by Ugh
Because, gosh, there just isn't any evidence. We're looking forward, not back.
Ex-CIA boss admits to BBC Panorama that it tortured
The CIA tortured terror suspects in its programme of "enhanced interrogation", the agency's former executive director, Buzzy Krongard, has admitted to the BBC's Panorama programme.
…
I asked Buzzy Krongard, the CIA's former executive director, if he thought waterboarding and painful stress positions were torture:
"Well, let's put it this way, it is meant to make him as uncomfortable as possible. So I assume for, without getting into semantics, that's torture. I'm comfortable with saying that," he explained.
Bygones!
Also, a familiar voice quoted here.
Not sure, but it’s possible that the Statute of Limitations has already run out, or will within a relatively few years.
But never fear!
excerpt from Convention against Torture, Art.2:
“… shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.”
Since the US Gov’t will have officially performed an epic face-plant in the prosecution of torture, that means that 2nd Amendment remedies are on the table.
Cheney’s next “drunk hunting trip” might be more exciting than previously.
Not sure, but it’s possible that the Statute of Limitations has already run out, or will within a relatively few years.
But never fear!
excerpt from Convention against Torture, Art.2:
“… shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.”
Since the US Gov’t will have officially performed an epic face-plant in the prosecution of torture, that means that 2nd Amendment remedies are on the table.
Cheney’s next “drunk hunting trip” might be more exciting than previously.
Not sure, but it’s possible that the Statute of Limitations has already run out, or will within a relatively few years.
But never fear!
excerpt from Convention against Torture, Art.2:
“… shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.”
Since the US Gov’t will have officially performed an epic face-plant in the prosecution of torture, that means that 2nd Amendment remedies are on the table.
Cheney’s next “drunk hunting trip” might be more exciting than previously.
“One small step towards candor . . .”
“One small step towards candor . . .”
“One small step towards candor . . .”
The Statute of Limitations was my first thought, too, for why they were now willing to admit that it was torture.
But I wonder if it occurs to the guy saying that that, per 18 U.S. Code § 3286, there is no Statute of Limitations on torture….
The Statute of Limitations was my first thought, too, for why they were now willing to admit that it was torture.
But I wonder if it occurs to the guy saying that that, per 18 U.S. Code § 3286, there is no Statute of Limitations on torture….
The Statute of Limitations was my first thought, too, for why they were now willing to admit that it was torture.
But I wonder if it occurs to the guy saying that that, per 18 U.S. Code § 3286, there is no Statute of Limitations on torture….
they’re probably feeling pretty safe because they know no President will ever go after them.
maybe 50 years from whenever the first American is able to walk through Tehran without feeling threatened in any way the President will issue an apology to the descendents of those we tortured.
they’re probably feeling pretty safe because they know no President will ever go after them.
maybe 50 years from whenever the first American is able to walk through Tehran without feeling threatened in any way the President will issue an apology to the descendents of those we tortured.
they’re probably feeling pretty safe because they know no President will ever go after them.
maybe 50 years from whenever the first American is able to walk through Tehran without feeling threatened in any way the President will issue an apology to the descendents of those we tortured.
Dr ngo – baby steps. Remember, the goal is for the U.S. to become a liberal democracy that respects the rule of law….
Dr ngo – baby steps. Remember, the goal is for the U.S. to become a liberal democracy that respects the rule of law….
Dr ngo – baby steps. Remember, the goal is for the U.S. to become a liberal democracy that respects the rule of law….
May we torture the leader of the Jade Helm hate group and the Governor of Texas for their encouragement and material support of armed, deadly terrorism on American soil against our men and women (and Wally Cox, if the photo is representative) in the U.S. military.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/two-men-open-fire-mississippi-military-facility
May we torture the leader of the Jade Helm hate group and the Governor of Texas for their encouragement and material support of armed, deadly terrorism on American soil against our men and women (and Wally Cox, if the photo is representative) in the U.S. military.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/two-men-open-fire-mississippi-military-facility
May we torture the leader of the Jade Helm hate group and the Governor of Texas for their encouragement and material support of armed, deadly terrorism on American soil against our men and women (and Wally Cox, if the photo is representative) in the U.S. military.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/two-men-open-fire-mississippi-military-facility
Bygones!
Yes, we should look forward, not back:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden
As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, “We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require.”
Civil liberties like…not being tortured?
Bygones!
Yes, we should look forward, not back:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden
As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, “We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require.”
Civil liberties like…not being tortured?
Bygones!
Yes, we should look forward, not back:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden
As the President said in announcing recent intelligence reforms, “We have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require.”
Civil liberties like…not being tortured?
Ah:
He added: “We were told by legal authorities that we could torture people.”
Then it’s all okay!
Ah:
He added: “We were told by legal authorities that we could torture people.”
Then it’s all okay!
Ah:
He added: “We were told by legal authorities that we could torture people.”
Then it’s all okay!
We could have tortured George W. Bush and company before 9/11 to find out what was going to happen to us.
Must have been an oversight:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/youve-covered-your-ass.html
Benghazi!
No, Jade Helm:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/litteral-barker-campbell-jade-helm
We’re invested in this country with pigf*cking, anti-American, murderous vermin.
