1. The State Party in 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.

Maybe a dumb question...but...

I read a while back that Bush purchased a large amount of acreage in Paraguay. Is Paraguay a signatory of the CAT?

I am comfortable phrasing it as a national responsibility and certainly as something utterly necessary to restoring our national character and international integrity, but I just cannot hold Barack Obama personally responsible for doing it. -Jayhawk SD

You know, I'm not positive about this, but I think it might have something to do with that oath of office, Obama's going to take. And, Scott Horton wrote a script for him on how to get it done.

I doubt we'll be hearing about too many members of the Bush administration traveling over seas any time soon, but what might this mean for Obama, and individuals in his administration? Would Obama be required, through international law and treaty, to prosecute these crimes, and would his failure to do so lead to him being "wanted"?

rant all you want and spew the same crap you have since Bush won in 2000. That doesn't matter.

If prosecutions are moved forward there will be rebellion and you will find yourself in a very lonely, scary place.

How do you hold Obama responsible for something that happened prior to his watch? I am comfortable phrasing it as a national responsibility and certainly as something utterly necessary to restoring our national character and international integrity, but I just cannot hold Barack Obama personally responsible for doing it.

So, just to be clear: you think that Obama is resonsible for complying only with the laws and treaties passed during his presidency, but not the ones enacted before?

Every time there's a new President, all the laws and treaties get erased and he's only required to abide by the new ones?

That's a novel theory.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/catsigs.html

But what does it mean? Paraguay has ratified it but not "made declaration, under Article 22, that they agree to allow individual complaints to the Committee against Torture"?

Whatever was real or unreal about the speculations about Bush family land purchases in Paraguay, the reality is now that Paraguay is run by a crusading, reforming leftist former bishop (Fernando Lugo) who made his reputation by living, working among, and leading the poor, and who was not only persecuted by the Paraguayan government but is the child of those imprisoned and exiled by the U.S.-backed right wing former dictatorship.

Doesn't seem like the kind of South American government under which a Bush scion and right wing interventionist former U.S. president would choose to call home.

I may be forgetting something, but off-hand I don't think there really is a South American nation ripe for Bush family retreat, which combines right wing government and thorough stability. Colombia's got the right wing part, but not the stability -- 1/3 of its conservative Congress members are in jail or under investigation by its own courts for collaborating with the right wing death squad narco-paramilitaries, and rural sections of the country are still occupied by leftist guerrillas.

And the Dubai-type places may seem ideal now, but, who's to say in 5 or 10 years? They may be nice to you when you have power, but I'm not as sure what happens after your power goes.

They're safest here, frankly.

What farragut says has happened before. After Henri Alleg, with much help from Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, exposed the torture committed by the paras in Algiers (which, unlike Vietnam, was not considered a colony but technically a part of France at the time - making it legally similar to Guantanamo), the public outcry caused such fear that the military and paras attempted a coup, which brought down the Fourth Republic.

Quoting your Maximum Leader, sort of, here's my response:

Bring it on, douchebags.

for the answer.

One reason the Federal Government's credit is good, and the US dollar is the world's reserve currency is that the US is seen as a nation of laws. It therefore makes good sense to hold Cheney & co accountable, even for those whose primary value is the bottom line.

There has never been equal justice under the law. This is a fantasy that we choose to believe, as it helps hold society together. Sort of like “I believe it, so therefore it is.” The danger to society is when society stops believing.

Many of the players in this honed their skills during Iran Contra. Not only did they learn from their implementation mistakes but they learned that instead of punishment when caught, you get rewarded.

If Obama, does in fact do something here he needs to deal with the Democrats that were involved with the violation of the law.

Finally, the arguments that are being floated regarding pragmatism and non partisanship will work. They will work because society wants them to work so we do not have to face our own responsibility in these events. Our real danger is if Obama actually believes his own propaganda.

I have a present for you. I've got some extra corbon +p 115 gr ammo I can send you to use.

On yourself.

"So, just to be clear: you think that Obama is resonsible for complying only with the laws and treaties passed during his presidency, but not the ones enacted before?"

Well of course he must mean that. After all he comes from a country where it is well known you all have memory span length of a gold fish. Either that or he read Gore Vidal on the United States of Amnesia and the poor fellow got entirely the wrong end of the stick.

Really?

It was pretty much abandoned (at least for the High and the Mighty) quite some time ago, and the Impeachment of Bill Clinton made a joke of the very notion. Remember all those Congressional piss-ants parading around shouting "Rule of Law! Rule of Law!" back in the day, none of which meant a damned thing to any of them except for what political hay they could make at the moment? Of course you do.

Not all offenses are worthy of prosecution. Not all offenses are crimes.

The criminals who seized the White House in 2001 have always sought to confuse the issue. Draconian punishments for flashing a bit of nip or saying a naughty word on the sacred airwaves ("Won't somebody think of the children?"), but not a hint of concern over the greatest pillage and loot fest in all of history, the uprooting and extermination of millions on the basis of fabrications and lies, the torture and disappearance of who knows how many thousands, the routine "go fuck yourselfs" and double dog dares at anyone who presumes to assert the Authority of the Law against them.

You can't touch them. Impunity rules. They, on the other hand, can do whatever they want to you, and there is nothing you can do about it. Or rather, they are counting on the fact that there is nothing you will do about it except file another brief.

The self-evident logic of prosecutions for severe violations of basic law simply doesn't matter to them, not when the violations are committed by them. And it doesn't matter because they have proved to themselves over and over and over again that no one will do anything to interfere with their impunity. Not only will no one do anything about it, governments, institutions, and people line up to acquire rights of immunity and impunity for themselves -- and depending on favors done, and who they are, they get them.

Rule of Law?

Well that's what the Law has become, a cruel joke.

And woe betide whoever and whatever is not Favored.