The Obama administration effectively states that torture was legal

[derby378]

Let me see if I get this straight.

Eric Holder told the CIA that no interrogator would face criminal charges for waterboarding, the strappado, or any other form of torture provided he "followed reasonable legal advice."

Obama then comes out and says that "This is a time for reflection, not retribution."

In other words, Obama caved in. He has effectively declared that torture, from the issuance of those DoJ memos up until 1/21/09, was permitted by American law.

I need a good, stiff drink.

[Taverner]

1. He did not want to be the next American Sitting President to be assasinated

I don't blame him, personally

Yes, justice was not served - but we still have our president. Given the alternatives, I'd rather Obama sacrifice his conscience than his life...

[Luminous Animal]

2. And you know this, how? (n/t)

[Taverner]

5. I've read a history book or two

Kennedy was taken down simply for trying to end the Cold War. He wanted to leave Cuba alone, and pull out of Vietnam, which was escalating quickly.

Our man may be in, but the CIA is still the CIA, and they don't play nice.

[derby378]

38. Counterpoint - how was it that the Bush administration hobbled the CIA?

Someone in the White House gave the green light to "out" Valerie Plame because of her husband's revelation that Herr Decider was lying to the American people about Iraq's alleged WMDs. With Valerie Plame came Brewster Jennings, a CIA front company that monitored development of nuclear weapons. With Brewster Jennings came the likely death of CIA agents around the world who had their cover blown by their association with Plame.

The sitting POTUS is capable of doing significant damage to the CIA with the slash of a pen.

[EFerrari]

68. The dynamics are different right now. Cheney/Rumsfeld did declare war

on Tenet and he lost. Then, they got their long time hitman, Porter Goss, in there.

But, Obama doesn't have the history or the back up that Cheney/Rumsfeld did, nor does he have the power.

It wouldn't be surprising at all if he was tilting with them right now. :shrug:

[Zodiak]

87. I agree...but couldn't type it fast enough. n/t

[Zodiak]

86. There were lots of ways Bush %#%#$ed with the CIA

Getting Porter Goss in there was a real shake-up as well because the spooks did not like him. Goss used his time in the CIA to do some purges, and I bet many of those purges had to do with Plame's allies.

Also, we need to consider the considerable political assets that backed Bush....the Carlyle group, a mercenary army, plus many of Cheney's moles. Screwing with the Bushes (who are steeped deeply in CIA assets as well) is a far more troublesome thing than screwing with Obama, who frankly does not have that many political assets capable of assassination, warfare, drugs, or $$$$$$$$.

So Bush's power as President was far greater in terms of naked force than Obama's. Sad, but an unfortunate reality.

[Taverner]

104. Yes, and the CIA dropped all cover for W after that, poppy or no poppy

[Zodiak]

80. Yesterday's Washington Post had a very strange article...

...where the CIA was "warning" Obama against releasing the torture memos. Keith had mentioned that the CIA was threatening the President, basically, and I cannot rule out that the threat was entirely imagined.

Hard to base our strategy on such a notion since we will never be able to confirm it, but if it is true, it is a very valid reason to not want to shake the CIA up, and I happen to agree with the above poster that I would rather have Obama in there alive than get immediate results on the torture front from his administration plus a new American martyr.

[derby378]

85. I noticed that, too

But I still contend that the sitting POTUS can do serious damage to the CIA, re: Valerie Plame.

[Zodiak]

90. I am not disagreeing with that point

You are right that the POTUS can do a lot of damage to the CIA.

In fact, I was telling my wife that he should dissolve the CIA altogether in response to that threat. But I know that it would take an INCREDIBLE amount of political capital to do, plus he would have declared open war on the spooks, which (other than Bush) has never worked well for Presidents in the past.

But I do think we have enough alternative spy agencies in operation to quickly fill the gap should the CIA be dissolved. That organization's entire history is full of American sin, and I think they are a blight on our reputation.

But I do not want Obama to do it...at least not now. Too dangerous, and too many immediate, more elementary, concerns that affect Americans more directly. I want THIS GUY as President for a full two terms. Joe Biden cannot accrue political capital like Obama can, and we so desperately need some kind of leftward shift with political capital behind it.

[mvd]

99. I understand, but I wish Obama hadn't have ruled it out like this

Or insisted on moving on. I'm sure the CIA has many spooks still in there that need to be challenged. :hi:

[arcadian]

140. "enough alternative spy agencies in operation to quickly fill the gap should the CIA be dissolved"

The CIA only receives something like %20 of the total Intelligence budget. The rest goes to DoD intelligence agencies.

[derby378]

7. All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

Obama is a good man. In fact, he's a great man. But he has done nothing.

So now it may be left up to the rest of the world to clean up our mess.

[Taverner]

11. Keep in mind only the CIA agents are off the hook

Not the administration, not Rummy or Cheney

And they are who are really responsible

Slogans may sound nice, but they are just that - slogans

I prefer reality

[doctor jazz]

27. If the pawns get a pass, it's virtually certain the knights and bishops will too.

grr

[havocmom]

120. um, no actually.

If you want enough good testimony to hang the ringleaders, you have to give the bag men some slack so they will talk.

[EFerrari]

28. It only lets the people who actually tortured other human beings off the hook. n/t

[havocmom]

119. Thank you for a sane post

amid a torrent of hysteria

[LakeSamish706]

14. I agree, I think we need accountability from the past and it can't just be...

swept under the table. Sure wish that the Justice Department would divorce itself completely from the White House and get on with this. Bush and cronies almost destroyed this country in 8 years, and they need to be held accountable.

[arcadian]

142. Good idea. Maybe we should make the Justice Department an arm of the Supreme court.

It needs to be dispassionate.

[LynneSin]

40. have we done nothing?

Or have we just changed our focus on the big guns - the policy makers. You put these employees behind jail the policy makers will find new employees to do their bidding. You put the policy makers behind bars it says that these kinds of policies are not accepted by America.

Think about what happened in Abu Ghraib - they went after the "employees" even though those employees were only doing the job as was told to them by their superiors. That whole investigation should have been more focused on the policy makers that said it was ok to treat those prisoners the way they were treated. A few got their hands slapped but not enough.

[tonycinla]

125. What?

It is WAY too early to call Obama a great man.Are you serious??

[glinda]

44. %500 right. I agree. What we have to worry about is Groups pushing this and even it coming

from the Republicans. I believe this would put Obama in a very dangerous position. The CIA provides intelligence. They hold information. They also help protect the President. For pete's sake, if they say to the Prez and VP that basically "if you want our continuing help.....". For crying out loud. We have a big problem.

[Political Heretic]

93. Then he shouldn't have run for fucking office.

I'm sorry, but saving your own skin is not sufficient excuse for failing to defend the constitution and the rule of law.

[Taverner]

106. Have you ever heard the expression "live to fight another day"?

Or are you hell bent on taking down every windmill you see?

Puh-LEAZE!

Save your holier than thou attitude for church

[havocmom]

121. they are not chess players either.

:banghead:

[NoSheep]

143. I honestly feel like that is probably the opposite of what is going on.

Don't you think a case that cannot fail will have to be built before anything of substance can take place as far as convictions? This case cannot be built overnight. We have to give this time. In the meantime...it isn't doing any of us any good to keep making assumptions we can't prove. it makes so much more sense to realize the immense task before the country where dealing with our current crisis is concerned and making this case. Obama cannot make anything happen unless the LEGAL case is open and shut. Otherwise..it will all be a media circus and the accusers will be let down. We have to give it time.

[Contrary1]

94. What about my conscience?

As an American, I am included in how the world views us.

I do blame him personally. He was elected to represent me and millions of others who want and need to see justice done.

[Taverner]

108. Yes, and I think we will have *some* justice

But he is not Superman. He isn't even Batman.

[ProgressIn2008]

122. So you're saying he declared torture legal to save himself? Um, WTF? nt

[LynneSin]

3. Well here's another one who didn't read the article (and this was just from the title)

it's the employees not being held accountable. Those people were just doing their jobs AND they are the people that can help us go after the RIGHT people - the Policy Makers (ie - the Bush Administration).

[derby378]

13. It's a nice sentiment, but the danger is...

...that even with the interrogators basically operating under immunity, they might not deliver the higher-ups over to the DoJ.

So George W. Bush continues to sit in his comfy house in a Dallas neighborhood that is manicured with money and cordoned off by Secret Service agents.

I am not reassured yet.

[WeDidIt]

25. The higher ups have their names on the memoes

They don't need anything from the interrogators.

[jberryhill]

152. Correct /nt

[EFerrari]

15. Are you kidding me? You're saying the torturers were only doing their jobs?

:wtf:

[LynneSin]

36. I'm saying we may not have the ability to prosecute everyone out there...

and yes, it a nutshell they were. Putting them behind bars isn't going to change the fact that policy makers out there said this was "OK" to do. That's what our tax dollars should be focused on and it sends a clear message that America will not tolerate these kinds of policies.

[EFerrari]

41. Do you not understand that these people are responsible for their actions

no matter what their job description said or what their orders were? Seriously, do you?

Who do you have to be to believe that torturing someone is LEGAL no matter what ANYONE says?

And, no, this doesn't at all send the message we will not tolerate torture. It sends the message that we will protect OUR torturers.

eta: Lynne, I'm sorry to be so blunt. His statement is sort of flabbergasting to me right now.

