The U.S. record is not spotless here. The U.S. let quite a few somewhat shady characters into the U.S. post-war ... and turned a blind eye to what they'd done during the war ... if they could be enlisted in the nascent battle against the Soviet Union.

Cheers,

-- Arne Langsetmo

That doesn't change the fact that a number of Japanese and German war criminals were imprisoned and/or hanged after being tried for war crimes. The easy way out would have been to let them skate and recruit them to rebuild their countries. I know I quoted Patton earlier, but he got into trouble for failure to de-Nazify the sector he was in charge of -even though all those Nazis helped Patton restore water, electricity, the postal service, etc. Eisenhower was right though: these people need to be removed from positions of power and tried and punished if possible because what they did was so vile. If the mail runs slower, tough.

does it say:Binding U.S. law doesn't require prosecutions for those who authorize torture?

The objections by Finland, Netherlands and Sweden to US reservations about Article 16 of the CAT are meant, as I see it, to plug any possible holes in the definition of CIDT, particularly US-defined CIDT acts prohibited by the 5th, 8th and 14th amendment of the US consitution. I doubt if these objections would make any substantive difference in the actual application of the CAT by the US.

Assume that 100 terrorists were subjected to waterboarding and one out of the hundred made possible an intervention that caught an otherwise viable plan to nuke New York City, thus preventing the deaths of several million people. Would you still want to prosecute the one who waterboarded that terrorist? -- Ray Walker

Yes Mr. Cheney - you of the 1% doctrine - yes I would.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine

I suggest you take a look at this weblink:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1870/Prosecution-Prosecutorial-Discretion.html

"The grant of broad discretion to prosecutors is so deeply ingrained in American law that U.S. lawyers often assume that prosecutorial discretion is inevitable. In fact, some countries in Europe and Latin America adhere to the opposite principle of "mandatory prosecution," maintaining, at least in principle, that prosecutors have a duty to bring any charge that is supported by evidence developed by the police or presented by citizens."

"The general acceptance of prosecutorial discretion in the United States is closely linked to our adversarial system of justice. The adversarial principle is generally taken to mean that judges in American courts are not commissioned to investigate cases, determine the truth, and provide justice. Instead, the courts are understood as dispute-settling institutions, in which judges take a more passive role, considering only such facts as are presented to them by the parties, and deciding only such issues as are necessary to resolve the disputes thus presented."

"As a practical matter, moreover, the prosecutor is not merely the attorney who represents society's interest in court, but also the public official whose job it is to decide, as a substantive matter, the extent of society's interest in seeking punishment. The prosecutor is thus not merely a barrister, exercising technical skill to advocate positions decided by someone else, but a significant public official, exercising political authority on behalf of the state to determine its substantive position."

This is the fundamental premise that Glenn argues against, as he has postulated that the Convention Against Torture, virtually obligates Mandatory Prosecution, while any Prosecutorial Discretion has a very limiting role. I don't fully agree with Glenn's view here, as I think that the implementation of CAT in the US has to be done both in the spirit as well as the letter of the law.

or as i once wrote Glenn - could you please explain it in German - that I will be able to understand it - and to be perfectly clear I would like it very much if U.S. would require prosecution for those who authorize torture and after I read Glenns post I very proudly relayed his message to some of my friend. who are as "ignorant" about 'the law' as I am -

But now -

What? -

For us 'who live in a world, where you would like to get a straight answer for the question: Does update 3 mean that U.S law doesn't require prosecution for those who authorize torture -

it can be very frustrating - and I know - I know very well - that American lawyers are the masters of interpretation (I saw it in the movies and in OJ's eyes)- and no task seems to be

un-possible for them - they just seem to be unable to answer with a straight yes or no!

Quizás, Quizás, Quizás....

it does!

Buscando donde no hay nada

Ya no quiero discutir

?Para qu? seguir?

Tratando, con la ilusi?n

De que un d?a me quieras

Como yo quiero, pero soy un juego

T? en m? buscas venganza

Yo en ti busco un sue?o

Dime entonces que hacemos...

[Ken-Y]

Thanks for the reply; the very thoughtful reply.

I think that might be one of the best anti-war posts ever seen here at UT. Good job, sir!

we are going to have a new President -

Is Glenn going to reveal his name?

- or will I be left in oblivion?

Writes Matt Taibbi:

When some time ago a friend of mine told me that Thomas Friedman’s new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, was going to be a kind of environmentalist clarion call against American consumerism, I almost died laughing.

Beautiful, I thought. Just when you begin to lose faith in America’s ability to fall for absolutely anything—just when you begin to think we Americans as a race might finally outgrow the lovable credulousness that leads us to fork over our credit card numbers to every half-baked TV pitchman hawking a magic dick-enlarging pill, or a way to make millions on the Internet while sitting at home and pounding doughnuts— along comes Thomas Friedman, porn-stached resident of a positively obscene 11,400 square foot suburban Maryland mega-monstro-mansion and husband to the heir of one of the largest shopping-mall chains in the world, reinventing himself as an oracle of anti-consumerist conservationism.

http://www.nypress.com/article-19271-flat-n-all-that.html

or sig