While the current US Administration and prosecutors are not likely to pursue a criminal investigation, will international criminal tribunals follow through? Human Rights Watch has urged the Obama Administration to initiate an investigation with respect to George W. Bush, “W,” for water boarding and other forms of torture in violation of US and international humanitarian law. Such investigation was also urged with respect to then US VP Dick Cheney and US Defense Secretary Dick Rumsfeld. Human Rights Watch is one of the more senior and well-respected NGOs focused on human rights, and it had to know there was a fat chance in a sauna that the Obama Administration would initiate an investigation into the actions of its predecessor. For good or bad, there is a form of gentlemen’s or US President’s code that you don’t investigate predecessors. Perhaps it’s not such a bad thing when one sees how legality and the power of office are employed for political vendettas against those who have been voted out or otherwise left power. It’s also to believe in a myth to think that US prosecutors could act independently, as they should and could, on such a high profile political case. Prosecutor is also the most likely profession in the US to move from into elected politics. Is it possible though that an international tribunal or the court of another state could prosecute W, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc? International Tribunal(s) The International Criminal Court has been denied access or jurisdiction to matters involving US officials-nationals during the period of time in question. Grave violations of international humanitarian law, such as violations of the “torture conventions”, legally cannot be amnestied. Presumably though such violations in the case of US officials-nationals would be addressed exclusively by US Courts, even if in theory the ICC would have complementary jurisdiction, (that is the ability to pursue investigation and possible prosecution if US Courts were unable or unwilling. Member states of the ICC including the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Brazil etc are all bound by complementary jurisdiction). The US is not a member of the ICC and by political bargain has been exempted during the time in question here. Highly unlikely that the above arrangement would be reneged upon in the future. The US, even though not a member, is important to the ICC, at least not to return to the time of being an open opponent, as it was during the W Presidency. On the other hand, Washington sees advantage in projecting support for and influence into the work of the ICC, but without being formally a member. Becoming member would mean accepting the application of all rules to the US, including complementary jurisdiction. This way, the Obama Administration can continue to influence but without subjecting itself to the authority of the ICC internationally or entering into a big politically fight over ratification domestically. This convenient arrangement between the US and ICC is not likely to be altered in the near term, although it may pass through evolutionary phases under subsequent US Administrations. The ICC could also presumably have the matter referred to it by the UN Security Council, as in the case of Libya, but Washington is not likely to even allow a discussion of such, much less a resolution to pass with its veto. A European National Court A European national court is most likely to take action with respect to the alleged “torture” violations, if any. Of course, these are not “allegations” as W has publicly admitted to authorizing the actions. It just remains to be determined if the interpretation of such action as legal and consistent with US and/or international law based upon presumed opinion provided by lawyers from US Justice is an exonerating fact. The rationale offered by W, Cheney and others of necessity or that such was useful in saving lives from future attacks is not a legal defense in and of itself. European national courts, including Spain and Belgium, have sought to establish precedent, (see Pinochet), for universal jurisdiction. The cases have been especially pursued to the extent that citizens and/or territory of such states were victims and/or involved. In the case of US rendition programs, alleged “black sites” holding secret prisoners and torture, the above criteria appear to be satisfied for some national court, particularly in Europe to pursue investigation (as most European judicial systems are inquisitive rather than common law, formal investigation would have to be ordered by the court rather than initiated by prosecutors). In the end, it will be more about the political will and willingness to enter into a confrontation with Washington. The Human Rights Watch call for investigation is more a political rather than legal reminder. The legal foundation for investigation has been generally recognized for several years now. It just has not been politically expedient in the US or internationally to pursue such a “criminal investigation” and potential prosecution. Human Rights Watch wants to make certain that we do not forget. History tells us that justice will not forget, but waits for legality to discover opportunity. Related Reports – “War Crimes Justice” Channel - diplomaticallyincorrect.org/c/war-crimes-justice By Ambassador Muhamed Sacirbey Facebook Become a Fan at “Diplomatically Incorrect” Twitter – Follow at DiplomaticallyX