Republicans let them run the country.
Now Republican officeholders, pundits, and candidates encourage their attacks in the American military on American soil.
We’re a disgrace. End it.
We could have tortured George W. Bush and company before 9/11 to find out what was going to happen to us.
Must have been an oversight:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/youve-covered-your-ass.html
Benghazi!
No, Jade Helm:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/litteral-barker-campbell-jade-helm
We’re invested in this country with pigf*cking, anti-American, murderous vermin.
Republicans let them run the country.
Now Republican officeholders, pundits, and candidates encourage their attacks in the American military on American soil.
We’re a disgrace. End it.
We could have tortured George W. Bush and company before 9/11 to find out what was going to happen to us.
Must have been an oversight:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/youve-covered-your-ass.html
Benghazi!
No, Jade Helm:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/litteral-barker-campbell-jade-helm
We’re invested in this country with pigf*cking, anti-American, murderous vermin.
Republicans let them run the country.
Now Republican officeholders, pundits, and candidates encourage their attacks in the American military on American soil.
We’re a disgrace. End it.
He added: “We were told by legal authorities that we could torture people.”
Democracy and Liberty in this country has come to a dead end.
He added: “We were told by legal authorities that we could torture people.”
Democracy and Liberty in this country has come to a dead end.
He added: “We were told by legal authorities that we could torture people.”
Democracy and Liberty in this country has come to a dead end.
He added: “We were told by legal authorities that we could torture people.”
That any sentient, well educated person in this country could utter such a statement in the 21st century is simply incomprehensible to me.
WTF?
He added: “We were told by legal authorities that we could torture people.”
That any sentient, well educated person in this country could utter such a statement in the 21st century is simply incomprehensible to me.
WTF?
He added: “We were told by legal authorities that we could torture people.”
That any sentient, well educated person in this country could utter such a statement in the 21st century is simply incomprehensible to me.
WTF?
That any sentient, well educated person in this country could utter such a statement in the 21st century is simply incomprehensible to me.
WTF?
Two words: John Yoo
The man has an enormus amount to answer for.
That any sentient, well educated person in this country could utter such a statement in the 21st century is simply incomprehensible to me.
WTF?
Two words: John Yoo
The man has an enormus amount to answer for.
That any sentient, well educated person in this country could utter such a statement in the 21st century is simply incomprehensible to me.
WTF?
Two words: John Yoo
The man has an enormus amount to answer for.
He added: “We were told by legal authorities that we could torture people.”
That has essentially been the CIA’s position all along. “DOJ said it was ok! No backsies!” There seems to be a lot of willful blindness on their part to not recognize they weren’t exactly truthful in telling the DOJ what they were doing/wanted to do/the effects of their approach.
I’ve said this before, the agreement (tacit or explicit) between the CIA and the DOJ was “We’ll lie to you about the facts if you lie to us about the law.” And down the rabbit hole they went.
He added: “We were told by legal authorities that we could torture people.”
That has essentially been the CIA’s position all along. “DOJ said it was ok! No backsies!” There seems to be a lot of willful blindness on their part to not recognize they weren’t exactly truthful in telling the DOJ what they were doing/wanted to do/the effects of their approach.
I’ve said this before, the agreement (tacit or explicit) between the CIA and the DOJ was “We’ll lie to you about the facts if you lie to us about the law.” And down the rabbit hole they went.
He added: “We were told by legal authorities that we could torture people.”
That has essentially been the CIA’s position all along. “DOJ said it was ok! No backsies!” There seems to be a lot of willful blindness on their part to not recognize they weren’t exactly truthful in telling the DOJ what they were doing/wanted to do/the effects of their approach.
I’ve said this before, the agreement (tacit or explicit) between the CIA and the DOJ was “We’ll lie to you about the facts if you lie to us about the law.” And down the rabbit hole they went.
Look at th bright side: the statute of limitations is never going to run out. The longer in the past 9/11 goes, the less acceptable will this torture will be.
If the torturers were prosecuted today, the likelihood of jury nullification were relatively high. If the prosecution happens 30 years hence, it will succeed.
We have all the time in the world to prosecute at our leisure.
Look at th bright side: the statute of limitations is never going to run out. The longer in the past 9/11 goes, the less acceptable will this torture will be.
If the torturers were prosecuted today, the likelihood of jury nullification were relatively high. If the prosecution happens 30 years hence, it will succeed.
We have all the time in the world to prosecute at our leisure.
Look at th bright side: the statute of limitations is never going to run out. The longer in the past 9/11 goes, the less acceptable will this torture will be.
If the torturers were prosecuted today, the likelihood of jury nullification were relatively high. If the prosecution happens 30 years hence, it will succeed.
We have all the time in the world to prosecute at our leisure.
Lurker, I very much doubt that. They will not even need a pardon and we can be happy when in 30 or 50 years Yoo’s and Bybee’s memos will not serve as a legal precedent to get cases against their spiritual heirs and followers to be dismissed. The era of decency is past for good, I fear and we will see what will be the next taboo to fall (and how many there will be before the first nuclear first strike against an opponent without nukes*).
*1945 does not count there for imo obvious reasons (and without a definitive judgement about the justification).
