General Discussion

branford

(4,462 posts)

218. I passed two bar exams.

Wed Dec 24, 2014, 09:16 PM

Dec 2014

New York and New Jersey, and am a trial lawyer in NYC.

I do not support torture, but that is not the operative question.

Assuming arguendo that the relevant treaties actually demand domestic prosecution for torture, as I've indicated in a number of other posts in this thread, there are no legal means, and I don't know who would have standing if there were, to actually compel any executive branch official to commence a torture prosecution if they choose not to do so, as Obama has explicitly decided.

Similar legal issues and American political imperatives would make it even more difficult to extradite a current or former American official to stand trial for torture before a foreign tribunal, and unless the ICC intends to engage in combat with American armed forces, no American official will be involuntarily detained or subject to rendition.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

280 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama is BOUND BY LAW to prosecute torture. [View all] grahamhgreen Dec 2014 OP

k&r.... spanone Dec 2014 #1

thank you for your constant commitment to justice grasswire Dec 2014 #2

bound by common human decency Agony Dec 2014 #3

Well maybe he is using his Executive Discretion to not focus resources on those crimes. nt kelly1mm Dec 2014 #4

I've been saying this since what they were doing first hit the news. shraby Dec 2014 #5

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

Smoke screen activated ad nauseam Mira Dec 2014 #56

K&R!!!! newfie11 Dec 2014 #6

This message was self-deleted by its author Corruption Inc Dec 2014 #7

Authoritarians by definition have to blindly follow their chosen leader. If that leader rhett o rick Dec 2014 #11

"apologists" for the Democratic President on Democratic Underground? VanillaRhapsody Dec 2014 #15

The torture apologists. Those that claim he is not breaking the law by his failure to prosecute grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #19

who does that? VanillaRhapsody Dec 2014 #20

The world is and has been prosectuing. Italy, Spain and now Germany. But no matter, grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #23

Not so far they aren't VanillaRhapsody Dec 2014 #24

There are more fertile fields to cultivate. Scuba Dec 2014 #38

Link to Germany prosecuting? nt. NCTraveler Dec 2014 #138

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025992615 grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #140

Still waiting for a link that shows Germany is prosecuting. NCTraveler Dec 2014 #141

here grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #177

That is not what your link says. There's not a word about Germany "prosecuting" in that story. MADem Dec 2014 #191

Quote: grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #193

Bad News for you--the European Center is NOT "Germany." MADem Dec 2014 #239

Your question implies that you would rather the torturers NOT be prosecuted. Am I sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #270

At least we agree that torture should always be prosecuted, right? grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #82

The world has been prosecuting them for years now. sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #269

Torture is evil, and is universally understood to be criminal. delrem Dec 2014 #92

Where are the prosecutions for torture, VanillaRhapsody? Scootaloo Dec 2014 #201

when I hear those same Duers screaming about so-called "hero worship" of cops Skittles Dec 2014 #45

Hang on... OilemFirchen Dec 2014 #59

There's a difference between a law and an authority. CJCRANE Dec 2014 #95

I think you're confusing "imply" and "infer" LanternWaste Dec 2014 #148

Beg to differ. truebluegreen Dec 2014 #251

The administration Old Codger Dec 2014 #8

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

Link? OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #13

Link for what? tritsofme Dec 2014 #16

To your claim about Obama and the DoJ OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #34

Google might be your best shot. tritsofme Dec 2014 #36

You made the claim; now, prove it. OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #37

I am not the one making an extraordinary claim here. tritsofme Dec 2014 #40

Tell me where Obama and Holder can ignore an obligation OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #43

The President has prosecutorial discretion SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2014 #96

They can't Aerows Dec 2014 #266

No, educate yourself on "prosecutorial discretion". phleshdef Dec 2014 #46

I think you would do well Aerows Dec 2014 #206

The law allows the Attorney General prosecutorial discretion, as I pointed out in our other exchange phleshdef Dec 2014 #214

By being a signatory Aerows Dec 2014 #217

Prosecutorial discretion is not overridden by the Geneva Convention or any other law or treaty. phleshdef Dec 2014 #219

Yes it is overridden, explicitly, by the Geneva Conventions. eomer Dec 2014 #243

That does not mean prosecutorial discretion is overriden. phleshdef Dec 2014 #248

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

And your basis for saying that is what? eomer Dec 2014 #265

Here you are. bornskeptic Dec 2014 #57

that's not proof. That's just a definition of prosecutorial discretion. FourScore Dec 2014 #71

Of course it doesn't. If it did grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #83

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

They have to become US law first hack89 Dec 2014 #273

"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

Excuse for what? grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #253

Choosing not to prosecute anyone in the prior administration. nt branford Dec 2014 #256

