Do you truly believe that the law should be ignored if the person who broke it is popular enough (which is questionable in regards to Bush at this point)? I guess if Obama wants to have people killed for no other reason then that they disagreed with him he can based on your logic. He's certainly popular enough. You people are a bunch of traitors and hypocrites. You talk about law and order until it has to apply to you then it magically doesn't count. The moment something doesn't go your way your threatening to overthrow the government. You all really are a bunch of babies.

how many dead-end rednecks will you be able to recruit once Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice, et el, are prosecuted? And when you do "rebell", all six of you will be shipped where you really belong- The Gaza strip.

...softly whispered across the wind.."farragut....", "farragut...", it cried! " You will be the One!" "The one to restore our Great Nation and drive the left-wing vermin across the plain northward to Canada!" And so it was.....

You've always been afraid to confront the real villans out there and now is no different. You'll find out how popular Bush is if there are any attaempts at prosecutions.

That's funny: you realize you just included yourself as one of the "real villains?"

Don't flatter yourself, chickenshit.

So, can the administration that follows Obama's prosecute him for not prosecuting Bush?

You can be assured that your politicians are working hard to ensure that the laws are respected by even the highest ranking officials.

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is receptive to the idea of prosecuting some Bush administration officials, while letting others who are accused of misdeeds leave office without prosecution, she told Chris Wallace in an interview on "FOX News Sunday."

"I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it," the California Democrat said. "And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."" -Sammon, Bill (2009). "Pelosi Open to Prosecution of Bush Administration Officials," FOXNews.com

Link to the full article is in my signature.

Glenn,

There is a problem with your argument about prosecutions being required. The Senate's reservations/understandings and declaration upon ratification of the treaty indicate that Articles 1-14 (including 7, which mandates prosecution) are not self-executing:

III. The Senate's advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:

(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of Articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing.

The legislation that executes this treaty did not pass until 1994, and is called the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, passed as H.R. 2333 in the 103rd Congress, section 506 is about torture:

SEC. 506. TORTURE CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION.

(a) IN GENERAL- Part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 113A the following new chapter:

`CHAPTER 113B--TORTURE

[...]

Unfortunately I don't think this section sets up any requirement for US attorneys or the AG to prosecute torture any more than any other criminal offence. It says:

SEC. 2340A. TORTURE.

`(a) OFFENSE- Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Again that's not clear enough about requiring a prosecutor to seek an indictment.

I'm not an expert at searching THOMAS and such, so maybe this was executed in some other bill but if so I don't know of it.

The treaty itself has provisions prohibiting states from interpreting the treaty in a way clearly contrary to its intent, so it could be that if the US decides it still has discretion over prosecuting torture, then the US is in violation of the substance of the treaty but as a matter of domestic US law, I'm not sure your interpretation is valid (unfortunately).

No links because THOMAS search links expire in minutes (which is really annoying actually)

Hung-over torture apologists make their appearance here, and I must thank them because they really are funny. Cheered me right up, and I was pretty depressed.

I will give Shooter one nod, however, and that is toward T-department nominee TG's tax problem. I'm sorry, but I've been doing rinky dink taxes for years, I was self-employed for years, and I have no economics background, and I know there is NO WAY to miss the self-employment tax. Ridiculous. I don't think the illegal immigrant thing is a big deal; what is he supposed to do, check her green card every month? But, there is no excuse for his tax problem. He's either a liar or an idiot, and either one would disqualify him in my book.

There HAVE to be better, competenet, squeaky clean candidates out there for cabinet positions. I think Obama's team has really dropped the ball.

But, nobody listens to me. heh

sorry glenn I'm just not going to outline anything for your benefit. You know exactly how "annonymous" posting here is. Nothing cowardly about it.

You've always been afraid to confront the real villans out there and now is no different. You'll find out how popular Bush is if there are any attaempts at prosecutions.

Brazil is calling.

that you are still catastrophically dumb, and that your wife has been suffering from severe migraines since your wedding night.

In her appearance today on Fox news of all places, Pelosi said:

"I think you look at each item and see what is a violation of the law and do we even have a right to ignore it," the California Democrat said. "And other things that are maybe time that is spent better looking to the future rather than to the past."

The Conyers investigation will hold the impetus for this government to move towards justice under the law. It will be interesting to see who is forgiven and who will be the fall guys in this effort.

I'm convinced this will go forward how else do you kill the neocon movement once and for all?