Harboring torturers

[Arnfinn Madsen]

It has been revealed that some Baathist-party members who took part in Saddam's torturing of political prisoners are currently staying here in Norway. The government do not send them back to Iraq. They don't state any reason, but I guess it is since they have no guarantee of getting a fair trial or since they face death penalty. With the human rights record of US and thus potentially the Iraqi interim government I agree that we should not be sending them back.

But, what to do?
Increase funding for the court in Haag and prosecute them there or do like some other European countries and make laws that makes it possible to prosecute them here for human rights crimes comitted elsewhere?
Any other possibilities?

EDIT: For clarification, they have admitted taking part in torture.

[xniNja]

Tough question. I think they should be tried in an International Court. I also think U.S. soldiers/officials guilty of the same should be standing next to them.

[lehighguy]

If you don't let the Iraqi people put them on trial, I think you have a screw loose.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't let the Iraqi people put them on trial, I think you have a screw loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not even considered an option to send them there under current conditions. I don't want our country to lower its human rights standards and they have said that they will not do it either, but I want these guys to be punished. They walk free now, and they walk free in the same city as Kurds who were tortured, which I think these Kurds does not deserve.

[bobman0330]

Firstly, refusing to extradite these people seems to me, on first glance, to be a violation of international law.

Under the Convention Against Torture, any person known to be a torturer must: 1) be arrested (Article 6.1); and 2) be deported to his home country to stand trial (Article 8), subject to conditions of Norwegian extradition law, and the blanket prohibition against deporting people to places where "there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." (Article 3)

Despite your insinuations to the contrary, there is no reason to believe that the Iraqi government is particularly likely to torture these people. Therefore, unless Norwegian law prohibits extraditions to places with the death penalty (possibly subject to a waiver requirement?), Norway's refusal seems to me to be illegal. Which would be delicious indeed.

If Norway does not extradite these people, they are again required by law to prosecute them in Norwegian courts for torture. (Article 7)

On a side note, if Norway is refusing to extradite these people on either ground you mentioned (no chance of fair trial, possibility of death penalty), they're guilty the same sort of arrogance the US is so frequently accused of.

The fair trial argument seems to be essentially made up, based on the theory that people in the Third World can't have a law-abiding government. Iraq is the most democratic Arab country in the Middle East, by far. To date, Saddam's trial has been scrupulously fair. And if they didn't lynch the genocidal mass-murdered who ran their country into the ground for a quarter of a century, I would say they have established their fair trial bona fides.

As for the death penalty complaint, it reflects an insufferable cultural arrogance. I'm opposed to the US death penalty, and I'm glad to see it isn't used in Europe, but honestly, who are you to tell another country what form of criminal justice is appropriate? And enshrining in your law a policy that you won't extradite suspects to Iraq because they're essentially too barbarous to protect the rights of these torturers is, by any measure, as arrogant as anything President Bush has ever said.

A similar situation arose when the UN was writing the charter for the Rwanda tribunal. The new Rwandan government complained to the UN authorities that the new court would be unable to apply the death penalty, which the Rwandans felt to be a miscarriage of justice. The UN responded by suggesting that Rwanda abolish their own death penalty. How culturally sensitive of them.

[mmbt0ne]

Nazis under similar (however, much more atrocious IMO, but let's not debate that) situations where tried in an International court at first, but later moved to trials in East Germany.

I don't see why this should be different.

[lehighguy]

Good post.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't let the Iraqi people put them on trial, I think you have a screw loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a ludicrous statement, what law have they broken, they obeyed orders of their own government and military heirachy. I agree they should be tried, but they broke no existing Iraqi laws in carrying out the duties assigned them, so there is no reason to try them in Iraq where they have zero chance of a fair trial. Unless we are having similar executions for UK and US troops who breached the Geneva convention in any way? I thought not.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, refusing to extradite these people seems to me, on first glance, to be a violation of international law.


[/ QUOTE ]

The vast majority of Western European countries are constitutionally unable to send anyone to a place they are likely to be put to death, unless it can be guaranteed that it won't happen.

Mack

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't let the Iraqi people put them on trial, I think you have a screw loose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a ludicrous statement, what law have they broken, they obeyed orders of their own government and military heirachy. I agree they should be tried, but they broke no existing Iraqi laws in carrying out the duties assigned them, so there is no reason to try them in Iraq where they have zero chance of a fair trial. Unless we are having similar executions for UK and US troops who breached the Geneva convention in any way? I thought not.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Mack...

Following orders defense only work for enlisted level people. That is why you didn't get Nazi Guards (though some of them were) executed for the killing the Jews. These were crimes against humanity, these guys would be tried for implementing the cruel act against the people of Iraq.