Lurker, I very much doubt that. They will not even need a pardon and we can be happy when in 30 or 50 years Yoo’s and Bybee’s memos will not serve as a legal precedent to get cases against their spiritual heirs and followers to be dismissed. The era of decency is past for good, I fear and we will see what will be the next taboo to fall (and how many there will be before the first nuclear first strike against an opponent without nukes*).
*1945 does not count there for imo obvious reasons (and without a definitive judgement about the justification).
Lurker, I very much doubt that. They will not even need a pardon and we can be happy when in 30 or 50 years Yoo’s and Bybee’s memos will not serve as a legal precedent to get cases against their spiritual heirs and followers to be dismissed. The era of decency is past for good, I fear and we will see what will be the next taboo to fall (and how many there will be before the first nuclear first strike against an opponent without nukes*).
*1945 does not count there for imo obvious reasons (and without a definitive judgement about the justification).
Not just Yoo, there were a number of folks in the OLC who were happy to provide a legal justification for the practice of torture.
Also, folks in the psychiatric and general medical community who were happy to provide their expert assistance in implementing the program.
Nothing of any consequence will ever happen to any of these people, at least not in this country. They will continue to enjoy their successful and highly renumerative public and private careers.
Should the question of whether to torture or not come up in the future, the Bush-era torture regime will be the precedent in favor. Plus, we’ll have a cohort of folks with hands-on experience who will be only too happy to help spin the program back up. For a healthy fee, of course, that kind of expertise doesn’t come cheap.
It’s great that Obama has disavowed the Yoo memos and has ruled out waterboarding. He’s only going to be President for another year and a half.
Not just Yoo, there were a number of folks in the OLC who were happy to provide a legal justification for the practice of torture.
Also, folks in the psychiatric and general medical community who were happy to provide their expert assistance in implementing the program.
Nothing of any consequence will ever happen to any of these people, at least not in this country. They will continue to enjoy their successful and highly renumerative public and private careers.
Should the question of whether to torture or not come up in the future, the Bush-era torture regime will be the precedent in favor. Plus, we’ll have a cohort of folks with hands-on experience who will be only too happy to help spin the program back up. For a healthy fee, of course, that kind of expertise doesn’t come cheap.
It’s great that Obama has disavowed the Yoo memos and has ruled out waterboarding. He’s only going to be President for another year and a half.
Not just Yoo, there were a number of folks in the OLC who were happy to provide a legal justification for the practice of torture.
Also, folks in the psychiatric and general medical community who were happy to provide their expert assistance in implementing the program.
Nothing of any consequence will ever happen to any of these people, at least not in this country. They will continue to enjoy their successful and highly renumerative public and private careers.
Should the question of whether to torture or not come up in the future, the Bush-era torture regime will be the precedent in favor. Plus, we’ll have a cohort of folks with hands-on experience who will be only too happy to help spin the program back up. For a healthy fee, of course, that kind of expertise doesn’t come cheap.
It’s great that Obama has disavowed the Yoo memos and has ruled out waterboarding. He’s only going to be President for another year and a half.
But Yoo is the poster boy for the OLC actions.
And didn’t he have a priceless expression on his face, when it was pointed out to him that he might want to avoid traveling out of the country, lest he be dragged before the International Crimimal Court? It was pretty clear he knew exactly what he would be charged with. And that he knew the case was solid.
But Yoo is the poster boy for the OLC actions.
And didn’t he have a priceless expression on his face, when it was pointed out to him that he might want to avoid traveling out of the country, lest he be dragged before the International Crimimal Court? It was pretty clear he knew exactly what he would be charged with. And that he knew the case was solid.
But Yoo is the poster boy for the OLC actions.
And didn’t he have a priceless expression on his face, when it was pointed out to him that he might want to avoid traveling out of the country, lest he be dragged before the International Crimimal Court? It was pretty clear he knew exactly what he would be charged with. And that he knew the case was solid.
What are the chances that the topic of torture or Gitmo comes up tonight at the debate?
What are the chances that the topic of torture or Gitmo comes up tonight at the debate?
What are the chances that the topic of torture or Gitmo comes up tonight at the debate?
Or how to beat ISIS? I heard Trump has a plan
Or how to beat ISIS? I heard Trump has a plan
Or how to beat ISIS? I heard Trump has a plan
What are the chances that the topic of torture or Gitmo comes up tonight at the debate?
if either does, the answer will be More! or More!
What are the chances that the topic of torture or Gitmo comes up tonight at the debate?
if either does, the answer will be More! or More!
What are the chances that the topic of torture or Gitmo comes up tonight at the debate?
if either does, the answer will be More! or More!
Please, Sir, may have some More?
Please, Sir, may have some More?
Please, Sir, may have some More?
What are the chances that the topic of torture or Gitmo comes up tonight at the debate?
Zero. And not just “roughly zero” — absolutely zero.
None of the candidates** will bring up the subject voluntarily. They all know that, if they do, everybody else will make the same kind of vague statements about how “we do not torture”. So nothing to be gained here.
And as for the moderators? Why would a group of Fox News folks want to raise the issue?
