"If the Bush Cabal goes overseas those governments can seize and extridite the offenders to the Hague, as they did with Pinochet."

Oh technology has moved on since those days. We needn't bother the Hague. They've got drones and hell fires, operated from Nevada that can track any bastard anywhere in the world a president wants to take out these days.

And to my mind that perk sure beats an Oval office blow job any day?

"I've been advocating for some time for a trial in absentia for Osama Bin Laden. The French did that for Carlos the Jackal. Why can't America do the same for Binny?

It would clear the air, and give Obama's pronouncements about "killing" him some veneer of legality"

It's a bit rich and highly irregular I'd have thought, the President ordering the killing of someone for a crime for which the FBI have no evidence.

Still, that's Fascism for you I suppose.

I'm surprised. No soaring rhetoric. Go figure.

Those governments can seize and extridite the offenders to the Hague, as they did with Pinochet.

Quick! Someone tell Scalia!

The fact remains that Scalia seems to distinguish between treatment done for 'legitimate' investigative purposes (and finds ways to keep these people from the protections of the 5th Amendment) and that done for punitive ones. Expediency, it's the lifeblood of any proper ... dictatorship.

Cheers,

"Strict textualists, such as Justice Scalia, might also argue that the Eighth Amendment does not apply to coercive interrogations because interrogations are not punishments per se.Having been convicted of no crime, the status of Al-Qaeda detainees means that they cannot be punished in a technical sense. Thus, the argument goes, their status is analogous to that of pre-trial detainees domestically. Still, this hardly leaves more leeway for mistreatment. The modern view is that the Eighth Amendment can be extended to conditions that arise from confinement itself, and are not punishments mandated by the court. The Supreme Court, for example, has routinely applied the Eighth Amendment to brutal post-trial treatment that is not a part of the detainee's sentence. Thus, this argument, which has been proffered by Alan Dershowitz in support of the legality of torture, seems specious."

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v4/n1/15/index.htm

The objections by Finland, Netherlands and Sweden to US reservations about Article 16 of the CAT are meant, as I see it, to plug any possible holes in the definition of CIDT, particularly US-defined CIDT acts prohibited by the 5th, 8th and 14th amendment of the US consitution. I doubt if these objections would make any substantive difference in the actual application of the CAT by the US.

FWIW, Scalia, echoing the bad jokes in the OLC, has opined that the 8th Amendment doesn't preclude torture (or other CIDT):

http://leastdangerousbranch.blogspot.com/2008/02/scalia-is-italian-for-torquemada.html

(or click sig)

The 8th Amendment, according to him, prohibits "cruel and unusual" mistreatment only when used for punishment post-conviction. If what you're doing is for a 'good cause', such as interrogation, you can (under his rationale) even torture people entirely innocent of any crime. "It's for the greater good, I tellya ... shut up!"

Cheers,

First, Obama is now the President, and in all sincerity, I wish him and the American people good luck.

You're right about KSM. He will never go to trial.

I've been advocating for some time for a trial in absentia for Osama Bin Laden. The French did that for Carlos the Jackal. Why can't America do the same for Binny?

It would clear the air, and give Obama's pronouncements about "killing" him some veneer of legality. Assuming of course that he would be found guilty.

Another reason Bush may have freely admitted to torturing Khalid is because it now renders virtually void the prospects of getting the man a trial for him supposedly having been the mastermind of 9/11.

Khalid served the purposes of the Bush/Cheney cabal. For years many have believed them when they said khalid was the ringleader. But he obviously wasn't. And we can tell that because by admitting to having tortured him they render null a trial in which his uninvolvement might be revealed. But it gets better. Because he isn't now "triable" his guilt for 9/11 still stands presumed because no ones going to know now one way or the other but are going to fear the worse just to be on the safe side.

And all the while people look towards Khalid as being responsible they are also rather handily - aren't looking in any other directions.

I always assumed that the Green Zone (officially the International Zone) of Baghdad was nicknamed so to differentiate it from the no-go or Red Zone (unofficial designation for all unsecured areas outside the Green).

Steve's remarks made me question this assumption. So I did some googling.

Turns out, the Green Zone (officially the International Zone) was nicknamed so to differentiate it from the no-go or Red Zone (unofficial designation for all unsecured areas outside the Green).

Huh! Guess I didn't need to go to Baghdad to figure that out.

Love & smooches.

I'm here for ya, Babycakes. Yep, a Giver is what I'yam.

2.)YES, Japanese "Peace Initiatives" were floated even prior to mid-1945, Doofus. I invite you to read them in Richard Frank's book, "Downfall", as I keep urging. They can be framed like this: "Give us most of what we already have and stay off our islands and significant portions of Japanese occupied Asia and we'll be peaceful and stop killing the Allies whom we launched total war upon." NOT unlike the Chinese-North Korean "peace initiatives" after their offensive of 1950. Naturally, you fearsome tykes would have readily accepted either or both. Thank God for FDR, Truman & Churchill.

In case anybody missed it, this is called "negotiating"---at least when white people do it.

Which is not to say the offers should have been accepted or even entertained. But it supports a previous point that the Japanese were in fact considering surrender before the bombs were dropped, regardless of Frank's precise opinion on the matter.