[LynneSin]

55. Oh I understand it - but they would just be replaced with someone else who will do the job

It's like drug dealing. The drug cartel leaders layer themselves and their dealers in a way that they are protected and our drug enforcers end up with nothing more than middle men and dime-bag pushers. You get those people off the street and you end up with new recruits doing the job. (probably why our drug policies are so fucked).

Hopefully (and yes I'm crossing my fingers here), Holder is going after the big guns - the people whose names are on those memos being released that said this policy is ok. Sure, you get rid of a 'kingpin' even they can be replaced with someone new but you'll still make a major impact on the trade overall.

[EFerrari]

58. Now. why would you use a drug dealing analogy for CIA?

:)

[LynneSin]

60. Because Drug Dealers and these CIA people are all scum

I agree with what you're saying - I think there is limited means of how much tax dollars are available. Better we go after the big guns then these 'dime-bag dealers'

I hope I'm right but hell I'm wrong on a daily basis. It'll be interesting to see what the Memos have to say.

[EFerrari]

63. chill_wind gave me this link for the doc dump:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8347766&mesg_id=8347837

[Duer 157099]

126. I also disagree with this premise about letting the "little guy" go

Let's say YOU were the person in line to replace one of the torturers. Now, are you more, or less, likely to engage in said torture if your predecessor did, or did not, get prosecuted for conducting the torture?

I assert that the next guy in line actually is DETERRED from engaging in such conduct if others before him had to bear the responsibility for THEIR actions, even when (and especially when) they were assurred that the conduct was legal.

It just might bring back the deadened consciences of many many people who "just follow orders"

There will ALWAYS be people in positions of authority who try to coerce their subordinates to act against their conscience - but if the law also condones such acquiescence, then fewer people will actually follow their conscience.

This is one of those slippery slope issues with which there should be NO compromise.

[LynneSin]

132. But if the policy makers are punished then no one will give the order to do this

They are the real criminals

[Duer 157099]

138. The real difference is that the policy makers typically believe themselves above the law

It's just apparently endemic to the system. The little guy, on the other hand, KNOWS that he's usually the one to get shafted, and so must rely on his conscience more.

I truly believe this to be the case.

[pacalo]

37. As LynneSin said, they are the people that can help us go after the RIGHT people.

Their hands are dirty & disgusting, but the ones who are most guilty are those who ordered it.

[EFerrari]

42. Excuse me, but why is this an either or proposition?

That's just a false premise.

[pacalo]

64. "I was just following orders" is the false premise because even those in uniform

should have the moral values to stand firm & say, "No, this is wrong & I will not do as ordered."

But if I were given a choice as to who would be held responsible, I would choose those who ordered it, hands down. The lawyers who were told to make up the supposed legal loopholes are the first ones who should have stood up to Bush & Cheney or resigned, & they are just as guilty.

The CIA agents who carried out the torture are guilty, too, but if they can help make the investigators' case undeniably point to Bush & Cheney, their being immunized from prosecution would be worth it.

[EFerrari]

65. I agree with that but, it isn't what Obama said.

In fact, I suggested that trading immunity for testimony would make perfect sense earlier today.

But, that isn't what is being put out by the White House.

[flyarm]

72. Exactly EFerrari..you are 100% correct! eom

[EFerrari]

76. Oh, fly.

:(

[pacalo]

81. If Obama made an under-the-table deal with the boy king, we'll eventually know it

by his actions (or non-action). This is really out of Obama's hands because there are foreign countries who have a high interest in seeing justice done. It is the U.S.'s place to prosecute, & if Obama stands in the way of prosecution, then he would be guilty of obstruction of justice, imo.

[flyarm]

69. ahhh that is just wrong..and wouldn't pass the test as proven in the Nuremberg trials!

they broke the laws of our constitution that they are supposed to defend and protect..and the treaty of the Geneva Conventions is in our constitution..they broke the law..period!!..They knew they were breaking the law! Period..and if they had any questions of breaking the Geneva Conventions ..they had an obligation and full responsbility to refuse orders! period!

[pacalo]

110. Which makes the Nuremberg trials so extraordinary.

Our politicians are apparently content to remain in an up-is-down mindset & you & Beth have made good arguments against compromising the means to get the ends.

[jberryhill]

114. No - they had an obligation to get an authoritative opinion on its legality

...which they got.

This is a step beyond the Nuremburg defense.

[flyarm]

118. wrong..the law is very explicit!

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

The law is clear. What Bush authorized was torture and was against the law.
Funny while Obama and his justice department are giving a free get out of jail card for illegal criminality by CIA agents that committed crimes.. the U.S. Department of Justice this week was allowing a former Nazi death camp guard to be deported back to Poland to face possible charges for abuses he committed while carrying out the orders of superiors.

read this and tell me those CIA officers did not break the law..read it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UN Convention Against Torture

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment



The States Parties to this Convention,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),

Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,

Have agreed as follows:



Part I
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 3
No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Article 4
Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
Article 5
Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.
Article 6
Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.
Article 7
The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.
Article 8
The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.
Article 9
States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.
Article 10
Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.
Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such persons.
Article 11
Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.


Article 12
Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.


Article 13
Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.


Article 14
Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation.
Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other person to compensation which may exist under national law.
Article 15
Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.


Article 16
Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion.
Article 17
There shall be established a Committee against Torture (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided. The Committee shall consist of 10 experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field of human rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity. The experts shall be elected by the States Parties, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution and to the usefulness of the participation of some persons having legal experience.
The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals. States Parties shall bear in mind the usefulness of nominating persons who are also members of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and are willing to serve on the Committee against Torture.
Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at biennial meetings of States Parties convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At those meetings, for which two thirds of the States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting.
The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of this Convention. At least four months before the date of each election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a letter to the States Parties inviting them to submit their nominations within three months. The Secretary-General shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all persons thus nominated, indicating the States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties.
The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election if renominated. However, the term of five of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election the names of these five members shall be chosen by lot by the chairman of the meeting referred to in paragraph 3.
If a member of the Committee dies or resigns or for any other cause can no longer perform his Committee duties, the State Party which nominated him shall appoint another expert from among its nationals to serve for the remainder of his term, subject to the approval of the majority of the States Parties. The approval shall be considered given unless half or more of the States Parties respond negatively within six weeks after having been informed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the proposed appointment.
States Parties shall be responsible for the expenses of the members of the Committee while they are in performance of Committee duties.
Article 18
The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years. They may be re-elected.
The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall provide, inter alia, that
Six members shall constitute a quorum;
Decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members present.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under this Convention.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee. After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as shall be provided in its rules of procedure.
The State Parties shall be responsible for expenses incurred in connection with the holding of meetings of the States Parties and of the Committee, including reimbursement of the United Nations for any expenses, such as the cost of staff and facilities, incurred by the United Nations pursuant to paragraph 3 above.
Article 19
The States Parties shall submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this Convention, within one year after the entry into force of this Convention for the State Party concerned. Thereafter the States Parties shall submit supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken, and such other reports as the Committee may request.
The Secretary-General shall transmit the reports to all States Parties.
The Committee may, at its discretion, decide to include any comments or suggestions made by it in accordance with paragraph 3, together with the observations thereon received from the State Party concerned, in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. If so requested by the State Party concerned, the Committee may also include a copy of the report submitted under paragraph 1.]
Article 20
If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to co-operate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned.
Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State Party concerned as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee may, if it decides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently.
If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee shall seek the co-operation of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory.
After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee shall transmit these findings to the State Party concerned together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in view of the situation.
All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this article shall be confidential, and at all stages of the proceedings the co-operation of the State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard to an inquiry made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report made in accordance with article 24.
Article 21
A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article 3 that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure:
If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions of this Convention, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three months after the receipt of the communication the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter which should include, to the extent possible and pertinent, references to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending, or available in the matter.
If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee by notice given to the Committee and to the other State.
The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it under this article only after it has ascertained that all domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.
The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.
Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (c), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the obligations provided for in the present Convention. For this purpose, the Committee may, when appropriate, set up an ad hoc conciliation commission.
In any matter referred to it under this article, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), to supply any relevant information.
The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), shall have the right to be represented when the matter is being considered by the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing.
The Committee shall, within 12 months after the date of receipt of notice under subparagraph (b), submit a report.
If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.
If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall be attached to the report.
In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned.

The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by any State Party shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.
Article 22
A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party to the Convention which has not made such a declaration.
The Committee shall consider inadmissible any communication under this article which is anonymous, or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of this Convention.
Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, the Committee shall bring any communication submitted to it under this article to the attention of the State Party to this Convention which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 and is alleged to be violating any provisions of the Convention. Within six months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State.
The Committee shall consider communications received under this article in the light of all information made available to it by or on behalf of the individual and by the State Party concerned.
The Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual under this article unless it has ascertained that:
The same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement;
The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.
The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.
The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the individual.
The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit parties thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by or on behalf of an individual shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.
Article 23
The members of the Committee, and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed under article 21, paragraph 1 (e), shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts on missions for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.


Article 24
The Committee shall submit an annual report on its activities under this Convention to the States Parties and to the General Assembly of the United Nations.


Part III
Article 25
This Convention is open for signature by all States.
This Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 26
This Convention is open to accession by all States. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.


Article 27
This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.
For each State ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession.
Article 28
Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20.
Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article may, at any time, withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 29
Any State Party to this Convention may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General shall thereupon communicate the proposed amendment to the States Parties to this Convention with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposal. In the event that within four months from the date of such communication at least one third of the State Parties favours such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted by the Secretary-General to all the States Parties for acceptance.
An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 shall enter into force when two thirds of the States Parties to this Convention have notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they have accepted it in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
When amendments enter into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of this Convention and any earlier amendments which they have accepted.
Article 30
Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation, shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.
Each State may at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by the preceding paragraph. The other States Parties shall not be bound by the preceding paragraph with respect to any State Party having made such a reservation.
Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with the preceding paragraph may at any time withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 31
A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.
Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective. Nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective.
Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State.
Article 32
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all members of the United Nations and all States which have signed this Convention or acceded to it, or the following particulars:


Signatures, ratifications and accessions under articles 25 and 26;
The date of entry into force of this Convention under article 27, and the date of the entry into force of any amendments under article 29;
Denunciations under article 31.
Article 33
This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of this Convention to all States.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On February 4, 1985, the Convention was opened for signature at United Nations Headquarters in New York. At that time, representatives of the following countries signed it: Afghanistan, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Uruguay. Subsequently, signatures were received from Venezuela on February 15, from Luxembourg and Panama on February 22, from Austria on March 14, and from the United Kingdom on March 15, 1985.

(signatures)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Created on July 16, 1994 / Last edited on January 25,

[jberryhill]

133. Yes, I've read that several times

The AG opinion would not provide an affirmative defense to prosecution by, say, an international tribunal.

You do not understand that, indeed, the law is very explicit - reliance on an opinion by the DoJ is an ironclad defense against prosecution by the DoJ for the actions set forth in the opinion.

That is not a "following orders" defense - so I don't care how large you make it, or in what color. The DoJ wasn't ordering the torture.

Don't take my word for it. Ask anyone familiar with criminal law whether reliance on a specific opinion of the official charged with prosecution of that law is or is not a defense to a criminal charge.

Or is your point that you don't want to be bound by stuff like the law, and you want to make it up as you go along. That's how shit like this happens.

There is a barn door that needs to be closed, but getting the escaped horses might be a problem without breaking an entirely different door.

[flyarm]

148. I am not seeing where what you say superceeds what is said in this :

from: http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment

An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.


..ahhh and I do believe in the rule of law as the very foundation of this nation..do not even go there..it is unnessesary.

and if this was justified, than how do you justify this??????

From that Oxdown diary:

http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/3636

Investigation into the deaths of two detainees at the Bagram Control Point (BCP) in Bagram, Afghanistan. Both detainees were determined to have been killed by blood clots that were dislodged and travelled to their hearts, causing pulmonary embolism. The blood clots, and their subsequent dislodging, were caused by sustained standing chained in place, as well as by sleep deprivation and dozens of beatings by guards and possibly interrogators. The investigation reveals systems of torture perpetrated by Military Intelligence and the Military Police guards at the BCP, as well as allegations of torture at joint American-Afghani prisons in Kabul, and maltreatment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba…

On 8 Dec 02 LTC (Dr) , Armed Forces Regional Medical Examiner, Landstuhl Regional Medical Center…, conducted an autopsy of HABIBULLAH’s remains LTC opinion was the cause of HABIBULLAH’s death was a pulmonary embolism brought about by a blood clot in the pulmonary artery near the heart. The manner of death was homicide.

Investigation established probable cause to believe that HABIBULLAH succumbed to a pulmonary embolism caused by a combination of blunt force trauma (inflicted by members of the MP Company Guard force) to his lower legs, and prolonged standing restraint during the four days he was held at the Bagram Collection Point (BCP), Afghanistan. Investigation has demonstrated the unlawful use of force by the MPs listed above (in the form of common peroneal knee strikes) to HABIBULLAH’s legs, combined with the use of standing restraint and sleep deprivation at the direction of MI identified above, caused his death. Enforced standing (achieved through chaining to the ceiling) was used both as a punishment and as a part of the sleep deprivation…

Q: What is ISO?
A: Isolation area.
Q: When you arrived at BT-412’s cell, was he restrained?
A: Yes.
Q: How was he restrained?
A: Short handcuffs around his hands. Attached to the handcuffs was a belly chain. He also had a set of leg shackles with a chain going from the cuffs to the leg shackles. He was also chained to the ceiling from a chain in front of him and behind him.
Q: Why was he restrained?
A: He was combative, non-compliant, punched guards, and spit at guards. We had him on a 4 hour standing and 20 minutes sitting procedure directed from MI.
Q: Do you know why MI had him standing for 4 hours?
A: No.
Q: When was he put in restraints?
A: When we came on shift, BT-412 was in chains which were attached to the ceiling with his arms stretched out. After we came on, we pulled his arms down and placed his hands in front of him and handcuffed them together. The chains that were attached to the ceiling, were there in order to keep him from running into the door and walls. The restraints also prevented him from pulling on his handcuffs, which he had previously been doing, so that he did not injure himself. The handcuffs had been digging into his wrists.
Q: When you handcuffed his hands in front of him, did you also place the other chains on him?
A: He already had the leg shackles on, we just put the other chains on him.
Q: How long has the detainee, BT-412, been at the Bagram Confinement Facility?
A: Three days.
Q: How long had he been in the Isolation Cell Block?
A: Since he arrived.
Q: Why was he in the Isolation Block?
A: MI requested it. He came in with a group of seven persons, and they were all placed in ISO.
Q: Was it standard procedure for a detainee to be restrained the way BT-412 was?
A: When they first come into the Confinement Facility, detainees are normally told to stand for 24 hours, and then be in chain and leg shackles for about 3 days. If MI deems that the detainee has been cooperative, then they can get the shackles taken off and are allowed to sleep…

[jberryhill]

151. Because you keep skipping over the word "order"

"An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."

The authors of the legal opinions were DoJ officials rendering the opinion of the DoJ.

The authors of the legal opinions did not order anyone to do anything.

Here is where the real cynicism of what the Bush Administration did here comes in - these were "independent" opinions of the law enforcement authority.

The DoJ doesn't run the CIA. The DoJ did not order anyone to torture anyone. The White House wanted people tortured. The White House also does not "run" the DoJ. The DoJ is a bunch of lawyers who exercise independent professional judgment (yeah, yeah... I know... but that's the theory). The request for the opinions, and the issuance of the opinions was not done by the DoJ in the course of the DoJ ordering a doggone thing. So - nobody is invoking "an order from a superior officer or a public authority as a justification".

So the thing you keep quoting:

"An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture."

is not relevant, because that is not what is being invoked here. What is being invoked is a longstanding and classic defense basic to the concept of criminal law - i.e. an opinion issued by the competent enforcement authority is an affirmative defense to a prosecution by that authority for a crime under that authority's jurisdiction.

The Nuremburg prosecutors were not you might note, the Nazi German government. The DoJ is the DoJ, whether it was "Bush's DoJ" or "Obama's DoJ" - it remains bound by the effect of its own opinions.

The result of what you want is that, henceforth, nobody will ever be able to rely on an opinion of the DoJ concerning what they will or will not prosecute. Every plea bargain, non-prosecution letter, or other opinion of the DoJ will be rendered legally unreliable if there is a change of administration.

You are asking for a permanent crippling of functions of the DoJ and our system of law for the purpose of obtaining a desired result. You want a "one time exception" like, say, Bush v. Gore.

It is that sort of reasoning that GOT us into this pickle - not following the Rule of Law. The illegality of the prior administration is like a cancer. Addressing that cancer precipitously can run the risk of long term institutional damage. I have no doubt that long term future institutional damage is the primary driving concern of the administration.

Now, as I've said, the person(s) who rendered the opinions can remain culpable for their issuance in the knowledge that others would rely on them, and there are questions of chronology and scope.

However to understand the administration's statement here - they are clearly invoking the doctrine of reliance on an opinion of the enforcement authority.

What NOBODY is doing in this situation is relying on the Nuremburg Defense - which you keep repeating, and which is not relevant to what the administration is saying here.

Now - please consider the first sentence of my previous post, if we've gotten over the misunderstanding about what you thought I was missing in what you were saying.

The administration statement also does not cover situations in which actions were not undertaken in reliance on the DoJ opinions.

Agree or not, but is the point at least clear?

[flyarm]

159. I believe the courts are going to decide what were war crimes here ..not you or I or

Obama...

The International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court in The Hague
Main article: International Criminal Court
Following several ad hoc tribunals, the international community decided on a comprehensive court of justice for future crimes against humanity. This resulted in the International Criminal Court, which identified four categories.<12>

Genocide
Crimes against humanity
War crimes
Crimes of aggression
Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court codified the doctrine of command responsibility.<7> With Article 28(a) military commanders are imposed with individual responsibility for crimes committed by forces under their effective command and control if they:

"either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes."<6><7><17>
It uses the stricter "should have known" standard of mens rea, instead of "had reason to know," as defined by the ICTY Statute.<5><17>

The Bush administration has adopted the American Servicemembers' Protection Act and entered in Article 98 agreements in an attempt to protect any US citizen from appearing before this court. As such it interferes with implementing the command responsibility principle when applicable to US citizens.<19>

The war on terror

Further information: War on terror

A number of legal analysts have advanced the argument that the principle of "command responsibility" could make high-ranking officials within the Bush administration guilty of war crimes committed either with their knowledge or by persons under their control.<20>

As a reaction to the September 11, 2001 attacks the U.S. Government adopted several controversial measures (e.g., invading Iraq, introducing "unlawful combatant" status, conducting "extraordinary renditions", and torture<21> a.k.a: "enhanced interrogation methods").

Alberto Gonzales and others argued that detainees should be considered "unlawful combatants" and as such not protected by the Geneva Conventions in multiple memoranda regarding these perceived legal gray areas.<22>

Gonzales' statement that denying coverage under the Geneva Conventions "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act" suggests, at the least, an awareness by those involved in crafting policies in this area that US officials are involved in acts that could be seen to be war crimes.<23> The US Supreme Court challenged the premise on which this argument is based in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which it ruled that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in Guantanamo Bay and that the Military Tribunals used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law.<24>

On April 14, 2006, Human Rights Watch said that Secretary Rumsfeld could be criminally liable for his alleged involvement in the abuse of Mohammad al-Qahtani.<25> Dave Lindorff contends that by ignoring the Geneva Conventions the US administration, including President Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, is culpable for war crimes.<26> In addition, former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials Benjamin Ferencz has called the invasion of Iraq a "clear breach of law," and as such it constitutes a war crime.<27> On November 14, 2006, invoking universal jurisdiction, legal proceedings were started in Germany - for their alleged involvement of prisoner abuse - against Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, George Tenet and others.<28> This allegedly prompted recently retired Donald Rumsfeld to cancel a planned visit to Germany.

There are also allegations by human rights groups and opponents of the Bush administration of deliberate or disproportionate targeting of civilians by US forces, mainly through aerial bombardment but also alleged shootings, during the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq by US forces and allied private security contractors, and controversy over depleted uranium munitions and cluster bombs.

Lt. Ehren Watada has refused to be deployed to Iraq. Although his own deployment was not ordered until after UNSCR 1511 authorized a multinational force in Iraq<29>, Watada charges that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and as such he claims he is bound by the command responsibility to refuse to take part in an illegal war. For this he stands trial at this moment.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is seen as an amnesty law for crimes committed in the War on Terror by retroactively rewriting the War Crimes Act<30> and by abolishing habeas corpus, effectively making it impossible for detainees to challenge crimes committed against them.<31>

Luis Moreno-Ocampo has told the Sunday Telegraph he is willing to start an inquiry by the International Criminal Court (ICC), and possibly a trial, for war crimes committed in Iraq involving British Prime Minister Tony Blair and American President George W. Bush.<32> Though under the Rome Statute, the ICC has no jurisdiction over Bush, since the USA is not a State Party to the relevant treaty--unless Bush were accused of crimes inside a State Party, or the UN Security Council (where the USA has a veto) requested an investigation. However Blair does fall under ICC jurisdiction as Britain is a State Party.

Nat Hentoff wrote on August 28, 2007, that a leaked report by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the July 2007 report by Human Rights First and Physicians for Social Responsibility, titled Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality, might be used as evidence of American war crimes if there was a Nuremberg-like trial regarding the War on Terror.<33>

Shortly before the end of President Bush's second term newsmedia in other countries started opining that under the United Nations Convention Against Torture the US is obligated to hold those responsible for prisoner abuse to account under criminal law.<34> This view was corroborated when United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment -Professor Manfred Nowak- on January 20, 2008 remarked on German television that, following the inauguration of Barack Obama as new President, George W. Bush had lost his head of state immunity and under international law the U.S. would now be mandated to start criminal proceedings against all those involved in these violations of the UN Convention Against Torture.<35> Law professor Dietmar Herz explained Novak's comments by saying that under U.S. and international law former President Bush is criminally responsible for adopting torture as interrogation tool.<35>

[flyarm]

162. Oh and I am not skipping the word "ORDER"

and neither does the Geneva Conventions ..

Excuse me but many German Officers and even guards were prosecuted for war crimes..after "TAKING ORDERS" from the Nazi Government..and Hitler..

Funny ( not) while Obama and his justice department are giving a free get out of jail card for illegal criminality by CIA agents that committed crimes.. the U.S. Department of Justice this week was allowing a former Nazi death camp guard to be deported back to Poland to face possible charges for abuses he committed while carrying out the orders of superiors.

See taking orders to commit crimes against humanity and war crimes is no defense..and it will never be..and these CIA agents may get a free ride now..but their crimes will not go away..and if not today..they will be hunted for a very long time..there will be no statue of limitations on their crimes!


Yes they were taking orders..and committed war crimes..the fact that they were taking orders did not exonerate them..do you understand that..that is no excuse for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.

So what happens to the many CIA agents that quit because they wouldn't commit the very crimes, the ones Obama now gives a free ride to, for pissing on the rule of law..??? Many who took early retirement or just flat out quit because they would not commit these crimes and torture!!!!!!!!! Tell me what is the message to our CIA agents that follow the rule of law??? What is the message to our CIA agents that would not take orders to break the law..that follow the oath they took to Protect and defend the Constitution?????


I couldn't say it better than this!!!!!!!!


http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/4817

A Permanent Injustice System for America
By: BlueCrow Friday April 17, 2009 7:25 am


In a piece at Salon.com today, Mark Benjamin writes the following:

"'We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history,' Obama said. 'But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.'In other words, the president turned the page. No prosecutions at any level, apparently. Based on Obama’s move-on tone, there may not even be an independent commission to dig into this issue (though the administration won't formally rule that out for now -- an internal Justice Department review of the lawyers who authorized the torture is still ongoing). 'We have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again,' Obama said."

Paying careful attention to Obama's words, it is apparent that America will have no justice system under his rule, it will continue to have an injustice system, one in which the most heinous crimes will go unprosecuted at the whim of a tyrant too cowardly to face the worst of American society. Contrary to his claim that these actions will never take place again, he has created a precedent or endorsed an existing one that ensures it will happen again: no crime committed by government officials is a crime if one of their lawyers says it's okay.(Nixon went further. He said he didn't need a lawyer's opinion. If the President does it, it's not a crime.) That in a nutshell was what Bush/Cheney relied on to commit war crimes, and Obama has further entrenched by pontificating that our system of laws is really only a blame game, which can be joined or ignored at his whim. Obama is guilty of obstructing justice at the level of war crimes and violation of his oath to support and defend the Constitution. He and Biden should be impeached immediately. If they are not going to waste their time and energy seeking justice for the violation of our most sacred laws and the principles these embody, then we had best spend our time and energy removing them from office, and every following group of criminals who manages to find their way there.

Impeach Obama/Biden now! Impeach every criminal holding federal office that believes our system of laws and justice is just a blame game to be used for their benefit!

[flyarm]

163. i vuz only vollowing orderz...

DIDN'T QUITE HELP THE GERMANS THAT COMMITTED WAR CRIMES UNDER NAZI ORDERS.. ..DID IT??????????

Article 7. The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.

Nuremburg Articles of War Crimes.

[pacalo]

32. That's the way I look at it.

I agree with everything you said.

And there's just no way these torture methods done by the U.S. could be dismissed; the world is watching. Someone will have to account for it & it should rightly be those who justified it & ordered it.

[Political Heretic]

96. Speaking of didn't read.

You apparently missed the part about we shouldn't be looking backward.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gcomeau]

6. Bullshit.

They stated that they were not going to prosecute people who were directly TOLD by the Bush Justice department that turture was legal. They very conspicuously said absolutely nothing about prosecuting the people that were doing the telling.

[Boomerang Diddle]

21. Exactly!

I truly believe some people here are determined to bitch just for the sake of bitching.

[doctor jazz]

29. Can I get somebody to tell me it's okay to rob a bank?

I could use the money.
\

[jberryhill]

115. In fact - if you do - then it is a valid defense under US law

In order for the defense to work, you need to have the expressly stated opinion of the official charged with enforcement of the law about which you have a question.

For example, state law says I can't wear red shirts on Wednesdays.

I want to wear a pink shirt on Wednesday. So, I write to my state AG and say, "I would like to wear this pink shirt (see picture) on Wednesday".

I get a letter back from the state AG saying, "It's okay to wear that pink shirt on Wednesday, and you will not be prosecuted under the red shirt law."

If I get arrested on Wednesday for wearing that shirt, I have an ironclad affirmative defense to the charge of wearing a red shirt on Wednesday.

[flyarm]

164. TAKING ORDERS..DOES NOT FLY AS A DEFENSE..PERIOD!!

DIDN'T QUITE HELP THE GERMANS THAT COMMITTED WAR CRIMES UNDER NAZI ORDERS.. ..DID IT??????????

Article 7. The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

Article 8. The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.

Nuremburg Articles of War Crimes.

Nuremberg Principles

The Principles

Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

See also: Nuremberg Defense and Superior Orders
For Pre-Nuremberg history of "I was just following orders", see Superior Orders.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Superior Orders is, in essence, the plea that a soldier not be held guilty for crimes committed during the course of war due to the orders of a superior officer.<1>. The superior orders defense is similar to the doctrine of respondeat superior in tort law where a superior is held liable for the actions of a subordinate, and the subordinate may escape liability. <2>Legal scholars and war crimes tribunals define the superior orders plea as the complement to Command responsibility and may correlate or distinguish the plea from the doctrine of respondeat superior.<3>

One of the most noted uses of this defense was by the accused in the Nuremberg Trials, such that it is also called the Nuremberg Defense. However, it has been used both before and after the Nuremberg Trials. It was during these trials, under the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal which set them up, that the defense was no longer considered enough to escape punishment; merely enough to lessen punishment.<4>

It has since been used in the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Israel, as well as the trial of Alfredo Astiz of Argentina, responsible for a large number of disappearances and kidnappings that took place during that nation's transfer to democracy.