** OK, I admit that it is impossible to guess what insane idea Trump will come out with next. But unless he sees it as a better way to get attention than any of the other issues he could go rogue on, he probably won’t. If only to save it for a later opportunity.
What are the chances that the topic of torture or Gitmo comes up tonight at the debate?
Zero. And not just “roughly zero” — absolutely zero.
None of the candidates** will bring up the subject voluntarily. They all know that, if they do, everybody else will make the same kind of vague statements about how “we do not torture”. So nothing to be gained here.
And as for the moderators? Why would a group of Fox News folks want to raise the issue?
** OK, I admit that it is impossible to guess what insane idea Trump will come out with next. But unless he sees it as a better way to get attention than any of the other issues he could go rogue on, he probably won’t. If only to save it for a later opportunity.
What are the chances that the topic of torture or Gitmo comes up tonight at the debate?
Zero. And not just “roughly zero” — absolutely zero.
None of the candidates** will bring up the subject voluntarily. They all know that, if they do, everybody else will make the same kind of vague statements about how “we do not torture”. So nothing to be gained here.
And as for the moderators? Why would a group of Fox News folks want to raise the issue?
** OK, I admit that it is impossible to guess what insane idea Trump will come out with next. But unless he sees it as a better way to get attention than any of the other issues he could go rogue on, he probably won’t. If only to save it for a later opportunity.
Or how to beat ISIS? I heard Trump has a plan
He’s going to bankrupt them by getting them to invest in a real estate deal…
Or how to beat ISIS? I heard Trump has a plan
He’s going to bankrupt them by getting them to invest in a real estate deal…
Or how to beat ISIS? I heard Trump has a plan
He’s going to bankrupt them by getting them to invest in a real estate deal…
Apart from Yoo et al, what about Scalia? I seem to remember that a few years ago he defended torture in general (in the US) and waterboarding in particular, which he deemed not to be “cruel and unusual punishment”. Even on the strictest interpretation (it’s not punishment because no crime has yet been committed, it’s merely a tool to obtain information) it seems to me that you would be punishing someone who was refusing to give you information. Because surely you ask the question, before they refuse and you do the waterboarding…..
Apart from Yoo et al, what about Scalia? I seem to remember that a few years ago he defended torture in general (in the US) and waterboarding in particular, which he deemed not to be “cruel and unusual punishment”. Even on the strictest interpretation (it’s not punishment because no crime has yet been committed, it’s merely a tool to obtain information) it seems to me that you would be punishing someone who was refusing to give you information. Because surely you ask the question, before they refuse and you do the waterboarding…..
Apart from Yoo et al, what about Scalia? I seem to remember that a few years ago he defended torture in general (in the US) and waterboarding in particular, which he deemed not to be “cruel and unusual punishment”. Even on the strictest interpretation (it’s not punishment because no crime has yet been committed, it’s merely a tool to obtain information) it seems to me that you would be punishing someone who was refusing to give you information. Because surely you ask the question, before they refuse and you do the waterboarding…..
Scalia had a personal opinion. It may be disgusting, but it wasn’t even an opinion from the bench, let alone a formal legal opinion from an executive office charged with same.
Whereas Yoo was giving a legal opinion from a government position, which justified actions which were torture.
The former is not, legally, a war crime. The latter is.
Scalia had a personal opinion. It may be disgusting, but it wasn’t even an opinion from the bench, let alone a formal legal opinion from an executive office charged with same.
Whereas Yoo was giving a legal opinion from a government position, which justified actions which were torture.
The former is not, legally, a war crime. The latter is.
Scalia had a personal opinion. It may be disgusting, but it wasn’t even an opinion from the bench, let alone a formal legal opinion from an executive office charged with same.
Whereas Yoo was giving a legal opinion from a government position, which justified actions which were torture.
The former is not, legally, a war crime. The latter is.
(it’s not punishment because no crime has yet been committed, it’s merely a tool to obtain information)
This puts me in mind of good old Giles Corey, who refused to enter a plea when accused of being a warlock.
No plea meant he couldn’t be tried, so they piled rocks on him to try to force a plea out of him. After about two days of this, he died.
Just a tool for gathering information.
(it’s not punishment because no crime has yet been committed, it’s merely a tool to obtain information)
This puts me in mind of good old Giles Corey, who refused to enter a plea when accused of being a warlock.
No plea meant he couldn’t be tried, so they piled rocks on him to try to force a plea out of him. After about two days of this, he died.
Just a tool for gathering information.
(it’s not punishment because no crime has yet been committed, it’s merely a tool to obtain information)
This puts me in mind of good old Giles Corey, who refused to enter a plea when accused of being a warlock.
No plea meant he couldn’t be tried, so they piled rocks on him to try to force a plea out of him. After about two days of this, he died.
Just a tool for gathering information.
Thanks wj, I can certainly see the difference, and frankly Yoo’s precarious position, internationally legally speaking, gives me nothing but satisfaction. But Scalia’s personal opinion gives comfort to the kinds of people looking for intellectual justification and support for torture, makes it seem an “acceptable” option. And in terms of the evolution of attitudes towards torture (and similar morally “complicated” issues) in the wider culture, it may end up being just as dangerous in its eventual effects and ramifications.
