Scott Horton Interviews The Other Scott Horton

Scott Horton, February 08, 2011

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The Other Scott Horton (no relation), international human rights lawyer, professor and contributing editor at Harper’s magazine, discusses how George W. Bush’s travel plans to Switzerland may have been scuttled by the threat of his arrest for torture; why deposed dictators (and other war criminals) have fewer luxurious exile options nowadays; how European judges are much less likely than their American counterparts to let euphemisms cloud the definition of torture; and why we should look beyond waterboarding to determine the actual number (tens of thousands) of people tortured in the War on Terror.

MP3 here. (20:08)

The Other Scott Horton is a Contributing Editor for Harper’s magazine where he writes the No Comment blog. A New York attorney known for his work in emerging markets and international law, especially human rights law and the law of armed conflict, Horton lectures at Columbia Law School. A life-long human rights advocate, Scott served as counsel to Andrei Sakharov and Elena Bonner, among other activists in the former Soviet Union.

He is a co-founder of the American University in Central Asia, and has been involved in some of the most significant foreign investment projects in the Central Eurasian region. Scott recently led a number of studies of abuse issues associated with the conduct of the war on terror for the New York City Bar Association, where he has chaired several committees, including, most recently, the Committee on International Law. He is also a member of the board of the National Institute of Military Justice, the Andrei Sakharov Foundation, the EurasiaGroup and the American Branch of the International Law Association.

6 Responses to “The Other Scott Horton”

  1. The Swiss [in]justice minister has recently concluded that ex-leaders such as Bush had diplomatic immunity. However, it is apparent that Mr. Bush and his cohorts in the u.s. regime (both parties included) do not completely trust the Europeans to overlook war crimes.

    Furthermore, diplomatic immunity is not automatic. You can’t set it up on your end and simply proceed. It must be agreed to by the receiving country. While such agreement is normally extended as a courtesy, it is certainly not guaranteed. The Swiss have every right to refuse such a request. In the case of Mr. Bush, an admitted war criminal, the Swiss are risking plenty by considering entertaining a request for his immunity.

    The political cowardice of the Swiss government knows no limits. As a permanent puppet of the u.s. and israel, CH continually fails to apply law equally. CH is in lockstep with the aforementioned rogue regimes regardless of any feigned disagreement the [in]justice ministry might proffer. As always, the u.s. and israel will decide for CH who has immunity and who does not.

    The Swiss supported and approved of the Nuremberg trials and the promulgation of the Nuremberg Principals. Why does the Swiss minister of [in]justice now conclude that those principals cannot apply to Mr. Bush? CH was firm in its support for the application of the Nuremberg Principals when it came to Slobodan Milošević and members of his government. Likewise, CH was entirely in lockstep with the u.s. and israel when those countries sought to kill Saddam Hussein and to destroy Iraq. These former leaders deserved no such immunity in the view of CH. There are many other examples of CH’s blind support for whatever war crimes the americans and the israelis commit around the world. Any clear thinking person is aware of the litany of Swiss support for and capitulation to american and israeli war crimes. Of course, there are just as many instances of selective recognition of war crimes by the Swiss government.

    It is clear that the Swiss government is not guided by domestic law, international law, or any treaty to which it is a signatory. Rather, CH is guided by the leaders of the two most militarily belligerent and criminal regimes currently on the planet. The Swiss people deserve better than this. Neutrality indeed.

    Switzerland has been reduced to little more than a stamp of approval that is willingly misused by tyrants and murderers to lend a false look of civility and fairness to their criminal acts. History is unlikely to forget or overlook Switzerland’s complicity.

  2. The Swiss [in]justice minister has recently concluded that ex-leaders such as Bush had diplomatic immunity. However, it is apparent that Mr. Bush and his cohorts in the u.s. regime (both parties included) do not completely trust the Europeans to overlook his war crimes.

    Furthermore, diplomatic immunity is not automatic. You can't set it up on your end and simply proceed. It must be agreed to by the receiving country. While such agreement is normally extended as a courtesy, it is certainly not guaranteed. The Swiss have every right to refuse such a request. In the case of Mr. Bush, an admitted war criminal, the Swiss are risking plenty by considering entertaining a request for his immunity.

    The political cowardice of the Swiss government knows no limits. As a permanent puppet of the u.s. and israel, CH continually fails to apply law equally. CH is in lockstep with the aforementioned rogue regimes regardless of any feigned disagreement the [in]justice ministry might proffer. As always, the u.s. and israel will decide for CH who has immunity and who does not.

    The Swiss supported and approved of the Nuremberg trials and the promulgation of the Nuremberg Principals. Why does the Swiss minister of [in]justice now conclude that those principals cannot apply to Mr. Bush? CH was firm in its support for the application of the Nuremberg Principals when it came to Slobodan Milošević and members of his government. Likewise, CH was entirely in lockstep with the u.s. and israel when those countries sought to kill Saddam Hussein and to destroy Iraq. These former leaders deserved no such immunity in the view of CH. There are many other examples of CH's blind support for whatever war crimes the americans and the israelis commit around the world. Any clear thinking person is aware of the litany of Swiss support for and capitulation to american and israeli war crimes. Of course, there are just as many instances of selective recognition of war crimes by the Swiss government.

    It is clear that the Swiss government is not guided by domestic law, international law, or any treaty to which it is a signatory. Rather, CH is guided by the leaders of the two most militarily belligerent and criminal regimes currently on the planet. The Swiss people deserve better than this. Neutrality indeed.

    Switzerland has been reduced to little more than a stamp of approval that is willingly misused by tyrants and murderers to lend a false look of civility and fairness to their criminal acts. History is unlikely to forget or overlook Switzerland's complicity.

  3. Surely some Asian nation could take care of these war criminals in much the same manner as the Amerikans did with Saddam Hussein?

  4. Can we start a fund to pay for G.W. Bush's trip to Switzerland? I would gladly donate.

  5. An informative interview.

    Sure, I'd like to see Dubya–our former Chickenhawk-in-Chief, Torturer-in-Chief, and Wiretapper-in-Chief–brought up on war crimes charges somewhere. The U.S. Government sure as hell isn't doing anything about Dubya and his cretinous minions John Yoo, Jay Bybee, Condoleezza Rice et al.

    Waterboarding–i.e., simulated drowning–isn't "torture"? Bullshit!

  6. An outstanding share, thank you for investing the time to talk about this. My partner and I actually feel passionately concerning this and would certainly like to be able to read more to do with this particular niche. If it is possible, would you mind adding to your blog with more details?

Leave a Reply