What Does Mladic’s Capture Say About Qaddafi’s Fate? [New]
From a Bloomberg editorial:
Announcing the arrest, Serb officials said Mladic will soon be extradited to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. The United Nations has referred the case of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi to the International Criminal Court, also in The Hague, on charges of killing civilians.
The U.S. supported the criminal referral on Qaddafi. The potential downside of this action is that by threatening to make Qaddafi an international outlaw — prosecutors in The Hague have yet to indict him — Washington has likely rendered a diplomatic solution to the war in Libya impossible.
Why would Qaddafi give up power and seek exile abroad if he thinks he would be sent to the International Criminal Court? This conundrum has left diplomats in the absurd situation of scouring Africa for a country that might take the Libyan leader but not send him to The Hague.
In the case of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, Mladic and other Bosnian Serb strongmen were similarly referred to the International War Crimes Tribunal while the conflict was still going on. Arguably, that gave them additional cause to keep fighting rather than negotiate. In the end, peace was achieved only because the NATO allies used sufficient force to induce Belgrade to accept peace terms.
From Mother Jones last December:
In its first months in office, the Obama administration sought to protect Bush administration officials facing criminal investigation overseas for their involvement in establishing policies the that governed interrogations of detained terrorist suspects. A “confidential” April 17, 2009, cable sent from the US embassy in Madrid to the State Department—one of the 251,287 cables obtained by WikiLeaks—details how the Obama administration, working with Republicans, leaned on Spain to derail this potential prosecution.
The previous month, a Spanish human rights group called the Association for the Dignity of Spanish Prisoners had requested that Spain’s National Court indict six former Bush officials for, as the cable describes it, “creating a legal framework that allegedly permitted torture.” The six were former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; David Addington, former chief of staff and legal adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney; William Haynes, the Pentagon’s former general counsel; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense for policy; Jay Bybee, former head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel; and John Yoo, a former official in the Office of Legal Counsel. The human rights group contended that Spain had a duty to open an investigation under the nation’s “universal jurisdiction” law, which permits its legal system to prosecute overseas human rights crimes involving Spanish citizens and residents. Five Guantanamo detainees, the group maintained, fit that criteria.
While the Bloomberg editorial raises some good points, it amazes me (but doesn’t surprise me) the editors totally ignore US war crimes, both creating the legal framework for a US torture regime AND torturing. And our torture was both direct and indirect: we waterboarded people while we shipped others to states who practice torture. And the next President helping our torturers escape justice. None of that makes it into this editorial, naturally. And while Obama, as President, is constitutionally required to pursue the perogatives of the Executive branch, forcing Congress and the Supreme Court to balance his power, you’d think torture was a rather bright line.

What Do You Think?
2 Responses to 'What Does Mladic’s Capture Say About Qaddafi’s Fate?'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.


Emocrat [New]
Thursday, 26 May, 2011 at 8:27 pm
And while Obama, as President, is constitutionally required to pursue the perogatives of the Executive branch, forcing Congress and the Supreme Court to balance his power, you’d think torture was a rather bright line.
Um. No. Torture actually furthers the interests of the Executive Branch. It’s the Constitution where the problem lies, yes?
Actually, every POTUS is required by law and oath to uphold and defend the constitution first and foremost. They’re actually not obliged to do much else. Such a simple requirement and I can’t actually remember the last POTUS that actually took that oath seriously.
Yet, who is willing to hold these people to their own oaths of office?
Friday, 27 May, 2011 at 3:05 am
I was speaking in political terms. You’re right about the Constitution. In reading American history from the Colonial era, it’s interesting how political and social interests were balanced in a raw way, through brute force on a daily basis. Enshrining that balance of power and economic interests in a Constitution appears to be a natural step, even if difficult. Punting issues to state control, for example, is easier than actually forcing people who believed in states rights at that time (really the right for local interests to loot and pillage their communities, same as today) to capitulate.
Today, we have the same competing interests but the balance of political and economic power is definitively in the hands of the aristocrats. The democrats (small D) are out of power despite, oddly enough, representing the views of a strong majority of Americans (around 60% if you look at the General Social Survey). And the political party that represented the democrats’ values has almost completely abandoned those interests in favor of the aristocratic interests. These politicians still retain the name of the democrats party but their policies are aristocratic. Their world view is aristocratic.
In terms of history and politics, the Constitution set up three competing power sources (four if you count states rights) and expected them to defend their turf. My point, and yours, I assume, is that some issues like torture transcend this dynamic. If you torture, you should go to jail. If you start illegal wars, you should go to jail. And so on. The excuses provided by the daily scrum for political and economic power are suspended in those cases.