Thanks wj, I can certainly see the difference, and frankly Yoo’s precarious position, internationally legally speaking, gives me nothing but satisfaction. But Scalia’s personal opinion gives comfort to the kinds of people looking for intellectual justification and support for torture, makes it seem an “acceptable” option. And in terms of the evolution of attitudes towards torture (and similar morally “complicated” issues) in the wider culture, it may end up being just as dangerous in its eventual effects and ramifications.
Thanks wj, I can certainly see the difference, and frankly Yoo’s precarious position, internationally legally speaking, gives me nothing but satisfaction. But Scalia’s personal opinion gives comfort to the kinds of people looking for intellectual justification and support for torture, makes it seem an “acceptable” option. And in terms of the evolution of attitudes towards torture (and similar morally “complicated” issues) in the wider culture, it may end up being just as dangerous in its eventual effects and ramifications.
Disgusting and dangerous? Sure. (Not to mention worrisome, should a torture case come before the Supreme Court while he is still on it.) Just not illegal.
Disgusting and dangerous? Sure. (Not to mention worrisome, should a torture case come before the Supreme Court while he is still on it.) Just not illegal.
Disgusting and dangerous? Sure. (Not to mention worrisome, should a torture case come before the Supreme Court while he is still on it.) Just not illegal.
Even if it is not in the constitution (i.e. if a hyper-narrow definition got applied, so the text could be ignored) there are still US laws below the constitution that do not leave any wiggling space (in good faith). And I doubt that even Scalia would dare to declare anti-torture laws to be unconstitutional per se (let alone that he could persuade 4 other justices on that).
So the old recipe will be followed simply not to apply existing laws for reasons of political expedience (and the laws making that itself a crime will not get applied either, as usual).
The only way I would see is Obama pulling a last minute stunt. On the next to last day in office he would order the
Secret Service to arrest people on a prepared list and to put them on a plane to the Hague. Once the plane(s) were out of range he would take to the airwaves and say something like this:
My fellow citizens! As my last act in office I have ordered the Secret Sevice to arrest the following people for immediate extradition to the international criminal court to be tried for commiting and conspiring to commit crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely acts of torture. [list including Cheney, Yoo, Bybee and several others, some for simplicity grouped as members of the CIA etc.] Unfortunately I had to realize that the judicial system of the United States is incorrigibly incapable of dealing with cases like these. Even, if a court could be found that could guarantee a trial according to the codified laws of the United States (which is doubtful) and legal judgement would be rendered according to the same (doubtful even more so), such a judgement would almost inevitably overturned soon by political means, be it commutation, blanc pardon or other abuses of executive power.
Therefore I took the decision and will take full responsibility for it to take it out of the hands of a system too biased to be trusted and to leave judgement to the a court less likely to be influenced by domestic politics. For my successor, who will be your president by this time to-morrow I leave the following to consider and to decide: Will (s)he allow to have the World Court to proceed and thus demonstrate that the US is in favor of universal justice under which all human beings are equal or will (s)he apply the Invade the Hague Act of 2002 and show the world that The US are not a nation of laws anymore but that might makes right and that the lesson of Nuremberg has been successfully unlearned. That is what is at stake here: Either the majesty of the law will be honoured or the torch of justice will be extinguished and turned into the cudgel of a tyrant who prefers to be feared. This is your choice, American citizen and your decision to make, official elected by the people. My work here is done. Fare thee well! May G#d bless you and may he bless too the USoA.
I am Barack Obama and I approve this message from an undisclosed location.
Even if it is not in the constitution (i.e. if a hyper-narrow definition got applied, so the text could be ignored) there are still US laws below the constitution that do not leave any wiggling space (in good faith). And I doubt that even Scalia would dare to declare anti-torture laws to be unconstitutional per se (let alone that he could persuade 4 other justices on that).
So the old recipe will be followed simply not to apply existing laws for reasons of political expedience (and the laws making that itself a crime will not get applied either, as usual).
The only way I would see is Obama pulling a last minute stunt. On the next to last day in office he would order the
Secret Service to arrest people on a prepared list and to put them on a plane to the Hague. Once the plane(s) were out of range he would take to the airwaves and say something like this:
My fellow citizens! As my last act in office I have ordered the Secret Sevice to arrest the following people for immediate extradition to the international criminal court to be tried for commiting and conspiring to commit crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely acts of torture. [list including Cheney, Yoo, Bybee and several others, some for simplicity grouped as members of the CIA etc.] Unfortunately I had to realize that the judicial system of the United States is incorrigibly incapable of dealing with cases like these. Even, if a court could be found that could guarantee a trial according to the codified laws of the United States (which is doubtful) and legal judgement would be rendered according to the same (doubtful even more so), such a judgement would almost inevitably overturned soon by political means, be it commutation, blanc pardon or other abuses of executive power.
