I think that's exactly what he's avocating. Overthrow the government the moment it deosn't go your way. What a bunch of crybabies. These people don't know what patriotism means. Funny how they haven't come up with a single LEAGAL argument here. Their basically just admitting that Bush did break the law but they don't want him prosecuted because, well, he's one of their own and they figure there's more of them then there are of us.

Here's a little advice to the right wing sore losers out there: If your counting on some massive cultural revolution: don't. Obama's approval rating is light years ahead of Bush's right now so if you expect the normally docile public to take up arms with you, your going to be sorely disappointed. I don't care what Rush tells you, you aren't the majority. Your guy broke the law. Either stand on the principles of law and order you people claim to believe in so much and help get him prosecuted, or continue to be the party of children who throw temper tantrums everytime the laws you love so much get in the way of your agenda. It's up to you but don't expect to be taken seroiusly next time you want to lecture us "liberals" about "patriotism" if you choose the latter.

Noted previously that CAT Article 7 incorporates Article 5 and asked how that impacts the argument that investigation and prosecution is mandatory and no discretion exists - getting no answer

I didn't answer because I don't understand your argument. It makes no sense to me. What is it about Article 5 that you think makes compliance with the Convention something other than mandatory? You keep asserting that there is something but don't specify what it is, making it impossible to address.

not a chance.

Hard to believe, but torturing "bad guys" is one of Bush's most popular crimes. This feels like a deliberate attempt to justify pardons that will protect them from prosecution for much less popular crimes.

I realize you are trolling here, but are you familiar with the history of the United States of America? You do realize the Founding Fathers were considered dangerous militants by the Crown and that the idea of a Democratic Republic was very "progressive" for the time? They sure seemed more than willing to fight for their progressive idea of self-government. You know the one where EVERYONE is supposed to follow the law, and everyone can be held accountable if they don't? You do know about all that, right?

linked to the article about Executive Office e-mails.

I would just like to re-iterate my rant about Executive Order 13233.

Permalink at sig.

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.

I'm not sixty, and I am a lawyer, and I'd have to agree generally. The law is, for the most part, made for and by those with power to protect, maintain, and perpetuate status quo power relationships. Why do you think unions are demonized? Most of the "liberal" jurisprudence in tort, consumer law, environmental, employment, labor, criminal . . . anything that could and does challenge the status quo has (with notable exceptions) been gutted over the last 35 years on the sacrificial alter of "economic efficiency.

As GG has painstakingly pointed out here: there is a two tiered legal system in this country--one for the little people and the obligatory "in group" sacrificial lambs who stray and those in good standing with "power" be they political, media, or corporate.

Nothing shocking about it, what's shocking is that people buy into the myth at all. Going to law school disabuses you of any notion that the law is fair, unless of course you're a "believer". I always believed in the potential of "the rule of law", but I'd be lying if I said I ever believed it was meted out impartially or equally. Much of the profession is subservient to power out of economic necessity. The country would be a different place if most of us didn't have to worry about making the monthly interest payment on our student loan debt much less the principal.

All I want to know is "where's my fecking "bailout"? You want to see change you can believe in, unshackle the 300K "idealistic lib leaning" lawyers from their massive debt. I'd like nothing better than to challenge the status quo but it ain't gonna happen so long as I'm threatened with disbarment for defaulting (misnomer because you can't--goes with you to your grave) on my student load debt. Well that and getting "lefty lawyers" on the same page is like herding cats. Sadly the very thing that makes them want to challenge the status quo makes them ill suited to group discipline and concerted effort (plaintiff's bar being the kinda sorta exception).

I already answered this in a comment above. The Congressional Research Service -- which I linked to -- documents that the U.S. Senate ratified the Convention and then implemented enabling legislation that contains only a handful of reservations that are, for these purposes, irrelevant.

In the U.S. Senate Ratifications document to which you linked (your first linky) submitted to the U.N - it also appears the Senate ruled out many forms of psychological torture from the def. of torture.

(1) (a) That with reference to Article 1,

the United States understands that, in order

to constitute torture, an act must be specifically

intended to inflict severe physical or

mental pain or suffering and that mental pain

or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm

caused by or resulting from: (1) the intentional

infliction or threatened infliction of

severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the

administration or application, or threatened

administration or application, of mind altering

substances or other procedures calculated

to disrupt profoundly the senses or the

personality; (3) the threat of imminent death;

or (4) the threat that another person will imminently

be subjected to death, severe physical

pain or suffering, or the administration or

application of mind altering substances or

other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly

the senses or personality.