The NYT is reporting that Spain has opened a judicial inquiry into the question of whether USG officials committed torture in their interrogations of Guantánamo detainees.
Wait, what? How does a Spanish court have any claim to jurisdiction over the actions of Americans in Cuba? It's not, as would make slightly more sense, because one of the detainees in question is a Spanish citizen. No, it's because of "Spain's observance of the principle of universal justice."
"Garzon said he was acting under Spain's observance of the principle of universal justice, which allows crimes allegedly committed in other countries to be prosecuted in Spain."
Ouch! So now Spain can prosecute me for offenses supposedly committed anywhere in the world? I'm as much against torture as the next guy, but isn't that a significant expansion of jurisdiction? Can Spain prosecute me for breaking the laws of my own country in my own country? For breaking Spanish laws in my own country? For breaking "international laws?" I feel like I need an informational brochure on this.
"Garzon cited media accounts of the documents and said he would ask the U.S. to send the documents to him."
Ooh, so sorry, national secrets and all...sure you understand.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Bagram detainees gain access to U.S. courts
A U.S. District Court judge ruled today that three non-Afghan detainees who are currently being held at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. This ruling extends the Supreme Court's ruling, in Boumediene v. Bush, that detainees at Guantánamo could do the same thing (see this post for a discussion of who remains at Guantánamo).
In related news, I attended a talk a few days ago by NYU Law professor Stephen Schulhofer, who argued that the U.S. civilian criminal justice system is flexible enough to try the Guantánamo detainees, even accounting for questions of classified evidence, hearsay, and possibly torture. In contrast to the opinion, expressed elsewhere, that the Bush administration rendered dangerous people unprosecutable in civilian courts through the use of "enhanced interrogation methods," Schulhofer believes that any detainee who is unconvictable in U.S. civilian courts is probably not a danger to the United States. The Justice Department is reportedly in the process of analyzing the prosecutability of the remaining Guantánamo detainees.
In related news, I attended a talk a few days ago by NYU Law professor Stephen Schulhofer, who argued that the U.S. civilian criminal justice system is flexible enough to try the Guantánamo detainees, even accounting for questions of classified evidence, hearsay, and possibly torture. In contrast to the opinion, expressed elsewhere, that the Bush administration rendered dangerous people unprosecutable in civilian courts through the use of "enhanced interrogation methods," Schulhofer believes that any detainee who is unconvictable in U.S. civilian courts is probably not a danger to the United States. The Justice Department is reportedly in the process of analyzing the prosecutability of the remaining Guantánamo detainees.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Karzai seeks to move elections forward
The US presidential transition has not been easy for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who has seen his status in Washington downgraded from untouchable golden boy to semi-legitimate leader of a narco-state. While Bush used to hold weekly video conferences with the dashing Pashtun, then-Senator Joe Biden famously walked out in the middle of a dinner with Karzai after the Afghan leader had stated that there was no corruption in his administration. Now the NYT and other sources are reporting that Karzai has decreed that the upcoming presidential elections, which had been scheduled for August, will be moved forward to April or May.
While this appears, in one sense, to be an attempt to avert a constitutional crisis stemming from the fact that Karzai is required by law to step down when his term ends on May 21, many commentators suspect darker motives. These include the possibilities that Karzai (1) wants to use US and NATO logistics and support for his campaign, as he did last time, and (2) wants to take his opponents by surprise by holding the election before they are prepared to mount an effective challenge:
"Snap elections might favor Mr. Karzai, as his opponents would probably be unprepared for such a short campaign. The earlier elections also would keep him from having to run a campaign while under a cloud of accusations that he had overstayed his term and was no longer a legitimate president."
Karzai's opponents, by the way, include former Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani (a long-time power broker), recently-former Finance Minister Anwar ul-Haq Ahadi (slick but maybe competent), and First Vice President Ahmad Zia Massood (brother of the assasinated leader of the Northern Alliance and "Lion of the Panjsher," Ahmad Shah Massood).
You may remember from a previous post that BU anthropologist Thomas Barfield predicted that Karzai, whose popularity hovers around 20%, might try to steal this election. Stay tuned for more devilry!
While this appears, in one sense, to be an attempt to avert a constitutional crisis stemming from the fact that Karzai is required by law to step down when his term ends on May 21, many commentators suspect darker motives. These include the possibilities that Karzai (1) wants to use US and NATO logistics and support for his campaign, as he did last time, and (2) wants to take his opponents by surprise by holding the election before they are prepared to mount an effective challenge:
"Snap elections might favor Mr. Karzai, as his opponents would probably be unprepared for such a short campaign. The earlier elections also would keep him from having to run a campaign while under a cloud of accusations that he had overstayed his term and was no longer a legitimate president."
Karzai's opponents, by the way, include former Finance Minister Ashraf Ghani (a long-time power broker), recently-former Finance Minister Anwar ul-Haq Ahadi (slick but maybe competent), and First Vice President Ahmad Zia Massood (brother of the assasinated leader of the Northern Alliance and "Lion of the Panjsher," Ahmad Shah Massood).
You may remember from a previous post that BU anthropologist Thomas Barfield predicted that Karzai, whose popularity hovers around 20%, might try to steal this election. Stay tuned for more devilry!