Therefore I took the decision and will take full responsibility for it to take it out of the hands of a system too biased to be trusted and to leave judgement to the a court less likely to be influenced by domestic politics. For my successor, who will be your president by this time to-morrow I leave the following to consider and to decide: Will (s)he allow to have the World Court to proceed and thus demonstrate that the US is in favor of universal justice under which all human beings are equal or will (s)he apply the Invade the Hague Act of 2002 and show the world that The US are not a nation of laws anymore but that might makes right and that the lesson of Nuremberg has been successfully unlearned. That is what is at stake here: Either the majesty of the law will be honoured or the torch of justice will be extinguished and turned into the cudgel of a tyrant who prefers to be feared. This is your choice, American citizen and your decision to make, official elected by the people. My work here is done. Fare thee well! May G#d bless you and may he bless too the USoA.
I am Barack Obama and I approve this message from an undisclosed location.
Even if it is not in the constitution (i.e. if a hyper-narrow definition got applied, so the text could be ignored) there are still US laws below the constitution that do not leave any wiggling space (in good faith). And I doubt that even Scalia would dare to declare anti-torture laws to be unconstitutional per se (let alone that he could persuade 4 other justices on that).
So the old recipe will be followed simply not to apply existing laws for reasons of political expedience (and the laws making that itself a crime will not get applied either, as usual).
The only way I would see is Obama pulling a last minute stunt. On the next to last day in office he would order the
Secret Service to arrest people on a prepared list and to put them on a plane to the Hague. Once the plane(s) were out of range he would take to the airwaves and say something like this:
My fellow citizens! As my last act in office I have ordered the Secret Sevice to arrest the following people for immediate extradition to the international criminal court to be tried for commiting and conspiring to commit crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity, namely acts of torture. [list including Cheney, Yoo, Bybee and several others, some for simplicity grouped as members of the CIA etc.] Unfortunately I had to realize that the judicial system of the United States is incorrigibly incapable of dealing with cases like these. Even, if a court could be found that could guarantee a trial according to the codified laws of the United States (which is doubtful) and legal judgement would be rendered according to the same (doubtful even more so), such a judgement would almost inevitably overturned soon by political means, be it commutation, blanc pardon or other abuses of executive power.
Therefore I took the decision and will take full responsibility for it to take it out of the hands of a system too biased to be trusted and to leave judgement to the a court less likely to be influenced by domestic politics. For my successor, who will be your president by this time to-morrow I leave the following to consider and to decide: Will (s)he allow to have the World Court to proceed and thus demonstrate that the US is in favor of universal justice under which all human beings are equal or will (s)he apply the Invade the Hague Act of 2002 and show the world that The US are not a nation of laws anymore but that might makes right and that the lesson of Nuremberg has been successfully unlearned. That is what is at stake here: Either the majesty of the law will be honoured or the torch of justice will be extinguished and turned into the cudgel of a tyrant who prefers to be feared. This is your choice, American citizen and your decision to make, official elected by the people. My work here is done. Fare thee well! May G#d bless you and may he bless too the USoA.
I am Barack Obama and I approve this message from an undisclosed location.
Hartmut, a more likely scenario (not real likely, but more likely):
The day after the election in 2016 (why wait?), Obama has the Attorney General announce that [list] are being charged under the US laws banning torture. Thus avoiding fights over the fact that the US has not joined the International Criminal Court. (FYI, it wouldn’t be the Secret Service. They deal with Treasury-related crimes. More likely the FBI.)
Those laws, as you note, have damn little wiggle room. And once indictments are handed down, it’s real hard for some politician to stop the process. The most that could happen would be a Republican President (next time we have one) formally granting pardons. Nobody else really has leverage.
Hartmut, a more likely scenario (not real likely, but more likely):
The day after the election in 2016 (why wait?), Obama has the Attorney General announce that [list] are being charged under the US laws banning torture. Thus avoiding fights over the fact that the US has not joined the International Criminal Court. (FYI, it wouldn’t be the Secret Service. They deal with Treasury-related crimes. More likely the FBI.)
Those laws, as you note, have damn little wiggle room. And once indictments are handed down, it’s real hard for some politician to stop the process. The most that could happen would be a Republican President (next time we have one) formally granting pardons. Nobody else really has leverage.
Hartmut, a more likely scenario (not real likely, but more likely):
The day after the election in 2016 (why wait?), Obama has the Attorney General announce that [list] are being charged under the US laws banning torture. Thus avoiding fights over the fact that the US has not joined the International Criminal Court. (FYI, it wouldn’t be the Secret Service. They deal with Treasury-related crimes. More likely the FBI.)
Those laws, as you note, have damn little wiggle room. And once indictments are handed down, it’s real hard for some politician to stop the process. The most that could happen would be a Republican President (next time we have one) formally granting pardons. Nobody else really has leverage.
Of course the scenario is completely out of the question. There will be no prosecution (at least for the big fish) EVER (in the US).
The Secret Servic would have to be involved since at least one guy on the list has secret service protection (hah, what could be more ironic than to get arrested by one’s own bodyguards?!).
To do it at the last possible moment would be to put the burden on the next POTUS alone, not giving Congress a chance to even formally intervene during the interregnum.
Independent of which party holds Congress, they would blow up any trial in the US and I would not trust even a Dem president not to intervene too. The chances of anyone noteworthy of the defendants to go to prsion for even a short time (let alone getting executed which would be within the range of legal options) would be low indeed. And commutation to zero, amnesty or a pardon would inevitably follow quickly (at least for the big fish).
If on the other hand the guys would be abroad in front of the Int.Crim.Court, the US debate would not be demagogued about the merit of the case but about what the US should do, i.e., whether to embrace the role of outlaw not just verbally but open for everyone to see (i.e. sending troops to spring the torturers out of jail) or to make the best out of the bad hand dealt.
A night-and-fog action on the final day would also make it possible to blame it all on the n-word, leaving the successor more freedom of action. If done early during the interregnum the successor would come under intense pressure without the means to do anything about it, i.e. giving him or her the excuse for empty hand-wringing.
Again, nothing of the kind is going to happen, Obama could as well sign his own death warrant (and that of his family as well). The only remedy I could propose would be a banning offense.
Of course the scenario is completely out of the question. There will be no prosecution (at least for the big fish) EVER (in the US).
The Secret Servic would have to be involved since at least one guy on the list has secret service protection (hah, what could be more ironic than to get arrested by one’s own bodyguards?!).
To do it at the last possible moment would be to put the burden on the next POTUS alone, not giving Congress a chance to even formally intervene during the interregnum.
Independent of which party holds Congress, they would blow up any trial in the US and I would not trust even a Dem president not to intervene too. The chances of anyone noteworthy of the defendants to go to prsion for even a short time (let alone getting executed which would be within the range of legal options) would be low indeed. And commutation to zero, amnesty or a pardon would inevitably follow quickly (at least for the big fish).
If on the other hand the guys would be abroad in front of the Int.Crim.Court, the US debate would not be demagogued about the merit of the case but about what the US should do, i.e., whether to embrace the role of outlaw not just verbally but open for everyone to see (i.e. sending troops to spring the torturers out of jail) or to make the best out of the bad hand dealt.
A night-and-fog action on the final day would also make it possible to blame it all on the n-word, leaving the successor more freedom of action. If done early during the interregnum the successor would come under intense pressure without the means to do anything about it, i.e. giving him or her the excuse for empty hand-wringing.
Again, nothing of the kind is going to happen, Obama could as well sign his own death warrant (and that of his family as well). The only remedy I could propose would be a banning offense.
Of course the scenario is completely out of the question. There will be no prosecution (at least for the big fish) EVER (in the US).
The Secret Servic would have to be involved since at least one guy on the list has secret service protection (hah, what could be more ironic than to get arrested by one’s own bodyguards?!).
To do it at the last possible moment would be to put the burden on the next POTUS alone, not giving Congress a chance to even formally intervene during the interregnum.
Independent of which party holds Congress, they would blow up any trial in the US and I would not trust even a Dem president not to intervene too. The chances of anyone noteworthy of the defendants to go to prsion for even a short time (let alone getting executed which would be within the range of legal options) would be low indeed. And commutation to zero, amnesty or a pardon would inevitably follow quickly (at least for the big fish).
If on the other hand the guys would be abroad in front of the Int.Crim.Court, the US debate would not be demagogued about the merit of the case but about what the US should do, i.e., whether to embrace the role of outlaw not just verbally but open for everyone to see (i.e. sending troops to spring the torturers out of jail) or to make the best out of the bad hand dealt.
A night-and-fog action on the final day would also make it possible to blame it all on the n-word, leaving the successor more freedom of action. If done early during the interregnum the successor would come under intense pressure without the means to do anything about it, i.e. giving him or her the excuse for empty hand-wringing.
Again, nothing of the kind is going to happen, Obama could as well sign his own death warrant (and that of his family as well). The only remedy I could propose would be a banning offense.
Don’t know about anyone else, but I’d REALLY like to see torture put back in the box of “things to NEVER EVER do, NO MATTER WHAT”.
I see three ways for that happening:
#1: No conservative EVER gets elected President, for the next 20+ years. This has other upsides, but anyway…
#2: Serious prosecution of past torture, with harsh penalties, so that anyone even *contemplating* torture gets the willies even thinking about it.
#3: Widespread USE of torture on right-wing domestic terrorists, their supporters, enablers, apologists and fellow travelers. You can start with Terry Nichols, of OK Bombing fame, to find his co-conspirators.
…or, we could just wave our hands and say “Bygones!”, but that just puts off the inevitable for a while.
Don’t know about anyone else, but I’d REALLY like to see torture put back in the box of “things to NEVER EVER do, NO MATTER WHAT”.
I see three ways for that happening:
#1: No conservative EVER gets elected President, for the next 20+ years. This has other upsides, but anyway…
#2: Serious prosecution of past torture, with harsh penalties, so that anyone even *contemplating* torture gets the willies even thinking about it.
#3: Widespread USE of torture on right-wing domestic terrorists, their supporters, enablers, apologists and fellow travelers. You can start with Terry Nichols, of OK Bombing fame, to find his co-conspirators.
…or, we could just wave our hands and say “Bygones!”, but that just puts off the inevitable for a while.
Don’t know about anyone else, but I’d REALLY like to see torture put back in the box of “things to NEVER EVER do, NO MATTER WHAT”.
