| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 988
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
 Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 10:35 am Post subject: Nothing Has Changed -- Obama's Great Betrayal |
 |
|
| Ted Rall wrote: |
BULLETIN BOARD By Ted Rall
OBAMA UNVEILS HIS LATEST UTTERLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE PLAN
>>OUR $14 TRILLION 400-GIGAWATT PLAN WILL JUMP-START THE ECONOMY, SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT, AND REVIVE THE MORIBUND "ELECTROCLASH" MUSIC GENRE.
IT INVOLVES THE METRIC SYSTEM
THE MOST GIFTED SEERS AND MYSTICS CAN MAKE NEITHER HEAD NOR TAIL OF ITS MYSTERIOUS INNER WORKINGS.
>>IT'S AN ENIGMA WRAPPED IN A LOCKBOX TIED UP WITH A GORDIAN KNOT. IT'S SO CLASSIFIED THAT NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN IT.
The Story of O
OBAMA'S SAGE'S SAY OPACITY IS THE SOURCE OF ITS AWESOME POWERS.
>>DETAILS CAN GO WRONG. THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE BLACKHOLE. IT IS DETAIL-FREE. IT IS IS PERFECT.
BERNIE MADOFF IS REPORTEDLY IN AWE
>>CAN WE READ IT?
>>YOUR HEADS WOULD EXPLODE! I DON'T NEED YOUR BRAIN STAINS ON OUR CARPETS.
Empty Pages > The Story of O
|
******************************************************************************
| Maureen Dowd wrote: | May 20, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
New York Times
Cheney Grabs a Third Term
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON
Dick and Rummy are at Cafe Milano in Georgetown, holding court. The maître d’ fawns. Waiters hover. Tourists snap pics on their digital cameras. Cable chatterers stop by to ingratiate themselves.
It isn’t so much that Dick and Rummy are back. It’s that they never left.
They had no intention of turning America’s national security over to the Boy Wonder. The two best infighters in Washington history weren’t yielding turf to a bunch of peach-fuzz pinkos who side with terrorists.
Let W. work out at the S.M.U. gym in Dallas, waiting for history to redeem him; Dick and Rummy are leaning forward into history, as they always do. Cheney is tawny with TV makeup; there’s no point taking it off. The gigs are nonstop, and he has a big Obama-bashing speech Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute.
“That was funny when you were on Fox and Neil Cavuto called you Obama’s ‘ball and Cheney,’ ” Rummy grins, taking a gulp of his brunello.
Dick grunts, raising a fork of his Risotto Gucci with roasted free-range quail.
“The punks thought they could roll over us,” Vice mutters. “Nobody puts Baby in a corner.”
Eyeing the quail, Rummy shakes his head. “Can you believe the nerve of that dadburn whippersnapper at the press dinner, saying your memoir would be called ‘How to Shoot Friends and Interrogate People?’ Whatever happened to the great White House tradition of giving respect to your predecessors?”
Dick is looking over at himself on the TV behind the bar, where Fox is doing a segment about how Republicans on the Sunday talk shows praised him for his shock-and-awe campaign against Obama.
“I can’t believe how easy it was to bring Obama into line,” Rummy says, gnawing on Gorgonzola. “We wouldn’t have needed waterboarding if everybody cracked like a peanut. It was even easier than getting the bit into Junior’s mouth. Way simpler than if we’d had to contend with McCain. In the end, the right guy won.”
Dick is surprised, too, but who can tell?
“You’re running national security now and everyone knows it,” Rummy says. “You got Obama to do an about-face on the torture photos. He’s using our old line about how it would endanger the troops. He’s keeping our military tribunals. His Justice Department invoked our state secrets privilege to try to get that lawsuit on torture and rendition dismissed. He’s trying to stop any sort of truth commission, thank goodness. He’s got his own surge going in Afghanistan. He’s withdrawing from Iraq more slowly. He’s extended our secret incursions over the Afghan border into Pakistan.”
Dick smiles on one side of his face.
“Transparency bites,” he snarls.
“By golly, yes,” Rummy says. “We controlled Junior by playing on his fear of looking like a wimp just as his dad did. And now we’re controlling Boy Wonder by playing on his eagerness to show that the Democrats are tough on national security. He’s a sucker for four-star generals, can’t resist anyone in uniform. Petraeus and Odierno speak and he jumps. If we want to roll him, we just send in the military brass flashing their medals.”
Rummy knocks back some more brunello, and shoos away some Japanese tourists after confiscating their cameras.
“I hear Poppy Bush is furious at you,” he says. “He’s telling folks he put Junior in your care and you stole his presidency and destroyed the Bush name and derailed Jeb’s chances to ever be president, and P.S., you wrecked the country and the Atlantic alliance to boot. He has it in for Lynne, too. Thinks she spun you up, like she did in high school with her flaming batons. He thinks you got loopy from all the heart procedures. And Colin’s mad at you.”
“He can go to yoga with Pelosi for all I care,” Dick growls.
