The tribunal for the administrator of the notorious Cambodian S21 prison facility, Kaing Guek Eav, or Duch, began Monday following years of delays.

The court outlined its charges before Duch Monday, saying the prison chief supervised the execution of some 15,000 people during a quasi-eugenics campaign led by the Khmer Rouge regime in the 1970s.

The clerk said Duch was the overseer of the S21 facility, enforcing its general rules for security at the former school.

“In addition to executing prisoners condemned in advance as traitors, an overriding purpose of S21 was to extract confessions from prisoners in order to uncover further networks as possible traitors,” the clerk said.

Duch, now a Christian, is thought to be planning an apology later in the week.

“It’s certain that he will use the opportunity given to him to speak to the judges, to the victims and, beyond that, with the Cambodian population,” Duch’s French lawyer Francois Roux told AFP.

Five senior members of the Khmer Rouge were arrested in 2007 and charged with a variety of atrocities, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. It’s estimated than nearly 2 million people died during the reign of the Khmer Rouge in their effort to form an ultra-communist agrarian utopia through forced labor camps.

I’m sorry that (for my part at least) posting has been sparse lately; I took a much-needed vacation and have been buried in work since I got back.

Here are Stewart Patrick and Kaysie Brown arguing that it is in the Obama administration’s interest to take concrete action against al-Bashir. Money quote:

First, he should openly dismiss any possibility of Security Council deferment and insist that any country that is able to do so should remand Bashir to the court. This includes U.S. ally Qatar, host of the 2009 Arab League summit, which Bashir plans to attend. Second, Obama should engage Beijing on tighter UN sanctions for Bashir’s criminal regime, which by its actions is now endangering long-term Chinese interests in Sudan. Third, he should welcome the African Union’s creation of a new Darfur panel under former South African President Thabo Mbeki, who has promised that “war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other abuses will be punished resolutely.” Fourth, he should commit U.S. logistical support for the UN peacekeeping mission and jointly with Europeans, declare a no-fly zone in Darfur enforced by Western warplanes. Finally, he should shore up the ICC’s global standing, by signaling willingness to consider eventual U.S. membership, pending a bipartisan review of its performance and adequate safeguards.

It’s not clear whether all of those are practicable (joining the ICC, for instance, might be politically difficult), but they represent useful starting points for thinking about how to leverage the arrest warrant against al-Bashir to get, at the least, serious concessions out of Khartoum.

The international group Human Rights Watch says the use by the Israeli military of white phosphorus shells over populated areas in the Gaza Strip constitutes war crimes.

“In Gaza, the Israeli military didn’t just use white phosphorus in open areas as a screen for its troops,” said HRW’s Fred Abrahams. “It fired white phosphorus repeatedly over densely populated areas, even when its troops weren’t in the area and safer smoke shells were available. As a result, civilians needlessly suffered and died.”

In a blistering 71-page report highlighting eyewitness accounts, HRW says the use of white phosphorus by Israeli forces during a campaign against the Hamas-held Gaza Strip from December to January was an inappropriate use of force.

“(While) it is not considered a chemical weapon and is not banned per se, it ignites and burns on contact with oxygen and creates a smokescreen at night or during the day to mask the visual movement of troops,” the report said.

The Israeli military countered with its own assessment, saying the use of white phosphorus munitions was in line with its use among other Western military forces.

Amnesty International raised identical allegations in January in the immediate aftermath of the Gaza offensive.

“Its repeated use in this manner, despite evidence of its indiscriminate effects and its toll on civilians, is a war crime,” Amnesty said.

CINCINNATI, March 24 (Reuters) - The U.S. government said on Tuesday it has sought travel documents to deport 88-year-old U.S. resident John Demjanjuk to Germany to face charges he helped murder at least 29,000 Jews as a Nazi death camp guard.

The travel documents are one of the last steps required to deport the ailing Demjanjuk, who lives with his wife in a Cleveland, Ohio, suburb.

Germany issued an arrest warrant for the retired auto worker two weeks ago, the culmination of years of legal proceedings that have attempted to link Demjanjuk with World War Two atrocities.