[BeGoodDoGood]

8. What I hope is.............

that President Obama is playing a long game. And that the evidence and events are building to a culmination that will yank Bush out of his toney neighborhood and into the dock.

I do NOT expect this to happen. But I hope it does.

Walt

[lamp_shade]

26. I think you're right about The President playing a long game.

I believe it's the smartest thing to do at this time. Better to clean up the most urgent mess NOW.

[midnight]

9. So thugs are running the country, and our President has to

make deals with them?

[Raksha]

73. It sure looks that way. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. It's a shame we can't punish people for torturing logic.

[DevonRex]

116. I'd be down with that. nt

[Spazito]

12. Wow, a remedial reading course seems to be in order....

if that is what you think you read!

Yikes!

[derby378]

18. Let's start with the Fifth and Eight Amendments

One prohibits using torture to produce confessions from the accused.

The other prohibits using torture as a form of punishment, no matter how badly the little shit deserves it.

Either they are the law of the land, or they are not.

I tend to be a hardass when it comes to tinkering with the Bill of Rights. So sue me.

[Spazito]

Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere does it even intimate torture has now been made legal in anything ....

said by Obama and for you to read that into this is preposterous and, imo, disingenuous in the extreme because, in reality, I believe you KNOW what is actually being said.

[bobburgster]

16. Wise Decision

IMO, the vast majority of our country knows what a bunch of dick wad zealots Bush, Cheney and the rest were.....why spend 4 years talking about it? Move ahead and just change the way our giv. operates.

[derby378]

22. Knowing is only half the battle

I didn't see many calls to "move ahead" and simply change the way Germany did things after WWII. The world wanted the Nazis brought to justice, and rightly so, and nobody gave a rat's ass if a guard at Madjanek claimed he was "only following orders."

[Shinimegami]

127. It's a disgraceful decision.

Crimes must be punished, especicially if the government itself committed them.

[bobburgster]

167. Respect your opinion...

but I do believe it is in the past now.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Yup. The "Just following orders" defense works in the law-abiding USA.

Anything goes, as long as someone told you it was "legal".

[EFerrari]

46. Frank Church must be SPINNING in his grave. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. Not to mention Adolph Eichmann.

[Supersedeas]

165. how about those who followed the legal recommendations of ALSTOETTER

[MarjorieG]

19. A while ago concerned for lower level getting lawyered up, at great expense. I doubt we can get

satisfaction of those who ordered. CIA predates Obama, Panetta, and will still be there with their clandestine borderline studd, but still much is done on our behalf. Our CIA and foreign neighbors helping can't doubt the administration's protection.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Er, no. He has not. That is a dumb conclusion to draw. nt

[EFerrari]

23. Am I just being stupid or are our choices reflection or retribution but not the rule of law?

"This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future."

:wtf:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. Short version: Shit happens, just get over it. We know best and to hell with the law.

A pathetic free pass for monsters.

[EFerrari]

35. I think my days at DU are numbered. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. That seems to be the trend for those who haven't donned rose-colored glasses.

[flyarm]

123. It is rather pathetic isn't it?..PEOPLE WHO USED TO BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW..

now find no use of it..i feel like I am living in an alternative world here..people i used to consider intelligent are so skewed it is frightening!

Please see my last post above or i will repeat it here..please us this info ..truth..is powerful..only when people are exposed to it!!

AND UNDERSTAND IT..EITHER PEOPLE HERE HAVE BECOME DUMB AS DIRT..OR THEY NEVER HAD dEMOCRATIC VALUES TO BEGIN WITH..OR SO IT SEEMS..

FLY :(

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

The law is clear. What Bush authorized was torture and was against the law.
Funny while Obama and his justice department are giving a free get out of jail card for illegal criminality by CIA agents that committed crimes.. the U.S. Department of Justice this week was allowing a former Nazi death camp guard to be deported back to Poland to face possible charges for abuses he committed while carrying out the orders of superiors.

read this and tell me those CIA officers did not break the law..read it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UN Convention Against Torture

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment



The States Parties to this Convention,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),

Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,

Have agreed as follows:



Part I
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 3
No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Article 4
Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
Article 5
Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.
Article 6
Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.
Article 7
The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.
Article 8
The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.
Article 9
States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.
Article 10
Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.
Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such persons.
Article 11
Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.


Article 12
Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.


Article 13
Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.


Article 14
Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation.
Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other person to compensation which may exist under national law.
Article 15
Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.


Article 16
Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion.
Article 17
There shall be established a Committee against Torture (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided. The Committee shall consist of 10 experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field of human rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity. The experts shall be elected by the States Parties, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution and to the usefulness of the participation of some persons having legal experience.
The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals. States Parties shall bear in mind the usefulness of nominating persons who are also members of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and are willing to serve on the Committee against Torture.
Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at biennial meetings of States Parties convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At those meetings, for which two thirds of the States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting.
The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of this Convention. At least four months before the date of each election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a letter to the States Parties inviting them to submit their nominations within three months. The Secretary-General shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all persons thus nominated, indicating the States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties.
The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election if renominated. However, the term of five of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election the names of these five members shall be chosen by lot by the chairman of the meeting referred to in paragraph 3.
If a member of the Committee dies or resigns or for any other cause can no longer perform his Committee duties, the State Party which nominated him shall appoint another expert from among its nationals to serve for the remainder of his term, subject to the approval of the majority of the States Parties. The approval shall be considered given unless half or more of the States Parties respond negatively within six weeks after having been informed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the proposed appointment.
States Parties shall be responsible for the expenses of the members of the Committee while they are in performance of Committee duties.
Article 18
The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years. They may be re-elected.
The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall provide, inter alia, that
Six members shall constitute a quorum;
Decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members present.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under this Convention.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee. After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as shall be provided in its rules of procedure.
The State Parties shall be responsible for expenses incurred in connection with the holding of meetings of the States Parties and of the Committee, including reimbursement of the United Nations for any expenses, such as the cost of staff and facilities, incurred by the United Nations pursuant to paragraph 3 above.
Article 19
The States Parties shall submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this Convention, within one year after the entry into force of this Convention for the State Party concerned. Thereafter the States Parties shall submit supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken, and such other reports as the Committee may request.
The Secretary-General shall transmit the reports to all States Parties.
The Committee may, at its discretion, decide to include any comments or suggestions made by it in accordance with paragraph 3, together with the observations thereon received from the State Party concerned, in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. If so requested by the State Party concerned, the Committee may also include a copy of the report submitted under paragraph 1.]
Article 20
If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to co-operate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned.
Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State Party concerned as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee may, if it decides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently.
If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee shall seek the co-operation of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory.
After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee shall transmit these findings to the State Party concerned together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in view of the situation.
All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this article shall be confidential, and at all stages of the proceedings the co-operation of the State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard to an inquiry made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report made in accordance with article 24.
Article 21
A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article 3 that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure:
If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions of this Convention, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three months after the receipt of the communication the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter which should include, to the extent possible and pertinent, references to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending, or available in the matter.
If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee by notice given to the Committee and to the other State.
The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it under this article only after it has ascertained that all domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.
The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.
Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (c), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the obligations provided for in the present Convention. For this purpose, the Committee may, when appropriate, set up an ad hoc conciliation commission.
In any matter referred to it under this article, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), to supply any relevant information.
The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), shall have the right to be represented when the matter is being considered by the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing.
The Committee shall, within 12 months after the date of receipt of notice under subparagraph (b), submit a report.
If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.
If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall be attached to the report.
In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned.

The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by any State Party shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.
Article 22
A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party to the Convention which has not made such a declaration.
The Committee shall consider inadmissible any communication under this article which is anonymous, or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of this Convention.
Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, the Committee shall bring any communication submitted to it under this article to the attention of the State Party to this Convention which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 and is alleged to be violating any provisions of the Convention. Within six months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State.
The Committee shall consider communications received under this article in the light of all information made available to it by or on behalf of the individual and by the State Party concerned.
The Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual under this article unless it has ascertained that:
The same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement;
The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.
The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.
The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the individual.
The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit parties thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by or on behalf of an individual shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.
Article 23
The members of the Committee, and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed under article 21, paragraph 1 (e), shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts on missions for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.


Article 24
The Committee shall submit an annual report on its activities under this Convention to the States Parties and to the General Assembly of the United Nations.


Part III
Article 25
This Convention is open for signature by all States.
This Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 26
This Convention is open to accession by all States. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.


Article 27
This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.
For each State ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession.
Article 28
Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20.
Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article may, at any time, withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 29
Any State Party to this Convention may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General shall thereupon communicate the proposed amendment to the States Parties to this Convention with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposal. In the event that within four months from the date of such communication at least one third of the State Parties favours such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted by the Secretary-General to all the States Parties for acceptance.
An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 shall enter into force when two thirds of the States Parties to this Convention have notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they have accepted it in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
When amendments enter into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of this Convention and any earlier amendments which they have accepted.
Article 30
Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation, shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.
Each State may at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by the preceding paragraph. The other States Parties shall not be bound by the preceding paragraph with respect to any State Party having made such a reservation.
Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with the preceding paragraph may at any time withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 31
A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.
Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective. Nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective.
Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State.
Article 32
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all members of the United Nations and all States which have signed this Convention or acceded to it, or the following particulars:


Signatures, ratifications and accessions under articles 25 and 26;
The date of entry into force of this Convention under article 27, and the date of the entry into force of any amendments under article 29;
Denunciations under article 31.
Article 33
This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of this Convention to all States.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On February 4, 1985, the Convention was opened for signature at United Nations Headquarters in New York. At that time, representatives of the following countries signed it: Afghanistan, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Uruguay. Subsequently, signatures were received from Venezuela on February 15, from Luxembourg and Panama on February 22, from Austria on March 14, and from the United Kingdom on March 15, 1985.

