U.N. torture envoy: U.S. must prosecute Bush lawyers

Associated Press ^ | April 24 2009 | VERONIKA OLEKSYN

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, holds press conference...

VIENNA (AP) - The U.S. is obligated by a United Nations convention to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who allegedly drafted policies that approved the use of harsh interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects, the U.N.'s top anti-torture envoy said Friday.

Earlier this week, President Barack Obama left the door open to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations. He had previously absolved CIA officers from prosecution.

[danamco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI

[Free America52]

I think the rubber is getting ready to meet the road with this. Americans are going to clearly see where Obama stands regarding US sovereignty or one big global world. I fear this could be the tipping point if he makes the wrong decision and follows the UN / Soros lead.

At the same time, he may be totally exposed now to Soros. If he retracts his position now, Soros and his UN comrades may come looking for him.

[5thGenTexan]

I am not so sure we live in the same USA that Truman did. Would you bet your freedom that Øbama and his minions will honor 'Executive Privilege"?

It was believed that past presidents had some immunity, but I bet some lawyer somewhere is working to build a case to invalidate that as we speak.

[nathanbedford]

As many of you know, I have been posting for some time my fear that the Obama administration would use the treaty making power to make an end run around the need to have legislation agreed to by the House and Senate. The House would be excluded altogether, but the Senate, of course, would have to agree by two thirds. There is another factor which is troubling which is the assertion that treaties supersede both existing federal legislation and states prerogatives. Ultimately, the fear is that Obama's treaty making power, or his interpretation of existing treaties, can be exploited to deny individuals their constitutional rights. There is mixed case law on these issues and, I believe from memory, a holding that says that it is constitutionally improper to use treaties to deny constitutional rights to the individual.

One might be less than complacent about the future of this jurisprudence while Justice Ruth Ginsberg yet lives.

Yet we have a situation in which a foreign official of the United Nations asserts that the executive does not have the discretion to decline to prosecute because the matter is settled by the Treaty on torture. We have all seen in the Duke Lacrosse case the grave damage that can be done to the criminally accused by a prosecutor who abuses his discretion. The accused actually has a right to be prosecuted only by a prosecutor who is properly exercising his discretion. It may be that the prosecutor fails to exercise his discretion in favor of the criminally accused, but the criminally accused has the right to expect that the prosecutor exercise discretion, that is, that he has discretion to exercise.

The Austrian ambassador can propose all he likes, it is up to Mr. Holder to dispose and Mr. Holder serves at the pleasure of Mr. Obama. I think it would be highly improper for the United States to take the position that it is compelled to prosecute by virtue of this Treaty. I do not think that it is constitutional for the executive to agree by treaty to surrender its obligation under our Anglo-Saxon system of justice. We will soon know what Mr. Holder does.

Finally, one notes that could Austrian representative of the United Nations grounds his assertion in the notion that the facts are clear and show torture and thus the United States is left with no option but to prosecute. Here again, by acceding to this assertion of authority by a foreign entity under the treaty , the United States is surrendering its sovereignty, and further compromising the rights of the criminally accused because, ultimately, the assertion is grounded on a finding of fact which is the ultimate fact in issue if a trial were to occur. In other words, the definition of a crime is made not in the United States but by a treaty and not by a treaty but by a foreigner who interprets the facts and the law. If this process can be invoked to short-circuit the discretion of a prosecutor, why can it not also be invoked to short-circuit the required findings of fact by a jury and findings of law by a judge?

[griffin]

Assuming there will be another election, the Zero administration should be put on notice that they too will be prosecuted for negligence in performance of THE principle duty of the federal government - to provide for common defense - when the next terrorist attack occurs due to their ‘blame America first’ rhetoric and dismantling of our security organization.

[BubbaBasher]

legally dismantling ACORN

That's certainly one way to do it but not the one that I was thinking of.

[PigRigger]

The Dem's will never put on trial any Bush official...it would be a disaster on their part....and they know it...

This is purely being done for political gain and a means by which to deflect attention from their failed and unpopular policies....

I for one really wish they would put the former administration on trial....at least than it would become obvious to the majority of Americans which side they are really on....and it would make '94 look like child's play during the the next election cycle...

Unfortunately, the new photos and charges will give the current administration the political cover to do whatever they want as they feign outrage and contempt at the right....

[Political Junkie Too]

When the UN prosecutes those from the Kofi Annan administration who were invloved in the Oil for Food scandal, then we'll talk.

-PJ

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Agreed. See post # 27.

[greatdefender]

Hey UN,

Maybe if you actually saved lives and liberate cities like the US did, Then you can say anything you want. In the mean time, BUTT OUT!!!!!!

[Beckwith]

...the taliban and al qaida do not recognize the geneva convention...

It's actually the other way around. The Geneva Conventions do not recognize al Qaida and the Taliban.

It was the stupid decision of the Bush Administration to CHOOSE to treat them under the conventions that got us in this mess.

We would be acting completely within the Geneva Conventions to summarily execute al Qaida and Taliban.

[tatsinfla]

either way if they don’t or aren’t recognized then on with the waterboarding and damn all ye dem libtards...

[Beckwith]

Geneva Conventions -- Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; -- al Qaeda and Taliban ignore this condition.

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;-- al Qaeda and Taliban ignore this condition.

(c) That of carrying arms openly;-- al Qaeda ignores this condition.

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.-- al Qaeda and Taliban ignore this condition.

Kill the bastards on the battlefield.

[tatsinfla]

kill them first...if we must take prisinor the torture the hell out em for info....but if we kill them then the left wants to prosecute the military....

[SunkenCiv]

Make Nowak wear undies on his head!!!