Back from Algeria
Hey all (er...that's all of you who read this blog, which I think at this point is Boris), I'm back from almost two months in Algeria. I decided not to post anything while I was there, not because I was specifically advised not to, but because I wanted to avoid any possibility of causing problems for my hosts and the people I was working with. As I mentioned in the previous post, this threw something of a wrench into my plans to launch this blog on Inauguration Day, although you can rest assured that I watched the whole thing from my hotel room on the BBC. Anyway, I had a good time, did some technical work which is not hugely relevant to this blog, rocked the cash bar, and am raring to go with some new posts about that rascally Hamid Karzai. So thanks for bearing with me (Boris) and expect more content in the next few days.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Going to Algeria
I'm leaving tomorrow for Algeria and Morocco, where I expect to be working for the next few weeks. I'm not sure whether I'll be able to post things there, which could interfere with my plans to "launch" this thing on Inauguration Day. Stay tuned...
Friday, January 2, 2009
NYT calls out the Karzai family
The NYT's Dexter Filkins has said, more clearly than I have seen before, what Afghans have long understood and the international community has gradually come to appreciate: the Afghan government is deeply corrupt and the Karzai family is in on the game:
"Kept afloat by billions of dollars in American and other foreign aid, the government of Afghanistan is shot through with corruption and graft. From the lowliest traffic policeman to the family of President Hamid Karzai himself, the state built on the ruins of the Taliban government seven years ago now often seems to exist for little more than the enrichment of those who run it.
A raft of investigations has concluded that people at the highest levels of the Karzai administration, including President Karzai’s own brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, are cooperating in the country’s opium trade, now the world’s largest. In the streets and government offices, hardly a public transaction seems to unfold here that does not carry with it the requirement of a bribe, a gift, or, in case you are a beggar, “harchee” — whatever you have in your pocket."
Most surprising to me was the article's suggestion that Dr. Abdul Jabbar Sabit, until recently the Attorney General, was himself a part of the corruption he gained considerable fame for combating; I met Dr. Sabit in Kabul and heard a great deal from others about his honesty. In any case, the dysfunctionality of the Karzai government will pose a major challenge to the incoming administration; until aid money starts making it past bureaucrats' pockets, it will not start to rebuild the country.
"Kept afloat by billions of dollars in American and other foreign aid, the government of Afghanistan is shot through with corruption and graft. From the lowliest traffic policeman to the family of President Hamid Karzai himself, the state built on the ruins of the Taliban government seven years ago now often seems to exist for little more than the enrichment of those who run it.
A raft of investigations has concluded that people at the highest levels of the Karzai administration, including President Karzai’s own brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, are cooperating in the country’s opium trade, now the world’s largest. In the streets and government offices, hardly a public transaction seems to unfold here that does not carry with it the requirement of a bribe, a gift, or, in case you are a beggar, “harchee” — whatever you have in your pocket."
Most surprising to me was the article's suggestion that Dr. Abdul Jabbar Sabit, until recently the Attorney General, was himself a part of the corruption he gained considerable fame for combating; I met Dr. Sabit in Kabul and heard a great deal from others about his honesty. In any case, the dysfunctionality of the Karzai government will pose a major challenge to the incoming administration; until aid money starts making it past bureaucrats' pockets, it will not start to rebuild the country.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
More about conditionality on foreign assistance
My friend Mauro sent me a NYT op-ed which was written by four members of the Board of Directors of the Milennium Challenge Corporation (among them Senator Bill Frist). In it, the Directors argue that the incoming administration should adopt the MCC as a central tool of its development policy. I have written before about the importance of attaching conditionality to U.S. foreign assistance; the Corporation takes a somewhat different approach - called indicator-based competition - by making countries compete for aid on the basis of their performance on a range of relevant criteria:
"Aid works best in countries whose governments are capable and committed. Before directing any American aid to a country, the corporation measures its performance on 17 indicators of democratic government, anti-corruption efforts, investments in health and education (particularly for girls) and economic freedom. Only those countries that perform strongly are allowed to compete for a five-year compact that makes them eligible to receive American aid for programs intended to reduce poverty and stimulate economic growth."
Mauro pointed out that the willingness of countries like China, Korea, Qatar, and Brazil to deliver no-strings-attached assistance (often in return for natural resources or support at the UN) has undercut the efficacy of U.S. conditionality. While the MCC has received mixed reviews in some quarters, it could represent the best way to make sure that U.S. foreign assistance benefits the people it is intended to help.
"Aid works best in countries whose governments are capable and committed. Before directing any American aid to a country, the corporation measures its performance on 17 indicators of democratic government, anti-corruption efforts, investments in health and education (particularly for girls) and economic freedom. Only those countries that perform strongly are allowed to compete for a five-year compact that makes them eligible to receive American aid for programs intended to reduce poverty and stimulate economic growth."
Mauro pointed out that the willingness of countries like China, Korea, Qatar, and Brazil to deliver no-strings-attached assistance (often in return for natural resources or support at the UN) has undercut the efficacy of U.S. conditionality. While the MCC has received mixed reviews in some quarters, it could represent the best way to make sure that U.S. foreign assistance benefits the people it is intended to help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
