# Interpol to issue international arrest warrant for Dick Cheney **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 2, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691 "2010-12-02T18:27:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/41 "2010-12-03T19:55:42Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I addressed the OP in post #6. Your proof I just handed to you…Cheney admits to authorizing waterboarding. Waterboarding has only been “legal” since Cheney & Co. got the DoJ to wave a magic wand and make it so. So what illegal act do you think Cheney should be arrested for? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/42 "2010-12-03T20:16:05Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So what illegal act do you think Cheney should be arrested for? > > Regards, > Shodan I think the Nigerian thing is not worth a hill of beans although I’d be happy to see Cheney (among a few others) rot in a Nigerian prison. In the US he should be arrested for violations of the Geneva Convention (the convention has the weight of law in the US). He admits, in his own words, to signing off on the “enhanced” interrogation techniques used in Guantanamo. Waterboarding, at least, was deemed illegal in the US and the US has prosecuted people for it in the past. That they pulled a legal fast one to give themselves cover is so much bullshit. Akin to me wanting to shoot Joe Blow, asking the DoJ to find a way to make that legal, firing people who refuse to find a rationale for it and putting people in who will so I can toddle off and shoot Joe Blow. Apparently it works as a legal matter but the bullshit is apparent and stinky. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/43 "2010-12-03T20:24:56Z")
If it works as a legal matter, then it is not illegal. I trust you see the difficulties of suggesting someone be arrested for doing something that is not illegal. You are going to have to make up your mind - either we have the rule of law, in which case people that we think should be punished will walk, or we don’t, in which case people we think should not be punished will be. I understand the impulse - OJ should have been lynched and Rodney King should have had his ass kicked nine times harder than it was. But we have the rule of law. Not just when we want it, but all the time. Because we have two and only two choices - rule of law all the time, or rule of law none of the time. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/44 "2010-12-03T20:31:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I addressed the OP in post #6. Your proof I just handed to you…Cheney admits to authorizing waterboarding. Waterboarding has only been “legal” since Cheney & Co. got the DoJ to wave a magic wand and make it so. > > So yeah, I’d say the system is severely broken. Somehow the words “No controlling legal authority” keep playing in my head every time you say this. I was once directed to make approve some accounting entries, that would be wrong according to basic accounting principles. I refused to do so. I was “laid off” as were fifteen other people who refused to sign off on them, or direct me to do so (including my boss and his boss). Finally someone was found who would approve them, in exchange for a promotion and some stock options. Five people eventually got convicted of felonies of various severities for this. But the key to getting the convictions on the big guys was that they were directing the little guys, and it was obvious to everyone involved that what they were doing was wrong. If it is so blindingly obvious that waterboarding is [legally] torture that no one could reasonably believe that it is not, it should be no trick to convict the whole lot of them from John Yoo all the way to GWB. The easiest case to make would be against Yoo. But as far as I can tell nothing in terms of a criminal prosecution has gotten very far off the ground anywhere in the world. I dream of the day when Cheney gets turned over to the Nigerians who, rather than just subjecting him to enhanced interrogation techniques themselves, allow him to be extraordinarily rendered to a secret prison where South African mercenaries do things to him that are unmentionable in polite company. But my masturbatory fantasies do not provide a legal basis for any action, and neither do yours. When the Office of Professional responsibility in the Justice Department tried to refer Yoo to the Pennsylvania Bar for disciplinary action, the career lawyer stopped them. If you can’t even get him disbarred, hell even a hearing on disbarment, how far do you think you are from a criminal case. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/45 "2010-12-03T21:11:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If it works as a legal matter, then it is not illegal. I trust you see the difficulties of suggesting someone be arrested for doing something that is not illegal. > > You are going to have to make up your mind - either we have the rule of law, in which case people that we think should be punished will walk, or we don’t, in which case people we think should not be punished will be. > [@Mighty\_Mouse](#): > > Somehow the words “No controlling legal authority” keep playing in my head every time you say this. > > I was once directed to make approve some accounting entries, that would be wrong according to basic accounting principles. I refused to do so. I was “laid off” as were fifteen other people who refused to sign off on them, or direct me to do so (including my boss and his boss). Finally someone was found who would approve them, in exchange for a promotion and some stock options. Five people eventually got convicted of felonies of various severities for this. But the key to getting the convictions on the big guys was that they were directing the little