Amal Alamuddin and her work

playfuldeb wrote:wikipedeia has her posted again, as of today, the 27th
"This page was last modified on 27 April 2014 at 21:55"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Amal Alamuddin faces a very different engagement

George Clooney's fiancee is fighting to be able to defend Muammar Gaddafi's enforcer at a trial in which both Libya and the international criminal court are coming under attack


Amal Alamuddin: 'The ICC made its decision despite the fact that Libya did not allow us a single visit to Senussi.' Photograph: Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images


Amal Alamuddin was pictured across the world last month after the announcement of her engagement to George Clooney after a whirlwind romance. Soon she could return to the front pages in a more controversial role – when she stands up in court to represent Muammar Gaddafi's notorious spy chief in a case that could scupper the reputation of the international criminal court.

Abdullah al Senussi is no one's idea of a poster boy for justice. As Gaddafi's intelligence chief and right-hand man for four decades, the 64-year-old supervised torture, assassinations and town-square hangings.

Many Libyans blame him for the massacre of 1,200 inmates at Tripoli's Abu Salem prison, a Paris court has convicted him in absentia for the bombing of a French airliner in 1989, and Scottish police are to interview him over allegations of masterminding the Lockerbie bombing. He fled Libya during the 2011 Arab spring revolution, but was caught in Mauritania and returned to Libya. And that is where the trouble began.

Senussi was charged – along with Gaddafi's playboy son, Saif al-Islam – with war crimes and crimes against humanity by the ICC. Under the rules of the United Nations, which ordered the case, the Hague court was to hold the trial unless Libya could prove itself capable of doing the job itself. In October, Libya was given that approval, despite allegations that Senussi had been mistreated, and Libya's refusal to let Alamuddin or any of his ICC-appointed defence team visit him, which she says should have been a red flag to the Hague.

"A scary precedent has been set," she told the Observer. "The ICC made its decision despite the fact that Libya did not allow us a single visit to Senussi."

Considered a high-flier in the close-knit world of international lawyers, Alamuddin was hired for the case by Ben Emmerson QC, with whom she had already worked defending the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange. Born in Beirut to a journalist mother and travel agent father, the 36-year-old barrister had already gained a high profile as an adviser to former UN secretary general Kofi Annan and was picked by William Hague for a panel investigating rape as a war crime.

Her decision to work as legal adviser to Bahrain's king, Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, who has been blamed by rights groups for systematic torture and repression, raised eyebrows, but sources at her chambers in Doughty Street, London, say she is a tough, combative lawyer with experience gained as a prosecutor on the UN's Lebanon war crimes tribunal.

When she failed to get a visa for Libya, or even permission to speak to her client by phone, she sought out Senussi's daughter, Anoud, who was kidnapped and jailed in Tripoli after visiting her father in prison, and later fled to London .

The Senussi appeal hearing against the Hague's decision to back Libya cuts to the very heart of what the ICC is supposed to be. Conceived as a "world court", its mission is to set a benchmark for global justice. In backing Libya, that reputation stands to be badly tarnished.

Libya began the trial of Senussi and Saif al-Islam last month amid chaotic conditions. Senussi, haggard and emaciated in blue prison garb, appeared with other defendants in a steel cage and complained that Libya had broken a promise to the Hague to find him a lawyer.

Prosecutors refused to let him see the evidence against him (he could face the death penalty). The militia of Zintan refused to hand over Saif al-Islam, and the militia of Misrata refused to hand over another eight defendants, while six more were simply missing. Militiamen guarding the Al Hadba prison, where the trial is being held, refused to human rights officials access. Emmerson condemned it as "a show trial without a trace of due process guarantees".

Amaluddin has waited six months for ICC judges to give a date for the appeal. When they do, the issue of defence lawyers will be central. "The Hague court penalises us for not being in a position to give details of all the violations against our client, but there are details we cannot provide because we can't get to see him," she told the Observer.

After 12 years in existence and costing a billion dollars, the ICC has, because of bureaucracy and delays, secured just a single conviction, that of Congolese warlord Germain Katanga. The Senussi appeal hearing promised to be a landmark day, with the Libya process condemned by Amnesty International, the UN's panel on torture and the African Union's court.

"The whole point of the ICC is to be there when national systems can't do the job, said Alamuddin "Instead, it is giving a flawed, dangerous process the stamp of approval."

