Is Obama violating the Convention Against Torture in refusing to prosecute?

[bigtree]

from TPM, truthseeker77's Blog: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/truthseeker77/2009/04/today-obama-violated-the-conve.php?ref=reccafe


"In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution," the president said.

This violates the Convention Against Torture, to which we are bound, which states in Article 2:

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

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

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

Why did we sign that shit if we were not going to respect it?

In addition to Article 2, Article 146 of the same Convention Against Torture states:

"Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed , or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts."

So it is clear that two kinds of people will need to be prosecuted:

1-) Those who tortured (CIA Agents), and
2-) Those who told them to torture.


read: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/truthseeker77/2009/04/today-obama-violated-the-conve.php?ref=reccafe

[katandmoon]

1. K&R

[Generator]

2. Of course it is

But America is above all other laws. Even the laws of decency. I learned this from Obama. And instead of hope, the dude gives me despair. But oh well. It better to be in denial. That is a darn cute puppy he got after all.

[earth mom]

10. Yep, what a cute puppy-who gives a shit about torture?

Peoples priorities are so fucked up it ain't funny.

:cry:

[ProSense]

3. Refusing to prosecute the CIA interrogators or Bush officials?

There is a distinction.

Flashback: U.N. special rapporteur on torture calls on U.S. to prosecute Bush and Rumsfeld.

[WeDidIt]

6. No under the Geneva Conventions

Both are criminal.

[ProSense]

7. Literally, true. Still

even reading this to the letter, one has to believe that what they were doing was torture. Some of these interrogators were most likely told by multiple authorities that they were not engaging in torture.

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

There is still a lot of missing details: who did what, what each person was told, and who took actions that they knew were clearly beyond the Conventions.

[eomer]

13. Where are you getting that intent is required, reading it to the letter?

It looks to me like it is the act that is prohibited, and that the prohibition is absolute. Where is the wiggle room that you are seeking (and why would you be seeking it)?

From Article 3:

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590006?OpenDocument

[glinda]

4. I think we should wait. More info may be gathered.

[bigtree]

11. we'll wait

. . . but Congress should act now to begin to uncover that info.

[WeDidIt]

5. Refusal to allow prosecutions to proceed makes Obama an accessory after the fact.

Unfortunately, that makes him as much of a war criminal as anybody in this.

[anaxarchos]

8. "We" did much more than "sign that shit"...

"We" made "that shit" up. The Convention simply restates what came out of Nuremburg. That was an American show. People, then, would be horrified by what people are saying now... and they are horrified. There are a very few veterans of Nuremburg who are still alive. A few of them even have websites.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Is Spain?

Or any other country in the world?

[bigtree]

12. did they torture?

If so, they're violating the law. :shrug:

[KharmaTrain]

14. This Is Certainly A Question The UN Should Investigate

We're already seeing how compromised our own system is here that we have a government that still attempts to justify torture and war crimes and can't come to terms with the gravity of these crime, yet wanting to confront them. How much more documentation do we need to know that the Geneva Conventions were blatantly violated? If this country is to ever have any credibility in world affairs, it must confront the war crimes and criminals...show that WE are a member of the world community and those who abuse power can't get away with it.