12 Oct Has Amnesty International Jumped the Shark?
Perhaps. At least they are getting their waterskis on. According to Politico, Amnesty International has filed a 1,000 page memorandum demanding that Canadian authorities arrest or extradite former U.S. President George W. Bush.
“Canada is required by its international obligations to arrest and prosecute former President Bush given his responsibility for crimes under international law including torture,” Susan Lee, Americas Director at Amnesty International, said in a statement.
Let’s just say that the Canadian government is not likely to act on Amnesty’s advice.
“I cannot comment on individual cases… that said, Amnesty International cherry picks cases to publicize based on ideology. This kind of stunt helps explain why so many respected human rights advocates have abandoned Amnesty International,” Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney told POLITICO, noting that Amnesty International had never sought a court order to bar Cuban dictator Fidel Castro or Tongolese dicator Gnassingbé Eyadema from Canada.
“Perhaps this helps to explain why Salman Rushdie has said that ‘it looks very much as if Amnesty’s leadership is suffering from a kind of moral bankruptcy,’ and why Christopher Hitchens has written about the organization’s ‘degeneration and politicization,’” Kenney added.
I don’t doubt Amnesty International has sincere views on this question. But let’s be honest. This is 90% a publicity stunt that neither advances the development of international law, or human rights, because there is zero chance that Bush will be detained anywhere (much less in Canada). In fact, the likely rejection of AI’s view on this by more and more states will undermine AI’s goals in the long run.
In any event, I somehow doubt that in the spring of 2013, Amnesty will await (hopefully) then-former President Obama with a similar memorandum (following the legal opinions of folks like Mary Ellen O’Connell that Obama has committed violations of the laws of war) over his authorization of drone attacks outside the battlefield.
There were comments here but they are all gone. I wonder why.
Mine was never activated in the first place. I wrote that Bush already cancelled a flight to Switzerland last year, precisely because his case would have been submitted to the prosecutor. Hence, the blog post doesn’t provide any convincing argument on why invoking the well accepted legal norms of the Convention against Torture should be viewed a “publicity stunt”.
It’s not just this story, all the comments on the condolences story below are also gone.
According to Article 38 ICJ, the sources of International Law are:
“a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states;
b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.”
Can you point me any convention, custom, general principle, judicial decision or teachings of the most highly qualified publicist that absolves a former U.S. president of any international criminal responsibility?
[…] (typeof(addthis_share) == "undefined"){ addthis_share = [];}International Law Professor Julian Ku has produced a very nice logical fallacy. He claims that Amnesty International (AI) has “jumped the […]
I wonder if Mr. Ku’s post would be an acceptable answer to an exam question laying out the facts regarding this subject? I understand politics play a role in the law but if I want a political reason why the law doesn’t apply to an American President I will go to Harold Koh or some other mouth piece for the administration.
Amnesty Intl may be grandstanding, but legally they’re spot on. And Canadian obligations under CAT Art 7(1) and Art 7(2) are also clear – I can only assume that Bush won’t go to avoid the risk.
@ The Pilgrim: No, not if they expected to pass!