With the Senussi case active, Alamuddin will not be drawn on why she is defending a man many think deserves all he gets. One clue comes from fellow Doughty Street lawyer John Jones QC, who is defending Saif al-Islam: "Justice needs defence lawyers. The system only works if there's robust advocacy on both sides."

bellybaby wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Clooney's girl and Gaddafi's monster:
George's fiancée Amal Alamuddin set to represent Libyan spy chief who supervised torture and hangings is wanted over Lockerbie bombing
She is helping the 64-year-old appeal against the decision to allow his trial to take place in Libya, where he could face the death penalty.
.....

al-Senussi was convicted in absentia by a French court for the 1989 bombing of a French airliner. In Libya he is accused of overseeing a prison massacre of 1,200 inmates as well as torture and hangings. He was charged along with Gaddafi’s playboy son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, with war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court.

Under United Nations rules, the Hague court was due to hear the case unless Libya could prove that it was capable of overseeing it.
But Miss Alamuddin said Libya refused to allow her or any of his ICC-appointed defence team to visit him, which, she says, should have been a red flag to the ICC.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



  

When I hear the term, "Human Rights Lawyer" or "Humanitarian", I think of someone who is helping victims; someone who is fighting for the rights of those who have none.

Amal is defending all these criminals. This isn't helping the victims. This is helping the murderers, rapists, and torturers try to avoid persecution for their crimes.

I understand her colleague's point about "justice needing defense lawyers". I guess someone has to. IMO, they forfeited any rights to justice they had when they carried out, or condoned the atrocities. Their victims weren't treated fairly, why do they get to be?

Her title makes her seem like a "good" person (this is not a character reflection, rather a stereotypical one based on her professional title), someone who sticks up for the little guy, the underdog, the voiceless.

But I guess she really isn't, is she? She's siding with the bad guys.

And if, say, Omar Bashir is captured, and put on trial for his crimes, do you think she'd represent him as well?

LizzyNY wrote:Nicky - That is the basis for our legal system. It doesn't always work that way, which is why we need lawyers willing to defend the worst of the worst.

However, I'd still like to see Amal's name linked to the other side of the equation once in a while. The victims of these people need a defender too.

fava wrote:

bellybaby wrote:
  

When I hear the term, "Human Rights Lawyer" or "Humanitarian", I think of someone who is helping victims; someone who is fighting for the rights of those who have none.

Amal is defending all these criminals. This isn't helping the victims. This is helping the murderers, rapists, and torturers try to avoid persecution for their crimes.

I understand her colleague's point about "justice needing defense lawyers". I guess someone has to. IMO, they forfeited any rights to justice they had when they carried out, or condoned the atrocities. Their victims weren't treated fairly, why do they get to be?

Her title makes her seem like a "good" person (this is not a character reflection, rather a stereotypical one based on her professional title), someone who sticks up for the little guy, the underdog, the voiceless.

But I guess she really isn't, is she? She's siding with the bad guys.

And if, say, Omar Bashir is captured, and put on trial for his crimes, do you think she'd represent him as well?

I disagree-- It sounds like she is only working a limited aspect of his case:  whether he should be tried in Libya rather than the Hague.  I think if the ICC doesn't fight this sort of trial and for the right to be the arbiter of these cases they lose all credibility and call their purpose into question.

Way2Old4Dis wrote:I am not a big supporter of so-called international courts. I think they are more political show than anything. But they make it look like somebody's doing something, and draw attention so that the World at least knows about the atrocities.

And I have never subscribed to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" when the perpetrator is in charge of the weapons and the men who carry them. There's a mass grave of bullet-riddled or poisoned bodies, and you're the only one with the guns or gas? No. No presumption of innocence. Prove you didn't do it, asshole. And don't use the money you stole from your citizens to do it.

The argument is always that an aggressive defense enforces the integrity of the justice system. I think that's a self-serving justification for perpetuating the status quo.

I will call Ms. Alamuddin an international law attorney. She is probably a humanitarian on some level. But she is only selectively a "human rights" activist, and, to me, you either are or you aren't. She can't eat her cake and have it, too.

party animal - not! wrote:
Just want to clarify something - Amal is not Senussi's defence lawyer or counsel. She is trying to get his case heard at the International Criminal Court rather than one in Libya - and she has been denied access to talk to him about it.......