Rendered Meaningless: The Rule of Law in the US 'War on Terror'

Rendered Meaningless: The Rule of Law in the US 'War on Terror'


JURIST Guest Columnist Margaret Satterthwaite of New York University School of Law says that US actions in the war on terror - especially the practice of extraordinary rendition - make a mockery of formal US insistence on the rule of law, damaging it and ultimately reducing it to nothing...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Since 9/11, the U.S. government has used the discourse and authorizing rules of the laws of war while simultaneously flouting the limiting and protective rules of that regime, labeling them “quaint” and inapplicable. At the same time, the Administration insists that human rights law is not applicable to this new “war,” arguing alternatively that the relevant norms do not apply to extraterritorial conduct, that there is no relevant implementing legislation requiring the U.S. to abide by its international obligations, and that human rights law does not apply in situations of armed conflict. As to those standards it does concede applicability – such as the prohibition on torture – the Administration has largely defined away the practice. The effect is to take U.S. actions in the “War on Terror” outside of both frameworks, dealing a blow to the rule of law.

Among U.S. strategies are practices aimed at avoiding the due process rules included both in the Geneva Conventions and in human rights treaties to which the U.S. is a party. Through extraordinary renditions and secret detentions, the U.S. attempts to avoid norms concerning due process by avoiding any process at all. Instead, it opts for procedures in which individuals are unilaterally and secretly determined to be a danger to the U.S. On the basis of this determination, the U.S. sends individuals to be interrogated under torture by other governments, places them in secret detention, or ships them to Bagram air base, where it presumably believes U.S. courts may not exercise jurisdiction. In the process, our government is rejecting not only the human rights norms against prolonged incommunicado detention, non-refoulement, and the prohibition on torture; it is also rejecting the framework of international justice that insists on accountability and the rule of law.

more at:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/03/rendered-meaningless-rule-of-law-in-us.php

The neocons can't ignore the rule of law and "spread democracy" at the same time. It's absurd.