I was listening to KPFK this morning, a progressive radio station on the west coast. Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman was on the air with professor of International law Phillipe Sands (University of London). Professor Sands talked about the landmark Pinochet case in which the former Chiliean head of state was arrested in Spain on the grounds of crimes against humanity, including 94 counts of torture. The importance of this case was that, a head of state had been arrested in a foreign country, for crimes committed against his own people and spanish citizens without support from the host country (Chile). Eventually, Pinochet returned to Chile after living lavisingly under "house arrest," for "health" reasons but the case established the fact that heads of state are not immune from trial for breaches of the law while serving as a head of state.

Turning towards the contemporary, Sands was touting his new book "Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Global Rules." Basically he layed out the case that members of the Bush administration may suffer a similiar fate if traveling abroad after their term in office is over. This is based off the principle of universal jurisdiction, a belief that certain crimes are so terrible that any court may have jurisdiction in prosecution. This sounds very similiar to precedents from the UNOCAL case , based off the 1789 Alien Tort Statue. Its not that these cases were similiar, but rather the precedents in international law are similar, that national boundaries does not give immunities to persons or companies for grave crimes. This should be seen in a positive light by those in favor of strenghtening international law and justice. For a more in depth legal insight, turn here.


Turning back to the original scenario. Is it possible that members of the Bush administration could be prosecuted for crimes akin to Pinochet's? Probably not. While the Bush Administration is surely responsible for torture and flagrant human righs violations, Bush is unlike Pinochet in two respects. The Bush administration is far more powerful and his crimes dont compare with Pinochet. I think is intellectually dishonest to claim they were similiar crinimals. That said, the best case that could be made by a foreign court is Alberto Gonzales infamous memo claiming that the Geneva Conventions dont apply to non-combatants. The point of Sand's talk was to illustrate the hypocriscy of the United States in claiming that other countries must abide by international law, while the Bush Administration disregards basic rights, such as humane treatment and a fair trial. In the end, perhaps Bush administration officials would be prosecuted for their crimes if I believed international law applied to the United States in the same way it applies to less powerful states.