I see three ways for that happening:
#1: No conservative EVER gets elected President, for the next 20+ years. This has other upsides, but anyway…
#2: Serious prosecution of past torture, with harsh penalties, so that anyone even *contemplating* torture gets the willies even thinking about it.
#3: Widespread USE of torture on right-wing domestic terrorists, their supporters, enablers, apologists and fellow travelers. You can start with Terry Nichols, of OK Bombing fame, to find his co-conspirators.
…or, we could just wave our hands and say “Bygones!”, but that just puts off the inevitable for a while.
OK, Hartmut, I see where you got the Secret Service part. (Although they would only be involved for that one individual.)
But, FYI, there is no “interregnum” for the Congress to act in. The old administration is in full force until the instant that the new President takes the oath of office. (And the various cabinet departments all have acting heads until the Congress gets around to confirming the nominees of the new President.) So, no time when the Congress has any more scope than it normally does.
At most, they could ask nominees for Attorney General if they would continue prosecution and refuse to confirm those who would. But that just leaves prosecution continuing under the acting AG. So it gets them nothing but soundbites.
I tend to share your cynicism about the US actually prosecuting anyone. But then, I would never have believed that a sitting Vice President would be driven from office and convicted of bribery charges. (Agnew) Or that a President would be driven to resign over his illegal activities. (Nixon) Until it happened. So you never know.
OK, Hartmut, I see where you got the Secret Service part. (Although they would only be involved for that one individual.)
But, FYI, there is no “interregnum” for the Congress to act in. The old administration is in full force until the instant that the new President takes the oath of office. (And the various cabinet departments all have acting heads until the Congress gets around to confirming the nominees of the new President.) So, no time when the Congress has any more scope than it normally does.
At most, they could ask nominees for Attorney General if they would continue prosecution and refuse to confirm those who would. But that just leaves prosecution continuing under the acting AG. So it gets them nothing but soundbites.
I tend to share your cynicism about the US actually prosecuting anyone. But then, I would never have believed that a sitting Vice President would be driven from office and convicted of bribery charges. (Agnew) Or that a President would be driven to resign over his illegal activities. (Nixon) Until it happened. So you never know.
OK, Hartmut, I see where you got the Secret Service part. (Although they would only be involved for that one individual.)
But, FYI, there is no “interregnum” for the Congress to act in. The old administration is in full force until the instant that the new President takes the oath of office. (And the various cabinet departments all have acting heads until the Congress gets around to confirming the nominees of the new President.) So, no time when the Congress has any more scope than it normally does.
At most, they could ask nominees for Attorney General if they would continue prosecution and refuse to confirm those who would. But that just leaves prosecution continuing under the acting AG. So it gets them nothing but soundbites.
I tend to share your cynicism about the US actually prosecuting anyone. But then, I would never have believed that a sitting Vice President would be driven from office and convicted of bribery charges. (Agnew) Or that a President would be driven to resign over his illegal activities. (Nixon) Until it happened. So you never know.
I meant ‘interregnum’ just as a shorthand. Imo the decisive thing there is that in that period there is a president-elect but yet without formal power. Congress would be unlikely to be able to do something, if a president would pull a stunt on his last day in office. Anything they could do would take effect only after the new guy was in.
As for Nixon/Agnew, that was when there was still a certain amount of decency left. But then came the pardons, then came Reagan not even threatened with impeachment and finally Bush the Lesser and Lord ‘4th branch’ Cheney not even feigning ignorance. The only thing left is the preemptive self-pardon (correct me, if I am wrong, but there seems to be no explicit legal ban of a self-pardon since the founders probably could not conceive of the very idea).
Do I remember it correctly that Cheney once said that Nixons main mistake was to give in and that he could have stayed in office had he been strong enough?
I meant ‘interregnum’ just as a shorthand. Imo the decisive thing there is that in that period there is a president-elect but yet without formal power. Congress would be unlikely to be able to do something, if a president would pull a stunt on his last day in office. Anything they could do would take effect only after the new guy was in.
As for Nixon/Agnew, that was when there was still a certain amount of decency left. But then came the pardons, then came Reagan not even threatened with impeachment and finally Bush the Lesser and Lord ‘4th branch’ Cheney not even feigning ignorance. The only thing left is the preemptive self-pardon (correct me, if I am wrong, but there seems to be no explicit legal ban of a self-pardon since the founders probably could not conceive of the very idea).
Do I remember it correctly that Cheney once said that Nixons main mistake was to give in and that he could have stayed in office had he been strong enough?
I meant ‘interregnum’ just as a shorthand. Imo the decisive thing there is that in that period there is a president-elect but yet without formal power. Congress would be unlikely to be able to do something, if a president would pull a stunt on his last day in office. Anything they could do would take effect only after the new guy was in.
As for Nixon/Agnew, that was when there was still a certain amount of decency left. But then came the pardons, then came Reagan not even threatened with impeachment and finally Bush the Lesser and Lord ‘4th branch’ Cheney not even feigning ignorance. The only thing left is the preemptive self-pardon (correct me, if I am wrong, but there seems to be no explicit legal ban of a self-pardon since the founders probably could not conceive of the very idea).
Do I remember it correctly that Cheney once said that Nixons main mistake was to give in and that he could have stayed in office had he been strong enough?