An excuse for torture. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #257

Complain to the American voters and Founding Fathers. branford Dec 2014 #258

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

How is pot legal in Washington and Colorado joeglow3 Dec 2014 #64

Say they can pick and choose, which I don't dispute JonLP24 Dec 2014 #223

He must "submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. " That is grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #21

"He" who? OilemFirchen Dec 2014 #27

Since obama is the AG's boss, the onus falls to him. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #151

He can ask. OilemFirchen Dec 2014 #153

He is required to. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #179

The executive has broad prosecutorial discretion tritsofme Dec 2014 #29

Citation? Case law? Scuba Dec 2014 #39

Stop being lazy and use google. phleshdef Dec 2014 #47

The onus for proving a claim lies with the one making the claim. Here, these may help you. Scuba Dec 2014 #49

Common Knowledge does not have to be cited.... Cryptoad Dec 2014 #51

Show me some case law where a President's discretion was reviewed on a legally similar situation. Scuba Dec 2014 #52

I'd be surprised Aerows Jan 2015 #277

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

No. The Onus rests on President Obama Aerows Dec 2014 #174

Lets get one thing straight, I would not oppose charges for those who were responsible for torture. phleshdef Dec 2014 #175

The Geneva Convention Aerows Dec 2014 #186

This has nothing to do with shielding any President. phleshdef Dec 2014 #195

You do realize that the Attorney General Aerows Dec 2014 #204

You are completely wrong and you completely ignored the thorough debunking I provided you. phleshdef Dec 2014 #213

What statements did I make that are "completely wrong"? Aerows Dec 2014 #216

The part where you continue to ignore the existence of prosecutorial discretion. phleshdef Dec 2014 #220

The part that you don't like Aerows Dec 2014 #221

You haven't been paying attention. phleshdef Dec 2014 #222

"You haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying" Aerows Dec 2014 #224

Wow, "a wall of text" = I can't bother to hear what you have to say. phleshdef Dec 2014 #226

tl;dr Aerows Dec 2014 #228

What? phleshdef Dec 2014 #229

Is this where I enquire whether or not you speak English? n/t Aerows Dec 2014 #230

Wait Bobbie Jo Dec 2014 #271

"Prosecutorial discretion" is a bullshit excuse for cronyism. Jamastiene Dec 2014 #107

Well said. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #142

+1 n/t BeanMusical Dec 2014 #161

It is. Aerows Dec 2014 #207

In fact, he could ask the AG to investigate torturing innocent people to death over breakfast! grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #264

Obama is the executive. The attorney general serves at Obama's discretion. JDPriestly Dec 2014 #62

Repeating the same thing over and over without any links to back up your claims FourScore Dec 2014 #73

Not when it comes to war crimes. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #85

This isi No, 7 in the international treaty cited above: JDPriestly Dec 2014 #61

+1 grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #254

Article 7 suggests that the U.S. government, no matter who KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #68

Thank you! grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #86

That is NOT what that says at all. MADem Dec 2014 #244

IANAL so please bear that in mind as you read my response. My layperson's KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #246

Kick n/t Oilwellian Dec 2014 #259

Did you bother to read the treaty? SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #187

They prosecute pot smokers. Which in your opinion, does more harm to sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #272

If he did I think it would backfire politically doc03 Dec 2014 #12

Doesn't matter. He's in violation of the law. Worse, he could be considered complicit in war crimes, grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #22

+1! Enthusiast Dec 2014 #109

The 13th Amendment backfired politically. BrotherIvan Dec 2014 #48

Way to go, BrotherIvan! Enthusiast Dec 2014 #108

These arguments from so-called "Democrats" never cease to shock me! BrotherIvan Dec 2014 #132

There is no wiggle room for these atrocities. Including our illegal invasion of Iraq. Rex Dec 2014 #143

That slippery slope has been well greased BrotherIvan Dec 2014 #155

Exactly. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #145

If it was a Republican in office, there would be howls on this board for prosecutions BrotherIvan Dec 2014 #156

Precisely. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #157

Doesn't anyone think of the victims? JonLP24 Dec 2014 #225

The propaganda has worked BrotherIvan Dec 2014 #227

So torture gets a pass for political expediency. Scootaloo Dec 2014 #202

The Powers That Be SamKnause Dec 2014 #14

Obama is also bound by law to seek to deport those unlawfully in our country. branford Dec 2014 #25

He's deported more people than Bush! The problem here is that his failure to prosecute may well end grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #26

How many people he deported is not really the issue, and you know that. branford Dec 2014 #32

Dick Cheney has a single digit approval rating. No one is going to war to save Dick from grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #199

It's not about Cheney personally, it's about American nationalism, pride, branford Dec 2014 #203