“Following an order by a U.S. immigration judge to deport John Demjanjuk and receipt of a warrant to arrest Demjanjuk, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement contacted the government of Germany to secure travel documents to effectuate his removal,” Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Khaalid Walls said in a statement. …..click here to read more

In a stark departure from the previous administration, U.S. President Barack Obama called for the use of international law as a standard for determining the basis for holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

“As we work toward developing a new policy to govern detainees, it is essential that we operate in a manner that strengthens our national security, is consistent with our values, and is governed by law,” said U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

The U.S. Justice Department filed court papers saying it would abandon the “enemy combatant” status and move toward eliminating plenary presidential authority over the detention status of prisoners held there.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 adopted the term “unlawful enemy combatant” and “lawful enemy combatant” as such; …..click here to read more

As Kate Cronin-Furman notes, Congolese warlord Kyungu Mutanga was sentenced to death by a military court in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Mutanga was found guilty of crimes against humanity, insurgency, and terrorism, as a result of a campaign focusing in the Katanga province, where more than 100,000 people were forced to flee their homes and at least hundreds were killed.

The five men, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, charged with planning the 9/11 attacks have filed a new document in court accepting - indeed, bragging about - responsibility for the attacks. CNN pulls out this excerpt from the filing:

“With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for; to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride. Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims,” the response stated.

An Iraqi tribunal Wednesday sentenced former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz and others to 15 years for the deaths of 42 businessmen exploiting U.N. sanctions.

Aziz, along with Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as “Chemical Ali,” were handed 15-year prison sentences Wednesday by the Iraqi High Tribunal for their role in the 1992 deaths of 42 Baghdad merchants accused of exploiting market conditions while Iraq was under the U.N. sanctions regime.

This is the first sentence given to Aziz, a 72-year-old Christian who faced several other charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The court acquitted Aziz on charges stemming from atrocities committed during the violent suppression of Kurdish and Shiite uprisings by the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Aziz, who turned himself into U.S. forces in April 2003, told the court he was proud of his membership in the now-outlawed Baath Party but added he was not responsible for the 1992 deaths, al-Arabiya reports.

His lawyer, Giovanni di Stefano, told the BBC World Service on Wednesday the sentence was politically motivated, noting that given Aziz’s age and credit for time served, the term was notably lenient.

Two of Saddam’s half brothers, Watban Ibrahim Hassan and Sabaawi Ibrahim Hassan, were given death sentences for their role in the 1992 killings.

Dan summarizes some of the reaction to the warrant handed down today by the ICC. (CFR has another good summary here). Essentially, the criticism of the ICC’s decision raises two arguments: (1) that charging Al-Bashir is bad for the “peace process,” and (2) that other people do bad things too, so charging Al-Bashir is tantamount to unfairly singling him out. While it is, of course, not a pre-trial chamber’s job to consider policy consequences, the Security Council will be deciding whether to defer the warrant, and it will properly be primarily concerned with the security implications. Thus, it’s worth considering both primary criticisms. After some thought, I don’t believe either holds up to scrutiny.

Let’s take the second argument first. It is, of course, legally frivolous; international law has recognized since Nuremberg that “tu quoque” - “so did you” - isn’t a defense against war crimes charges, because it has nothing to do with the innocence or guilt of the accused. It’s a red herring to distract people from the merits of the case against Al-Bashir. (Desmond Tutu wrote this week that the Court is not unduly focused on Africa, and that Africans and others should support the warrant against al-Bashir).

The first is less clear. To evaluate it, I think it’s simplest to ask “what would have to be true for the indictment to hurt the peace process?” To my mind, it would have to be true either that Al-Bashir is good for the peace process, so carrying out the warrant would damage it, or that Al-Bashir is bad for the process, but he will react to the warrant by becoming worse than he was already, so handing down the warrant will make a bad situation worse.

