Comments on: White House Torture Architects’ Exemption is the Wrong Thing To Do

By: Deen

Deen — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:37:30 +0000

BTW: who needs Int’l law anyways?

Well, that’s one of the attitudes I’d hoped the Obama administration would fix. The US have to stop flipping the bird to the rest of the world.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:15:47 +0000

Well, the difference is important in terms of what Obama does. I’m not sure it makes any difference in terms of what we should do next. Either plan calls for lots of screaming and a certain amount of reasoned explanation about why not prosecuting is lousy for our citizens’ safety, for us rebuilding any kind of moral authority in the world and for us understanding what it means to be civilized.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:30:21 +0000

… which is why I’m asking for more details.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:28:17 +0000

George, there is a difference between not prosecuting and pardoning, and it’s a rather important one. One can’t change one’s mind about pardoning, and no one else (within the country) can prosecute a crime that’s been pardoned.

By: George Darroch

George Darroch — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:21:40 +0000

Obama pardons vile torturers.

By: Azkyroth

Azkyroth — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:20:22 +0000

President Obama can pardon people convicted of violating treaties, right?

Two separate clauses grant Congress the power “to define and punish piracy and other offenses against the law of nations” and the President to “issue reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.” This seems to reflect them being considered two separate categories; war crimes are surely “offenses against the law of nations” and the constitution can be straightforwardly read as not granting the president the power to pardon such…

By: aratina cage

aratina cage — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:58:53 +0000

President Obama can pardon people convicted of violating treaties, right?

By: sailor

sailor — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:19:24 +0000

This is what I was really complaining about on your last torture post Greg, it seems obvious NOTHING is going to happen. Yes, Obama is obliged by international treaty to prosecute those who torture, but like so many presidents before he will just thumb his nose at the law. Yet not prosecuting also has repercusions, in how both Americans and non-Americans will view the USA now and in the future, also in how likely this is to happen again.

By: the real deep cover-upper

the real deep cover-upper — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:22:23 +0000

DuWayne “I wonder if that isn’t why Obama doesn’t seem keen on prosecuting.”
I think that he isn’t keen on prosecuting because he, like all politicians, wants only to do what “looks good” not what “is” good. And, he probably secretly sheits his pants when he thinks about the last black president–JFK–getting assasinated by those right wing criminals.

Deen: if the right wing bastards weren’t accountable for war crimes under Int’l law, what makes you think a Democrat will be responsible under Int’l law for prosecuting those crimes in “peacetime”?

BTW: who needs Int’l law anyways?
Signed,
JoHn bolton

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:07:15 +0000

maybe Obama is really wanting to be forced into acting by public opinion.

My secret hope.

And Deen: Yes, that is an interesting point.