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]Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)91. Methinks the reason there is so much "wiggle room" is that the signatories -- not just the US --
wanted to preserve some space for them to wiggle if they themselves ever felt the need.
Many talk about how the US has "no moral authority" to lecture other nations about human rights abuse, acts of terror etc. but I can't help but wonder which nations have the right to lecture us -- or anyone else for that matter.
It's all one big system designed to be gamed so that it can defend itself more than it can defend those under its control. They fear the absence of the system more than they fear threats of change to the system.
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