Obligations
What if the pardon power conflicts with international law?
Donald Trump’s pardon of four American men convicted of killing Iraqi civilians while working as contractors in 2007 violated US obligations under international law, United Nations human rights experts have said. …
“Pardoning the Blackwater contractors is an affront to justice and to the victims of the Nisour Square massacre and their families,” said Jelena Aparac, the chair of the UN working group on the use of mercenaries.
The group said the Geneva conventions obliged states to hold war criminals accountable for their crimes, even when they are acting as private security contractors. “These pardons violate US obligations under international law and more broadly undermine humanitarian law and human rights at a global level,” it said.
Trump would just squawk that he has THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT to do whatever he wants, but to reason-capable adults it’s not so simple.
I assume the point here is that it’s another reason why these pardons were immoral, unwise, etc.
I’m pretty sure that there is no valid argument that international law can render the pardons invalid or ineffective under U.S. law.
Roughly speaking, the legal hierarchy in the U.S. goes:
U.S. Constitution > Obligations under treaties ratified by the Senate > Legislation passed by Congress
As far as U.S. courts are concerned, “international law” doesn’t limit authority or rights granted by the Constitution, even if ratified by a treaty. For example, if the U.S. signed a Treaty For the Protection of Religion From Criticism (akin to a U.N. resolution from a few years ago), that wouldn’t override the First Amendment right to criticize religion. So to the extent there is a “conflict,” the pardon power wins out.
Of course, violating a treaty or other international law may have serious diplomatic and reputational repercussions — which again gets us back to “why it’s a bad idea to pardon war criminals.”
“These pardons violate US obligations under international law and more broadly undermine humanitarian law and human rights at a global level.”
Trump could possibly wriggle his way off the hook by pleading temporary insanity thanks to his well-established narcissistic personality disorder. Then again, the International Court of Justice in The Hague might cancel the pardons, and the contractors, Donald Trump and old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all might finish up all together in the same hoosegow: likely not to bethe one in Dade County, Florida, nor with special leave for the odd game of golf at the nearby Trump Golf Course with gold-plated everything.
That was my point, at any rate, Screechy. I have no illusions that he’s going to be packed off to the Hague.
I wonder if the Blackwater murderers are now subject to conviction in other countries that are signatories to the treaty.
Yeah, I assumed that was what you were getting at, but I figured someone might wonder if the Biden administration could try to re-prosecute.
I’ve been wondering:
Article II, Section 2 gives the president
“Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States” — while these murders were crimes against Iraqi civilians in their own country.
Yes but also crimes against the US. That’s all the more key because we’ve refused to be part of the International Criminal Court and thus to be subject to prosecution there.