I could not agree more. We call the kind of practices you are writing about atrocities when they are directed by other nations' leaders. They are no more justifiable here. Keep up the good fight.

Mike Mallett

Wonderfully and clearly laid out! Thank you so much for this latest column and for the previous columns supporting prosecution members of the current Bush administration for all their illegal acts.

I do not look for Obama to change his mind.

But I hope you will continue to write on this issue and in that way keep a little pressure on him to change it and authorize investigation and prosecution of all these acts of torture.

even in english - and I approve this message!

When I read your post this morning, Glenn, I was reminded of something you said in you interview with Jay Rosen.

GG: Right. Now, you see this model being applied all the time -- I think currently right now, for instance, what has been relegated to the sphere of deviance is the idea that there ought to be criminal investigations and prosecutions of Bush officials for the laws that they broke, and even as you have things like yesterday, a high Bush official saying detainees at Guantanamo were tortured, and she used that word, and today Eric Holder saying that, techniques that the President himself admits to authorizing were in fact torture, which, if you put those simple propositions together, it means that high crimes were committed by the admissions of our top leaders, that the idea that they should be prosecuted, held accountable under the law, is something that you almost never hear in our mainstream discourse.

You don't hear things like, questioning about the role that the US plays in blindly supporting Israel, all kinds of examples on the most significant questions. So, do you think that the sphere of deviance ends up being vastly larger than it should be? Or is the problem that it's just sort of marginally bigger and some things end up within it that probably should be moved into the realm of legitimate debate?

If in your post of today you intended to succinctly make a clear and unequivocal case for moving the issue out of the 'sphere of deviance' section of mainstream discourse, I'd say that you were successful in making your case. Now this post needs to become 'viral'. Spread it far and wide, people.

perhaps some never before seen footage of Reagan's crossed fingers as he was signing it?

there has got to be some way out, put enough lawyers on it and the loophole will get found. also, BizarroWorld© does exist for the wobblycrats, it is not just for the neocons.

The U.S. Senate ratified the Convention and then enacted various laws implementing it.

See this CRS Report, beginning on page 6, for details:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32276.pdf

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.

Hilzoy had a similar post up the other day (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/01/some-facts-for-obama-to-consider.html#comments), and I thought the comment I made there is probably relevant to this discussion:

As to the United States "affirmative obligation to investigate," the operative clause is probably Reservation III(1) stating that the treaty is non self-executing. This is one of the stock reservations the U.S. appends to treaties (and some newer ones, including the ICC, come with a 'no reservations' clause), and it means that unless the treaty is re-passed as legislation, it is presumed to conform to U.S. law/has no actionable basis in U.S. law. This is not quite correct, but it's an important distinction (which can also be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States) (Posted by: RAG | January 15, 2009 at 08:34 A)

Now, I don't know what sort of codification has gone on since we ratified the CAT, but treaties are complex things (i.e., the question of customary international law is important, and means that people like Cheney probably never get to go to places like Spain ever again, a la Kissinger). If anyone has any more technical insight into this question, or knows about codification, I for one would love to hear about it.

p.s. I nonetheless agree with the argument for prosecution.

When congress took impeachment 'off the table' they effectively said that we are not a nation of laws. May the democratic leadership be forever shamed by their acts.

Now comes the Obama administration's turn to respect the law or to thumb their noses at the law. I am not optimistic, but do remain hopeful that they will put hundreds of administration criminals in jail. I am afraid we will put two or three 'small fry' in jail and call it a job well done.

On a related note; will Obama lobby to change the constitution and remove the odious power of presidential pardon so that crimes may not be committed by the executive branch and then absolved?

Glenn,

Terrific essay on an extremely important subject. Having high government officials act so lawlessly is awful. For a subsequent Administration, and the citizenry at large, to tolerate it, is indescribably worse. We must stand up for our Nation's values, people! It is time to act!!

The only answer is yes

The only question is "Why not?"

and don't give me a bunch of cant about rising above partisanship.

If President Bush is advised that prosecutions are so required by law, he may conclude that a preemptive pardon for all "necessary" torture and surveillance crimes is his least worst option. As corrupt and self-serving as such an act would be, it would be a legal out. Sick and wrong, but legal, constitutional use virtually unlimited pardon power.

Bush may even think such a pardon would be a noble service by which he takes personal responsibility for everything that happened and dares the country to prosecute him personally if it's going to prosecute anyone.