No--see my comments below--your snippets avoided some qualifying language. nt MADem Dec 2014 #42

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

Exactly as his failure to prosecute medical marijuana operators cheapdate Dec 2014 #249

War crimes are a different legal animal than legalized MMJ. Is their a more heinous crime than grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #252

It does not matter whether war crimes are more heinous than marijuana. branford Dec 2014 #255

Yes. There are more heinous crimes. cheapdate Dec 2014 #276

Not by international treaty, he isn't. You're comparing apples to oranges to KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #72

That's not entirely true. branford Dec 2014 #78

Responses to your points freedom fighter jh Dec 2014 #120

Thank you for this. I got to your post about an hour after you posted it and KingCharlemagne Dec 2014 #131

Thank you for your kind words, King Charlemagne. nt freedom fighter jh Dec 2014 #163

Sigh . . . branford Dec 2014 #146

"Sigh"? freedom fighter jh Dec 2014 #164

You really don't disagree with, at least for the most part, branford Dec 2014 #165

Your arguing that all of our treaty obligations are without substance. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #182

First part of Obama's executive order JonLP24 Dec 2014 #231

Please read my numerous posts on the thread. branford Dec 2014 #232

I couldn't advise you JonLP24 Dec 2014 #233

Both parties are not shy about employing the criminal just system against one another. branford Dec 2014 #234

I don't quite see the doom and gloom you do JonLP24 Dec 2014 #235

But the United States qualified its ratification of this convention with "reservations." Vattel Dec 2014 #28

Thank you. Well said. cheapdate Dec 2014 #31

Excellent post, the CIA did all of those things to prisoners. Rex Dec 2014 #158

No one tells the United States of America what it can and cannot do. DeSwiss Dec 2014 #33

The Picard once said treaties are not laws BootinUp Dec 2014 #35

Ratified treaties become law. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #136

Do you have a link? Ah, never mind--I found a copy... MADem Dec 2014 #41

What you are saying is incorrect. Vattel Dec 2014 #55

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

You're trying to insist that the UCMJ doesn't constitute "internal law" MADem Dec 2014 #127

Of course UCMJ is internal law. I never denied that, of course. Vattel Dec 2014 #128

"In their right mind" eh? So you're going there? MADem Dec 2014 #129

I apologize for the personal insult. It was uncalled for. Vattel Dec 2014 #130

You're saying what I said. MADem Dec 2014 #172

No, I disagree with what you said for the reasons I gave. Vattel Dec 2014 #196

Well, to be clear, here are my views--torture is bad and we should not do it. MADem Dec 2014 #263

Methinks the reason there is so much "wiggle room" is that the signatories -- not just the US -- Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #91

Precisely. No nation signs these things with the idea that they MADem Dec 2014 #98

"Of course, the devil, as always, is in the details." Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #101

If you're "in with the in crowd," well, "the devil made me do it!" MADem Dec 2014 #102

"I'm not endorsing torture here" SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #188

Oh just stop it. Stop characterizing my remarks. That's LAME. MADem Dec 2014 #190

good luck with that Skittles Dec 2014 #44

I'll alert the media n/t Lil Missy Dec 2014 #50

Two words: prosecutorial discretion. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #53

War crimes are a special case. If prosecutorial discretion was allowed grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #81

Would you kindly care to cite the "war crimes exception" branford Dec 2014 #87

Complicity grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #135

The Nuremberg Principles are used to establish what is a war crime. branford Dec 2014 #147

Article 4 and 7 clearly indicate that the torturer must grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #150

Again . . . branford Dec 2014 #154

are you saying it is impractical for him to fulfill his legal obligations under the treaty? grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #178

He is saying the President can't be forced to prosecute hack89 Dec 2014 #274

"thereby rendering the treaty moot... There would be no point in having the law in the first place." Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #94

I'll take it. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #183

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

Couldn't have expressed it better myself! ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #124

Thank-you. That's very kind of you. nt Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2014 #125

Who decides when there is enough evidence to prosecute? treestar Dec 2014 #134

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

K&R JEB Dec 2014 #58

The Attorney General is bound by law to prosecute torture. True Blue Door Dec 2014 #63

Bingo. OilemFirchen Dec 2014 #65

I think Holder should either prosecute or resign. Preferably the former. True Blue Door Dec 2014 #66

I was, of course, being facetious... OilemFirchen Dec 2014 #67

Exactly. This is a President who knows the value of imposing Catch 22s on the other side. True Blue Door Dec 2014 #69

One problem branford Dec 2014 #70

That's a likely scenario, with two caveats: OilemFirchen Dec 2014 #75

Our country is, and the buck stops at the President. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #80

