General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama is BOUND BY LAW to prosecute torture. [View all]branford
(4,462 posts)My point has not been whether torture prosecutions would be just or proper, or even a dispute about the text of any treaties. My comments about not enforcing immigration or marijuana laws were simplifications of basic separation of powers and prosecutorial and presidential discretion arguments. However, there are no constitutional overrides to these legal fundamentals for torture.
Rather, Obama has already stated that he will not prosecute. I'm a trial attorney, and unless you can advise me on what mechanism Obama can be compelled to commence prosecutions, and who would have standing to do so, the issue is moot. Just because a treaty says something must be done, does not necessarily mean there is a procedure under American jurisprudence to accomplish the goal. In fact, the treaty at issue even contemplates that a country will not domestically prosecute. This is hardly the first time this has occurred in America or elsewhere, and it will not be the last.
I also discuss the fundamental political reasons why neither Obama nor any future president will prosecute despite anything that purportedly is required by treaty or any other law, domestic or international. Without repeating my other posts, he's simple covering his own rear end and those of his friends and allies. This may be distasteful, but still fairly indisputable.
Note also that if parties attempted to force any prosecutions, Obama could simply exercise his broad constitutional pardon and commutation powers to decisively end any chance of domestic prosecutions forever.