtov
Weaponizing Humanitarian Aid
Thomas Knapp
Lame Duck Shutdown Theater Time: Pride Goeth Before a Wall?
George Wuerthner
The Thrill Bike Threat to the Elkhorn Mountains
Nyla Ali Khan
A Woman’s Selfhood and Her Ability to Act in the Public Domain: Resilience of Nadia Murad
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
On the Killing of an Ash Tree
Graham Peebles
Britain’s Homeless Crisis
Louis Proyect
America: a Breeding Ground for Maladjustment
Steve Carlson
A Hell of a Time
Dan Corjescu
America and The Last Ship
Jeffrey St. Clair
Booked Up: the 25 Best Books of 2018
David Yearsley
Bikini by Rita, Voice by Anita
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail