Mr. President, you alluded to your oath of office today, stating that you are obligated

[rateyes]

to follow the rule of law. The Convention Against Torture, as a treaty ratified by the Senate and thus a part of the supreme law of the land, specifically requires YOU to investigate and prosecute, when found, torturers and those who authorized it.

Therefore, you are bound by law and by your oath to do so. Failure to do so will be, in and of itself, a high crime.

Here is a link to the text of the C.A.T.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

There is no way around this. None.

[Lorax7844]

1. k and r

[emulatorloo]

2. He probably doesn't read DU. Call the White House n/t

[Lorax7844]

3. right on

Seriously we should really be flooding his office and congresses offices with calls.

White House Phone Numbers

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: [phone]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

[Lorax7844]

203. I honestly believe that Obama cares about those that criticize him

he seems like a people pleaser to me, we just have to hold his feet to the fire. Obama wants to do the right thing, but without overwhelming public support his hands are tied.

[The Hope Mobile]

143. Exactly!! He told us to keep him in line and make our voices heard.

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: [phone]
TTY/TDD

[WhiteTara]

172. 202 456 1111 -- every day n/t

[bagrman]

4. Your ass is covered Boss, GET'ER DONE

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Calling Obama a criminal really doesn't help the cause.

It's like when people look into reports that Bush was getting security briefings about Al Qaeda before 9-11, and then some dumbass chimes in and says that miniature nukes from Monsanto really brought the WTC. It just embarasses the whole cause with its stupidity.

It's pretty clear that the 9-11 nutters aren't really interested in investing 9-11, as much as they are interested in their own insanity. And it's equally clear that the "impeach Obama," "Obama = Bush," "Obama is a criminal," aren't really interested in finding a pragmatic solution to prosecution, as much as they are interested in their own insane anti-Obama rants.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Ayup

:thumbsup:

That their proclamations are always couched in the most embarrassingly stilted righteousness imaginable is the real sign: they like the sound of their own voices, and little else.

[tridim]

9. So are we allowed to support Obama and still ask questions about what really happend on 9/11?

I don't seem to fit any common mold.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. You're allowed to do whatever the hell you want.

Just don't expect not to judged for it if you do something really, really stupid.

[tridim]

12. Asking questions RE: the BushCo era is never stupid.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Calling for the impeachment of Obama is stupid.

Patently stupid.

[tridim]

14. Yes it is.

I think we're on the same side here. :)

[EnoughOfThis]

195. It comes full circle

I guess breaking the law is OK because he is "one of us"......nice analysis. Read the law......Obama MUST prosecute this OR he (with his silence) is culpable. No wiggle room here.

I am glad to see that the law (or morality) is situational.

[LaloBorges]

215. Agreed

So far, I am disappointed with Obama, this is not why we voted for him, to continue Bush's policies.

His actions, as of late, scream for the need of a third party; "moving forward" should not mean that those who committed crimes must not be investigated, and if found guilty, prosecuted.

He talked about "the rule of law" but then turns around to continue the previous administration's policies.

We need to start behaving like Americans, that is our 1st and only duty, regardless of the party that is in power we must also hold them accountable when they infringe on our rights and allow themselves to practice policies that go against our principles and those of the international community. We are not alone in this World, lets not forget that.

Take a look at your passport and read what it says, you are a citizen of the United States of America not a citizen of a political party...Country must come 1st and adhering to partisan ideologies is not the way to go, both parties have values and we must choose the best of those but not fall into fanaticism, it only clouds the mind and pushes us to actions that go against what we believe in.

If Obama allows torture and other practices that are illegal to continue then he too must be held accountable. He made a lot of promises during the campaign, and we all believed and "hoped" that he will carry out on his word.

[rateyes]

16. #1, I didn't call Obama a criminal.

#2, I said that IF he does not investigate allegations of torture, he will become one.

I will wait and see.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Riiiiiight, and threw in the reference to "high crimes and misdeamenors"

from the Constitutional qualifications for impeachment.

You're not sneaky, kid.

[rateyes]

22. Riiiiggggghhhhht. I didn't call Obama a criminal.

I said that if he doesn't investigate allegations of torture, he will become one. And, THAT will be an impeachable offense. Wasn't trying to be tricky. I called Bush a criminal. I will wait to see if President Obama will follow the law.

[geek tragedy]

177. And if there is no prosecution after the investigation.

If you don't get your show trial pony, you'll just start screaming for impeachment.

[rateyes]

186. And, you know this how?

The fact is, I will NOT call for impeachment if the matter is investigated. If it's investigated, however, and there is a cover-up of crimes, that's a different matter. Let's see the evidence.

Your reply is a load of crap.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

231. The law is the law

and Rateyes statement about the law is true, not doing anything about a war crime makes you complicit in said war crime. Jonathan Turley is saying the exact same thing, a constitutional law scholar, not a sychophant DUer.

[tridim]

20. Obama isn't an investigator or a prosecutor, he's the President

So you might as well just call him a criminal now and quit wasting our time.

[rateyes]

24. He's the head of the executive branch. The branch of government

specifically charged with enforcing the laws of the land.

Again, I didn't call him a criminal. I said that if his administration doesn't investigate allegations of torture, he will become one. The buck stops on his desk.

[tridim]

29. And he has already directed the AG and Congress to investigate

What's the problem again?

[rateyes]

37. Has he? What I've heard is that his administration will NOT prosecute

those who engaged in it. And, I haven't heard where he "instructed" anyone to investigate. Will you give me a link to an report where it says differently?

[JuniperLea]

102. His administration CANNOT PROSECUTE!!!

The Executive Branch doesn't do that.

:eyes:

[rateyes]

132. The hell it doesn't. The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch.

[The Hope Mobile]

140. You're hearing from the "head in the sand" branch of the corporatist party

Already ignored!!! YEA!!!

[konnichi wa]

144. Well shit, somebody done went and changed the Constitution while I wasn't looking.

:grr:

[The Hope Mobile]

141. That's what he said this morning per the video.

Contact the white house if you agree this is wrong!!


Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: [phone]
TTY/TDD

[snowdays]

97. Please Link to where he said that please.---as far as I know he

wants to move forward.

[JuniperLea]

100. Exactly, the Executive Branch...

What you are looking for is the Judicial Branch... down the hall, third door on the right... thank you, come again.

[Vinnie From Indy]

104. Gee, I thought the Attorney General worked for the Prez

I guess all those guys at the FBI and the Justice Department work for someone else in your world.

[JuniperLea]

105. Read a book

on Government. Appointees do not an employee make.

[rateyes]

136. Take a gander at the list of departments under the Executive Branch

from the government website.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/executive_branch/

Notice that the Dept. of Justice is listed.

[konnichi wa]

145. I can only surmise you are smoking something that isn't doing what you expected.

:eyes:

[The Hope Mobile]

149. Dead on! nt

[JuniperLea]

159. I thought you had me on ignore...

How could you have possibly seen what I wrote, or even that I had written anything at all. Telling, the fibs are telling.

[JuniperLea]

160. Sadly...

You are from the city where I was born, and have never lived more than 20 miles from.

[JuniperLea]

154. Ass..

.. ume

[The Hope Mobile]

163. I am really digging 'ignore' right now. Future crow-eaters be gone!!

Love it!!

[snowdays]

106. Obama is the Leader, but he is NOT leading on this.

[rateyes]

134. The judicial branch INTERPRETS the laws,

those are the JUDGES. The Executive Branch ENFORCES the laws...those are the police officers, the FBI, the CIA, the DEPARMENT OF JUSTICE, with all it's lawyers. The Attorney General, like the POTUS and the VP and SEC OF STATE, etc. is a member of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. They are the men and women in the courtroom who sit at the prosecutor's table, not behind the bench.

[JuniperLea]

153. THE PRESIDENT DOESNT DO IT HIMSELF!!!

The Cabinet and independent federal agencies are responsible for the day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws. These departments and agencies have missions and responsibilities as widely divergent as those of the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/executive_branch/

Criminal proceedings can be conducted under either state or federal law, depending on the nature and extent of the crime. A criminal legal procedure typically begins with an arrest by a law enforcement officer. If a grand jury chooses to deliver an indictment, the accused will appear before a judge and be formally charged with a crime, at which time he or she may enter a plea.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/judicial_branch/

[rateyes]

179. And, what the hell does any of that have to do with your assertion

that it's the judicial, and not the executive that brings prosecutions?

The DOJ can convene a grand jury, bring indictments, and THEN make arrests, if it chooses. Obama is the head of the executive branch. The Constitution actually says that the POWER of the executive branch resides in the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. The buck stops at his desk. As he said today in his speech, it is HIS (he used the words I and my) responsibility.

[shadowknows69]

182. That's how I learned it. Should I sue my history teachers?

[rateyes]

190. You learned it correctly. nt

[slay]

25. So let me get this straight - it's wrong to challenge Obama, but believing the offical story of 9/11

is right? To call people who question the official story "nutters" is right? Most of these people just have questions they want answered. You know what's more insane than an anti-Obama rant - a PRO-OBAMA RANT! We all voted for Obama here - I see no need to continue the blind cheerleading.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Like I said elsewhere, calling for the impeachment of Obama is stupid.

On par with the "mini-nukes" stupidity and the "there was no flight 93" stupidity.

"You know what's more insane than an anti-Obama rant - a PRO-OBAMA RANT! We all voted for Obama here"

I'm having difficulty reconciling those two contradictory statements.

[slay]

43. Who's calling for the impeachment of Obama here? What are you talking about?

Also, even though I made it pretty clear in my last post, I'll try and re-word it here for you. The reason a pro-Obama rant is more insane is because - like I said in my last post - we all voted for him. We all want him to do the right thing and do well. However, HE said to challenge him - and that is what some here are doing, and rightfully so. Otherwise we are no better than those on the right who NEVER challenged Bush.

Oh, and just because some of the more outlandish 9/11 statements sound crazy, doesn't mean the official story is right. Even my PHD professor of Criminal Justice doesn't believe the officail story of 9/11 - know what his reward was? Two undercover FBI agents in his 9/11 class. He disproved many of your so called "stupid" theories about 9/11, but that still left quite a few questions we need answers to. The FBI later informed him of the two undercover agents but did nothing because he was very precise and thorough in his investigation before he started teaching the class. So even PHD professors have questions regarding the official story of 9/11.

See: THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001 -- http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. Thanks for the link.

I think I've demonstrated my point.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slay]

64. Thanks for the link - I can never tell if people are being serious or sarcastic when they post stuff

like that. I thought the person I replyed to was talkin about actual threads - not replys - that were calling for Obama's impeachment. Most people at this point just want to challenge him to do the right thing - not have him impeached. Not yet at least. LOL. :)

[mkultra]

76. like i said, they get removed.

[The Hope Mobile]

147. Exactly!!

White House contacts!

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: [phone]
TTY/TDD

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

173. Undercover FBI in your classroom?

Where did you take this Criminal Justice class? How did the FBI learn of your professors doubts?

I know from reports that infiltration of groups such as the Quakers happened.

Maybe they learned about the professors investigation of 9/11 through his book store receipts and decided to attend his criminal justice class to make sure he wasn't teaching students that they shouldn't trust the criminal justice system?

Well I'm glad your professor didn't get arrested for anything. If he did I bet the FBI would have then moved in on the graduate school he attended so they could put the long arm of the law on his professors.


:eyes:


Sorry, I'm having a bit of a hard time believing this. In fact, it is one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever heard.

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slay]

205. You know what forget it - I don't care if you believe me or not

I know it for a fact to be 100% true. So call my professor Matt - or don't - I really don't care but you can find out easily enough if you don't believe me. For the record though - HE DOES TEACH THAT YOU SHOULDN'T TRUST THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM - just ask him. The guy is fearless. Don't believe Matt - call the head of the politcal science/criminal justice department at App State and ask him. Or don't. Whatever.

[glitch]

63. Perfectly consistent to say it's wrong to challenge Obama AND believe the official story of 9/11.

Same mindset: Authoritarian. Any authority will do.

[slay]

67. You made my point for me far better than I could - thank you

Sometimes I get so frustrated with these people I let emotions get in the way of my logical thinking abilities. The authoritarian mindset is exactly what leads people to let other people think for them, and tell them what is true. Rush Limbaugh followers would be a good example. At any rate, thanks for expressing what I was attempting to get at. :hi:

[glitch]

70. You're welcome! :) nt

[The Hope Mobile]

150. Exactly! The sheeple mentality!

Let Obama know how wrong this is.

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: [phone]
TTY/TDD

[jgraz]

228. Some people just need their binky of lies

I suggest you leave him alone. We don't want to see what happens if it's taken away.

[leftofthedial]

156. nice sidestep.

If someone points out that Obama is not doing what he is required by law to do, it is the fault of the person doing the pointing out, who is obviously some kind of nut.

Are stupidity and blindness symptoms of the swine flu?

[pleah]

6. K&R

[ClarkUSA]

8. That's a U.N. resolution from the '80's. And Pres. Obama has instructed his AG to investigate.

Question: Why didn't Bill Clinton investigate torture done under his two terms as President when he started the practice of "extraordinary renditions"? Do you think Bubba is a war criminal?

[NJmaverick]

11. Hey stop letting facts get in the way of a perfectly good self rightous rant

[ClarkUSA]

35. I know... I'm such a sucker for preferring facts to op-ed rhetoric.

;)

[rateyes]

15. I don't know about President Clinton. If he violated the CAT

then, yes.

[ClarkUSA]

23. Well, since you're going back to the 80's... better look at the 90's, too (links ->)

Bill Clinton started the practice of extraordinary renditions with a presidential directive (PDD 39)

Link 1: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html
Link 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

President Obama has stopped the practice that President Clinton started. There are no more extraordinary renditions by the CIA anymore:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/rights/125562/leon_panetta:_no_more_extraordinary_renditions/

Do you believe that in addition to Bush II and Cheney, AG Holder should also be investigating Bill Clinton?

[rateyes]

27. If Bill Clinton is responsible for extraordinary rendtions, then YES

he should be investigated. The law CLEARLY disallows the practice of renditions to a country where it is believed the party renditioned will be tortured.

[ClarkUSA]

28. There's no "If" about it. He started the practice with presidential directive PDD 39 on 6/21/95.

Well, you'd better update your OP, then.

[rateyes]

41. OK, here is the text of PDD 39.

Show me anywhere in the directive that Clinton authorized rendition of prisoners to countries where he knew they would be tortured.

[ClarkUSA]

45. You expected the text of Clinton's presidential directive to include the word "torture"?

The ACLU spells it out: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordinaryrendition/22203res20051206.html

You're trying to use the same CYA rationalization freepers use to protect Bush II. Either you think Bill Clinton was an innocent
or stupid and he's neither. Why else do you think he wanted prisoners to be shipped to and "interrogated" in Egypt?

[rateyes]

59. I'm sorry, but show me where I'm giving a pass to Clinton. I've already

said that if he renditioned people to any place where he believed they would be tortured, then he broke the law and should be investigated and prosecuted. You made a claim that Clinton did that through PDD 39. You haven't shown me anywhere in the document that backs up your statement. There is NOTHING in that document that says anything about extraordinary rendition. Now, if you can show me evidence that it happened (not just assertions), and that the Clinton administration ordered it, then I'll be glad to read it.

[rateyes]

17. That's the law of this land. The Constitution is a resolution ratified

in 1780's. What's your point on the date of when the law was passed? The Constitution explicitly states that all treaties are part of the "supreme law of the land."

[ClarkUSA]

26. U.N. resolutions are the "law of this land"? I don't think so. Besides, AG Holder is on it.

Not sure why you're upset about something President Obama has already done.

[rateyes]

30. Treaties are the law of this land. We RATIFIED the Convention

Against Torture. It is a part of INTERNATIONAL LAW, and the US is a SIGNATORY of that TREATY. Just like the Geneva Conventions are part of INTERNATIONAL law, and part of the supreme law of the US.

I not only THINK so, I KNOW so.

[ClarkUSA]

31. You're wrong (see link). And Pres. Obama has asked AG Holder to investigate this matter.

Myth and Fact: Does Failure to Implement UN Resolutions Violate International Law?

UN resolutions are documents issued by political bodies and need to be interpreted in light of the constitution of those bodies. They represent the political viewpoints of those who support them rather than embodying any particular legal rules or principles. Resolutions can have moral and political force when they are perceived as expressing the agreed view of the international community, or the views of leading, powerful and respected nations.

The UN Charter (Articles 10 and 14) specifically empowers the General Assembly to make only nonbinding "recommendations." Assembly resolutions are only considered binding in relation to budgetary and internal procedural matters.

[ClarkUSA]

36. self-delete nt

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

39. No, you're wrong - Supremacy clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

Once the US signed this treaty it became the supreme law of the land. That's how it works. One doesn't have to agree with the OP to recognize this. It is a well known fact.

[ClarkUSA]

49. Sorry, but you're wrong. See Reply #38. nt

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

51. Read it and you're still wrong UN resolutions (what you are pointing at

vs signed treaties which I'm talking about.).

[ClarkUSA]

54. It's a UN resolution we're talking about, not a signed treaty. See Reply #38.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

55. Oh for fuck's sake! "United Nations Convention Against Torture" go and read who signed and also

ratified it.

[ClarkUSA]

58. It clearly states it's a UN resolution, so your spin fails to impress. See Reply #38 for why.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

65. Which part about ratified don't you get? Have you ever heard the

phrase "International treaties being the supreme law of the land"? That's what it means if it wasn't ratified then you'd be correct just like the Kyoto protocol was signed but not ratified (therefore it can't be enforced)..

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

69. And you are correct in stating that it is up to the Justice Department whether to prosecute or not.

[rateyes]

78. Do I have to post the text to these links to get you to read them:

The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is an international human rights instrument, under the review of the United Nations, that aims to prevent torture around the world.

The Convention requires states to take effective measures to prevent torture within their borders, and forbids states to return people to their home country if there is reason to believe they will be tortured.

The text of the Convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1984<1> and, following RATIFICATION by the 20th state party,<2> it came into force on 26 June 1987.<1> 26 June is now recognised as the International Day in Support of Torture Victims, in honour of the Convention. As of December 2008, 146 nations are parties to the TREATY, and another ten countries have signed but not ratified it.<1>

[ClarkUSA]

81. Do I have to repeat that Pres. Obama has ALREADY ordered AG Holder to investigate this matter?

[rateyes]

93. Again, I haven't seen any news report, etc. that backs up your statement.

All I've heard is that Obama said he won't prosecute those who carried out the torture. AFAIK, Obama only said it would be left up to Holder to decide if he wants to investigate. If you have contrary reports, show them.

[ClarkUSA]

119. See Reply #116.

Okay, he didn't "order" AG Holder because he can't do that precisely but it's clear he supports whatever AG Holder decides to do. Same difference.

[The Hope Mobile]

148. This morning he said its not going to happen per the video. nt

[ClarkUSA]

158. Huh? Per what video?

[The Hope Mobile]

167. Rachel Maddow's discussion with Isikoff on Hissyspit's Journal

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Hissyspit/6603

That was my understanding. I'd rather be wrong though.

[ClarkUSA]

208. I don't trust hearsay by biased unsourced parties. nt

[The Hope Mobile]

217. I can't imagine why someone would make that up but obviously you're

entitled to believe what you want to.

[ClarkUSA]

221. Hearsay is not reliable. I prefer to wait for the facts and see the WH plan.

[The Hope Mobile]

223. I'd love it if you were right about this but given the recent behaviors

and actions on this topic the "hearsay" looks pretty credible to me.

[ClarkUSA]

227. I'll wait to see the WH plan rather than make preemptive judgment based on biased unsourced hearsay.

[The Hope Mobile]

233. You said that and I said you're entitled.

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

234. Cool.

:hi:

[inna]

202. not sure if this sig is one of the cutesiest or one of the most annoying ones i've ever seen... nt

~

[rateyes]

71. I am not going to get into a semantics argument with you. The

UN CONVENTION (not resolution, do you see the words, "be it resolved" anywhere in the text??). This was a fucking TREATY into which the US entered with other signatory nations of the UN.

You are wrong. Please read: http://www.amnestyusa.org/war-on-terror/reports-statements-and-issue-briefs/torture-and-the-law/page.do?id=1107981

[dotymed]

236. I CAMPAIGNED FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA

I did not do so because I want him to be able to do the same
things as BUSHCO. I want (and he is required by law) the
prosecution of criminals (murderers) that lied us into a
"pre-emptive war." Torture is against our laws also.
So is jailing people without them being convicted of a crime.
If we are to get this nation on its true path. We can not
ignore these things. We have to demand prosecutions and course
changes.
Also giving away Americans money to wealthy corporations is no
way to help or solve our financial dilemma. Jobs and economic
help for those people affected by this terrible
"recession" are the help we need. Not more
"trickle down" economics. You can love your
president and your country and not agree with them. That is
the sign of a true American.

[xxqqqzme]

18. Clinton wasn't investigated

because, although politics was the prime motivator in all things in the * administration, they all loved the idea of 'extraordinary renditions' even more. Calling out Clinton would have sharply curtailed their activities.

[wyldwolf]

46. Clinton didn't start the practice of "extraordinary renditions"

But you know this already because I told you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8350414&mesg_id=8350735

[ClarkUSA]

52. The ACLU and Wikipedia and PPD 39 contradict you.

[wyldwolf]

62. Quote the text from PDD 39 that disagrees with Scott Horton and Dennis Kucinich

:shrug:

Keep in mind the difference between "rendition" and "extraordinary rendition."

[ClarkUSA]

68. See reply #45.

[wyldwolf]

72. I did. All I see is a link to the ACLU that doesn't have the text

I thought you had the text - not someone's interpretation of it.

[ClarkUSA]

79. Did you expect the text of Clinton's presidential directive to mention "extraordinary renditions"?

From PBS Frontline's World Extraordinary Rendition Timeline: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/timeline/timeline_1.html#

August 1995

Under President Clinton, the CIA launches a systematic covert program of "extraordinary" rendition, the transfer of suspected Islamist terrorists to foreign countries....


September 22, 1995
The first Extraordinary Rendition

In Ghost Plane, Stephen Grey writes that extraordinary rendition by the CIA began as a systematic tactic on September 22, 1995, with the capture of Egyptian Abu Talal al-Qasimi, in Croatia, and his transfer to Egypt where he was executed. The term "extraordinary rendition" is never an official CIA term, but it comes to define the CIA's program of snatching terrorist suspects abroad and transferring them without legal process to a third country for detention and frequent interrogation.

Like it or not, it's clear to all but the most biased observers that "extraordinary renditions" began with President Clinton.

[wyldwolf]

83. no, I expected text that would meet the definition of "extraordinary rendition" but have seen none

Like it or not, it's clear to all but the most biased observers that "extraordinary renditions" began with President Clinton.

Yeah, the ACLU is completely unbiased and Dennis Kucinich is completely biased. :)

[ClarkUSA]

87. No, I expect you would not but you're hardly unbiased, are you?

The ACLU's perspective is in sync with many other sources, including PBS Frontline researchers and Wikipedia. As
for Dennis Kucinich, he also says he was visited by aliens.

[wyldwolf]

89. Of course I'm biased, but I would never peg Kucinich as such... and...

... all you've presented is the ACLU's BIASED take.

:shrug:

Words have definitions. Give us the text, not an interpretation.

[ClarkUSA]

112. So you think PBS Frontline and the ACLU is biased? As for Kucinich, this must be the first time...

...you've ever given anything he's said total credence. :rofl:

[wyldwolf]

114. do I think the ACLU and PBS are biased?? Yep!

[EFerrari]

122. You were wrong in that thread and you are still wrong today. n/t

[wyldwolf]

157. only to people who can't face facts - like you.

[redqueen]

219. He didn't start it, but he didn't stop it. (nt)

[vaberella]

128. "You da man Clark...You da man" *said in my crazy R. Bachmann voice* n/t

[soryang]

135. According to Michael Isikoff Obama said no prosecutions

...for torture in his recent meeting with human rights groups.

[Raksha]

214. Clinton could be a war criminal also.

If he authorized extraordinary rendition knowing the individuals would be tortured, he's also guilty. Why would enforcement of the law have anything to do with political parties? This isn't a partisan issue.

[cali]

21. who does his admin have to prosecute in order for him not to become a war criminal

in your eyes?

[rateyes]

34. According to the law (and you'll see this if you read it),

this country, of whom he is the chief executive (head over the brand in charge of enforcing the laws), is obligated to investigate anyone who is allged to have engaged in it and who authorized it, or who knew about it and did not do anything to stop it. And, not only is "torture" a crime by this law, any inhuman or degrading treatment that doesn't amount to torture is also a crime.

[cali]

204. please provide evidence for the President having to prosecute

people who knew about torture and didn't do anything to stop it. And that is a very difficult thing to prove in a court of law. By the way, charges are often NOT brought against people if a prosecutor believes he can't prevail in court. And what constitutes inhumane or degrading treatment?

[rateyes]

218. Did you read the law? If you will, your question will be answered. nt

[Senator]

137. Everyone suspected of participation in torture.

And it's http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE53H1Y020090418">not just in this poster's (or my, or your) eyes.

"The United States, like all other states that are part of the U.N. convention against torture, is committed to conducting criminal investigations of torture and to bringing all persons against whom there is sound evidence to court," U.N. special rapporteur Manfred Nowak told the Austrian daily Der Standard.

Obama is forging his only real legacy through his failure to deal with our national shame.

--

[salguine]

33. Of course there's a way around it:

Complete inaction. There doesn't seem to have been any consequence for that in the past.

[ClarkUSA]

38. "Myth and Fact: Does Failure to Implement UN Resolutions Violate International Law?"

Myth and Fact: Does Failure to Implement UN Resolutions Violate International Law?

UN resolutions are documents issued by political bodies and need to be interpreted in light of the constitution of those bodies. They represent the political viewpoints of those who support them rather than embodying any particular legal rules or principles. Resolutions can have moral and political force when they are perceived as expressing the agreed view of the international community, or the views of leading, powerful and respected nations.

The UN Charter (Articles 10 and 14) specifically empowers the General Assembly to make only nonbinding "recommendations." Assembly resolutions are only considered binding in relation to budgetary and internal procedural matters.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

40. We're talking about a signed ratified treaty. Not a UN resolution. nt

[ClarkUSA]

42. The document refers to "General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984"

Where is the word "treaty" on the document page?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

44. See reply to your other reply above. Once ratified it becomes US law. nt

[ClarkUSA]

48. That's a myth, as my linked source shows in Reply #38. nt

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

50. Again no, your link doesn't mention ratified treaties does it? I can't believe I have to try and

explain this. You probably didn't read the links did you?

[ClarkUSA]

56. We're talking about a UN resolution, not a ratified treaty as you keep insisting.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

57. Look up United Nations "Convention Against Torture" that's all you have to do. nt

[ClarkUSA]

61. I'm looking at the OP's linked document page and it clearly is titled "UN resolution..."

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

66. A UN resolution yes but specifically the "United Nations Convention Against Torture" it goes

beyond a UN resolution which as you stated we're not obligated to follow. The difference is that the US ratified the document therefore.... I think we're talking past each other or something. I understand what you're saying but I don't know if you get what I'm talking about and again I don't say this in support of the OP's statement.

[mkultra]

75. UN resolutions signed by the unted states are not automatic treaties

But, i think that CAT is more than a resolution and is instead a convention which may make it a treaty. I think the primary obligation parties to the CAT have is to make torture a domestic criminal offense. Im not sure if we have done that or not.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

77. You are correct reg. conventions and treaties. nt

[ClarkUSA]

85. See Reply #80.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8423420&mesg_id=8423845

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

88. See # 86. And that doesn't change the fact that you kept claiming

that the Conventions on Torture were just some UN "resolution" that should just be ignored. Not only that, why would anyone want to ignore them in the first place even if the were non binding? Is a universal declaration against torture and for human rights wrong in some way?

[ClarkUSA]

121. Sorry, but I disagree since the document clearly references UN resolution 39/46

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

224. This isn't for you to agree or disagree it is how this country works when they

ratify a treaty or conventions (like the Geneva conventions). I am strictly talking about the fact that torture is illegal in this country and how once we became signatories to the conventions on torture it becomes the law of the land, that's it. This has been pointed out to you numerous times. I'm not even sure what is that you're arguing. Are you saying that we can torture because it's only some bullshit UN document???!!!

[ClarkUSA]

232. You do realize that U.S. courts agree with me, don't you?

Courts in a number of influential legal systems, most notably in the U.S., have long resisted attempts to construe their constitutional texts in light of international human rights instruments such as CAT. Other legal systems include Canada, Australia, Israel, the U.K., and South Africa.

Source: Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, pp. 341-404, 2006

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

235. The Supremacy Clause pretty much states that if the document is ratified

and this one certainly was. It is the law of the land if not why bother ratifying it if they could have just left it signed. It baffles me that you seem to be saying that we don't have to follow our own laws. What exactly is the point of your argument. Again, are you saying that it's legal for this country to torture? What is it that you have an argument against the conventions on torture, the fact that it is a good sensible law. What is it? Are we even talking about the same things?

[ClarkUSA]

237. Why are you ignoring what I just said? I repeat, U.S. courts agree with me.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

238. You've ignored everything I've been saying since yesterday. I've provided to you

the law and how it's written. You also keep dodging the question. What is wrong with abiding by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment?

[ClarkUSA]

239. No, I've disagreed with your position. So do the U.S. courts.

You can keep ignoring U.S. judicial reality, but I like to stick to facts and historical precedence. Your position is not supported by U.S. courts. It's fine to disagree, though; everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

240. Yet you continued to call it a resolution when you knew that I was talking about the

conventions on torture not a UN resolution but a ratified document. Another poster busted you on that yesterday. I've presented facts and historical precedents but you keep on using weasel words and will not even answer the simplest question.

Judicial reality at one point in this country was disgraceful towards blacks and others. Would you have agreed with that simply because the courts dictated it?
What you're doing here is something I haven't even heard right wingers do. We signed on the the UN Conventions on Torture and torture is illegal. The Supremacy Clause as I've told you about 10 or 15 times already makes it the law of the land. If that's not the case then let's change it so that no matter what we ratify we can just say fuck it and pick and choose what laws to follow and which ones to ignore. You seem to be saying that it's all a matter of interpretation. But hey good luck with that. :thumbsup:

[ClarkUSA]

241. Red herrings may help you keep up a fallacious argument but I have the U.S. courts on my side.

Perhaps you and the OP should file a court case instead of railing at me ad nauseum for agreeing with historical precedence?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

242. That's up to the attorney general. Now, is torture illegal or not Mr Addington? nt

[ClarkUSA]

243. Now you've created a strawman "torture illegal or not" argument to CYA.

Why don't you answer for me since you're so good at misrepresenting my position? To reiterate my true position: the U.S. courts agree with me re: CAT and your opinion is just that, an opinion. As for the rest, I'm not interested in responding to your red herrings and strawman arguments.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

244. So what is it that you're arguing here? It's illegal but not because of the Conventions

of torture?

[ClarkUSA]

245. There you go again...

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

246. Ah the Reagan response........ nt

[ClarkUSA]

247. It fits you well.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

248. It says more about the person using it. nt

[ClarkUSA]

251. lol! Your response was predictable. But you got my message.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

252. Yours are not exactly oozing with originality and cleverness. Did you have a good lunch? nt

[rateyes]

257. The courts do not agree with you as to your position on treaties.

That's bullshit, and you know it. And, neither does the Constitution agree with you.

[rateyes]

74. No, it does not say that it's a RESOLUTION. It's clearly a

CONVENTION. You are being disingenuous.

[ClarkUSA]

82. The document clearly refers to "General Assembly resolution 39/46 of 10 December 1984"

And you're being "disingenuous" by continuing to ignoring the fact that Pres. Obama has already ordered AG Holder to investige.
Face it, you're only interested in spinning outrage.

[rateyes]

99. The document REFERS to a resolution. It is not TITLED as a resolution.

And, you keep claiming Obama ordering Holder to investigate as a fact, but you have yet to offer ONE bit of evidence.

"The moon is made of green cheese. That's a fact." See, I can say something is a fact...doesn't mean it is one.

[ClarkUSA]

113. Wrong. According to your document link, that's the UN resolution's full I.D.

[rateyes]

73. The resolution to which the CONVENTION (which is a TREATY RATIFIED by this country)

is the one that opens up the CONVENTION for signatures. Have you bothered to even READ the damned thing?

[ClarkUSA]

84. Why can't you acknowledge the fact that Pres. Obama has already ordered AG Holder to investigate?

Also, you're still wrong in your insistence that this UN resolution is anything binding: See Reply #38 and #80.

[rateyes]

110. I'm going to try this one more time with you, and then I'm done...

you can go on living in la la land if you choose: Here is the text of the UN RESOLUTION that you keep referring to:

Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly 39/46. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment


The Assembly,
Recalling the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 3452 (XXX) of 9 December 1975,

Recalling also its resolution 32/62 of 8 December 1977, in which it requested the Commission on Human Rights to draw up a draft convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in the light of the principles embodied in the Declaration,

Recalling further that, in its resolution 38/119 of 16 December 1983, it requested the Commission on Human Rights to complete, at its fortieth session, as a matter of highest priority, the drafting of such a convention, with a view to submitting a draft, including provisions for the effective implementation of the future convention, to the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth session,

Noting with satisfaction Commission on Human Rights resolution 1984/21 of 6 March 1984,by which the Commission decided to transmit the text of a draft convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, contained in the ANNEX to the report of the Working Group, to the General Assembly for its consideration,

Desirous of achieving a more effective implementation of the existing prohibition under international and national law of the practice of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

1.Expresses its appreciation for the work achieved by the Commission on Human Rights in preparing the text of a draft convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

2.Adopts and opens for signature, ratification and accession the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment contained in the ANNEX to the present resolution;

3.Calls upon all Governments to consider signing and ratifying the Convention as a matter of priority.

93rd plenary meeting
10 December 1984

THAT RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED AFTER THE CONVENTIONS WERE WRITTEN TO REQUEST THE MEMBER COUNTRIES OF THE UN TO SIGN THE TREATY ENTITLED "THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT."

UN Resolutions DO NOT REQUIRE RATIFICATION. Treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, etc. do require ratification. Period. End.of.sentence.

[ClarkUSA]

151. Your insistence doesn't make it so. The CAT entry on Wikipedia is illuminating. (quote/link)->

CAT is seen as 'an international human rights instrument, under the review of the United Nations... The Committee against Torture (CAT) is a body of human rights experts that monitors implementation of the Convention by State parties. All State parties are obliged under the Convention to submit regular reports to the CAT on how the rights are being implemented. '

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

[rateyes]

183. You're correct. It's illuminating. First of all,

the paragraph you quote from that article says that the parties to the Convention against torture are (what's the word? oh yeah) OBLIGED..not MAY, not REQUESTED, but OBLIGED...as in OBLIGATED. Didn't you say that resolutions don't carry such obligations??

And, then, in that article, over in the panel on the right you will see these words: Type of TREATY: Human Rights Convention. And, then in the third paragraph we read these words:

"As of December 2008, 146 nations are parties to the TREATY (read it again, TREATY, TREATY, TREATY, and another ten countries have signed but not ratified it."

The US RATIFIED the TREATY. The US Constitution says that ALL treaties ratified by the US are part of the supreme law of the land. This particular TREATY requires that allegations of torture and other inhumane, cruel or degrading treatment be investigated.

THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR MAKING MY POINT!!

I hope, since the article you linked to is "illuminating" that perhaps the "light" has gone on in your head.

[ClarkUSA]

209. CAT is "'an international human rights instrument, under the review of the United Nations"

Notice it does not say that CAT is "the supreme law of the land" nor is the President bound by it via the Constitution.
Cherrypicking one word out of thousands does not a thesis make.

[rateyes]

216. The Constitution says that all treaties are the supreme law of the land...

..and, the Convention Against Torture is a treaty which was ratified by the US Senate.

And, if you can't get that through your thick skull, then there is no point in talking with you further.


Bye.

[ClarkUSA]

226. Then why do U.S. courts disagree with you?

Courts in a number of *influential legal systems, most notably in the U.S., have long resisted attempts to construe their constitutional texts in light of international human rights instruments such as CAT.

*Other legal systems include Canada, Australia, Israel, the U.K., and South Africa.

Source: "How Supreme is the Supreme Law of the Land? A Comparative Analysis of the Influence of International Human Rights Conventions upon the Interpretation of Constitutional Texts by Domestic Courts" by Yuval Shany, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, pp. 341-404, 2006

[rateyes]

229. You do realize, do you not, that you took that citation from a document

that argues MY POINT, and not yours?? Do you have a habit of pulling lines from documents out of their context?

In my classes, making an argument like you just made, relying on a quote pulled out of context would get your paper flagged for a rewrite.

Yuval Shany rightly points out in that document that the US Constitution says that all treaties ratified by the US are part of the supreme law of the land. He then points to the TREATY called the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and shows how certain countries have violated the treaty. He decries the fact that "the supreme law of the land" is not treated as such, and that such behavior is a violation of law.

Again, thanks for bolstering MY argument by citing texts that agree with me. You're 2 for 2 now.

[ClarkUSA]

230. Of course I do, but the reality remains the same. Your position is not supported by U.S. courts.

And the Wikipedia text does not agree with you at all. You simply cherrypicked one word and fabricated a fallacy that it did. Shany may agree with you but he also acknowledges reality. It's easy to pick out people who disagree with U.S. court precedence but it doesn't mean you're right. It just means you have an opinion.

[rateyes]

250. Yes, it is. Bye.

[ClarkUSA]

253. Saying so isn't enough. There is no case study where a U.S. court supported your position.

[onenote]

254. Medellin v. Texas

The issue of whether treaties are always the "supreme law of the land" is an oft-debated point. But the law of the land at present is that the mere fact that a treaty has been entered into, or even ratified, does not necessarily make it -- or at least all of its provisions -- domestic law.

I think we all could agree that until a treaty is ratified by the Senate it cannot be considered the law of the land. Also, after it is ratified, if COngress enacts legislation that is at odds with the treaty, it may well be a breach of the treaty and of international law, but it is not a breach of domestic law == rather the new statutory provisions enacted by Congress supersede the treaty provisions and become the law of the land, just as any subsequently enacted legislative provision overrides an inconsistent previously enacted provision.

So the real issue is what happens when a treaty is ratified but Congress indicates that the treaty isn't self-executing and does not take steps to implement some or all of its provisions. It could be that the failure to act is violation of the treaty and of international law. But it doesn't mean that somehow the un-implemented provisions become domestic law. Congress' failure to implement them is just like a subsequent decision to override them -- it is what Congress does (or does not do) that determines the scope of domestic law.

To quote from Medellin: "In sum, while treaties “may comprise international commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be ‘self-executing’ and is ratified on these terms.” Igarta-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F. 3d 145, 150 (CA1 2005) (en banc) (Boudin, C. J.)."

[rateyes]

255. I agree with all of that. However, because Congress has not

overridden any provisions of the treaty in question, and because the Constitution of the US explicitly says ALL treaties are part of the "supreme law of the land," the obligations set forth in the treaty are obligations on our part with the force of law behind them. The report that I cited to you yesterday from the Committee that the treaty requires our country to have states just that. I think we are talking past each other, here.

As the first line of your post says---it's oft debated. In this case, however, we signed the treaty, we have claimed that though the treaty is "non self executing" that stipulation refers only to "domestic law" and does in no way diminish our obligations under every article in the treaty. And, if we don't live up to the treaty, then our governmental leaders can be prosecuted in the ICC, and we won't have a leg to stand on. If it was good enough for Milosevic, it's good enough for our POTUS.

And, as far as impeachment is concerned, the Constitution does not distinguish between high domestic or high international crimes.

[rateyes]

256. Let me also say that in this case, the report cited states that

the US already had domestic law that made torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment illegal. Therefore, though the treaty was deemed "non-self executing," the legislature of the US did not need to pass further legislation to implement/enforce the provisions of the treaty. The required report also stated that, regardless of the status of "non self-executing," the US, because of it's domestic laws against torture, is obligated to fulfill all the provisions of the treaty, including Articles 1-16.

[rateyes]

184. And, I refer you to post #86 where I quote the report

that is referenced in your quote from Wikipedia where the US acknowledges its OBLIGATIONS under the treaty.

[ClarkUSA]

210. "Obligations" does not equate to "supreme law of the land".

[scubadude]

60. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT

Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment. U.S.C. 18

[geek tragedy]

178. So, Obama is an accomplice of Ted Stevens

because they dropped the charges against him.

The impeachniks are quite funny in their ignorance.

[scubadude]

220. Self Delete

[scubadude]

222. Yes, it is indeed a Geek Tragedy.

I'm not going to explain it to you though. You'll just have to try harder Mr Geek. Gee, what could they be talking about? Ignorant indeed...

Scuba

[onenote]

80. the OP is an example of what happens when amateurs play international lawyer

The premise of the OP and of numerous other posts in this thread is that because the Senate ratified the CAT, it is part of the supreme law of the land and actions at odds with the treaty's provisions are a violation of domestic law.

Sorry, but that's wrong. The treaty, like virtually all treaties, can and often is ratified or acceded to by signatories with specific reservations, interpretations and declarations. Many many countries adopted reservations, interpretations and/or declarations when they ratified or acceded to the Convention. The United States was one of those countries,stating expressly when it ratified the Convention that ""The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations, interpretive understandings, or declarations as are deemed necessary."
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/cat/treaties/convention-reserv.htm

Thus, the mere fact of ratification is not the end of the story, its the beginning. For the purposes of this discussion, the most important declaration made by the Senate in the course of ratifying the Convention is the following:

"III. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:

(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing."

Not self-executing. In other words, the specific provisions of Articles 1 through 16 are not the supreme law of the land. Rather, it takes action by Congress to enact legislation imposing the obligations spelled out in those provisions to create an enforceable obligation.


By the way, this is not merely my view. It is the view of, among others, Louis Henkin, the most preeminent international law scholar in America, a former clerk of Felix Frankfurter (and my former law school professor). He has noted not only that the Senate as part of its consent to a treaty can declare it be non self-executing but also that a treaty cannot create a domestic criminal law -- as a matter of Constitutional jurisprudence there is no common law of crimes and enforcement of penal sanctions requires legislation from Congress.

So, the basic premise of the OP is at odds with international and domestic law. Sorry.

[rateyes]

86. And, your post is an example of getting half the story, and not understanding the defintion

of "not self-executing."

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/fd58acc3c4d77447802568cf0030f212/$FILE/G0040656.doc

The above link is a report given to the UN as required by the treaty, outlining the steps it has taken to write into domestic law the provisions required by that same treaty. In it, it explains that "not self-executing" means that INDIVIDUAL parties may not use the treaty in lawsuits against the U.S. It goes on to explain, however, that "not self-executing" does NOT in any way lessen the obligations of the U.S. to follow the treaty's provisions. From the report--again, as required by law, and written BY THE US GOVERNMENT:

UNDER ARTICLE 6, cl. 2, OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, DULY RATIFIED TREATIES BECOME PART OF THE “SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND”, EQUIVALENT IN LEGAL STATUE TO ENACTED FEDERAL STATUES. (so much for your "not part of the supreme law of the land assertion).

Accordingly, to the extent of any inconsistency, they may displace previously adopted state and federal law and may be displaced by subsequently adopted federal law. Where they touch on matters previously within the purview of state and local government, they may also serve to “federalize” the issue, thus affecting the allocation of authority between the states and the central government.

56. In United States practice, provisions of a treaty may be denominated “non self executing”, in which case they may not be invoked or relied upon as a cause of action by private parties in litigation. Only those treaties denominated as “self executing” may be directly applied or enforced by the judiciary when asserted by private parties in the absence of implementing legislation. This distinction derives from the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of article VI, cl. 2, of the Constitution. See Foster v. Neilson, 27 Pet. 253, 314 (1829).

THE DISTINCTION IS ONE OF DOMESTIC LAW ONLY; IN EITHER CASE, THE TREATY REMAINS BINDING ON THE UNITED STATES AS A MATTER OF INTERNATIONAL LAW....


60. NON SELF EXECUTING DECLARATION. More generally, however, the United States considered existing law to be adequate to its obligations under the Convention and determined that it would not be appropriate to establish a new federal cause of action, or to “federalize” existing state protections, through adoption of omnibus implementing legislation. For those reasons, in its instrument of ratification, the United States declared the substantive provisions of the Convention (arts. 1 16) to be “non self executing”. Thus, as a matter of domestic law, the treaty in and of itself does not accord individuals a right to seek judicial enforcement of its provisions.

HOWEVER THIS DECLARATION IN NO WAY LIMITS OR CIRCUMSCRIBES THE INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES UNDER THE CONVENTIONS. (So much for your assertion of needing more Congressional action.)

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

Now, who are you calling an "amateur?"

[ClarkUSA]

90. Why can't you acknowledge the fact that Pres. Obama supports AG Holder's investigation into torture?

[rateyes]

95. You state that as being a "fact." SHOW ME. One news article.

[ClarkUSA]

116. From Michael Isikoff's report in Newsweek (link and quote -->)

Link

... Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has discussed naming a senior prosecutor or outside counsel to review whether CIA interrogators exceeded legal boundaries--and whether Bush administration officials broke the law by giving the CIA permission to torture in the first place. Some Justice officials are deeply troubled by reports of detainee treatment and believe they may suggest criminal misconduct, these sources say. Even if prosecutions prove too difficult to bring, an outside counsel's report could be made public.

Think Progress: "Obama: Holder Will Decide Whether To Prosecute Torture Authors, Supports Bipartisan Truth Commission": http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/21/obama-holder-prosecutions/

President Obama supports AG Holder's investigation into torture. Period.

[Generator]

139. Dude, that was so last month

http://www.videosift.com/video/Obama-says-NO-prosecutions-of-anyone-in-Bush-administration


(from the same reporter)

But I know you won't believe it no matter who says it or how long. You will probably still be believing eight years or so from now when Obama is leaving office. Faith is not about reality.

[ClarkUSA]

146. You're right, "Faith is not about reality." Which is why I don't believe off-the-record hearsay.

Obviously you do.

[Generator]

166. One of the men that met with Obama is going to

be on Rachel Maddow tonight. (the civil liberties meeting from yesterday-there is also a link in LBN right now if you consider LBN hearsay) But if you think people that have actually have had meetings WITH OBAMA and tell what they have heard and experienced is hearsay-because you don't like it or don't want to agree with it-because you have absolute faith in your president no matter what-what can anyone ever say to you? GOOD god I gave you a link from the exact same writer your link was from-why does that not worry you?


Do you think I want to believe this? No I don't. But I can't live in denial. Obama breaks my heart and brings me despair. Maybe you should ask yourself why. Instead of attacking those that are heartbroken. But you won't. Because this forum is never for listening-it's always for shitting on someone else and showing how right you are. I know my bad-being here-and pointing out something totally contrary to what you said.

Of course you dismiss it. What is the point of these stupid forums? It's never to learn anything.

[ClarkUSA]

212. Fine, but it's still hearsay, which is why civil courts strictly limit their admittance as evidence.

I will wait until I see the White House plan before I comment further. I like to deal with facts, not hearsay filtered through the lens
of biased parties standing on a soapbox on a biased show where the host has already discredited herself by saying, "The Obama...
I mean, Bush administration."

[onenote]

94. You are missing the point.

You claim that Obama is guilty of a criminal act in violation of domestic law. Sorry, but he isn't. A treaty mandating local prosecution of a particular acts requires implementing legislation.

See Louis Henkin, Foreign Affairs and the Constitution (Norton Library Ed. 1975) at page 159.

While the failure of the legislature to enact legislation implementing a non-self-executing treaty may put the United States in default of its treaty obligations, it does not mean that the treaty has somehow magically become domestic law and a failure to comply with the treaties' provisions is not a violation of domestic law (i.e., the supreme law of the land).

[rateyes]

98. I understand exactly what you are saying. The reason the US declared

this treaty as non self executing, as you can see from the report, is that it deemed existing law to cover the provisions outlined in the treaty. The Constitution, however, says quite explicitly that ALL treaties made under the authority of the U.S. are part of the "supreme law of the land."

The text of the supremecy clause of the Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

We did not, by declaring the treaty "non self-executing" free ourselves from any of the provisions of the treaty when we ratified it, as is clearly shown in the report. There is no law which trumps the Constitution. All treaties made under the authority of the US are part of the supreme law of the land.

[onenote]

108. the supreme court disagrees with you

You (and even I) might not agree with the SCOTUS 6-3 decision in Medellin v. Texas isued in March 2008, but its conclusion is quite clear: "This Court has long recognized the distinction between treaties that automatically have effect as domestic law, and those that—while they constitute international law commitments—do not by themselves function as binding federal law. The distinction was well explained by Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Foster v. Neilson, 2Pet. 253, 315 (1829), overruled on other grounds, United States v. Percheman, 7Pet. 51 (1833), which held that a treaty is “equivalent to an act of the legislature,” and hence self-executing, when it “operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision.” Foster, supra, at 314. When, in contrast, “ stipulations are not self-executing they can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect.” Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 194 (1888) . In sum, while treaties “may comprise international commitments . . . they are not domestic law unless Congress has either enacted implementing statutes or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be ‘self-executing’ and is ratified on these terms.” Igarta-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F. 3d 145, 150 (CA1 2005) (en banc) (Boudin, C. J.).2 "

Unfortunately, the link in your prior post doesn't work, but assuming that your point is that existing law already covered the provisions of the Convention, you should point to those provisions of domestic law as the source of the domestic law violation that Obama allegedly has committed. Indeed, if there are such existing domestic law provisions, the treaty is essentially irrelevant to your argument.

[rateyes]

101. Oh, and BTW, I have not claimed that Obama is guilty of a criminal act.

I am saying that IF he does not order an investigation into alleged allegations of torture he WILL BE guilty of a criminal act. We obligated ourselves by treaty to the Convention Against Torture, which is part of international law.

[onenote]

109. not a crime under domestic law

Again -- domestic criminal liabilty cannot be created by treaty. It requires a legislative act. If, as your other posts suggest, there are domestic criminal laws on the books that make it a crime for Obama not to order an investigation into allegations of torture, I would appreciate a citation to them.

[rateyes]

111. OK, then. If President Obama fails to live up to international law,

then he will be an international criminal, not a domestic one. I guess, then, under your assertions, that Bush didn't commit an impeachable offense when he ordered waterboarding.

[onenote]

123. Bush - impeachable offense; Obama -- no impeachable offense

The impeachable offense committed by Bush when he ordered waterboarding derives from the fact that torture is against domestic law (18 USC 2340A). Not enacting legislation requiring the prosecution of torture (as opposed to merely making it a crime) may have been a violation of international law by the United States, but it is not an offense committed by Obama. And since no provision of domestic law requires the investigation or prosecution of every alleged instance of torture, Obama isn't committing any crime by not doing that either.

[EFerrari]

127. That's wrong. And if you don't know it, you should.

But the upshot will be, if this administration doesn't move to prosecute torture, some other actor will.

What a proud moment that will be for Americans. :sarcasm:

[onenote]

129. I look forward to your explanation of why my analysis is wrong

It seems to be missing from your post.

[EFerrari]

133. I assume that you have access to The Google.

Go find the remarks of the UN Special Rapporteur on this topic. I don't have his patience with willful ignorance.

[geek tragedy]

175. BECAUSE OBAMA IS EVIL LIKE BUSH@!!!@!!! n/t

[rateyes]

130. Is waterboarding outlawed by domestic law?

Torture is. But, Bush argues that waterboarding is not torture.

[truedelphi]

168. I'm probably being dense here but if under domestic law Bush committed a treasonable

Offense in allowing or ordering torture, how is it that Obama not taking him to task remains legal?

After all, if Bush/Cheney had committed armed robbery, Obama couldn't jsut say "It is So-o-o-o-o-o distracting to consider that I am going to sweep the matter under the rug here in the Oval Office." No, he would be obligated to make a court case out of it and see that they were indicted.

[Vattel]

117. you are confusing criminality and illegality.

Violating a ratified treaty is illegal--contrary to the supreme law of the land, but it is not necessarily criminal.

[rateyes]

131. There are illegal acts that are not crimes?

Whodathunkit? :shrug:

[Vattel]

165. It's not really rare

for an act to be contrary to the law and yet not criminal. Many acts that are not crimes are unconstitutional, for example. Any violation of the bill of rights is contrary to the law, for example, and yet many such acts are not crimesand so not prosecutable.

[geek tragedy]

176. Sneaking into the country from Mexico isn't a crime.

For example.

[rateyes]

188. It's not? Then why the hell do we arrest those who do?

[geek tragedy]

193. They are detained and deported.

But not prosecuted.

[EFerrari]

118. Wrong and you should know better.

US must prosecute Bush lawyers: UN

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The United States is obligated by a United Nations convention to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who drafted torture policies and allegedly approved the use of such gruesome tactics, the UN's top anti-torture envoy said yesterday.

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama left the door open to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations. He had previously absolved CIA officers from prosecution.

Manfred Nowak, who serves as a UN special rapporteur in Geneva, said Washington is obligated under the UN Convention against Torture to prosecute US Justice Department officials who wrote memos that defined torture in the narrowest way in order to justify and legitimise it, and who assured CIA officials that their use of questionable tactics was legal.

"That's exactly what I call complicity or participation" to torture as defined by the convention, Nowak said at a news conference. "At that time, every reasonable person would know that waterboarding, for instance, is torture."

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/html/20090424T200000-0500_150075_OBS_US_MUST_PROSECUTE_BUSH_LAWYERS__UN.asp

[geek tragedy]

180. There is no statute making it a crime to fail to prosecute someone.

It's just the chronic malcontents who want their impeachment pony.