I. Is Al-Bashir Good for Peace?

Initially, I doubt very much that al-Bashir is good for the peace process. He has not been peaceful in words or actions the past few weeks. On his watch, 300,000 have died in Darfur, and millions have been forced to flee their homes; evidence continues to mount that attacks on civilians were government policy. Moreover, as far as the Darfur conflict goes, all he’s done for the peace process is conclude an agreement to talk about entering into a peace agreement - and even then, only with a warrant looming over him. Moreover, as John Prendergast and Omer Ismail note, peace is probably impossible with al-Bashir in office, and the indictment will cost him both domestic and international credibility.

In short, leaders who are good for the peace process probably don’t shell villages the day after a preliminary agreement is signed, order troops to rape and murder non-combatants, or expel aid workers.

II. Will Al-Bashir Respond By Setting the Process Back?

While I don’t know enough about the man to be sure, as Nicholas Kristof and Michelle point out, the early signs aren’t good.

Even if al-Bashir is going to continue cracking down in response to the warrant, however, I think the Prosecutor may reasonably have concluded the warrant is best for peace long-term. First, it will inevitably weaken al-Bashir’s position internationally, which is why he’s trying to show strength by cracking down right now. Second, it sends the useful message that the Rome Statute means what it says and rationae personae immunity for heads of state is over, at least in front of the ICC. If al-Bashir is actually prosecuted, that will serve as a meaningful deterrent to similar leaders in the future.

Moreover, as Nick Grono notes, the warrant can itself be used as a negotiating tool. The United Nations Security Council may defer any ICC warrant for up to one year; if al-Bashir wants a deferral, the Security Council can demand concrete progress towards peace before granting one.

While none of this is certain, and the international community will need to show immediate resolve if al-Bashir’s crackdown continues, in my view there’s a strong argument (made by some of the world’s leading Darfur experts) that the warrant will be good for stability. Moreover, there has to be a weighty presumption in favor of bringing someone allegedly responsible for the concerted, intentional murder of hundreds of thousands of his own people to justice. Thus, unless the warrant will far more likely than not damage the peace process, we ought to applaud it.

Before concluding, I’d be remiss not to note Kevin Heller’s thoughtful argument that the warrant will undermine international resolve because the pre-trial chamber refused to approve genocide charges, and the international community will be less interested in acting as a result.

First, Heller subsequently argues that the pre-trial chamber got this wrong under the ICC’s rules. If the decision is reversed on appeal and a warrant for genocide is handed down, this argument goes away.

Second, of course, had the pre-trial chamber denied the warrant in toto - implicitly concluding al-Bashir has committed no crimes - it would have far more dramatically taken the air out of the international movement against the al-Bashir regime.

So, the warrant is probably a good thing. That doesn’t mean it will immediately be productive, as al-Bashir and the ruling National Congress Party will almost certainly continue cracking down in response. To the extent that international resolve is necessary, that’s never easy to mobilize against far-away atrocities, particularly when the world’s great powers all have urgent domestic concerns. However, the warrant is an opportunity to press al-Bashir, or remove him for someone more willing to negotiate, and it’s an opportunity that didn’t exist on Tuesday. For that reason alone, it’s something to celebrate.

War crimes charges filed Wednesday against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir is the first against a sitting head of state, but it may backfire to stoke conflict in the troubled African region.

The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for Bashir stemming from an ethnic campaign in the troubled Darfur region of Sudan.

“He is suspected of being criminally responsible … for intentionally directing attacks against an important part of the civilian population … murdering, exterminating, raping, torturing, and forcibly transferring large numbers of civilians, and pillaging their property,” said ICC spokeswoman Laurence Blairon.

Bashir in 2003 signed a peace accord and a power-sharing agreement to end a ten-year civil war that left millions dead. Experts fear the situation in Sudan may turn violent if the government of Bashir collapses in the wake of the charges, however.

Arab and African leaders, for their part, are working to delay any indictments in order to allow peace talks to gain momentum. Meanwhile, many African leaders are wary of the charges, saying the international court seems capable only of filing charges against leaders of failed or failing nations.

“It’s easy to target Bashir because of Darfur, but then you have an illegal invasion of Iraq, where thousands of civilians have been killed and the country has been effectively destroyed,” said Adam Habib with the University of Johannesburg.