Or is James so partial as to think that disagreeing with the US is a sign of impartiality against the US. No, in such a view there is no benefit to the cost. But it’s rather disingenious to make such a length argument if what you want to say is: ‘The US Rulez, Dude!”

The impartiality of the ICC is not something that can be guaranteed. Are there any tangible benefits for the cost associated?

In what way is the ICC a good idea for the United States?

The ICC’s not great for power projection though is it?

I like both Kafka & Heller because they don’t accuse. Insofar as you consider them as satires, they are satires of the system and in many cases rather kind to persons on the wrong side of the system.

But to be clear: my point was not about the cook & it’s not fair for you to construe it as such. I’m not being trialed here, I hope. If I am, I’ll switch moniker to “K.”.

Whether or not there is a need to trial kidnappers will depend on the specifics of it and in any case we should not go for a blanket extra-judicial treatment of them because it’s precisely what was done for the current prisoners and which has led to this issue which is – as is my point here – fundamentally irreversible.

Is US foreign policy questionable? Yes. If I didn’t think that I would not make constant references to the ICC! But non-US countries shouldn’t use that excuse in this case, imo.

Afaik (and that is not at the level of the details which you provide – for which, thanks!), the people that have been accepted back (in Germany, Bosnia, Australia .. the cases I know) were them for which it was clear no further prosecution was needed.

What about the need for prosecution of whoever kidnapped and mistreated them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_El-Masri

among other things it mentions “a lack of cooperation from US authorities was impeding their investigation into El-Masri’s abduction” and “interventions by US officials and concerns about political fallout”. Do you think this sort of thing encourages other nations to accept detainees that are not even their citizens and are in an even murkier legal situation?

PS. I assumed you were American, and that’s why I used “you” above, but I guess you’re not.

Would you, by the way, support the US signing the ICC? If so, it may be possible for a more or less straight solution to be designed.

It really is amazing how a post on the viciousness of the previous administration gets in a twist about Obama clearly on a mission to mitigate that viciousness. Maybe he can do better but surely he can’t be prosecuted for human rights violations & accused of gross immorality. Please note that I don’t mean to say the decisions he takes are not open for criticism; personally I think he always had a risk for falling for his own newspeak.

Prosecute what? Prosecute how? Evidence and guilt is not determined by Obama or anybody else having a hunch that the people in question might be bad guys, it is determined in a public trial affording the accused amongst other things habeas corpus protection. If you don’t have evidence or if the evidence is inadmissible, then you cannot prosecute, unless you set up kangaroo courts, which is what military commissions are.

Jon, I agree but: 1. those clearly innocent were released

Most of the Uighurs are still there. And how would you know who’s innocent and who’s not, anyway?

Although some of them are clearly guilty and dangerous, like this guy:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Judge_justifies_holding_Taliban_cook_at_0128.html

If you release him, he might cook again.

RB, I think they gave up on diplomacy for this after the NATO summit. It’s a no-no for the rest of the world: ‘the US created the problem, the US can solve it’

Maybe the way you backstab countries that already have taken in their citizens and former residents has something to do with it. (The UK may have secretly asked for the stab, but anyway) What happens when these people speak out about what was done to them and/or seek justice? If the accepting country takes openness and rule of law seriously, their relationship with the US will suffer.

If you are serious about getting Europe to accept former detainees, give the detainees generous settlements and offer to share in the costs of rehabilitating them. Not so much for the money, but as a way to show that you will not simply force them to cover up your messes. (I’m talking about releasing people here, of course we can’t accept them into our “prison system” if you can’t demonstrate that they are guilty.)

Here’s how it’s done. Sweden paid damages for two guys just for participating in their extradition to Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Agiza_and_Muhammad_al-Zery

Why would McCain have been any better? The only way that I can see him being ‘better’ is that he’d have had the GOP position of trillions for the financial elites, but not one damn red cent for the auto companies (because that’d mean subsidies for people who haven’t demonstrated their morality by stealing trillions).

RB, I think they gave up on diplomacy for this after the NATO summit.

Not that accepting them would have eased the situation, at least not for the prisoners. Imagine being ‘accepted’ in the Turkey prison system.