Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Our competitive edge on the world stage is the rule of law.... applied to corporate and personal behavior, to institutions, and to all. This is also the basis for trust by the people.... human nature is such that people break laws, but then the government must prosecute.... whether Madoff or a torturer. The consistent application of the rule of law is what makes us special.
I completely agree with you. I love the beautiful way you built the logical foundation for following what amounts to the only right course of action...
Glenn, ought not this be included?
BUSH: One such person who gave us information was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. … And I’m in the Oval Office and I am told that we have captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the professionals believe he has information necessary to secure the country. So I ask what tools are available for us to find information from him and they gave me a list of tools, and I said are these tools deemed to be legal? And so we got legal opinions before any decision was made.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/11/bush-authorized-torture/
I don't think you have commented on this admission yet.
Brilliant move, Glenn. It will be very hard for the Bushies to push back on that one.
Thank you so much for laying the case out so clearly. I'd love to stick around for what will undoubtedly be a thread of very informative conversation, but I'm packing up and heading north this morning to go to the inauguration.
I'm almost starting to think that there might not be torture pardons after all. As many have already pointed out, that would make charges in the various international venues easier to pursue if charges here are preempted.
Laws that are inconvenient to their interests are ignored. Laws that are convenient for their interests are enforced.
The torturers will be prosecuted when Obama shows his real BIrth Certificate.
Don't hold your breath. No one gets to be President without having a failsafe to ensure compliance and obedience to the archons.
Has their ever been a case where a good cop prosecutes the bad cop for the benefit of the perp they are playing?
Predators don't prey on each other.
If President Bush is advised that prosecutions are so required by law, he may conclude that a preemptive pardon for all "necessary" torture and surveillance crimes is his least worst option. As corrupt and self-serving as such an act would be, it would be a legal out. Sick and wrong, but legal, constitutional use virtually unlimited pardon power.
Bush may even think such a pardon would be a noble service by which he takes personal responsibility for everything that happened and dares the country to prosecute him personally if it's going to prosecute anyone.
The only answer is yes
The only question is "Why not?"
and don't give me a bunch of cant about rising above partisanship.
Glenn,
Terrific essay on an extremely important subject. Having high government officials act so lawlessly is awful. For a subsequent Administration, and the citizenry at large, to tolerate it, is indescribably worse. We must stand up for our Nation's values, people! It is time to act!!
When congress took impeachment 'off the table' they effectively said that we are not a nation of laws. May the democratic leadership be forever shamed by their acts.
Now comes the Obama administration's turn to respect the law or to thumb their noses at the law. I am not optimistic, but do remain hopeful that they will put hundreds of administration criminals in jail. I am afraid we will put two or three 'small fry' in jail and call it a job well done.
On a related note; will Obama lobby to change the constitution and remove the odious power of presidential pardon so that crimes may not be committed by the executive branch and then absolved?
Hilzoy had a similar post up the other day (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/01/some-facts-for-obama-to-consider.html#comments), and I thought the comment I made there is probably relevant to this discussion:
As to the United States "affirmative obligation to investigate," the operative clause is probably Reservation III(1) stating that the treaty is non self-executing. This is one of the stock reservations the U.S. appends to treaties (and some newer ones, including the ICC, come with a 'no reservations' clause), and it means that unless the treaty is re-passed as legislation, it is presumed to conform to U.S. law/has no actionable basis in U.S. law. This is not quite correct, but it's an important distinction (which can also be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States) (Posted by: RAG | January 15, 2009 at 08:34 A)
Now, I don't know what sort of codification has gone on since we ratified the CAT, but treaties are complex things (i.e., the question of customary international law is important, and means that people like Cheney probably never get to go to places like Spain ever again, a la Kissinger). If anyone has any more technical insight into this question, or knows about codification, I for one would love to hear about it.
p.s. I nonetheless agree with the argument for prosecution.
But it's been my experience that the "rule of law" is nothing but a bullshit game designed to make sure the haves keep right on having and the have-nots keep right on notting.
I've seen absolutely nothing in almost sixty years on this planet that would lead me to believe the system is in any way fair, decent, or moral.
The U.S. Senate ratified the Convention and then enacted various laws implementing it.
See this CRS Report, beginning on page 6, for details:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32276.pdf
perhaps some never before seen footage of Reagan's crossed fingers as he was signing it?
there has got to be some way out, put enough lawyers on it and the loophole will get found. also, BizarroWorld© does exist for the wobblycrats, it is not just for the neocons.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