(signatures)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Created on July 16, 1994 / Last edited on January 25,

[theoldman]

24. Our founding fathers thought that slavery was legal.

That does not mean that we could not change the law. I hope that Obama forces a change in our laws on torture. He has too many fish to fry just now. Let's wait a few years to see what he will do. He has only been in office a few months.

[No More Bushbots]

30. Link please

Would you care to back up your conjecture?

[derby378]

34. Here ya go

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041602768.html?hpid=topnews

[Lone_Star_Dem]

47. Please see my (misplaced) post below. #43 nt

[nichomachus]

33. And, yet we're still trying to deport John Demjanjuk

65 years later for crimes he committed during WW2. Why aren't we ready to "move on" with him?

[derby378]

45. Not to mention the Texas sheriff who was jailed for waterboarding

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170_2.html

We could prosecute James Parker, but not CIA interrogators? Wow.

[lamp_shade]

48. Whose orders was the sheriff following?

[nichomachus]

52. Following orders is no excuse -- US at Nuremberg

[derby378]

53. Doesn't matter

If someone ordered you to waterboard a suspect, I am quite confident that you would refuse on the grounds that it is illegal to do so, even if your superior claimed they would assume full responsibility for the waterboarding.

We could all stand to benefit from observing the Milgram experiment once again.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

43. What does "with the blessings of lawyers" mean (to you) in the first sentence of that article?

Also, what do these parts mean to you:

Today's carefully worded statement left open the possibility, however, that agents and higher-level officials who may have ventured beyond the strategies approved by Bush lawyers could face legal jeopardy for their actions.

and

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said in a statement.

To me it reads as if they're assuring the CIA that they won't be the sacrificial lambs for the decisions of others. Which I think it the correct thing to be assuring them of at this point.



On edit: posted in wrong location. Direct response to the WaPo link you provided above.

[derby378]

49. If you're torturing prisoners, you're not working to protect America

I'm sorry, but Holder really fucked up here. No American should be above the law.

[Egnever]

56. Complete crap

it was deemed not to be torture by the bush admin. These people were doing their job. They were following the law as laid out to them by their superiors. Your outrage is making you look like a fool.

[EFerrari]

59. So if BushCo told you murder wasn't murder, you'd do it, right?

[Egnever]

70. If it was my job and i wanted to keep it

You bet

[EFerrari]

74. If your job is to murder people, there's something wrong with you.

We call those niceties "civilization".

[Egnever]

130. Why do you hate our Service members?

[EFerrari]

146. What utter cr@p. The CIA is not "the troops". But, nice try.

[derby378]

77. Bullshit, you would

You are really saying you would kill someone in cold blood just because someone told you it was okay to do it?!?

:yoiks:

[Egnever]

83. not because they said it was ok because it was my job to do so

Personal feelings have nothing to do with it. People are denied health care coverage every day do you think the people denying it enjoy it or they do so because it is their job. Your arguments are ridiculous

I personally didn't join the army cause I cant stomach killing does that mean I think everyone that joins the army is a criminal?

[flyarm]

124. THESE CIA agents had the responsibility to the people of the USA ..and to protect and defend the

Constitution..that was their job..not to break the laws of our constitution. The Geneva Conventions became the law of this land when we became a signatory to the conventions..there is no one who can make them break the law..they had the obligation and the duty and responsibility to refuse to torture..

On behalf of the people they work for ..and that is us!..Not any president or any lawyer!

If they had doubt they had an obligation to refuse to do what their orders were..it is very clear..by our constitution and by this............

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

The law is clear. What Bush authorized was torture and was against the law.
Funny while Obama and his justice department are giving a free get out of jail card for illegal criminality by CIA agents that committed crimes.. the U.S. Department of Justice this week was allowing a former Nazi death camp guard to be deported back to Poland to face possible charges for abuses he committed while carrying out the orders of superiors.

read this and tell me those CIA officers did not break the law..read it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UN Convention Against Torture

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment



The States Parties to this Convention,

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,
Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),

Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,

Have agreed as follows:



Part I
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2
Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 3
No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Article 4
Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
Article 5
Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.
Article 6
Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.
Article 7
The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.
Article 8
The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.
Article 9
States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.
Article 10
Each State Party shall ensure that education and information regarding the prohibition against torture are fully included in the training of law enforcement personnel, civil or military, medical personnel, public officials and other persons who may be involved in the custody, interrogation or treatment of any individual subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment.
Each State Party shall include this prohibition in the rules or instructions issued in regard to the duties and functions of any such persons.
Article 11
Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.


Article 12
Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.


Article 13
Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.


Article 14
Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation.
Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other person to compensation which may exist under national law.
Article 15
Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.


Article 16
Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article 1, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture or references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
The provisions of this Convention are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or which relate to extradition or expulsion.
Article 17
There shall be established a Committee against Torture (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided. The Committee shall consist of 10 experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field of human rights, who shall serve in their personal capacity. The experts shall be elected by the States Parties, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution and to the usefulness of the participation of some persons having legal experience.
The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals. States Parties shall bear in mind the usefulness of nominating persons who are also members of the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and are willing to serve on the Committee against Torture.
Elections of the members of the Committee shall be held at biennial meetings of States Parties convened by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At those meetings, for which two thirds of the States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting.
The initial election shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of this Convention. At least four months before the date of each election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a letter to the States Parties inviting them to submit their nominations within three months. The Secretary-General shall prepare a list in alphabetical order of all persons thus nominated, indicating the States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties.
The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election if renominated. However, the term of five of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election the names of these five members shall be chosen by lot by the chairman of the meeting referred to in paragraph 3.
If a member of the Committee dies or resigns or for any other cause can no longer perform his Committee duties, the State Party which nominated him shall appoint another expert from among its nationals to serve for the remainder of his term, subject to the approval of the majority of the States Parties. The approval shall be considered given unless half or more of the States Parties respond negatively within six weeks after having been informed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the proposed appointment.
States Parties shall be responsible for the expenses of the members of the Committee while they are in performance of Committee duties.
Article 18
The Committee shall elect its officers for a term of two years. They may be re-elected.
The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure, but these rules shall provide, inter alia, that
Six members shall constitute a quorum;
Decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority vote of the members present.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under this Convention.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall convene the initial meeting of the Committee. After its initial meeting, the Committee shall meet at such times as shall be provided in its rules of procedure.
The State Parties shall be responsible for expenses incurred in connection with the holding of meetings of the States Parties and of the Committee, including reimbursement of the United Nations for any expenses, such as the cost of staff and facilities, incurred by the United Nations pursuant to paragraph 3 above.
Article 19
The States Parties shall submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have taken to give effect to their undertakings under this Convention, within one year after the entry into force of this Convention for the State Party concerned. Thereafter the States Parties shall submit supplementary reports every four years on any new measures taken, and such other reports as the Committee may request.
The Secretary-General shall transmit the reports to all States Parties.
The Committee may, at its discretion, decide to include any comments or suggestions made by it in accordance with paragraph 3, together with the observations thereon received from the State Party concerned, in its annual report made in accordance with article 24. If so requested by the State Party concerned, the Committee may also include a copy of the report submitted under paragraph 1.]
Article 20
If the Committee receives reliable information which appears to it to contain well-founded indications that torture is being systematically practised in the territory of a State Party, the Committee shall invite that State Party to co-operate in the examination of the information and to this end to submit observations with regard to the information concerned.
Taking into account any observations which may have been submitted by the State Party concerned as well as any other relevant information available to it, the Committee may, if it decides that this is warranted, designate one or more of its members to make a confidential inquiry and to report to the Committee urgently.
If an inquiry is made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee shall seek the co-operation of the State Party concerned. In agreement with that State Party, such an inquiry may include a visit to its territory.
After examining the findings of its member or members submitted in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee shall transmit these findings to the State Party concerned together with any comments or suggestions which seem appropriate in view of the situation.
All the proceedings of the Committee referred to in paragraphs 1 to 4 of this article shall be confidential, and at all stages of the proceedings the co-operation of the State Party shall be sought. After such proceedings have been completed with regard to an inquiry made in accordance with paragraph 2, the Committee may, after consultations with the State Party concerned, decide to include a summary account of the results of the proceedings in its annual report made in accordance with article 24.
Article 21
A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article 3 that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications to the effect that a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Convention. Such communications may be received and considered according to the procedures laid down in this article only if submitted by a State Party which has made a declaration recognizing in regard to itself the competence of the Committee. No communication shall be dealt with by the Committee under this article if it concerns a State Party which has not made such a declaration. Communications received under this article shall be dealt with in accordance with the following procedure:
If a State Party considers that another State Party is not giving effect to the provisions of this Convention, it may, by written communication, bring the matter to the attention of that State Party. Within three months after the receipt of the communication the receiving State shall afford the State which sent the communication an explanation or any other statement in writing clarifying the matter which should include, to the extent possible and pertinent, references to domestic procedures and remedies taken, pending, or available in the matter.
If the matter is not adjusted to the satisfaction of both States Parties concerned within six months after the receipt by the receiving State of the initial communication, either State shall have the right to refer the matter to the Committee by notice given to the Committee and to the other State.
The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it under this article only after it has ascertained that all domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.
The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.
Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (c), the Committee shall make available its good offices to the States Parties concerned with a view to a friendly solution of the matter on the basis of respect for the obligations provided for in the present Convention. For this purpose, the Committee may, when appropriate, set up an ad hoc conciliation commission.
In any matter referred to it under this article, the Committee may call upon the States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), to supply any relevant information.
The States Parties concerned, referred to in subparagraph (b), shall have the right to be represented when the matter is being considered by the Committee and to make submissions orally and/or in writing.
The Committee shall, within 12 months after the date of receipt of notice under subparagraph (b), submit a report.
If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.
If a solution within the terms of subparagraph (e) is not reached, the Committee shall confine its report to a brief statement of the facts; the written submissions and record of the oral submissions made by the States Parties concerned shall be attached to the report.
In every matter, the report shall be communicated to the States Parties concerned.

