Seems like only yesterday that Bush was scrambling for an excuse for his refusal to sign on to the International Criminal Court where his criminal administration would face prosecution for war crimes in Iraq and elsewhere. But, now he has this American he's been holding without charges and without a lawyer . . .
Thursday, February 9, 2006
U.S. wants Iraqi court to prosecute American
The Associated Press
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/news/national/020906b1_iraqtrialWASHINGTON - The U.S. government wants an Iraqi court to prosecute an American citizen who is being held in Iraq on suspicion that he is a senior operative of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The man's lawyers said he is innocent and likely to be tortured if handed over.
The case is the first known instance in which the government has decided to allow an American to be tried in the new Iraqi legal system.
Shawqi Omar, 44, who once served in the Minnesota National Guard, has been held since late 2004 in U.S.-run military prisons as an enemy combatant. He has not been charged with a crime or been given access to a lawyer, said Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer representing Omar's family in the United States.
Here's Bush on this a while back:
U.S. WILL NOT SIGN ON TO INTERNATIONAL
CRIMINAL COURT, BUSH SAYS
Date: July 2, 2002
http://www.useu.be/Categories/Justice%20and%20Home%20Affairs/July0202ICCCourtUSBush.htmlPresident Bush says the United States will not sign on to the International Criminal Court (ICC) because as the nation works to build peace around the world its diplomats and soldiers could be dragged "into this court and that's very troubling."
". . . the one thing we're not going to do is sign on to this International Criminal Court," Bush said.
President Bush, Ari Fleischer explained, "thinks the ICC is fundamentally flawed because it puts American servicemen and women at fundamental risk of being tried by an entity that is beyond America's reach, beyond America's laws, and can subject American civilian and military to arbitrary standards of justice."
'Arbitrary standards of justice?' That's so 2002.