Serbia ain’t no US of A, but if the ICTY wants to try DC in absentia, I’m sure he isn’t going to lose any sleep over it. If anything, it would increase his ratings in the US.
France and Germany have universal jurisdiction, so prosecuting Cheney for torture will be practical there.
While diminishing opinion of the U.S. internationally.
OK. Let’s start with France.
What is the law under which Cheney would be prosecuted, and what acts of his do you contend specifically are a violation of that law?
Even if they have such a law, what would be the point of it? So they have their symbolic trial, which he chooses to stay away from. Then they find him guilty (under whatever law it was). So what? All he has to do is not visit France. I doubt he was planning to go there anyway. So what would be the point?
All I can think of is maybe some international war crime law, or some “crime against humanity” thing but even if there is such a thing, it would just be a symbolic waste of their time to pursue it.
Maybe they can go through his old school transcripts and charge murder (of the French language) 
Fair enough. Disappointing as all get out, but it is what it is not what I think it should be – especially in light that we all seem to agree it was indeed, torture.
Thanks just the same.
Same case setup as Spain’s. I doubt their laws differ significantly with respect to such matters, as the definition of torture is the one used by the U.N.
So it is practical inasmuch as their laws allow for the prosecution of non-citizens.
If, on the other hand, you are asking if I think it will actually result in Cheney, Rumsfeld et al sitting behind bars, no, I’m not that optimistic.
Actually, the laws of France do differ from Spanish laws:
So it’s unclear to me what law or principle you’re relying upon for the proposition that France’s codified concept of universal jurisdiction would extend to the acts in question in this thread.
Can you explain?
Those treaty obligations would entail the Convention Against Torture. They may consider waterboarding to violate the CAT. Cheney authorized waterboarding.
Those treaty obligations are the ones outlined in the sentences immediately following the ones you quoted, referring to Yugoslavia and Rwanda only.
And it can be amended once more for the U.S.
Look, it all depends on what you define as “practical.” I see a complete trial with the accused in absentia as useful beyond its cathartic aspect, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. If you’re talking about what countries have the legal parameters for such trials, we’ve just gone over that too (plus, the ICC itself). If you’re confining the inquiry to countries that can actually carry out due punishments, I doubt anyone is that optimistic.
A: Ah! That was what was running about in my mind. I had heard of the psychiatrist case.
B: No-one would reasonably… dude, are you living in the same world I am? I’m thinking of that paper Ashcroft wouldn’t sign. The Yoo paper? I think, after that, I would not put it past Gonzales to write something permitting murder. Given a very specific set of circumstances, perhaps, but I think it’s within the potential range of his behavior.
And if not Gonzales, some theoretical Atty General who was appointed by President Palin, who does not have any legal training whatsoever, and is as much worse than Gonzales as Gonzales was than Ashcroft.
It could happen. Possibly.
Yes, France, that paragon of international virtue. Americans would surely stand together with arms wide open and welcome their unbiased judgment of our leaders.
But you’re right, they conceivably could amend it, just as we could pass a series of completely unnecessary and illogical tariffs against French goods, or just as we could declare France part of the Axis of Evil, or just as we could petition the UN to pressure France into dropping their opposition to women wearing burkhas. We could do a lot of supremely asshole things. You know, if were supreme assholes. But at the end of the day, despite all the freedom fries-type stupidity, I suspect we prefer to remain allies with France, and they with us.
I get the sense that you have no appreciation for the laws and procedures that govern when a person is tried and punished for some act that they’ve committed, that the only reason Cheney hasn’t been prosecuted is because of politics or cowardice and not for valid legal reasons. I don’t understand this belief that the nations of Europe need to step in and punish members of our government, or that we should be willing to let them. Should we ask the UN for permission before we take any action believed to be in our national interest?
Torture is not a crime against humanity or genocide. It’s just a violation of the laws and customs of war.
Your link explains that while most violations are not afforded universal jurisdiction in French courts, torture is one crime that is.
So your definition of “practical” is: It’s practical to try him in France, because France might amend their laws to cover acts committed by U.S. officials on Cuban soil on a US-controlled base.
Um…OK.
Look, if “might amend the laws” is the standard, then the US might amend its laws forbidding ex post facto punishments and then try Cheney. It could happen.
But if the “practical” assertion you’re pushing is that France might choose to amend their laws to bring this conduct into their judicial reach… yeah, OK. I can’t imagine that’s what the OP thought he was asking, but sure enough, I have to agree that France might amend their laws.
You wouldn’t happen to have any more direct cite for this claim?
Here is the relevant part of the French Code of Criminal Procedure. [CCP] see: Articles 689, 689-1, 689-2.
Title IX “Offenses Committed Outside the Territory of the Republic”
Article 689-2 being the Convention Against Torture.
Unless something has changed fairly recently, these should still be valid codifications of their law.
Of course I have an appreciation for the laws, just as I do for the ways they’re bent and eschewed by the powerful.
How is punishing torturers against our national interest? 
No, I was saying that there is a variety of ways one could interpret that, and presenting some of those possibilities. The OP certainly left it vague.
Because apparently, WE won’t? No matter what atrocities they are guilty of.