The European Convention is not an EU body. It does cover the whole EU, but is older than it, having been founded in 1953 when the EU was a fledgling Steel and Coal community!
It includes every European country excluding Byelorussia but including Russia.
It has enough strength to have forced Russia to stop judicial killings!
What is a “judicial killing” and how, exactly, would the European Convention stop Russia? Would it get Hans Blix to send Putin a nasty letter?
Judicial Killing- what it says- killing by the Justice system- the Death Penalty.
Russia has complied because European countries are denied access to each others markets if they do not comply with the Convention. Trade outweighs the desire for retribution, revenge, torture etc. Russia put its DP Laws into abeyance so that it could sell its gas and products to Europe.
Perhaps you could comment on why the main suspect in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, which occurred in London, is free in Russia, despite extradition requests by UK authorities.
Perhaps the ECHR is effective in prohibiting judicial killings, but their ability to tackle extra-judicial killings among its member states leaves something to be desired? Seems like a rather serious shortfall.
Nice Straw Man argument!
The ECHR is solely to do with the relationship between the STate Power and the Individual, protecting individual citizen’s rights against the States. It is not tasked as a supreme court for any other matters.
Within the EU there is the European Arrest Warrant which allows easy transfer of suspects between countries without complex extradition procedures.
But ignoring the Straw Man diversion, the ECHR would stop any known concentration camp on soil controlled by any signatory to the convention.
He didn’t say that.
So, if Russia decides to have some, what does the European Court of Human Rights do about it?
The whole point of the black sites in Poland and Romania - and the CIA flights that took detainees there through many other countries - was that they were not known even though several countries were involved or aware of what was happening. But it does sound like there have been official investigations and may be prosecutions. Too bad that didn’t happen in the U.S.
True, he never did say he’d quit fighting. But if Congress repealed the AUMF, it would restrict that ability.
Guantánamo is not a prison nor a concentration camp.
It’s a POW camp and a detention center for illegal combatants.
By all humanitarian laws and treaties, POWs and illegal combatants can be held unitl the war is over.
No, it’s a camp for people accused of being illegal combatants, no matter how flimsy the evidence. By buying innocent bystanders from any scumbag willing to sell them, the US government puts themselves barely a half step above a common slaver.
An excuse that has been abused to hell and back by the US government. Your global, eternal “war” is just so much bullshit.
They would lose the European market. Who would they sell their gas to?
This potential threat was enough to stop them using the death penalty!
I’ll agree that in some/many cases the evidence for their ilegal combatant status is less tan kosher. The SCOTUS implemented an olbigation for reviewing cases.
Obama can end the war the moment he wants.
There’s also the problema that for many of the people there is no country willing to take them.
“My” war? I don’t know which war can be considered “mine” except my perpetual war against chocolates.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 32,885 people died in traffic crashes in 2010 in the United States (latest figures available), including an estimated 10,228 people who died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31% of all traffic deaths last year.
So remind me again, compared to a mere 10,000 Americans who died from drunk drivers; how many Americans died from terrorists? And this is why we need a war against terrorists, but not one against drunk drivers…
Yes, that’s the point of repealing it. But the contradiction you were talking about didn’t exist.
There is a war against drunk driving (figuratively). It used to be seen as no big deal, and now it’s punished with increasing severity. And the number of deaths by drunk driver has been going down for decades.
Does the ECHR have the authority to impose a trade embargo?
But, in this case, how do we tell when the war is over?
And, if we could tell, do you really think the Guantanamo detainees would simply be released at that point? Some are charged with crimes.
Remind me again: when did the United States declare war and on who?
Ridding the world of them one at a time, eh?
Great. Let’s say he did so when he made the speech that started this thread. Now can we let them go?
Well, everybody’s from somewhere. Can Saudi Arabia refuse the repatriation of a native-born Saudi Arabian, prisoner or free? I’ve never heard of a modern state using exile-abroad* of citizens as a punishment. Does international law even allow for it, any more?