Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama is BOUND BY LAW to prosecute torture. [View all]Scuba
(53,475 posts)39. Citation? Case law?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
280 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Well maybe he is using his Executive Discretion to not focus resources on those crimes. nt
kelly1mm
Dec 2014
#4
You are right but are conflating two processes. Congress should have Impeached AND
TheKentuckian
Dec 2014
#17
It is so chilling to me to see the constant drumming for torture to be excused because of 9-11. Note
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#18
Authoritarians by definition have to blindly follow their chosen leader. If that leader
rhett o rick
Dec 2014
#11
The torture apologists. Those that claim he is not breaking the law by his failure to prosecute
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#19
The world is and has been prosectuing. Italy, Spain and now Germany. But no matter,
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#23
That is not what your link says. There's not a word about Germany "prosecuting" in that story.
MADem
Dec 2014
#191
Your question implies that you would rather the torturers NOT be prosecuted. Am I
sabrina 1
Dec 2014
#270
The Constitution also requires the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
PoliticAverse
Dec 2014
#9
Yes, that is the law. But surely your suggestion is not that Obama is legally obligated to prosecute?
tritsofme
Dec 2014
#10
The law allows the Attorney General prosecutorial discretion, as I pointed out in our other exchange
phleshdef
Dec 2014
#214
Prosecutorial discretion is not overridden by the Geneva Convention or any other law or treaty.
phleshdef
Dec 2014
#219
That's incorrect, the Geneva Conventions do, as I said, explicitly override and allow no discretion.
eomer
Dec 2014
#261
The Geneva Conventions don't have the power to override prosecutorial discretion.
phleshdef
Dec 2014
#262
Treaties are international law not American law. Different beast altogether. n/t
A Simple Game
Dec 2014
#159
Signed treaties are US law. That's why they want to do the TPP as a treaty.
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#194
"Prosecutorial discretion" sounds like a bullshit excuse for corruption to me.
Jamastiene
Dec 2014
#106
It can be used as a "bullshit excuse", but its still a perfectly legal bullshit excuse.
phleshdef
Dec 2014
#215
Now you argue torture protects him. It does not. He may be held accountable
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#260
I don't know where you get your information or if you really read the content of other posts.
branford
Dec 2014
#275
He must "submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. " That is
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#21
The onus for proving a claim lies with the one making the claim. Here, these may help you.
Scuba
Dec 2014
#49
Show me some case law where a President's discretion was reviewed on a legally similar situation.
Scuba
Dec 2014
#52
In that case, the onus is on you to support the claim that broad prosecutorial discretion...
phleshdef
Dec 2014
#114
As said elsewhere on this thread, prosecutorial discretion is a euphemism for cronyism.
Scuba
Dec 2014
#116
That may be so, in some cases, but its still describes the very real legal leeway the...
phleshdef
Dec 2014
#117
Yet no one on this thread has been able to support the idea by citing case law in a similar case.
Scuba
Dec 2014
#118
Lets get one thing straight, I would not oppose charges for those who were responsible for torture.
phleshdef
Dec 2014
#175
You are completely wrong and you completely ignored the thorough debunking I provided you.
phleshdef
Dec 2014
#213
The part where you continue to ignore the existence of prosecutorial discretion.
phleshdef
Dec 2014
#220
In fact, he could ask the AG to investigate torturing innocent people to death over breakfast!
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#264
Repeating the same thing over and over without any links to back up your claims
FourScore
Dec 2014
#73
IANAL so please bear that in mind as you read my response. My layperson's
KingCharlemagne
Dec 2014
#246
Doesn't matter. He's in violation of the law. Worse, he could be considered complicit in war crimes,
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#22
There is no wiggle room for these atrocities. Including our illegal invasion of Iraq.
Rex
Dec 2014
#143
If it was a Republican in office, there would be howls on this board for prosecutions
BrotherIvan
Dec 2014
#156
He's deported more people than Bush! The problem here is that his failure to prosecute may well end
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#26
Dick Cheney has a single digit approval rating. No one is going to war to save Dick from
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#199
By that measure, he's also "bound by law" to raid all medical marijuana operations.
cheapdate
Dec 2014
#30
Failure to do so may result in he himself being complicit in the war crimes.
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#180
War crimes are a different legal animal than legalized MMJ. Is their a more heinous crime than
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#252
Not by international treaty, he isn't. You're comparing apples to oranges to
KingCharlemagne
Dec 2014
#72
Thank you for this. I got to your post about an hour after you posted it and
KingCharlemagne
Dec 2014
#131
Both parties are not shy about employing the criminal just system against one another.
branford
Dec 2014
#234
But the United States qualified its ratification of this convention with "reservations."
Vattel
Dec 2014
#28
Look, I read the convention and I provided documentation to prove what I'm saying.
MADem
Dec 2014
#60
Your reading is clearly inaccurate, and any expert in international law would tell you that.
Vattel
Dec 2014
#126
Methinks the reason there is so much "wiggle room" is that the signatories -- not just the US --
Nuclear Unicorn
Dec 2014
#91
are you saying it is impractical for him to fulfill his legal obligations under the treaty?
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#178
"thereby rendering the treaty moot... There would be no point in having the law in the first place."
Nuclear Unicorn
Dec 2014
#94
They're no more special than most drug crimes, which are also governed by treaty.
ColesCountyDem
Dec 2014
#97
You are right. Which is why the State eventually degenerates into a self-mocking farce. nt
Nuclear Unicorn
Dec 2014
#115
Exactly. In the interest of full disclosure, however, I support prosecutions for torture. n/t
ColesCountyDem
Dec 2014
#119
"In the interest of full disclosure, however, I support prosecutions for torture."
Nuclear Unicorn
Dec 2014
#122
The ONLY thing I expect Obama to do is full pardons all around. Sweep it under the rug and keep look
blkmusclmachine
Dec 2014
#54
I think Holder should either prosecute or resign. Preferably the former.
True Blue Door
Dec 2014
#66
Exactly. This is a President who knows the value of imposing Catch 22s on the other side.
True Blue Door
Dec 2014
#69
Well, I strained my old eyes and found that post, and see that I already replied to it.
MADem
Dec 2014
#123
History books are written by the victors, he won. He will not be accountable in life and his
TheKentuckian
Dec 2014
#105
A pariah? He is regularly on television, wealthy, and influentia with tentacles still on the levers
TheKentuckian
Dec 2014
#167
I have no doubt of that, I won't waste a second excusing, wiping, dangling, or overlooking crimes
TheKentuckian
Dec 2014
#208
Torture is a crime. It's not nebulous. Claiming it is, is disturbing. "Less kind" is your solution
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#209
Yeah, but Democrat or Republican, none of the laws really apply to that class of people.
Jamastiene
Dec 2014
#104
Amazes me how confident people are that torture hasn't occurred under this administration. nt.
NCTraveler
Dec 2014
#137
Presidents enforce (or don't enforce) laws based on politics and what they like/don't like...
MadDAsHell
Dec 2014
#144
I don't think ANYONE--save Cheney--would "defend" torture. That argument, that anyone would,
MADem
Dec 2014
#237
I'm a Golden Rule type, myself--and not that "Whoever has the gold makes the rules"
MADem
Dec 2014
#245
I'm a "You can show someone the logic, but you can't make them understand it" type, myself.
ColesCountyDem
Dec 2014
#247
I dunno. Is arresting someone who admitted torturing innocent people to death too much to ask?
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#176
Let's hope so... or if America collapses like Nazi Germany, he may find himself in deep trouble.
grahamhgreen
Dec 2014
#210