The Article VI "Supreme law of the land" clause was designed to free us from the clever machinations of kings and their courtiers, specifically the rendering of treaties null by deceit and violence. The people who immigrated here from Europe had long experience of sovereigns who signed treaties and then ignored them, feeding citizens into their vanity wars to die in great numbers. And of course, those same immigrants used the very same techniques to our everlasting national shame on Native Americans.

We often overhype the genius and wisdom of the founders, but in writing Article VI, they were trying to set new standards of accountable governance, and wishing away Article VI, which in its essence merely says "we will keep our word," deeply dishonors them.

Our courtiers hate the very idea of not being able to violate treaties on the whim of the king. That's why even taking seriously the idea that treaties are the supreme law of the land banishes you to the sphere of deviance you discussed in your post yesterday.

Beautifully made argument.

"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."

That certainly would look on the face of it a tough one to surmount. Thing is he wouldn't be pardoning ordinary criminals who had committed crimes on behalf of themselves. He'd be pardoning criminals who distorted and abused state power purportedly in the interest of the state. As such those crimes made inadvertent accessories of all the citizens of the state. Those citizens may now want to divest themselves of that position. In order to do so for themselves and to restore to good health the State of America they will be obliged to, as it were, turn states evidence. And first thing that would be necessary is to make it a crime to have issued a pardon to those who abused state power.

What about sedition? Any useful statutes on that that might be used?

And thanks for that update!

Please excuse the missing "of" in what I said earlier:

"Wonderfully and clearly laid out! Thank you so much for this latest column and for the previous columns supporting prosecution [of] members of the current Bush administration for all their illegal acts."

as i have heard it, there are two arguments in favor of the death penalty: 1) the crime is so heinous as to warrant society the right to take a life, and 2) as a deterrent to others who would kill in such a heinous way.

the unnecessary war we as a country(and those who patriotically volunteered to fight it) were lied into has now cost our country the lives of 4200 young men and women and countless numbers of iraqi's. it has played into the hands of OBL, breaking our military and our economy and made all americans less safe.

if there are no consequences, and thus deterrent to never again, to the torture, renditions and breaking of our treaties; then we must also abolish the death penalty.

So some politician trying to score points with a few senators so his appointment gets approved says it was torture. Not exactly the "reasonable man" test.

Not to mention the fact that we already have a mechanism for punishing the executive leadership--it's called impeachment.

When are we going to see a story about Dem leadership abdicating their responsibilities over the past two years??? These accusations have been around since 2003.

This particular treaty is not a complex thing. Glenn included the link to read it, it would take anyone with basic reading skills an hour at most to read it. It contains only 33 articles, many less than a paragraph in length. By comparison, the last time I read the Fourth Geneva Convention (less than a month ago), it took me the better part of a day. It has 159 articles and three annexes, many are multiple paragraphs, and has designated articles that apply at different times. But what Glenn quoted from the CAT is typical language.

It is implemented by two acts, the Torture Act, which Glenn also referenced (U.S.C. 18, 2340), and the Torture Victims Protection Act (U.S.C. 28, 1350). The Wikipedia article on the convention contains links to the reservations made by the U.S. which only say that the U.S. believes its Constitution (5th,8th,14th amendments) covers CIDT (cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment), that it is not self-implementing (as usual) and some limits on lawsuits that can be filed.

It was limited by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Whether or not those limits were constitutional hasn't been challenged, other limits in the same portion of the act (on habeas corpus) have been struck down. Needless to say, the international community doesn't believe in the U.S. ability to limit the treaty after ratification, and the treaty itself bans withdrawal without notice and altogether if there have been allegations, until they are investigated. Glenn didn't mention it, but the treaty also requires that if there are convictions, the punishments be appropriately severe (which is implemented in the U.S. by 20 year minimum sentences and death or life sentence for torture in which a victim died), and it requires reparations.

The U.S. has had reviews provided for under the treaty on its compliance by the Committee Against Torture, the latest was in 2006. The U.S. tried to argue that the convention didn't apply to the Global War on Terror because of the Geneva Conventions being lex specialis. The Committee didn't buy it.

By the way, Glenn, just to show how long this has been up for debate, here's the FAIR article on it from Jan/Feb 2002:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1097

it is attempted to prosecute the Bush admin for acts taken to protect the country from the likes of al queda there will be protesting that will make the vietnam era look like a picnic.

Americans will not stand for or allow the blogging, left wing nuts to let this country self destruct.

FISA would be the least of your fears glenn.