General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama is BOUND BY LAW to prosecute torture. [View all]branford
(4,462 posts)1. I'm quite familiar with the text of the Supremacy Clause, I studied it extensively in law school in both my Constitutional Law and Conflicts of Laws classes, and it's even come up a couple of time in my litigation practice. You apparently can use Google. Try researching "conflict of laws treaty constitution" for numerous explanations, both scholarly and layman, about how the explicit text of the Constitution cannot be abrogated by any treaty. In the event of any conflict between a treaty and the Constitution, the Constitution must prevail. If you know any attorneys you like or trust, ask them the question. Any first year law student, no less an experienced litigator, knows fundamental Supremacy Clause jurisprudence.
2.The issue of who could possibly compel the president to initiate prosecutions is highly relevant because he has explicitly stated that he will not prosecute anyone from his or any prior administrations. All the repeated discussions about how he "must" prosecute are academic, if not amusing, unless someone actually has the power to make him do so.
3. You're discussing what you believe we should do, not what domestic law actually requires or politics demands. Countries often withdraw or reserve their rights not to follow certain parts of treaties or simply ignore certain terms. Welcome to international politics. Countries enter into and abide by treaties because they believe its in their interests, and ignore them for the same reasons. You can state what you believe the American people feel or think, but our actual elected representatives of both parties do not appear to agree, and it has not hurt the electoral prospects of either party except among the fringe.
4. Again, you're discussing why you believe we should comply with the treaty (to the extent the text actually requires certain actions), not how you intend to effectuate compliance when the president and the majority of both political parties have made it abundantly clear that there will be no prosecutions. I do not entirely disagree that ignoring the treaty sets a bad precedent for international comity, but this will not be the first time a country ignores some or all of a treaty, and it will not be the last. Nevertheless, the vast majority of treaties among countries, ranging from tyrannies to liberal democracies, with continue to negotiate and implement treaties because all parties mutually benefit. Countries eagerly try to enter into treaties with the USA all the time for reasons of trade, security and far more mundane matters, and the torture prosecution issue will barely be a blip in short or long term international relations, particularly because many of the more relevant countries have their own human rights problems that we'll politely ignore or make noise but few actual demands for treaty enforcement.
Now, as it pertains to KingCharlemagne's post, would you care to explain how President Obama will be forced to commence torture prosecutions in the USA if, as he has expressly and repeatedly stated, he chooses not to, or by what practical mechanism any high American official will be extradited, no less be forceably removed, to stand trial in a foreign tribunal?