The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by any State Party shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.
Article 22
A State Party to this Convention may at any time declare under this article that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from or on behalf of individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State Party of the provisions of the Convention. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party to the Convention which has not made such a declaration.
The Committee shall consider inadmissible any communication under this article which is anonymous, or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of this Convention.
Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2, the Committee shall bring any communication submitted to it under this article to the attention of the State Party to this Convention which has made a declaration under paragraph 1 and is alleged to be violating any provisions of the Convention. Within six months, the receiving State shall submit to the Committee written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by that State.
The Committee shall consider communications received under this article in the light of all information made available to it by or on behalf of the individual and by the State Party concerned.
The Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual under this article unless it has ascertained that:
The same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement;
The individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the person who is the victim of the violation of this Convention.
The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under this article.
The Committee shall forward its views to the State Party concerned and to the individual.
The provisions of this article shall come into force when five States Parties to this Convention have made declarations under paragraph 1 of this article. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit parties thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification to the Secretary-General. Such a withdrawal shall not prejudice the consideration of any matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted under this article; no further communication by or on behalf of an individual shall be received under this article after the notification of withdrawal of the declaration has been received by the Secretary-General, unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration.
Article 23
The members of the Committee, and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed under article 21, paragraph 1 (e), shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts on missions for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.


Article 24
The Committee shall submit an annual report on its activities under this Convention to the States Parties and to the General Assembly of the United Nations.


Part III
Article 25
This Convention is open for signature by all States.
This Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 26
This Convention is open to accession by all States. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.


Article 27
This Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.
For each State ratifying this Convention or acceding to it after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or accession.
Article 28
Each State may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not recognize the competence of the Committee provided for in article 20.
Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article may, at any time, withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 29
Any State Party to this Convention may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General shall thereupon communicate the proposed amendment to the States Parties to this Convention with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposal. In the event that within four months from the date of such communication at least one third of the State Parties favours such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted by the Secretary-General to all the States Parties for acceptance.
An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 shall enter into force when two thirds of the States Parties to this Convention have notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they have accepted it in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
When amendments enter into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of this Convention and any earlier amendments which they have accepted.
Article 30
Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation, shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If within six months from the date of the request for arbitration the Parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those Parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice by request in conformity with the Statute of the Court.
Each State may at the time of signature or ratification of this Convention or accession thereto, declare that it does not consider itself bound by the preceding paragraph. The other States Parties shall not be bound by the preceding paragraph with respect to any State Party having made such a reservation.
Any State Party having made a reservation in accordance with the preceding paragraph may at any time withdraw this reservation by notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Article 31
A State Party may denounce this Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.
Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party from its obligations under this Convention in regard to any act or omission which occurs prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective. Nor shall denunciation prejudice in any way the continued consideration of any matter which is already under consideration by the Committee prior to the date at which the denunciation becomes effective.
Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of any new matter regarding that State.
Article 32
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all members of the United Nations and all States which have signed this Convention or acceded to it, or the following particulars:


Signatures, ratifications and accessions under articles 25 and 26;
The date of entry into force of this Convention under article 27, and the date of the entry into force of any amendments under article 29;
Denunciations under article 31.
Article 33
This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United Nations.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of this Convention to all States.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On February 4, 1985, the Convention was opened for signature at United Nations Headquarters in New York. At that time, representatives of the following countries signed it: Afghanistan, Argentina, Belgium, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Uruguay. Subsequently, signatures were received from Venezuela on February 15, from Luxembourg and Panama on February 22, from Austria on March 14, and from the United Kingdom on March 15, 1985.

(signatures)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Created on July 16, 1994 / Last edited on January 25,

[Egnever]

131. Yea thats all great but the highest lawyer in the land was telling them otherwise

No matter what you think was the law of the land you are not the one they turn to to interpret it it is the AG that is designated to do that.

Unfortunately that has a bearing on whether or not they can or should be held responsible.

[jberryhill]

153. That's a very concise way of putting that....

I wish I could say what you just said in as few words.

[derby378]

62. In other words, "they were just following orders"

The Nuremberg Trials had a little something to say about that defense.

Doesn't matter if the Bush administation said that it wasn't torture - if Bush officials declared that pi was de jure 4 instead of 3.14159..., you and I would be right to call them out on that bullshit. Same principle.

Or, more to the point, how many fingers am I holding up?

And if the Party states that I am holding up not four fingers but five, then how many?

Choose wisely...

[Egnever]

78. no they weren't just following orders

They were doing their job and they were given legal justification from the Justice department of why that job was legal. Are you really that clueless you cant figure out how even though what their job is/was it was made clear to them what they were ordered to do was legally justified?

Are you mad at them because they weren't lawyers? Going after the tools is the wrong approach entirely it is the operator that needs to be addressed. Your silly finger example aside.

[derby378]

82. George Orwell didn't think it was so hilarious

Four is four. Five is five. Torture is torture, no matter how many lawyers, theocrats, or Inner Party officials tell you it's not.

[EFerrari]

84. Are you so clueless that you are arguing that the very people who

used the razors on genitals and hung people from ceilings for days and who waterboardsd INNOCENT PEOPLE for no reason are in any way, are in the least little tiny bit justified because someone told them it was okay?

Are you? Because that's crazy. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. And please don't even try to argue that these monsters were ignorant of the fact that TORTURE IS ILLEGAL.

[Egnever]

88. Are you so dense that you don't understand that it was legal?

According to the DOJ? What part of that don't you get? its not like the legal experts were all saying this is illegal if you do it you will be violating the law. Quite the opposite in fact. Your problem is you don't accept the fact that according to all of the people telling them to do this it was legal. You instead are personalizing it based on your own morals and sorry to burst your bubble of naivete but your morals have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of this situation.

[derby378]

91. Just because the DOJ said it was legal does not make it so

Either we're a nation of laws or we're a nation of men. Pick a side.

[Egnever]

100. The hell it doesn't

if te DOJ sees it as legal then no one is getting prosecuted for it making it for all intents and purposes the law of the land. Your outrage is making you irrational.

[derby378]

103. DOJ doesn't get to interpret the Constitution

To say that waterboarding is legal is to interpret the Constitution. Only the Supreme Court can do such a dangerous thing.

[Egnever]

109. unfortunately for your inane argument the definition of what constitutes torture

is and was up to the DOJ until someone challenges their decision. If they say it is not torture and thats what they said then the constitution has no bearing whatsoever.

Again your arguments are silly.

Of course you and I think they are torture but that doesn't take anything away from the fact that according to the legal authority of the land at the time they were not defined as torture so any employee using those techniques had every right to think they were following the law, and were they to refuse to carry it out would could have been fired with absolutely no recourse left to them.

You are living in some utopian fantasy land it seems where all is black and white when what went on is nothing but shades of grey.

[jberryhill]

135. Well, then, clearly in your view of the world, the DoJ can never prosecute anyone for anything

...since that would involve interpreting the law.

Each branch of the government actually has to interpret the Constitution in order to do its job. You are confusing the finality of judicial review with the affirmative defense of reliance on a legal opinion of the DoJ against prosecution.

The DoJ issues non-pros letters on a lot of subjects, and for a lot of reasons. You don't understand how the system functions, so you just want to throw it under a bus.

YES, the system was deliberately abused by the Bush Administration. That is not the fault of those who relied on the DoJ opinions.

[derby378]

166. It IS the fault of anyone who willingly went along with this DoJ bullshit

We are talking about the deliberate undermining of the rule of law in order to legalize torture in America. Why should we not prosecute the torturers and the Bush administration officials who collaborated in this horrid scheme?

Judge Bybee should be facing treason charges. You know it, I know it, and the American people know it.

You have failed to prove that the Department of Justice is able to trump either the Supreme Court or the Constitution. They legally can't even trump the White House, for fuck's sake.

[jberryhill]

134. We are a nation of laws - and you do not know the law

An opinion of the DoJ is and has always been a defense against prosecution by the DoJ for the subject of the opinion.

So, what is your problem with the rule of law?

The DoJ did not order the torture - so the "just following orders" mantra does not apply here. The DoJ issued legal opinions to non-lawyers on a legal subject within the jurisdiction of the DoJ's enforcement authority.

You don't want the rule of law - you just want the outcomes you want.

[EFerrari]

102. No, it was never legal. That's the point.

Torture is illegal in this country. And anyone using a DoJ memo to cya was simply going along with TORTURE.

