An excellent new report by the Guardian contains a number of interesting tidbits. To begin with, the report confirms that Taylor -- like her erstwhile client -- is being held by the Zintan rebels, not by the Libyan government, and that the relationship between the two is strained: Even if the NTC decides to release Melinda Taylor, it will face the...
I obviously disagreed with the ICC's decision to issue the non-apology apology, but I sincerely hoped that it would at least lead to Taylor's release. Unfortunately, Libya has given no indication that, having suitably humiliated both the Court and Bob Carr, it has any intention of releasing her: Carr said Friday’s talks in the Hague between the ICC and Libyan authorities...
I have often chided David Bernstein for his misrepresentation of the work done by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, so it is only fair to call out progressives when they, too, distort that work. Political Animal, which is associated with the Washington Monthly, is one of my favorite progressive blogs. But a recent post by Kathleen Geier that claims...
As Mark Kersten has already ably discussed at Justice in Conflict, the ICC released a statement yesterday regarding Melinda Taylor's detention. Ironically, although I think everything about the statement is profoundly devastating to the Court's credibility, I am actually slightly less bothered than Mark by the "regret" section of the statement: The ICC deeply regrets any events that may have given...
[This guest post is from Jonathan Hafetz, Associate Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law. He has also represented several Guantanamo detainees.] The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari last week in seven Guantanamo detainee cases marks the end of an important chapter in the post-9/11 habeas corpus litigation. It leaves in place the D.C. Circuit’s narrow construction of the constitutional...
According to The Guardian, Libya is now interrogating Taylor and intends to prosecute her for violations of “national security” (read: doing her job and defending Saif) even if the ICC apologizes: Tripoli said on Wednesday night that Taylor, one of four ICC officers who were on an official visit to Libya, had tried to deliver documents to Saif that were not...
At Justice in Conflict, Mark Kersten is keeping track of developments concerning Taylor's detention. Checking out some of his links, I was struck (not for the first time, of course) by how little the media knows about how the ICC works -- and by their willingness to think the worst of criminal defense attorneys, even in the absence of any...
Dapo Akande has just posted about the Pre-Trial Chamber's recent conclusion that Art. 95 of the Rome Statute permits Libya to delay surrendering Saif to the Court pending resolution of its admissibility challenge. I don't want to rehash the general issue; readers can simply check out Dapo's post and my post here. Instead, I want to focus on the one...
So, you're Bob Carr, Australia's Foreign Minister. You've decided you want to free Melinda Taylor, ICC lawyer, detained and imprisoned by the Libyan government. You fly to Libya to meet with government officials. Do you demand Taylor's immediate release, citing the cooperation provisions of SC Res. 1970? Do you remind the officials that their consistent refusal to allow Saif legal...
In early May I discussed the OPCD's motion to disqualify Moreno-Ocampo for making a number of inflammatory statements to the press concerning Saif Gaddafi's guilt. On June 12, just four days before the end of Moreno-Ocampo's tenure as prosecutor, the Appeals Chamber rejected the motion -- but not without emphasizing that he had, in fact, acted unethically. The decision focused...
It will not come as a surprise to regular readers that I am appalled by Libya's detention of Melinda Taylor, a lawyer with the ICC's Office of Public Counsel for the Defence, and her translator. There is no evidence that Taylor has done anything wrong; indeed, as Mark Kersten notes, it seems eminently possible that her detention is simply a...
OK, that is a little overdramatic. Still, the U.S. government has effectively switched sides in the upcoming Supreme Court case: Kiobel v Royal Dutch Shell. In the first incarnation of this case, the U.S. government had filed a brief supporting the petitioners and rejecting the lower court's holding that corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute. But in a...
