January, 28 2010, 03:48pm EDT
Prosecuting War Crimes: the Courts Must Be Independent
The British government's unfortunate intervention over Tzipi Livni's arrest warrant
NEW YORK
The British government claims to defend basic
principles of justice for grave international crimes. So its reaction
to arrest warrants issued by independent courts, acting on evidence
showing an arguable case, should be straightforward: respect the
courts' rulings even if they cause political embarrassment.
However, the reactions of ministers to the arrest warrant issued,
and then withdrawn, by Westminster magistrate's court against Tzipi
Livni, the former Foreign Minister of Israel, have been neither
straightforward nor edifying. Most embarrassing of all, Patricia
Scotland, the Attorney General, gave a speech in Jerusalem on 5 January
declaring that the government was "determined that Israel's leaders
should always be able to travel freely to the UK." Her statement leaves
the impression that no matter what crimes may have been committed, no
matter what British courts may say, ministers will find a way to bypass
justice if it suits them. And it is hardly likely that the government
will limit its infringements of the rule of law to the case of Israel.
In response to criticism of the warrant against Livni, the
government is reportedly considering increasing the Attorney General's
power to intervene in cases, giving her the power to approve an arrest
warrant issued by a court on the basis of an application by a private
party. The crossbench peer and QC David Pannick has called this the
"simple" solution, to avoid embarrassing arrest warrants against
Israelis or Americans that are unlikely to result in prosecutions,
given that the Attorney General already has the power to block the
prosecutions themselves.
But these proposals ignore that the power of the Attorney General, a
government minister, to intervene in cases is an anomaly in an
independent justice system. After a decade of change to comply with
European human rights principles, English justice has been dragged into
the 21st century, with most ministers losing their power to directly
interfere in cases. The Lord Chancellor no longer sits as head of the
judiciary and there is a Supreme Court outside the House of Lords.
Successive Home Secretaries have been forced, reluctantly, to surrender
their powers to intervene on sentencing in individual cases.
The Attorney General is the only remaining minister who can still
intervene in individual cases. Soon after taking over as Prime Minister
in 2007 Gordon Brown said that the "role of Attorney General which
combines legal and ministerial functions needs to change." He was
right: a minister should not have the power to stop prosecutions,
especially when they are embarrassing to the government or their allies
(as with the Serious Fraud Office investigation into charges of
corruption involving Saudi Arabia and BAE). Council of Europe member
states, including the UK, agreed a decade ago that the power of
governments to give instructions not to prosecute in a specific case
"should, in principle, be prohibited".
Patricia Scotland was supposedly appointed as a reforming Attorney
General. Unfortunately no serious reform of the office has taken place;
the Attorney General remains a government minister with the power to
halt any prosecution of a large number of offences. Some of these
offences, such as advertising cancer treatments or failing to erect
fencing around a mine, seem merely anachronistic. But crucially the
Attorney General retains the power to approve all prosecutions for the
key international crimes: torture, crimes against humanity, genocide
and war crimes.
If the purpose is to protect the public interest, there is no need
to have the Attorney General interfere in cases. Decisions on sensitive
prosecutions are made daily by the Director of Public Prosecutions
(DPP), who is required to take such decisions both on the basis of the
likelihood of conviction (i.e. the evidence) and on the public
interest. That is how it should be: an independent prosecutor weighing
up the need for prosecution, bearing in mind that where there is
evidence of the most serious crimes having taken place, the public
interest in prosecution is high. Once the DPP has decided to prosecute,
the additional veto granted to the Attorney General, a political
figure, adds nothing more than a power to stop prosecutions that are
embarrassing to the government. This applies as much for prosecutions
of British nationals as of foreign citizens.
Last year, Human Rights Watch revealed evidence of the complicity of
British agents in torture by the Pakistani intelligence services. This
could and should be investigated as a crime. Any eventual prosecutions
could well reveal severe incompetence, at the very least, of government
in allowing such complicity to take place. Yet, even if the evidence
were overwhelming, prosecutions would require the consent of the
Attorney General, a member of the very government that risks political
embarrassment from a prosecution.
Britain is in fact the only country in western Europe that permits
such naked political interference in the prosecution of international
crimes. The solution is not to extend the Attorney General's power,
giving the government the right to meddle in the rulings of the courts
themselves. It is to remove the Attorney General's power to interfere
altogether, and allow the independent prosecutors and courts to decide,
on the basis of the evidence and an impartial view of the public
interest, who should be prosecuted for the most serious crimes,
whatever their nationality and no matter how embarrassing for the
government of the day.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Belgian Police Arrest 132 Climate Defenders Demanding End to Fossil Fuel Subsidies
"The fact that national governments are subsidizing fossil fuels is akin to a crime against humanity," said one Extinction Rebellion organizer.
