The biggest reason why President Bush will not be prosecuted for torture

[Savannahmann]

75. But there is a problem with that.

First, the courts have already ruled that they have no jurisdiction over any crime that takes place outside of US Territory. That stemmed from the bounty hunters who would kidnap a wanted felon hiding in a non extradition nation. The courts ruled that they have no jurisdiction over those crimes, and worse, it didn't matter how the criminal arrived in the US, so long as he was there.

A long discussion on the issue is here. http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1333&context=facpub

So tortures that took place in black prisons in nations like Poland are under the jurisdiction of Poland, not the US. It could also be under the jurisdiction of the ICC, if we were a member of the International Criminal Court. We aren't, so we can't do anything about that now, even if President Obama signed the agreement, it would never be ratified by the Senate. No way to get sixty votes much less then 67 we would need.

So the courts would have no jurisdiction, and the ICC is not an option unless we're invaded and the invaders win and turn our criminals over to the ICC. That is also not going to happen.

So who has been prosecuted? Robert Lady. He was a CIA station chief in Italy who was convicted of Kidnapping and Torture. So far he's not served a day because we won't extradite him.

Conspiracy wouldn't work either, since those who plotted the kidnappings of those aforementioned wanted men did so in the US, and were never prosecuted either.

Now, unless you want to turn the Bush Co Cabal over to a foreign nation to be tried, and I caution you to consider that carefully. Because if we do that then Air Force One would have to deliver President Obama to some nation to face trial for the Drone Strikes and Special Forces/CIA Black Ops teams activities on January 20th 2017.

So if the torture takes place physically here, in the United States, then the US Courts could have Jurisdiction, unless such things are prohibited by the Patriot Act.

Oh, and Treaties have the force of Federal Law, not equal to or superseding Constitutional law. In other words if a Treaty is in violation of the Constitution, it is subservient to the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

Now a case could be brought before the UN Security Council saying that the United States should be sanctioned for violating the treaty. But since we can, and certainly would Veto the move then the world is powerless to hold us accountable through "legal channels". That does not mean we can't be punished in some way, or we won't pay, but it will be extralegal instead of strict legalities.

I suppose a case could be made that President Bush engaged in a conspiracy, but the Constitution only has one punishment outlined for a President who violates law while in office, and that is removal from office through Impeachment. It doesn't specifically prohibit further criminal charges, but that is a Constitutional Law question that would take years to work its way towards resolution. Any guesses on how that turns out?