QUOTE
In the dock
Bad legal advice about torture could one day lead to prosecutions of the Bush administration in Europe.
by the guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Conor Foley
Last week's decision by the US supreme court to refuse to hear the case of a German citizen of Lebanese descent who was wrongfully arrested and tortured by CIA operatives, shows the legal gulf opening up between Europe and the United States on the issue of torture. Khalid el-Masri was apparently the victim of mistaken identity and has tried to take a civil action against the US authorities. The supreme court blocked the case without comment, but the US objections are believed to hinge on the need to preserve its "state secrets privilege".
Last month German prosecutors issued warrants against the 13 CIA agents who abducted Mr el-Masri and Germany's interior minister, Wolfgang Schäuble visited Washington to discuss the case. The US authorities have flatly refused to cooperate and the German government decided to drop proceedings in order to preserve diplomatic relations. However, thousands of people have suffered similar treatment in custody to Mr el-Masri in recent years and it is almost inevitable that senior members of the Bush administration will someday have to answer for it in a court of law.
The problems of the US authorities on this issue date back to an appalling piece of legal advice by the office of the former US attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, in August 2002. A memorandum issued at the time attempted to redefine torture with reference to agreed international legal standards, which, it argued, allowed interrogators to inflict far greater amounts of pain and cruelty than was previously thought.
The memo defined "torture" as consisting of "physical pain equivalent to in intensity to the pain which accompanied serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death". It distinguished this from "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment", which it defined as involving a lesser inflictions of pain and stated the European court of human rights as part of its authority for this claim. The memo then went on to note that while the UN convention against torture requires states to take criminal proceedings against perpetrators of the first, it merely condemns the second.
Full article at LINK
Bad legal advice about torture could one day lead to prosecutions of the Bush administration in Europe.
by the guardian.co.uk/commentisfree > Conor Foley
Last week's decision by the US supreme court to refuse to hear the case of a German citizen of Lebanese descent who was wrongfully arrested and tortured by CIA operatives, shows the legal gulf opening up between Europe and the United States on the issue of torture. Khalid el-Masri was apparently the victim of mistaken identity and has tried to take a civil action against the US authorities. The supreme court blocked the case without comment, but the US objections are believed to hinge on the need to preserve its "state secrets privilege".
Last month German prosecutors issued warrants against the 13 CIA agents who abducted Mr el-Masri and Germany's interior minister, Wolfgang Schäuble visited Washington to discuss the case. The US authorities have flatly refused to cooperate and the German government decided to drop proceedings in order to preserve diplomatic relations. However, thousands of people have suffered similar treatment in custody to Mr el-Masri in recent years and it is almost inevitable that senior members of the Bush administration will someday have to answer for it in a court of law.
The problems of the US authorities on this issue date back to an appalling piece of legal advice by the office of the former US attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, in August 2002. A memorandum issued at the time attempted to redefine torture with reference to agreed international legal standards, which, it argued, allowed interrogators to inflict far greater amounts of pain and cruelty than was previously thought.
The memo defined "torture" as consisting of "physical pain equivalent to in intensity to the pain which accompanied serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death". It distinguished this from "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment", which it defined as involving a lesser inflictions of pain and stated the European court of human rights as part of its authority for this claim. The memo then went on to note that while the UN convention against torture requires states to take criminal proceedings against perpetrators of the first, it merely condemns the second.
Full article at LINK
Emphasis added. One can only dream...
