Obama is BOUND BY LAW to prosecute torture.

[branford]

165. You really don't disagree with, at least for the most part,

and I'm at a loss as to why you so stridently disagreed with my prior points that you now appear to generally concede.

In any event, I willing to go a step farther than you, in that I don't believe that there is much dispute among most of the American people that some type of torture in fact occurred and, if the president was so inclined, he could prosecute everyone from Bush and Cheney on downward, regardless of any treaty. That does not mean that I believe any prosecutor could necessarily procure torture convictions.

The real issues as I see them are that a similar large majority of Americans don't really care that we tortured or believe it was wholly justified or deserved, and regardless, have no inclination for prosecution and the spectacle it would entail (it would require a monumental cultural and legal shift before a foreign prosecution of an American official could be openly discussed). More practically, every president and administration takes actions, particularly in the international sphere, that are, shall we say "dubious" from a human rights / war crimes perspective, and given the size of government, a great many additional officials are involved in varying capacities. There are and will be no prosecutions because of what amounts to simple mutually assured destruction.

If Obama prosecuted any Bush official, it would be an almost certain guarantee that Obama too would be later prosecuted for good cause, and even if another Democrat was subsequently elected president, there are enough people in the know to leak sufficient information to politically assure key Democrats would later criminally suffer. It would require a new administration that was so pure in deed and compliant in law that they and key allies and friends would be immune to risk once out of office. Successful politicians are people who are ambitious and willing to play dirty. The president, as both the civilian leader and commander-in-chief of the USA, a highly politicized democracy, will by necessity, inclination and duty generally do what they believe necessary to protect the safety of American, even if the methods might be "questionable." If the choice is between thousands or more dead Americans and the letter of the law, the law will lose every time. Accordingly, I cannot envision a political unicorn so saintly that they could actually be elected president and would be immune to the security and safety pressures that Obama, and every president before him, face on a regular basis. There's a reason why presidents from both parties go gray so fast . . .

I also certainly understand the discussion by some of what certain treaties may require or intend to occur. However, it's foolish to permit those that appear unfamiliar with the political and legal process to continually insist that some mechanism exists that would force Obama to prosecute Bush and his ilk. It may feel good, but such decisions are really discretionary, regardless of the text of a treaty or the nobility of the cause.