Article: Phoebe Fletcher
Article – Phoebe Fletcher.
This article was first published on the Tumeke!
Reports as Bennett over on his blog Lawfare difficult choices: national security, Al-Skeini and others v Minister of defence has serious implications for the rule of law jurisdiction over prisoners of war. This decision, by proxy, also means that New Zealand probably falls foul of international law in our treatment of prisoners in Afghanistan.
Approval for the transfer of prisoners to torture and that it might run counter to international law to constantly raise the Green Party in the past few months, but largely fell on deaf ears to the public in New Zealand. Article for Metro columnist John Stephenson detailed allegations of the practice, which he had witnessed. As the press release for the Metro Magazine Chronicle:
According to SAS Metro transfer of prisoners as they first arrived in Afghanistan in 2001, although they knew that there is a serious risk of torture. The magazine shows for the first time that SAS led a mission in May 2002, which led to the deaths of at least three people, including a small child and the arrest and torture of many others. It gives names, dates and other details and interview quotes from some of the folks who were there. They include Afghan villages and SAS troopers.
The prisoners included old men and boys. Some were badly beaten in the one case so hard man has been disconnected and is still in a wheelchair. They were bound and hooded while in that State have been dogs rushing at them and threatened to attack them. They were also stripped naked and forced to parade before the troops of the United States, to run on their knees, tied up in painful positions and sleep and food.
The men insisted they were innocent and were subsequently released without charge.
These declarations caused an uproar and then steadily dropped from the public, who seemingly swayed Key argument in his interpretation of Stephenson impersonate Duncan Garner in a text message. Kate Lock has repeatedly called for an investigation of our soldiers who have been there since 2001 and whether their actions comply with the rules of international law. Serious discussion of Afghanistan had recently replaced the articles, which are encouraged by our participation, such as the one who believes our SAS has the ability to be a catwalk models.
For those who follow international law key claims were weak and the weak and based on the case of Evans in the UK, which had been one case that was outside the jurisdiction, and therefore not inconsistent with the Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. This case was recently withdrawn EHCR, who found that the jurisdiction of the international human rights treaties did not end at the borders of the UK:
I confess to be somewhat unimpressed pleadings, the Government of the United Kingdom that export to the European Convention on human rights in Iraq would be tantamount to "human rights imperialism". Bad to the State imposed military imperialism many of another sovereign State without the frailest endorsement from the international community to the prosecution of human rights imperialism are exported in the defeated enemy. This is how to wear your badge conceit with the international law of banditry, but then the metal in shock at alleged promotion of human rights.
I personally would have better virginal blushes some statesmen they wore them the other way round. Being abundant with military imperialism but bashful silks human rights imperialism, to me it seems not enough resistance to frequent the lower quarters of the political volatility. For my part, I believe that those who export war must pursue parallel export guarantees from the horrors of war. And then, if necessary, with some resistance abused the human rights of the imperialists.
In General, the British were found guilty of failing to adequately investigate the violations of their human rights, and the outsourcing of violence was not seen as an opportunity to avoid international treaties. Sounds familiar? This decision opens the way for international prosecutors and means that the key should start listening to Locke calls for an inquiry. Currently a strong precedent, that the transfer of prisoners to torture still means that they are under our jurisdiction, and that just because we are abroad we cannot bypass the human rights of the nation that we are all from.
This time, the tax package gives labour a powerful set of policy that is consistent with that party regularly says it stands for, but rarely does.
Suddenly labour seemed to establish political debates options for these elections, which require a key to project something more substantial than just likeability. In recent times, this may be a stretch. More > >
没有评论:
发表评论