[jberryhill]

89. No they are not "justified"

However, and this is not a "Nuremburg Defense" (which relates to following unlawful orders):

It is an affirmative defense in a criminal trial that the officer responsible for prosecuting that crime stated in advance that your action would not be prosecuted.

That does not make it "legal" since an affirmative defense is an admission of the unlawful behavior. However, it does make it non-prosecutable.

It is why, for example, companies submit pre-merger and other business plans in advance to the anti-trust division of the same DoJ, in order to get non-enforcement letters which provide a defense in the event a subsequent review finds the plan to be an anti-trust violation.

You can say what you want, but any interrogator would assert that defense, and you have to explain why that defense is not viable when the Attorney General specifically stated that your action was legal.

[EFerrari]

107. But, thanks to this administration, no interrogator will have to look a jury in the eye

and assert that they believed that torture was legal. Forget about morally repulsive, let's just stick with "legal".

Please.

[jberryhill]

113. That defense would not go to a jury

...and the defendant's subjective belief is not relevant.

The defense of express non-enforcement is a legal defense, not a factual defense, and would be raised on motion to be decided by a judge as a legal question and not put to a jury as a factual issue.

The entire point of the defense is not "I believed it was legal". The defense is "the attorney general told me it was legal." (and is not "my superior ordered me to do it" which is the flawed Nuremburg Defense, which this is not)

That is also distinct from "I was following orders." It is not lawful to follow an unlawful order. But when the authority in charge of determining its legality says it is a lawful order, then you have your answer.

This is an extremely common defense. If you want to build an improvement on a property, and you put the plan to the zoning board, and the zoning board approves it, then the zoning board can't turn around and say, "Hey, you violated the zoning regs with that improvement" if you followed the plan they approved.

(there are some other twists and turns we can go down, but you'll have to do major surgery on a common legal doctrine in order to prosecute someone who had an explicit opinion from the Attorney General of the US that what he was doing was legal. Your argument boils down to saying, "you should have known better than the US A.G. what is and is not legal". Ummm....)

[EFerrari]

147. And that's exactly right. They should have AND did know better.

The torture conventions are the law of the land, not the spew that came out of Bush's Justice Department.

[jberryhill]

155. I agree with you on that point

But it is also the law of the land that reliance on a DoJ opinion is a valid defense, and no court is going to make an exception to a basic principle of criminal law as it exists in the United States.

The "lawyers" who issued these opinions in the knowledge they would be relied upon, however, are differently situated than the clients who relied on them.

[jberryhill]

154. Not just "someone"

That "someone" who told them that was the Attorney General of the United States who was rendering a legal opinion legally independent of their chain of command.

The question is this:

Is an opinion of the Department of Justice reliable on a question of criminal law or not?

If not, then we can fire a lot of lawyers tomorrow and save a bundle on that Department.

It's a shit sandwich the way the Bush Admin politicized the operation of the DoJ, but the point is whether the DoJ is to be henceforth permanently disemboweled as a consequence - i.e. that any non-pros opinion from the DoJ has a lifetime only as good as the next change of administration.

[Amonester]

157. The nazis who were turning the gas switches on were just doing

their f*****g job too... And their nazi lawyers were probably telling them it was legal...

Oh my... What have we become...

[Lone_Star_Dem]

57. I believe that attempting to prosecute all the underlings would

result in a circus like environment when they're not prosecuting the ones responsible.

Let me be very clear on this, I want to see Alberto Gonzales and his party of five prosecuted. They're the ones who should be under investigation for their crimes. At least in my eyes. After that follow the the trail where ever it leads, but don't begin with the ones who were following orders handed down by much greater criminals.

[EFerrari]

61. We are not talking about stenographers. The "underlings"

you refer to are the actual torturers.

[EFerrari]

51. Did you catch the part where he calls torturers "dedicated men and women"?

I'm dumbfounded by this statement. Is there a better construction? I know I'm very emotionally invested in this issue so, if I'm getting this wrong, would someone please help me figure this out?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. "..dedicated men and women."

"Not one of all those who talk this way has witnessed it, not one of them has been through it. Most of you must know what it means when 100 corpses are lying side by side, or 500 or 1000. To have stuck it out and at the same time-apart from exceptions caused by human weakness-to have remained decent fellows, that is what has made us hard. This is a page of glory in our history which has never been written and is never to be written, for we know how difficult we should have made it for ourselves, if-with the bombing raids, the burdens and the deprivations of war-we still had Jews today in every town as secret saboteurs, agitators and trouble-mongers." Heinrich Himmler, Posen, 1943

[derby378]

71. There it is

You just nailed it.

[Shinimegami]

128. "I was just following orders."

That was the defense the Nazi war criminals used. It didn't fly then and it shouldn't now.

[katandmoon]

54. April 15 - Tax Day. April 16 - Torturers' Day (thanks to Obama)

[Raksha]

66. In other words...the CIA has power even over the POTUS.

I guess we always knew that, but it's kind of sickening to have it shoved in our faces like this.

[Amonester]

158. well... the sea eye ay and the BFEE are synonyms

and it's pretty clear President Obama is afraid of them...

who wouldn't?

[FiveGoodMen]

75. The difference after WWII was that the war criminals lost.

"Just following orders" is different when you haven't been beaten, see?

[KoKo]

129. An interesting point...much truth to what you say...certainly in the minds

of many in DC who have used this power behind the scenes and gotten away with it for so long.

[ima_sinnic]

79. he was too cowardly to say to We The People, "this is a time for reflection, not justice."

I predict one term for this "constitutional scholar."

[geek tragedy]

150. I predict you won't do 1/10000th he does for this country

and its people.

I predict all you will do for political activism is make idiotic comments while hiding behind an anonymous userid.

[Political Heretic]

92. That's exactly how I interpret it.

Really doesn't fucking matter what information is released since as OBAMA HIMSELF STATES most of this information is already well known - if you're not going to PROSECUTE CRIMINALS.

[cali]

95. not how Greenwald interprets it. not at all, but hey you guys are all soooo

much better educated and smarter than someone like Greenwald.

[Political Heretic]

97. Just more honest.

[derby378]

98. Never argue from authority

Pyrrhonian skeptics like me will eat that argument for breakfast.

[cali]

101. look, I'm happy to argue that you're wrong

and hyperbolic. Obama hasn't granted immunity to the architects of torture. Your title line claims that he has. That's just factually wrong.

[derby378]

105. And that's okay

I'm just glad that nobody has accused me on this thread of "not getting the pony I wanted."

[Norquist Nemesis]

136. Cali, I'm hanging on to hope that you're correct

My first reaction was when I watched KO tonight was, "OK. Now I'm really pissed and Obama just lost about 85% of his base." With this, right after the Spain decision...well, hope's getting really, really, really thin.

Of course, Cheney hasn't been seen in a few days. Maybe he got a woke up with a horse's head on his pillow or something. LOL!

There's also the talk that the Cons are going to hold up Obama's noms for DOJ unless he provides some assurances. His administration is trying to operate with one hand tied behind their backs because of getting staffed up while getting served potluck by the Cons at every turn.

Patience is wearing very, very thin.

[NoSheep]

111. The Justice dept has to be proven guilty before anyone can prosecute

anyone. Period. That's where the legal "okay" came from. You cannot prosecute and expect to convict without having a law being broken. This has been explained so many times it makes me sick. Those rulings will have to be overturned. And it is being worked on. The NPR story verified that today in the very last statement.

[jtrockville]

112. WAS legal? or still IS legal? or will be legal in the FUTURE?

We must NEVER accept the premise that TORTURE can EVER be permissible under ANY circumstance.

[Vidar]

117. No accountability for the banks, no accountability for the Bush regime.

[ProSense]

137. That's what you're hoping today's events mean? Well,

there is this POV, which more closely reflects reality.

[EFerrari]

149. Reality is a shared experience. You don't get to cherry pick it.

And what Russ is also glossing over is the fact that the people responsible for damage to bodies will not be prosecuted.

Maybe that says more about our ongoing denial of the harm, even death, that was caused, than anything else.

[inna]

139. i'm so conflicted on this that i, without a doubt, need a stiff drink myself.

rec'd, anyway.


i want to see this as a reasonable compromise on part of the Obama administration, but...


as i said, i'm conflicted.


i ENTHUSIASTICALLY applaud the decision to release the memos, anyway.

[NoSheep]

141. Thanks for the help. n/t.

[amborin]

144. Your deductions are way off....Obama did not say torture is legal...

[EFerrari]

156. He tried to give legal cover to torturers. What's the difference? n/t

[GeorgeGist]

145. Post ex facto everything is perfectly legal.

Even when it's obviously evil.

The Audacity of Hope ... that someone of power will ever see through their delusions of grandeur.

[Supersedeas]

160. thus, the importance of the Memo Release: do they look like legal justifications to you?

[L. Coyote]

161. Obama says US will NOT prosecute American Torturers who "followed reasonable legal advice"

How does that change anything? Legal advice that says TO torture is UN-reasonable because torture is an internationally-enforced capital crime without a statute of limitations.

I'm reminded of archaeology, one little artifact engenders volumes of interpretive fiction with myriad and contradictory interpretation.

[Frau Schmidt]

168. so that's alright then

[EndElectoral]

169. "This is a time for reflection, not retribution." - Waterboarding by Khmer Rouge, Gestapo, Kempeitai

C'mon Obama. We've reflected on this for centuries. I'm care about transparency, but also accountability.