"Buck stops"...you realize that was a slogan, not an actual fact? True Blue Door Dec 2014 #84

Hold on! branford Dec 2014 #88

not really arely staircase Dec 2014 #74

so, in your view, he's above the law. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #76

yeah, that is totally what I said. nt arely staircase Dec 2014 #77

In the case of war crimes and torture, this is not the case. If it were, grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #79

You're starting catch on, I just don't think you like the implications. nt branford Dec 2014 #89

You don't really think that matters, do you? Prophet 451 Dec 2014 #90

So many people in effect defending Cheney with their fine points of "law". delrem Dec 2014 #93

Who's defending Cheney? MADem Dec 2014 #99

Ah. A "reality based" response. Who'da figured? delrem Dec 2014 #100

Not sure what that means, maybe you can elucidate? MADem Dec 2014 #103

see post #93. nt delrem Dec 2014 #121

Well, I strained my old eyes and found that post, and see that I already replied to it. MADem Dec 2014 #123

I just find the discussion VERY distasteful. delrem Dec 2014 #149

This message was self-deleted by its author MADem Dec 2014 #110

History books are written by the victors, he won. He will not be accountable in life and his TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #105

Now that, I don't accept. He didn't "win." He's a pariah. MADem Dec 2014 #111

A pariah? He is regularly on television, wealthy, and influentia with tentacles still on the levers TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #167

He has shown none of the so-called "shame" mentioned, nor any remorse. delrem Dec 2014 #168

Who is claiming he's been "punished enough by his shame?" MADem Dec 2014 #192

It's clear that you hold a point of view that is entirely MADem Dec 2014 #169

It's clear that you hold a point of view that is entirely MADem Dec 2014 #170

It's clear that you hold a point of view that is entirely MADem Dec 2014 #171

I have no doubt of that, I won't waste a second excusing, wiping, dangling, or overlooking crimes TheKentuckian Dec 2014 #208

Even pariahs are accepted in the salons of other pariahs. MADem Dec 2014 #241

Torture is a crime. It's not nebulous. Claiming it is, is disturbing. "Less kind" is your solution grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #209

Who said torture is NOT a crime? Who said the act of torture is nebulous? MADem Dec 2014 #236

Yeah, but Democrat or Republican, none of the laws really apply to that class of people. Jamastiene Dec 2014 #104

Wow! I'm with you, Jamastiene. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #113

"soft on Republicans and their crimes" BeanMusical Dec 2014 #162

laws only apply to the poor and the voiceless BubbaFett Dec 2014 #112

So he can be prosecuted for not prosecuting? treestar Dec 2014 #133

Amazes me how confident people are that torture hasn't occurred under this administration. nt. NCTraveler Dec 2014 #137

This is not law, it is a treaty. Glassunion Dec 2014 #139

Torture is illegal under us code as well. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #184

Presidents enforce (or don't enforce) laws based on politics and what they like/don't like... MadDAsHell Dec 2014 #144

No doubt the responders on this thread, having passed their bar exams LanternWaste Dec 2014 #152

If I'm reading your sarcasm correctly, OnyxCollie Dec 2014 #197

I passed 3, actually. ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #200

Would you ever defend torture? grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #211

Of course not. n/t ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #212

I don't think ANYONE--save Cheney--would "defend" torture. That argument, that anyone would, MADem Dec 2014 #237

Thank you for saying it! ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #238

You are entirely welcome, and season's greetings to you! MADem Dec 2014 #240

You're entirely correct, and season's greetings to you, too! ColesCountyDem Dec 2014 #242

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 passed two bar exams. branford Dec 2014 #218

Laws don't apply to Superpowers . . . another_liberal Dec 2014 #160

k & r & a-fuckin-men ! n/t wildbilln864 Dec 2014 #166

Says who? This President inherited shit and tried akbacchus_BC Dec 2014 #173

I dunno. Is arresting someone who admitted torturing innocent people to death too much to ask? grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #176

Apparently it is.. SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #189

Executive Orders Don’t Last G_j Dec 2014 #181

Can't he issue an executive order to defer enforcement of this law? n/t hughee99 Dec 2014 #185

Obviously that makes sense JonLP24 Dec 2014 #198

I believe he will. maced666 Dec 2014 #205

Let's hope so... or if America collapses like Nazi Germany, he may find himself in deep trouble. grahamhgreen Dec 2014 #210

And the punishment for not doing so is the committee created by the treaty in Art. 21 will write a RB TexLa Dec 2014 #250

Not to mention common human decency. Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2014 #267

That, too. n/t Aerows Jan 2015 #278

This thread should not sink Aerows Dec 2014 #268

K&R liberal_at_heart Jan 2015 #279

Thank you Aerows Jan 2015 #280