Letter: Acts of tyranny
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: With regard to the case of General Pinochet, it is interesting to note the judgement in US v Noriega, June 1990.
Counsel for General Noriega, the former Panamanian leader, argued that Noriega was immune from prosecution as a head of state and diplomat, and that his alleged narcotics offences constituted acts of state not properly reviewable by the court.
Judge Hoeveler, United States District Judge, commented that "the doctrine of head of state immunity provides that a head of state is not subject to the jurisdiction of foreign courts, at least as to official acts taken during the ruler's term of office.... Criminal activities such as the narcotics trafficking with which defendant is charged can hardly be considered official acts or governmental duties which promote a sovereign state's interests."
He concluded that, "Noriega was the de facto head of Panama's government. But simply because Noriega may have in fact run the country of Panama does not mean he is entitled to head of state immunity, since the grant of immunity is a privilege which the United States may withhold from any claimant.... His claim to a `right' of immunity against the express wishes of the government is wholly without merit."
It could likewise be argued that torture and conspiracy to torture do not constitute official acts or governmental duties.
PAUL TANNER
London SE15
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments