What justification is there to not have an investigation and what is preventing it?

______________________________________________

Where there's a will, there's a way, 'tis said.

There is no legal justification, as Glenn has taken pains to explicate. There may be arcane, casuistic legal arguments against an obligation to investigate-- I'm sure a Yoo could cobble up something-- but there's no legal or ethical justification.

There are only pragmatic rationales, i.e. the bluffs, scams and dodges righteously preached and practiced by our vaunted professional political class.

A condensed and abbreviated recitatif: Moving Forward, Not Rocking the Boat, Reconciliation, All Hands on Deck, No Time for Sergeants, Being Practical, Concentrating on What Works instead of Being Ideological, Not Spooking the Desperate and Childlike Masses, Taking Care of Bidness...

The idea is that We the People can not expect Obama to Do the Right Thing of his own accord, but that the Right Thing will happen only to the extent that the Righteous force the issue and Make Him Do It.

And all the while, Miles Davis-fashion, he plays to the hazy middle, and perpetually keeps his back to the left side of the audience.

Can a private citizen bring suit under the treaty provisions?

Anyone can bring a suit about anything. But you will, in the instance you describe, be dismissed for lack of standing.

"[the CAT] seeks to define ‘torture’ in a relatively limited fashion, corresponding to the common understanding of torture as an extreme practice which is universally condemned.” It also noted that “‘torture’ is thus to be distinguished from lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which are to be deplored and prevented, but are not so universally and categorically condemned as to warrant the severe legal consequences that the Convention provides in the case of torture.”

It should also be distinguished from name-calling, ridicule, SNL skits, and jokes in extremely poor taste (which I might note aren't disjoint sets).

That said, this differentiation does little in terms of actually defining the dividing line between CIDT and torture, but simply points out what the Convention itself says: that the two are not identical.

Saying that we "understand" it as prohibiting only the "extreme practice[s]" which are "universally condemned" makes no sense definitionally, particularly when the Convention itself refers to CIDT that is distinct and separate from torture (see Article 16).

The relevant line should remain the actual definitions in the CAT, Part I, Article 1.

Cheers,

Justice and compensation for Maher Arar.

Let's forget about prosecutions for a minute.

And the technical and lawyerly conversations here go beyond my grasp.

Doesn't there have to an investigation as to who was responsible for what and why when these acts were done?

It seems to me that an investigation is required, followed by prosecution if it determines that war crimes have been committed. Can't there be some kind of method to determine what actually happened?

The torture chambers and the admissions by the high level administration officials indicate there is evidence of war crimes. Simply asked, why aren't those facts enough to conclude that an investigation is required?

If everything that was done has been publicly acknowledged then a determination by Holder and Obama should be made. The republicans obviously don't want to open a can of worms and they are fighting it, but can Obama just ignore the crimes and say "let's be friends."

It annoys me that Obama wants to look forward without even a glance at the past. But still, why would he thwart an investigation? What is preventing an investigation?

Why am I so confused? I'm trying to figure that out.

What justification is there to not have an investigation and what is preventing it?

Yes, it's relevant.

A more detailed explanation of the "restrictive reading of the CAT" can be found in the written presentation by the United States to the Committee against Torture;

"Thus, when the United States Department of State transmitted the CAT in May 1988 to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification, it explained that “[the CAT] seeks to define ‘torture’ in a relatively limited fashion, corresponding to the common understanding of torture as an extreme practice which is universally condemned.” It also noted that “‘torture’ is thus to be distinguished from lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which are to be deplored and prevented, but are not so universally and categorically condemned as to warrant the severe legal consequences that the Convention provides in the case of torture.” It further explained that “the requirement that torture be an extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment is expressed in Article 16, which refers to ‘other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture’ [and that] the negotiating history indicates that the [italicized] portion of this description was adopted in order to emphasize that torture is at the extreme end of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment and that Article 1 should be construed with this in mind.” (Emphasis added in the original.) This analysis was subsequently adopted by the Senate in its report recommending that the Senate consent to ratification of the CAT."

Reinforces my notion that the process that will produce some version of justice -- rather than avoidance of it -- is for there to be a refusal to investigate or prosecute (which is actually where we are today and for however much longer Congress chooses to dilly-dally and the DoJ simply won't do it, as has been the case throughout the Bush regime.)

I'm surprised that Mukasey's adamant refusal to investigate hasn't already triggered international efforts to investigate and bring the culprits to justice. But of course there's a lot of complicity overseas as well as at home.

The good thing is that Obama's theme throughout his campaign could be interpreted as redemption, and there are only a few paths toward it, one of which most definitely is bringing justice to those who have been wronged (especially through torture, murder and baseless captivity) by the United States of America.

Doing it, however it is done, is a huge step the nation has rarely been able to take. We'll see if it will happen now.