For example, if Hussien was in the room with a prisoner and told some guy to kill the prisoner. He would not be at fault. But acts of cruelty and torture against people, at their descretion (which was most of the time) would be grounds to go to trail and hopeful conviction.

The only way for justice to be served is for them to be tried in the country of their crimes against the witnesses and victims.

With that being said, I understand the argument of the Non-Capital Punishiment countries of sending someone to a country where there is a death penalty. But as it was stated I only think they can refuse to send someone to be tortured not executed.

The thing that I find warped is these cries that they would not get a fair trial. How is that not possible if these guys confess to doing the crime? And even if they didn't European nations need to step up to the plate and aid in stablizing Iraq so that they can have "fair" trials by European standards. But, they continue to stand aloof and hurl criticisms without providing solutions and aid.

Shut up or put up.

Their needs to be a balance of power in the region and unity because whether Bush wants to admit it or not we are going to need a unified Europe and America to make lasting democracy in Iraq.

-Gryph

[mackthefork]

Hi

I don't feel like these people deserve our justice or our compassion, but they will get it because we are not like them, they know it, we know it. You make some good points however, and I'm prepared to admit that I may be wrong, its easy to assume that they won't get a fair trial in Iraq, theres also a possibility they will. What of Hussein though, surely they won't find an unbiased jury for him?

Mack

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
Nazis under similar (however, much more atrocious IMO, but let's not debate that) situations where tried in an International court at first, but later moved to trials in East Germany.

I don't see why this should be different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree to this. I think the problem is related to handling the size of this. There is also many similar criminals from other countries living here due to similar concerns as there is in other European countries. There does not currently exist any apparatus to handle the vast amount of cases. The court in Haag takes care of the top-notch guys but below them are thousands.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree they should be tried, but they broke no existing Iraqi laws in carrying out the duties assigned them, so there is no reason to try them in Iraq where they have zero chance of a fair trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. What law might apply to killing an innocent person extrajudicially? What about beating them up? How about laws against murder and assault? Following orders has never been an excuse.

Also, systematic torture as part of an attack on a civilian population (war against the Kurds, suppression of the Shia uprising) is a crime against humanity.

In any case, your statement is inconsistent. You don't think they broke the law, but they should be tried anyways? For a fair trial zealot, you're playing a bit fast and loose with the rules.

The GC reference is scarcely comprehensible, but your point about executions is well taken. No one's suggesting that all these torturers should be executed, and I don't think any law provides for that. The only executions I can imagine happening would relate to tortures that involved murders.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi

I don't feel like these people deserve our justice or our compassion, but they will get it because we are not like them, they know it, we know it. You make some good points however, and I'm prepared to admit that I may be wrong, its easy to assume that they won't get a fair trial in Iraq, theres also a possibility they will. What of Hussein though, surely they won't find an unbiased jury for him?

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it really comes down to a whole notion of what is the danger of a "biased" jury. The only reason other than medical or hardship, that a jury member (at least in the US) can be disqualified is if there is something inheirent in their past\ideology that would make them lower or raise the bar of "beyond a reasonable doubt" not beyond all doubt. That would be the case where someone is conceivably innocent and a person on the jury will convict Saddam just because he is Sunni. I don't think that is the case. There are plenty of reasonable people in Iraq, Sunnis and Shias, which will be able to hear all the evidence on Saddam and make a fair ruling because his abuses are so well documented.

You are never going to get a completely objective jury in any country because people are not objective, we are rational subjective creatures and some peoples rationality can minimize the negative impact that their subjectivity may impose in the court of law.

I see a lot of good going on in Iraq where the Shia Majority in the government are providing correct ratios of Sunnis in the forming of the government even though they don't deserve the number of seats in government based on voter turnout and their history.

That is a people who are allowing their rationality to guide their subjectivity and I am very impressed by that.

-Gryph

BTW: Mack, I enjoy our little exchanges on here. I'm really impressed with your forum demeanor and you come across as a real pleasant person. If I'm ever in England, I'd like to buy you a drink. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Arnfinn Madsen]

News update:

The equivalent of FBI will start a new unit this autumn that will be investigating war crimes and bring them before Norwegian courts and thus they may be sentenced here.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
News update:

The equivalent of FBI will start a new unit this autumn that will be investigating war crimes and bring them before Norwegian courts and thus they may be sentenced here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not Optimal...But understandable...At least they are doing something.

-Gryph

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
News update:

The equivalent of FBI will start a new unit this autumn that will be investigating war crimes and bring them before Norwegian courts and thus they may be sentenced here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better than nothing I suppose, but not really appropriate either.

They committed the crimes against Iraqis, in Iraq; not against Norwegians, and not in Norway: Norway really should have nothing to do with trying them or sentencing them.