May 05, 2024
The climate action group Extinction Rebellion Belgium on Saturday decried what it called "disproportionate police violence" against nonviolent demonstrators who were arrested during a protest in Brussels demanding an end to fossil fuel subsidies.
Hundreds of Extinction Rebellion-led climate defenders blocked Rue Belliard in the European Quarter, the de facto European Union capital, during EU Open Day, when agencies of the 27-nation bloc open their doors to the public. In what Extinction Rebellion called an "unprecedented police response," officers allegedly struck protesters with batons and used chemical agents against demonstrators.
Brussels police said 132 activists—some of whom glued themselves to the ground—were arrested.
"This police behavior toward nonviolent protesters exercising their freedom of assembly is illegal and authoritarian," Extinction Rebellion Belgium said in a statement Saturday.
"We call on the police to exercise restraint and respect the right to demonstrate peacefully and without violence," the group added.
The activists are calling on European governments to stop subsidizing fossil fuels amid a worsening planetary crisis. They're also demanding the declaration of a climate emergency.
"National and European governments are spending at least €405 billion each year subsidizing major fossil fuel corporations," protest spokesperson Bertina Maes toldThe Brussels Times. "That's ten times more than what's spent on climate policy."
Maes said the Belgian government alone spent as much as €20 billion ($21.5 billion) on fossil fuel subsidies in 2020, more than 2% of the country's gross domestic product.
"The fact that national governments are subsidizing fossil fuels is akin to a crime against humanity," she asserted.
This weekend's demonstration and arrests come a month before E.U. parliamentary elections. According to an April Eurobarometer survey conducted by the European Parliament, climate action is the fifth-most important issue to voters, after poverty and social exclusion, health, jobs, and defense and security.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israel Bans Al Jazeera in 'Assault on Freedom of the Press'
"Rather than trying to silence reporting on its atrocities in Gaza, the Israeli government should stop committing them," said one observer.
May 05, 2024
The Jerusalem offices of Al Jazeera were raided Sunday after Israel's far-right Cabinet banned the Qatar-based satellite news network—the sole international media outlet providing 24/7 live coverage from Gaza—from operating in the country.
"If you're watching this… then Al Jazeera has been banned in Israel," correspondent Imran Khan said in a pre-recorded report from occupied East Jerusalem preempting the Israeli Cabinet's unanimous vote to shutter the network.
The order—which does not affect Al Jazeera's ability to operate in Gaza or the illegally occupied Palestinian territories—is believed to be the first of its kind targeting a foreign media outlet operating in Israel. It comes after the Knesset, Israel's parliament, recently voted 71-10 in favor of a law empowering the Israeli communications minister to ban foreign news organizations from working in Israel and to confiscate their equipment.
"The time has come to eject Hamas' mouthpiece from our country," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a televised address.
Ofir Gendelman, Netanyahu's Arab media spokesperson, said Sunday that the closure would be "implemented immediately."
Gendelman said that the network's "broadcast equipment will be confiscated, the channel's correspondents will be prevented from working, the channel will be removed from cable and satellite television companies, and Al Jazeera's websites will be blocked on the internet."
In a statement, Al Jazeera vowed to "pursue all available legal channels through international legal institutions in its quest to protect both its rights and journalists, as well as the public's right to information."
"Israel's ongoing suppression of the free press, seen as an effort to conceal its actions in the Gaza Strip, stands in contravention of international and humanitarian law," the network added. "Israel's direct targeting and killing of journalists, arrests, intimidation, and threats will not deter Al Jazeera."
The New York-based Foreign Press Association issued a statement slamming the move and saying it "should be a cause for concern for all supporters of a free press."
"With this decision, Israel joins a dubious club of authoritarian governments to ban the station," the group said. "This is a dark day for the media. This is a dark day for democracy."
Human Rights Watch Israel and Palestine director Omar Shakir called the order "an assault on freedom of the press."
"Rather than trying to silence reporting on its atrocities in Gaza, the Israeli government should stop committing them," he added.
Al Jazeera is the only international news network providing nonstop on-the-ground coverage of Israel's war on Gaza, often being the first to report Israeli atrocities in what many experts worldwide say is a genocidal campaign in the besieged, starving strip.
