Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
From Amnesty International
The new Convention requires each state party, whenever a person suspected of carrying out enforced disappearances anywhere in the world is found in any territory under its jurisdiction, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purposes of prosecution, unless the state extradites the suspect to another state or surrenders him or her to an international criminal court. It also obliges each state party to ensure in its legal system that the victims of enforced disappearance have the right to obtain reparations. The Convention requires states to institute stringent safeguards for the protection of persons deprived of their liberty, including an absolute ban on secret detention. It provides for the tracing of the whereabouts of the "disappeared" and addresses the problems faced by their children and families. It establishes an expert committee empowered to monitor the implementation of the Convention and to take action in individual cases.

Wow. Would Bush (and some other heads of state...) be considered "suspected of carrying out enforced disappearances" under this Convention?
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 12:56:32 PM EST
Well, even if not, it certainly puts agents of the government involved in renditions (whether they initiated it or just co-operated) under legal threat. And also the governments would have to pay compensation for recent sins.

Not to mention that it opens up possibilities of further investigations. You can see why some with guilty consciences would not want to sign it. (Thinking particularly of Tony Blair here, since I'm from there, but presumably similar issues apply in other countries.)

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 01:10:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
From the treaty:

Article 5

The widespread or systematic practice of enforced disappearance constitutes a crime against humanity as defined in applicable international law and shall attract the consequences provided for under such applicable international law.

But it would only apply to disappearances that took place after the treaty came into effect.  Which makes it a ban on future disappearances, but not applicable to past ones.

The fact that the Bush administration is worried about this is a sign that they don't intend to stop what they're doing.

But we already knew that....

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Wed Feb 7th, 2007 at 01:28:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series