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.
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
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:
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.
Actually, it’s not true that waterboarding is torture and the enhanced interrogation techniques didn’t violate any applicable laws.
What changed?
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.
The fact that the US condemned similar actions by others says nothing about whether the current actions are illegal.
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
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.
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.
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.
So you’re saying Allied water boarding victims weren’t tortured? Because torture is illegal.
You calling this man a liar?
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?) .
Perhaps we need a legal eagle to sort this out because:
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:
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.”
Orly?
Constitution says otherwise (bolding mine).