guys, and it was obvious to everyone involved that what they were doing was wrong. > > If it is so blindingly obvious that waterboarding is [legally] torture that no one could reasonably believe that it is not, it should be no trick to convict the whole lot of them from John Yoo all the way to GWB. The easiest case to make would be against Yoo. But as far as I can tell nothing in terms of a criminal prosecution has gotten very far off the ground anywhere in the world. > > I dream of the day when Cheney gets turned over to the Nigerians who, rather than just subjecting him to enhanced interrogation techniques themselves, allow him to be extraordinarily rendered to a secret prison where South African mercenaries do things to him that are unmentionable in polite company. > > But my masturbatory fantasies do not provide a legal basis for any action, and neither do yours. When the Office of Professional responsibility in the Justice Department tried to refer Yoo to the Pennsylvania Bar for disciplinary action, the career lawyer stopped them. If you can’t even get him disbarred, hell even a hearing on disbarment, how far do you think you are from a criminal case. Except it is _still_ illegal to torture in the US per the Geneva Convention. John Yoo managed to contort the reading such that the “enemy combatants” were not real soldiers thus not protected by the Geneva Convention. He also argued the president was not bound by the War Crimes Act. This legal reasoning gave Bush & Co. legal cover. Even if Yoo turned out to be wrong they had the cover they needed. There is no question the Bush administration had an answer looking for a rationale and they kept at it till they got it. I’m not the only one who thinks the legal reasoning was terrible: > [@](#): > > In December, 2003, in an extraordinary repudiation of the Administration’s own legal work, the Office of Legal Counsel quietly withdrew the Yoo opinion. The new head of the O.L.C., Jack Goldsmith, a conservative legal scholar who now teaches at Harvard Law School, told the Pentagon that it could no longer rely on the legal analysis. Among other problems, Goldsmith had found Yoo’s interpretation of the President’s powers overly broad. > > SOURCE: [The Memo | The New Yorker](http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/27/060227fa_fact?currentPage=all) As for not busting the people as mentioned the President and VP have the cover of the Yoo memo. Yoo was investigated but people in government don’t stomp on the guy they ask to sign off on the bogus stuff because then when they need someone to signoff on bogus stuff no one would do it. Hell, George Tenet while at the CIA told Bush it was a “slam dunk” that Iraq had WMD. They didn’t. We started a war (supposedly) thinking they did. Tenet gets awarded the Medal of Freedom. You are rewarded in Washington for doing what you are told. Tell the admin that torture is no good you get shown the door. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/46 "2010-12-03T21:16:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Define what made the Nazis “evil”. Tell me why Cheney is, at the root of it, different. > > I am sure there were “highly respected members” of the Nazi party too (or National Socialist German Workers’ Party if you prefer). So what? > > Cheney, in his own words, was peachy about waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture. He broke international and US law on that count alone. He demeaned an entire country. > > That is just one issue of his. We could go on but this thread is not about that. Just do not pretend that somehow being a “respected member of the Republican party” means anything (woudn’t mean anything if you substituted “Democratic party” there either). Actually, it’s not true that waterboarding is torture and the enhanced interrogation techniques didn’t violate any applicable laws. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/47 "2010-12-03T21:27:45Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Actually, it’s not true that waterboarding is torture and the enhanced interrogation techniques didn’t violate any applicable laws. What changed? > [@](#): > > The United States knows quite a bit about waterboarding. The U.S. government – whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community – has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it. > > \ > > After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan’s military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding. > > SOURCE: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html) ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/48 "2010-12-03T22:52:30Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > you know, the left has yet to substantiate a frigging thing that they have been yammering about for over a decade, despite the fact that the Dems have been in full control for several years now. Nothing to add to the other debates your post inspired but when I read this I just wanted to ask, in your world does time pass differently? Ten years? Several years? These lengths of time don’t correspond to the time line the rest of us live in. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/49 "2010-12-03T23:04:45Z")
The fact that the US condemned similar actions by others says nothing about whether the current actions are illegal. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/50 "2010-12-03T23:53:12Z")
[QUOTE=boytyperanma] Nothing to add to the other debates your post inspired but when I read this I just wanted to ask, in your world does time pass differently? Ten years? Several years? These lengths of time don’t correspond to the time line the rest of us live in. [/QUOTE] Yeah, I have trouble keeping up with the yammering from the left as well. It IS sort of confusing, especially if one hasn’t been paying close attention. ‘A decade’ refers to the yammering from the left about Bush…say since 2000 (admittedly, the real yammering didn’t start until later, so perhaps ‘a decade’ is overstating things a touch). ‘Several years’ would refer to 2006 and 2009 when the Dems took control of both houses and later gained the Presidency. Well, that’s how it works in MY time line anyway. Perhaps you measure time differently on your planet? 😉 -XT ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/51 "2010-12-04T00:24:27Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Perhaps you measure time differently on your planet? 😉 Yeah I do, and I’m willing to bet I might be in the majority with these opinions ‘decade’ is ten years and definitely not less then 7 ‘Several years’ would be around 7 and not 2. ‘Full control’ of the government would be at least both houses and the presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/52 "2010-12-04T01:09:24Z")
America has so much military, diplomatic and economic influence that there is no way an ex-VP will ever be tried for his crimes in international court. I saw yesterday that wikileaks released documents showing the Obama admin helped pressure Spain’s judiciary to drop efforts to prosecute Bush officials for torture and other crimes. Sucks, but justice is only for the poor and the weak. Cheney is neither. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/53 "2010-12-04T05:13:26Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > The fact that the US condemned similar actions by others says nothing about whether the current actions are illegal. Condemned? The US prosecuted people for it. In my book that means against the law. What does it mean in your book? ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/54 "2010-12-04T07:16:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Condemned? > > The US prosecuted people for it. > > In my book that means against the law. > > What does it mean in your book? Years back I used to drive down Interstate 10 at 70mph and got pulled over and prosecuted for “speeding.” It was illegal. Today, I drive down Interstate 10 at 70mph and it’s legal. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/55 "2010-12-04T08:15:43Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > The fact that the US condemned similar actions by others says nothing about whether the current actions are illegal. So you’re saying Allied water boarding victims weren’t tortured? Because torture is illegal. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834) > [@](#): > > This exchange is between the American prosecutor, Col. Keeley, and Filipino lawyer Ramon Navarro, who was subjected to waterboarding.’ > > (snip) > > **Where did the water come out when he sat on your stomach?** > > From my mouth and all openings of my face … and then Yuki would repeat the same treatment and the same procedure to me until I became unconscious again. > > **How many times did that happen?** > > Around four or five times, from two o’clock up to four o’clock in the afternoon. When I was not able to endure his punishment which I received, I told a lie to Yuki … . I could not really show anything to Yuki, because I was really lying just to stop the torture. > > **Was it painful?** > > Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious — like drowning in the water. > > \*\*Like you were drowning? > \*\* > Drowning. You could hardly breathe. You calling this man a liar? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/56 "2010-12-04T08:17:06Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Years back I used to drive down Interstate 10 at 70mph and got pulled over and prosecuted for “speeding.” It was illegal. > > Today, I drive down Interstate 10 at 70mph and it’s legal. cite that torture has been legalized, or explanation for your analogy that has nothing to do with anything. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/57 "2010-12-04T16:35:44Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > cite that torture has been legalized, or explanation for your analogy that has nothing to do with anything. It just means the standards by which something can be called speeding can change. It can also mean there are various speeding standards. Doing 70mph on I-10 = legal, doing 70mph on Elementary Rd = illegal. Are the standards used in the previous instances where waterboarding was found by the court (not said in a newspaper) to be torture substantially similar to 2340 (the controlling standard for Dick today). A Texas Sheriff violating someone’s civil rights =/ same standard as 2340. I don’t know about the other references, but I’d be interested if anyone could find the exact law they violated. I’m sure it’s a much higher standard than a civil rights violation, but curious if it’s as high as 2340, which to me sets to high a standard (“_There’s no doubt whatsoever that a great deal of coercive treatment that most people would call torture is not prohibited by the federal antitorture statute_,” Benjamin Wittes/Brookings Institution scholar.) If the link/article pre-dates 2002, that’s even better. I do think it would have been very helpful to know that waterboarding has been repeatedly perceived as torture in the past. I just think it’s also helpful to see what standard was used to find the act illegal. Clearly none of the prior instances was not under 2340, which was enacted in 1994 (and has never been used). \*For the record, I’m only talking about whether Cheney violated 2340 by waterboarding. That’s it. There’s likely a plethora of things it does violate (did you just say a plethora?) . ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/58 "2010-12-04T23:02:57Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > It just means the standards by which something can be called speeding can change. It can also mean there are various speeding standards. Doing 70mph on I-10 = legal, doing 70mph on Elementary Rd = illegal. Are the standards used in the previous instances where waterboarding was found by the court (not said in a newspaper) to be torture substantially similar to 2340 (the controlling standard for Dick today). Perhaps we need a legal eagle to sort this out because: > [@](#): > > **United Nations Convention Against Torture** > > Ban on torture and cruel and degrading treatment > > Article 2 of the convention prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever”[5] may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict.[6] Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies.[6] Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials.[7] The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party’s effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised.[6] Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.[6] > > Because it is often difficult to distinguish between cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and torture, the Committee regards Article 16’s prohibition of such treatment as similarly absolute and non-derogable.[6] > > The other articles of part I lay out specific obligations intended to implement this absolute prohibition by preventing, investigating and punishing acts of torture.[6] > > SOURCE: [United Nations Convention Against Torture - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture#Ban_on_torture_and_cruel_and_degrading_treatment) The United States ratified the Convention against Torture in October 1994, and the Convention entered into force for the United States on 20 November 1994. Further: > [@](#): > > CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES > UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE CONVENTION > > Initial reports of States parties due in 1995 > > Addendum > > UNITED STATES OF AMERICA > > \ > > 1. This report has been prepared by the U.S. Department of State with extensive assistance from the Department of Justice and other relevant departments and agencies of the Federal Government. Substantial contributions were also solicited and received from interested non governmental organizations, academics and private citizens. The report covers the situation in the United States and the measures taken to give effect to the Convention through September 1999. > > \ > > 1. In 1992 the United States became a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, some provisions of which may be considered to have wider application than those of the Convention against Torture. The initial United States report under the Covenant, which provides general information related to United States compliance with and implementation of obligations under the Covenant, was submitted to the Human Rights Committee in July 1994 (see HRI/CORE/1/Add.49 and CCPR/C/81/Add.4). > > \ > > 1. Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offence under the law of the United States. No official of the Government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. United States law contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for example, during a “state of public emergency”) or on orders from a superior officer or public authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject to suspension. The United States is committed to the full and effective implementation of its obligations under the Convention throughout its territory. > > SOURCE: [http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/fd58acc3c4d77447802568cf0030f212/$FILE/G0040656.doc](http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b4043c1256a450044f331/fd58acc3c4d77447802568cf0030f212/$FILE/G0040656.doc) \<– That link will try to download a Misrosoft Word document ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2010, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/59 "2010-12-04T23:45:48Z")
The attorney general can only prosecute someone for violating US Statutes, not treaties. Of course, 2340 is our implementation of the CAT. 2340 does not include “degrading” treatment. For the “cruel and degrading treatment” part, you’d have to prosecute under the USC 2441 (War Crimes Act). That act, which also includes torture, implements Geneva Convention Article 3 (which includes treating prisoners in a way that is degrading. That’s likely\* a lower standard than torture. But, 2441 has changed over the years (ie, only serious breaches violate, all Article 3 violations, back to only serious). Degrading treatment is probably not a serious violation of Article 3. We’d have to find out when a particular waterboarding act occurred and then see how 2441 read at that time. As much I talk about this torture stuff, I don’t enjoy the perception that I’m defending the actions taken. So, I’m bowing out. I do know there are many organizations (ACLU, ect) who are still working diligently to bring charges for waterboarding against Cheney and Co. as we speak. I wish them luck. \*Likely because I don’t think anyone has been prosecuted under these statutes before so it’s just a guess based on how they are written. However, common-sense suggests “degrading” is less severe than “torture.” ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691/60 "2010-12-05T00:00:42Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > The attorney general can only prosecute someone for violating US Statutes, not treaties. Orly? Constitution says otherwise (bolding mine). > [@](#): > > **Article VI, Clause 2** > > This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and **all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land** ; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interpol-to-issue-international-arrest-warrant-for-dick-cheney/562691.md?page=4)