``...We need a crime. That's the problem. Violations of civil liberties are not necessarily crimes , even if they give rise to civil liability.
If a prisoner was executed after a secret trial, that might be a crime under international law, some treaty that the U.S. is part of, and which is therefore the law of the land...'' Charles Brown
-------------
Trying to guess at how Bush is going to structure the military tribunals from tonight's network news is difficult. It sounds like he will try to morph his power over military and foreign affairs into some kind military administrative justice unit. It sounds like they are trying to figure out the physical locations for these tribunals and the proposals are either for military bases over seas or on board US Navy ships. This must be some technicality used as a dodge against the US judiciary power and potential constitutional conflicts.
Let's say the tribunals are conducted aboard ships at sea. Presumably this would open up an international judicial review. It would probably take a review of the UN charters and regulations empowering the International Court at the Hague to see how to attack this secret high seas ceremonial nonsense which is obviously a legal fig leaf for summary executions. Bush et al. will probably try to re-define the status of the people captured so as to dodge the various prohibitions used to defend prisoners of war.
Probably what is going on behind closed doors is figuring what it takes to insulate Bush from domestic legal challenges. I am fairly certain they are not worried about an international challenge, so that would be the direction of weakness. Unfortunately, it is also meaningless. Who would care if Bush were an indicted war criminal? It doesn't seem to slow down Sharon.
Here is an opening phrase in the Habeas Corpus Act, 1679: `` An act for the better securing the liberty of the subject, and for prevention of imprisonments beyond the seas.'' So, perhaps beyond the seas was literally a problem. The king could have someone transported to some Scottish dungeon, or just held on the HMS Leakey anchored in the Thames.
The UN convention (http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/hseafra.htm), Law of the Sea: High Seas, grants immunity to all military and non-commercial vessels from any other state laws other than the flag state (article 9), which implies that US laws are enforce on US ships. But disputes between ships of different flags or different states on the high seas are (optional protocol) under compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court.
>From what I can tell, there are on-going resolutions and drafts on the
wrong doing of States and assignment of responsibility, which seem
tailor made for hauling King George in absentia before the Hague. See:
http://www.un.org/law/ilc/sessions/53/53sess.htm#liability
In any event, summary executions or the threat to conduct them will provide a pretext to erode the legitimacy of King George II. From news reports it sounds like extradition from Germany and Spain is going to be a problem and that also might be helpful to reign in some of these newly assumed powers. As Bush attempts to expand the war on terrorism to go after other countries and other organizations, hopefully he will be slowed down by other countries objections to the formation of US death squads. Maybe as the details of what happened at Mazar e Sharif begin to unravel, we'll get a better glimpse of a US war atrocity---it already seems to have that smell to it.
Chuck Grimes