Or you would see how it reads today. Today I believe it’s only “serious.” I’m honestly not sure if degrading is considered serious or not, but I don’t think so.
He would have breached the CAT (abroad), but the AG couldn’t do anything about it. The AG can only prosecute for violations of US statutes.
A treaty IS law in the US. Has the same force as statute per the Constitution. Treaties count as “supreme Law of the Land”.
Also notice what it said in the report I linked to (Word doc) just upthread.
Does anyone know if Sean Hannity eventually got waterboarded? I mean it’s not torture, is it?
I’d love to debate more, but I’m about to leave. I’ll cite it later. Basically, it’s just the process of how treaties are implemented domestically (as statutes) so the AG has the power to enforce the treaty.
He’d still have breached the treaty, but the AG couldn’t prosecute an American citizen under the CAT, only for violating enacted statutes (ie, 2340) for the breach/crime. Another country could prosecute an American for breaching the CAT, though (Germany, Spain, France, ICC).
I look forward (really…not snark) to the lesson of how treaties get enforced by the AG. Seems amazing to me something could be deemed part of the “Supreme Law of the Land” and yet could be flouted at a whim till something else happens. That said I know the devil is in the details and apparently I am missing a piece.
Despite the treaty the report I linked to suggested the US had laws in place anyway that addressed torture. To me it seemed they were saying, “Sure we’ll follow this treaty because really we are well ahead of you on this anyway so changes nothing for us…thus you can expect it to be the way of things in the US.” The language used made it sound pretty emphatic (e.g. “categorically”) that torture was a no-no here. Perhaps it was just so much flowery rhetoric but I wouldn’t expect such strong language coming from the State department and the DoJ in an official report unless there was some strong basis for it.
Whack-a-mole, you seem unfamiliar with this thing we call “making an argument.” Let me help you: repeatedly asserting that x is y is not the same thing as making an actual argument that x is y.
I have no idea what you are on about.
Apparently I am dumb so spell it out for me.
Oh, undoubtedly. 
2000-2010 is 7 years? Interesting. That said, I’m glad you haven’t stooped to the level of nitpickery and have kept this discussion on track, instead of putting my hyperbole under a microscope for the sake of…well, whatever you might have put it under, had you taken the discussion into such territory.
Your logic is truly dizzying. Thank you muchly for pointing out that ‘several years’ equals 7, because 7 is the magic number of the counting, and all goodness flows from 7. Not 2 or 3, not 4 or 5…and certainly not 6. 7. Yes…I see now.
Ah, yes…thank you for pointing that out. And they haven’t had control for ‘several years’, which is vitally important to the discussion, so again, my thanks for pointing this out.
I am overwhelmed by the logic and rightness of your assertions…by all means, Cheney SHOULD be locked up forever in a Nigerian prison, butt fucked continuously by a tribe of pygmies and a couple of rogue elephants.
-XT
I’m curious, is waterboarding definitely torture under US law/treaty? As far as I know, the issue was that the line between interrogation and torture was a gray area of the law. So Bush/Cheney got legal opinions on where the line was and made a more concrete definition of what was allowed and what wasn’t.If I’m wrong on that, feel free to correct me. I don’t know all the legal issues so there many have been a bright line. However, if there wasn’t, no one should be prosecuted for what was legitimately an undefined area of the law.
I believe you should be talking to yourself. All you have done is make blanket assertions, without anything backing you up.
You just apparently are not understanding the argument. Fortunately, that isn’t a problem, as you haven’t actually been participating in the debate, and those who have understand well enough.
If you have an actual refutation, then make it. But a blanket assertion is worthless.
Man, I had a kickass (ie, long) reply and my browser crashed. This reply is going to be half-assed. Long story short, I can’t prove my assertion that the AG can only prosecute US Statutes, not treaties. Further, this question is likely deserving of its own thread.
First, not all treaties are created equally. There are self-executing treaties (“SE”) (“Self-executing treaties” are those treaties which do not require domestic legislation to give them the full force of law), and non-self-executing treaties (“NSE”) (require domestic legislation)*. Most are non-self-executing. For SE, they don’t need domestic legislation, they are in force when ratified. So, could the AG prosecute someone using a SE treaty as the source for the violation…I don’t know, and since I don’t know I’ll say yes. (I imagine, and this is just in my head, the treaty text itself or reference to the treaty would be entered into the US Code. The AG can prosecute anyone for violating the US Code. However, it’s still the treaty).
As mentioned, most are NSE. Like the Convention Against Torture. Here’s the Congressional Services Report about it (CRS REPORT - PDF):
Side note re: Cruel, Inhuman, Degrading treatment
In this instance, the AG could not prosecute someone under the CAT.
By ratifying the CAT though, it does become intentional law**, but the AG can’t prosecute someone for violating international law and courts are not bound by it. The person/state would still have breached their treaty obligations, but our country/AG would be powerless to do anything about it. Other signatory countries obviously could if it occurred in their country, or there citizen were tortured, or they used universal jurisdiction to enforce.
**as long as it’s not binding customary international law. And that’s another thread still…
Outside the AG, say the tortured person, they also could not sue the State/torturer for a violation of the CAT. They would have no standing to sue.
So, if the AG wanted to prosecute Cheney for violating the CAT, he could only do it through 2340. However, that’s not what exactly what I asserted, and I’m unclear if the AG could prosecute someone for violating a SE treaty. I’ll defer to yes until I find out otherwise.
This is pretty much what I had in the other thread, and it’s probably better this isn’t longer.
Edit: I mentioned earlier no one had been prosecuted under 2340; that’s not true. Once, in 2008. I can give a cite if anyone wants it.
Didn’t see this thread acknowledge my last post (#71) and put thread back at top, even though my post is visible (if it did for everyone else, this post can be deleted). Bumping it to the top so Whack-a-Mole knows I responded to his question.