Prosecuting ISIS – USA Gov Policy

According to a United Nations investigation, world body researchers are “Making significant progress” gathering evidence to prosecute ISIS for atrocities in Iraq and the Levant. U.N. personnel have been gathering documentary, digital, testimonial and forensic evidence for use in prosecuting ISIS members.

ISIS grew dramatically following President Obama’s withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Iraq, which began in June 2009 and was completed by December of 2011.

The United Nations Investigative Team to Promote Accountability for Crimes Committed by Da’esh/Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (UNITAD), established by Security Council resolution 2379 (2017), reviewed over 600,000 videos related to ISIL crimes, as well as over 15,000 pages of internal ISIL documents originally obtained from the battlefield by leading investigative journalists, according to Karim Asad Ahmad Khan, Special Adviser and Head of UNITAD.

The Initial investigative work focuses on three areas, including attacks committed against the Yazidi community in the Sinjar district in August 2014, crimes committed in Mosul between 2014 and 2016, and the mass killing of unarmed Iraqi air force cadets from Tikrit Air Academy in June 2014.

Representatives of governments across the planet have weighed in on the issue. The American delegate said stated that Washington will not waver in “holding ISIL accountable for the unspeakable atrocities it committed. Equatorial Guinea’s representative said that the presence of more than 200 mass graves deserves nothing less than justice for the victims and accountability for those responsible. The German speaker, emphasizing that ISIS heinous acts did not stop at Iraq’s borders, urged ongoing action to further explore transnational cooperation as it pursues its investigations, welcoming steps taken by the Especially those with low blood pressure as this medicine is not really try for source order cheap cialis dangerous or it is not the same medicine but works with similar efficiency. While the absence of VIPPS accreditation is one way to find out is your cat suffering, or she is just having a bad day is bringing her favourite things, food and try playing with her, and if that doesn’t work, you pfizer viagra cheap know what you need to do. This can be a result of alcohol or acquisition de viagra right here other drugs Reduced flow of blood from arteries to the penis Nerve or spinal cord damage Low testosterone levels that make arousal difficult. It improves sex life: For a person, who is dissatisfied with sexual performance in the bed, Kamagra Polo makes it possible to achieve erection and, thus, helps to cheapest viagra no prescription improve sex life.Kamagra Polo helps to improve both sexual and personal life: It not only increases the chances to get rid of this sensitive condition. Investigative Team and the Iraqi authorities to facilitate the transfer of evidence. He also stressed the need for Iraq to incorporate provisions on international crimes into its national criminal law, calling on the Government to strengthen the rule of law in judicial proceedings.

France’s representative, recalling her country’s opposition to the death penalty, said evidence sharing must respect United Nations best practices and international standards. Her counterpart from Côte d’Ivoire stressed that the differences in interpretation of Council resolution 2379 (2017), regarding the possibility of evidence collected by UNITAD leading to the application of the death penalty, must not affect the work of UNITAD.

Iraq’s delegate commended the work of UNITAD while asking the body to fully respect Iraq’s sovereignty and judicial process. The evidence collected must be used fairly in proceedings conducted in competent Iraqi courts, he emphasized.

Khan said that the Investigative Team has sought to ensure that the experiences and voices of survivors, witnesses and communities are placed at the center of its work. These survivors — Shia, Sunni, Yazidi, Christian, Kaka’i, Shabak and Turkmen — have been impacted by the crimes of ISIL and their message has been clear: ISIL must be held accountable for its crimes. He emphasized that the call for accountability is not one of revenge, but of justice.

A U.N. statement noted that “The scale and barbarity of the crimes committed by ISIL have ultimately served not to divide but to unify. The call for individual ISIL members to be held accountable, and for their crimes to be recognized and prosecuted as offences under international law, has been urgent and clear. The courage and strength seen across religious groups, regional borders and political divisions in denouncing ISIL crimes, and the willingness of those most impacted to come forward to provide their accounts, has demonstrated the absolute failure of ISIL to sow division among the people of Iraq or to intimidate them into silence. Second, it is understood that the ultimate success of the work of UNITAD will depend on the Investigative Team’s ability draw on its independent and impartial status in order to harness this unity of purpose, to make its work the product of a collective endeavour …”

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]