[rateyes]

189. Have you read the CAT?

The statute is found there.

[geek tragedy]

192. There is no provision making it a crime to fail to investigate

and/or prosecute.

Violating international law is not a crime. Trade law gets violated all the time.

[rateyes]

225. ...

Article 7

1. The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

2. These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.

3. Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.

[CakeGrrl]

91. I'm pretty sure the Constitutional Law professor knows the legal obligations of his office

a bit better than you might.

Yet he continues to get stern cyber-lectures like he just fell off the turnip truck and can't possibly understand the consequences of his actions.

:crazy:

[snowdays]

107. perhaps.

[EFerrari]

120. His constant statements about moving forward are directly at odds

with the requirements of both the Geneva and the UN torture conventions.

Yes, you'd think he'd know better, wouldn't you?

[CakeGrrl]

124. Simply *saying* we need to move forward does not equate to calling off the DOJ

If he said anything different, the Right would be caterwauling about politicizing the process and the MSM would hand them the megaphone to make sure their puling is heard far and wide.

Yes, I do think he is more than savvy enough NOT to put himself in a rule-violating position.

[EFerrari]

125. Well, he hasn't. The UN Special Rapporteur has made that clear in the media.

Maybe you should spend more time reading and less time rationalizing.

And the politics of it are a different issue. You really think the wing nuttery is going to shut up no matter what he does?

[onenote]

152. I'm well aware of what the Special Rapporteur has said

I'm also aware that he isn't the final arbiter of the United States' obligations under domestic or international law. The fact is that while he might take the position that the US, in ratifying the CAT, obligated the President to order an investigation and/or prosecution of alleged torture, the treaty provides that "Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed". The Treaty does not, nor could it, specify that the means by which the State Party fulfills this obligation is through an action taken by the President. It is, simply put, not a self-executing provision. Congress could implement it any number of ways -- it could pass a law creating a special office to investigate torture allegations, or assign responsibility to the attorney general or to some other body. The fact that Congress has not implemented this provision by "ensuring" that its "competent authorities" proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation does not constitute a violation of the treaty by President Obama. It may be a violation by the government of the US, but that's a different thing altogether. And there is no international authority that can compel President Obama to commence an investigation any more than such international body could decide to compel the attorney general, the FBI, the governor of Nebraska or the Mayor of Des Moines to do so.

Every violation of a treaty obligation (in this case, the obligation to adopt measures ensuring an investigation of torture allegations) is not a personal violation of international (or domestic) law by the President of the US.

[sofa king]

92. Sure there's a way around it. Just ask our Indian tribes.

It may be the supreme law of the land, but treaties are also completely unenforceable if the United States refuses to enforce them.

Oh, you can take it to court. You can get in line behind the Oglala Sioux, who have been pursuing redress for treaty violations dating back to 1868.

You may conclude that because the highest law of the land in America is bullshit, that everything else is, too. You're correct.

[rateyes]

103. Well, you do make a point. nt

[winyanstaz]

96. K & R....Return us to being a Nation of Laws.

[EFerrari]

115. It's all right to keep telling Obama what you need and expect.

And, you're right about the law.

I don't blame Obama for not wanting his presidency to be dominated by prosecuting BushCo. But, there it is.

[rateyes]

138. Thanks.

:hi:

[Vidar]

126. K&R.

[konnichi wa]

142. Wouldn't be prudent.

:shrug:

[leftofthedial]

155. there you go again, trying to enforce the *rules* at a fan club meeting.

:eyes:


But, but, but the Obama IS doing something. He's saying "it's not my job."

[ClarkUSA]

162. Why are you using such divisive language? This is a discussion forum and we're having a discussion.

[leftofthedial]

170. war crimes are war crimes.

There is no "middle ground." No "yeah, but." No "but it's slightly okay sometimes."

We are a torture state. Until the President fully acknowledges this, fully discloses what we did, and aggressively pursues those who committed the crimes--AS HE IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO--we will remain a torture state.

I don't want to live in a torture state. Do you?

[ClarkUSA]

207. You haven't answered my question. nt

[Old Hank]

169. the UN Rapporteur on Torture recently said we have an obligation to investigate

and prosecute the culprits, if any:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/25/nowak/

[TheMachineWins]

161. K&R

I'll also say it's absolutely stunning how many people are willing to rule out punishing the worst criminals this country has ever seen.

[flyarm]

249. SHHHHH..in a bad economy ..it doesn't surprise does it? eom

[santamargarita]

164. Stop talking about the law and start enforcing it on The Bush Crime Family!

:argh:

[Lord Helmet]

171. Cheney's big mouth could be making it more likely.

[geek tragedy]

174. Lots of "impeach Obama" nutjobs to add to my ignore list.

Lower than Freepers.

[rateyes]

181. Where did I say that. But, if you insist on putting me on ignore...

adios.

[geek tragedy]

185. You realize that Eric Holder is supposed to make those

decisions independent of Obama, and that if Holder concludes he doesn't have a viable case in court, that he has satisfied the international legal obligations, right?

[rateyes]

187. Yes, I'm aware of that. However, Obama said that his administration

would NOT prosecute those who administered torture. How is that "indpendent" of Holder? And, secondly, if Holder DOES have a viable case, and doesn't bring it, then HE has violated the law. You are aware of that, aren't you?

[geek tragedy]

191. Perhaps Holder told him that they wouldn't be prosecuting

the CIA personnel.

Any attempt by the DOJ to prosecute CIA personnel who were told by the DOJ that what they were doing was legal would get tossed out of court in a millisecond, by the way.

Also, Holder as the prosecutor has discretion to determine which cases to pursue. Not all crimes get prosecuted. It's not like he has a specific calculator that will tell him the likelihood of conviction.

Furthermore, an act or failure to act is not a crime unless there is a specific criminal statute making it so.

[Ozymanithrax]

199. Following orders is not a defense for a war-crime.

The DOJ's statement on the legality of torture is not a defense of a war-crime, it makes the DOJ an accessory to the war crime and punishable under the same statutes.

The relevant case law gong back to the Nuremberg trials states that following orders is not a defense. By refusing to prosecute people who followed orders, Obama is claiming the Nazi Nuremberg defense. Indict them! Try them! Convict Them on the evidence! Send them to prison! If anyone died under torture, US law directs that the death penalty is appropriate. When you try the little fish, go up the ladder until the highest US official involved in torturing people in violation of our laws has found justice.

[Vattel]

213. no he's not. Obama is the chief executive.

[EnoughOfThis]

194. If Obama believes it is torture....

....then he MUST prosecute it. If not, he is culpable under the statutes. That is the law......read it. He can't complain about violations of law (with Pelosi and others) and then do nothing. He just needs to do the right thing.

[Dinger]

196. Just Had A Thought

Once bu$hCo shit all over the Constitution to get unchecked and unlimited power, it was already in place when Obama came in. Why would anyone want to give up power like that? Maybe the President succumbed to the temptation of power. He is human after all.

[Ozymanithrax]

197. It doesn't matter who started it.

Torture is a crime. Imprisoning people forever on the President's say so is a crime. But we are an empire, and the Emperor's perogative will be followed.

[L. Coyote]

198. Mr. Obama. Prosecute, or get in line to be prosecuted. It is that simple.

So simple a Harvard Law summa cum laude should be able to figure it out!
And should have known full well before declaring for the office!

[kster]

201. You won ... after reading though the thread you won

Congratulations.

Its time to start putting people in jail.

Obama has to stop covering for the Bush crooks, and think of himself, his family and his country.

JUST DO IT!!!


:thumbsup:

K&R

[mdmc]

206. there IS one way around this -

close your eyes - can't happen here! Obama can talk out both sides - Bush was tryin to keep us safe by tricking us into a war of choice - and Bush broke the law in order to keep us safe. :eyes:

[Orsino]

211. That was for *our* benefit, I hope.

"Make me do it."