Thanks, Glenn for posting--Transcript: Interview with U.N. torture official Manfred Novak.

Such thorough, poignant matters on why nations (like US) think they can ignore any "conventions" should be read by all the hardcore apologists for torture and the arrogant naysayers of the rule of law.

The Bush Administratiion treated Treaties as one way instruments, binding on the other party but not the United States.

I really thought that the Obama administration would reverse such policies. Now that it has proven an unworthy successor in the realms of secrecy and honoring our treaties, I am flummoxed. Why isn't the President not faithfully executing the law?

If he hopes to appease the hard left that labels him a traitor for shaking hands with another head of state, he may as well just do his job the right way, anyway.

We don't need no steenkeeng treaties, Senor...

Manfred Nowak made it as clear as is humanly possible in the English language that the U.S. is obliged under international and domestic law to investigate these credible allegations of torture.

As he put it, the only question is whether or not the U.S. will apply the law.

Think about that: The decision faced by this country, its citizens and government, is whether or not it will be a lawless nation in regard to this issue.

Why are we even in this position? I guess we can start with unrestrained capitalism and its ability to corrupt our media and political process. But beneath that is America's blood-soaked culture, a bloodlust that begins with its indigenous people and is now manifest in the willingness to torture and kill those of Arab descent.

Greedy. Violent. Uncultured. Lawless.

I'm so proud.

Here's a sweet little note I received from Saxby "Evil" Chambliss, one of my Georgia's two wack Senators, after writing to him about the need for Congressional investigations:

Thank you for contacting me regarding an investigation of the treatment of terrorist detainees. It is good to hear from you.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, of which I am a member, was briefed on the details of the Central Intelligence Agency's interrogation program throughout its existence and continues to conduct oversight. I believe that this program was not only necessary, but effective. We gained much needed knowledge about al-Qa'ida and were able to disrupt and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States and our allies

from individuals detained by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

On April 17, 2009, President Barak Obama released a collection of classified Justice Department documents detailing interrogation techniques used against high value terrorists detained by the CIA. These documents describe in detail the legal authority that the CIA had to conduct interrogations and detain individuals.

I do not support the prosecution of government officials who acted in good faith and based their decisions on guidance issued by the Department of Justice with respect to the detainee interrogation.

Clearly he is addressing the low-information voter with these lies.

Of course the US should follow international law. Of course the US should follow US law. Of course the self-styled "Christian Nation" types should Do What Jesus Would Do.

But this country is still held captive by the far right, who just don't let facts get in their way. By "branding" the Republican Party with discipline and strong emotional politics, no one on the far right can admit that any of their values is wrong.

Cognitive Dissonance is the theory that people can't hold two competing viewpoints in their head. They will resolve their disparate viewpoints into one, even if the facts warrant otherwise. And then they'll be emotionally committed to their denial.

Most in the US get it. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc. were more than wrong, they were criminals. Most of the people reading this knew it a long time ago. But Obama still has to worry about a whole bunch of people who are clinically insane. The "America First" crowd wants to secede. The "president is always right" crowd has done little more than attack the president. The "guns will keep us safe from tyranny" bunch has meekly let their rights be stripped away.

Trouble is brewing from the extremists. Now that adults are in charge, what do we do with our wastrel children? We have to purge criminals from the government and hold people responsible for their actions. But an ever smaller group of wild-eyed radicals is threatening an ever larger escalation of political and physical violence. We must tread carefully, but we will eventually come to grips with the Taliban wing of the GOP.

Caligula called it 'immovable rigor'. He ruled with an iron fist.

I think Obama's considerations about what people think, especially crazy people, is misdirected in the extreme. He will go down as one of our greatest Presidents if he only enforces the laws on the books.

And puts Bush, Cheney, et al, in jail, right where they belong.

Sorry, Glenn, but your far leftist Vienna Professors from the UN is not going to convince anyone in the US but your own choir. Especially not one who has been an enemy of the Bush administration for years, calling forced feedings at GITMO torture, saying torture in Iraq under the US occupation was now worse than under Saddam Hussein, etc. His "opinion" on this is therefore a foregone conclusion. So how exactly does an interview with him add anything meaningful to the present discussions?

So how exactly does an interview with him add anything meaningful to the present discussions?

A better question: how does your comment add anything meaningful to the present discussions?

And no, revealing to us your insipid inability to see the value in obtaining the insight of an actual expert on the subject does not count as meaningful.

Back during the previous round of war crimes suits were brought against the United States, and the International Court of Justice simply dismissed them out of deference to the United States's veto. Because we stipulated on the court's enabling legislation that we can veto any suit brought against us.

What you and Novak are glossing over is that because of the Torture stipulation, no suit can be brought IN the U.S. against Americans because of their violation of the torture convention. They can only be brought based on their violation of American law. Sure, the United States has an obligation to enact enabling legislation, but it's anyone's guess whether, interpreted according to American precedent, our laws have the same final effect as Novak finds in International Law.

For instance there's the question of whether torturers who acted in "good faith" upon counterfeit legal opinions can be held culpable under American law, or International Law. I think a lot of "should have known" will be involved, which never make for good law. But I'm pretty sure that the answer is "No" under American Law but was "Yes" for Eichmann and nazi prison guards. And then there's the drafting of bad legal opinion; you probably know how that's treated under American law.

There has always been a catch-22 for American Servicemen: while they are enjoined never to obey an illegal order, the consequence of disobedience can be immediate death. Are we tracking what happened to any (if any) servicemen who refused to torture? And not just the pretty cases we're supposed to know about?

So far Obama's efforts have acted to cast a light upon these activities (which would seem to satisfy Nowak's need for "investigation"), and I'm guessing that declining to prosecute those who acted in good faith upon advice from counsel is in accordance with American legal practice.

Since the U.S. prosecutors must respect American Law, and the ICJ is impotent, it's not clear that any of this will go anywhere.