Its correspondents and other media professionals work under constant risk to life and limb. More than 100 journalists, the vast majority of them Palestinians, have been killed by Israeli forces since October 7 in what the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and others say are often intentional targetings of not only media workers but also their families.
In December, Israeli forces killedAl Jazeera cameraman Samer Abudaqa as he reported on the war in southern Gaza, an attack that also wounded Al Jazeera Gaza bureau chief Wael Dahdouh—whose wife, son, daughter, and grandson were killed in a separate Israeli strike.
Previous probes—like the investigation into Israeli troops' 2022 killing of renowned Palestinian American Al Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh—have confirmed that Israel has deliberately targeted journalists.
Last May, CPJ published Deadly Pattern, a report that found Israeli troops had killed at least 20 journalists over the past 22 years with utter impunity. While some of the slain journalists have been foreigners—including Italian Associated Press reporter Simone Camilli and British cameraman and filmmaker James Miller—the vast majority of victims have been Palestinian.
Israeli forces have also attacked newsrooms in every major assault on Gaza, including in May 2021 when the 11-story al-Jalaa Tower, which housed offices of Al Jazeera, The Associated Press, and other media outlets, was completely destroyed in an airstrike.
On Friday—World Press Freedom Day—Palestinian journalists covering the war on Gaza were awarded this year's UNESCO/Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize after being recommended by an international jury of media professionals.
Keep ReadingShow Less
On Kent State Massacre Anniversary, Progressives Decry Repression of Student Protests
"The militarized repression of young people speaking out against a terrible war was shameful then and it's shameful now," said one state lawmaker.
May 04, 2024
As U.S. Republicans push for the deployment of National Guard troops to quell nationwide student demonstrations against the Gaza genocide, progressive lawmakers marked the anniversary of the 1970 Kent State Massacre by condemning police repression of peaceful protesters and reaffirming the power of dissent.
"On the 54th anniversary of the Kent State Massacre, students across our country are being brutalized for standing up to endless war," Congresswoman Cori Bush (D-Mo.) said on social media. "Our country must learn to actually uphold the rights of free speech and assembly upon which it was founded."
Fellow "Squad" member Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said that "54 years ago, the Ohio National Guard opened fire on unarmed students at Kent State."
"Students have a right to speak out, organize, and protest systemic wrongs," she added. "We can't silence those expressing dissent, no matter how uncomfortable their protests may be to those in power."
On May 4, 1970, 28 Ohio National Guard troops fired 67 live rounds into a crowd of unarmed Kent State students rallying against the expansion of the U.S.-led war in Vietnam into Cambodia. They murdered students Allison Krause, Jeffrey Glenn Miller, Sandra Lee Scheuer, and William Knox Schroeder—all aged 19 or 20. Nine other students were wounded, including one who was permanently paralyzed.
"The militarized repression of young people speaking out against a terrible war was shameful then and it's shameful now," New York state Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher (D-50) said on Saturday.
Protests against Israel's assault on Gaza—which according to Palestinian and international officials has killed, maimed, or left missing more than 123,000 Gazans—have spread to dozens of campuses across the U.S. and around the world. Police have been called in to break up protest encampments at numerous schools. Hundreds of students, faculty, and journalists have been arrested, sometimes violently.
At the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), police stood by this week as a pro-Israel mob attacked a campus protest encampment before officers arrested peaceful protesters and supporters.
As law enforcement officials have tried to justify the crackdown by claiming "outside agitators" are behind the protests, some observers noted historical parallels.
"Watching what is happening at UCLA," Virginia state Sen. Mamie Locke (D-2) said on social media. "Old enough to remember Kent State, Jackson State, South Carolina State, and the dog whistles of 'law and order,' 'outside agitators.' So reminiscent of 1968."
On February 8, 1968, police shot 31 students—most of them in the back—at a protest against Jim Crow segregation at South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, murdering three young Black men: Samuel Hammond Jr., Delano Middleton, and Henry Smith.
Eleven days after Kent State, police opened fire on a crowd of Black students protesting the bombing of Cambodia at Jackson State College in Jackson, Mississippi, killing Phillip Lafayette Gibbs and James Earl Green and injuring 12 others.
"Our institutions must learn from these past mistakes to not use militarized responses against unarmed, peaceful student protesters by calling in the National Guard, bringing in state troopers, or deploying police in riot gear," Laurel Krause, the sister of slain Kent State protester Allison Krause, said in a statement marking the ignominious anniversary.
"We must not repeat the horrors of Kent State 54 years later," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular