Author
|
Topic: 'Dirty War' Precedents
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 24 September 2006 05:15 AM
quote: The United States is following the lead of “dirty war” nations, such as Argentina and Chile, in enacting what amounts to an amnesty law protecting U.S. government operatives, apparently up to and including President George W. Bush, who have committed or are responsible for human rights crimes
quote: The legislation now before Congress also would prohibit detainees from citing the Geneva Conventions as a legal basis for challenging their imprisonment or for seeking civil damages for their mistreatment. [Washington Post, Sept. 22, 2006]Since U.S. courts generally limit plaintiff status to people who have suffered definable harm, these provisions amount to a broad amnesty law for Bush and other administration officials who have engaged in human rights violations since the 9/11 attacks. Given the scope of Common Article 3, covering abuses ranging from personal humiliations to death, the legislation could prevent – or at least severely complicate – any legal accountability in U.S. courts for officials who have committed these offenses.
quote: The legal delays have had political consequences, too, especially in the United States where complicit American officials escaped virtually all accountability, even to their reputations. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush Shields Dad on Chile Terrorism.”]Yet, this troubling “amnesty” signpost – for an America rushing down a path marked by previous “dirty war” states – has been passed with barely a comment on its significance.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/092306.html I am not familiar with the concept of 'Dirty Wars'. Can someone clarify on the definition of this?
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|