The two old connivers clink glasses. “So,” Rummy muses, “what do we make our new White House boy toy do next?”
“Well,” Dick says. “He’s got to keep Gitmo open. It’s rich that his own party won’t give him the money to close it. The NIMBY factor works every time — no terrorists in my backyard. He’s got to stop this pansy diplomacy with Muslim nations. He’s got to let Bibi take out those Iranian centrifuges. He’s got to stop his Kodak moments and Commie book club with Hugo Chávez. He’s got to release those C.I.A. memos proving that we were right to rip up the Constitution. And, of course, he’s got to pardon Scooter.”
“Can we get him to do all that, Dick?”
Dick twinkles. “Yes, we can.”
Thomas L. Friedman is off today. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 988
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now we'll call it "Calm-boarding!"
| BULLETIN BOARD, by TED RALL wrote: |
THE ASTERISK PRESIDENT
WE'LL BE OUT OF IRAQ BY NEXT YEAR *
>> WE'RE NOT REALLY HERE ... WE DON'T FIT AN EASY, SIMPLE NARRATIVE.
* but 35,000-50,000 "support troops" will remain and 21,000 more will be sent to Afghanistan
GITMO WILL CLOSE *
>> GIMME TORTURE IN A U.S. AIRBASE IN AFGHANISTAN OVER A U.S. NAVAL BASE IN CUBA EVERY TIME!
* but the detainees will be transferred to a new camp in Afghanistan.
TORTURE IS NOW ILLEGAL *
>> AND I'LL NEVER WATER-BOARD ALL YEE-HA REDNECK-Y LIKE BUSH -- ONLY CALM AND COOL-LIKE
* but Obama reserves the right to use "enhanced interrogation techniques"
HABEAS CORPUS IS BACK *
>> THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU ELECT A LAWYER!
* but you can now be held in "prolonged detention" forever
6/13/09 |
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
218.71 KB |
| Viewed: |
5147 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 988
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Troubletown, by Lloyd Dangle wrote: |
PRESIDENT OBAMA MAY NOT HAVE DELIVERED AS MUCH CHANGE AS ADVERTISED, BUT FOR EVERY CHANGE NOT MADE HE DELIVERS ANOTHER AMAZING SPEECH!
THE MUNICH SPEECH, THE CAIRO SPEECH, AND THE SPEECH ON RACE?
BLAH BLAH BLAH!
>>THOSE WERE WARM-UP SPEECHES!
THE I-DON'T-KNOW-WHAT HABEAS-CORPUS-IS SPEECH
BLAH BLAH BLAH
>>HISTORIC & CREDIBILITY-STRAINING!
THE YOU-DON'T-WANNA-SEE-THOSE-TORTURE PICS SPEECH
BLAH BLAH BLAH
>>EVERY WORD A GEM!
THE FOUR-HOUR PRIMER ON THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE TIBOR RATE.
BLAH BLAM BLAM
>>SPELLBINDING!
THE CAN'T-HELP-YOU GAYS SPEECH
BLAH BING BLAH!
>>ALMOST AS DAZZLING AS THE RACE SPEECH!
THE AUDACITY OF COAL SPEECH
BLAH BLAH BLAH!
>>YOU FELT CLEANER AFTER HEARING IT.
THE HILARIOUS CORRESPONDENT'S DINNER IRAQ SPEECH
BLAH BLUM BLAM
>>THEY LAUGHED THEY CRIED
THE FLY-KILLING SPEECH
BLAB BLAH BLAB
>>CATNIP FOR CABLE!
THE HEALTH CARE ACTUARIAL COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
BLAH DE BLAH
>>INSURERS WEPT AT THE POETRY OF IT
THE DETROIT SPEECH
BLIB BLAB BLAM!
>>A BUMMER TOPIC MADE UNFORGETTABLE!
THE I-DONT-WANT-TO-TALK-ABOUT-IRAN SERIES OF IRAN SPEECHES
BLEH BLAH BLEH!
>>WOW!
copyright 2009 Troubletown.com |
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
289.6 KB |
| Viewed: |
5127 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 988
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulletin Board, by Ted Rall wrote: | "The world is watching.
We mourn each and every
innocent life that is lost."
-- BARACK OBAMA
AFGHANS KILLED: 30,551
IRAQIS KILLED: 1,733,232
DRONE KILLS CIVILIANS
LIVE
AFGHANS MOURN 40 DEAD
>>U.S. DENIES CIVILIANS KILLED BLAMES TALIBAN
BARACK OBAMA:
SAD SAD SAD
SO SAD SNIFF
SNIFF AWFUL
TERRIBLE SAD
... 30,557 ...
SO SAD TRAGIC
... 30,558 ...
6/27/09
Copyright 2009 Ted Rall |
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
222.43 KB |
| Viewed: |
5120 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 34
Location: Tucson
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:46 pm Post subject: Arrest All Banana-Eating Jungle Monkeys! |
|
|
This is a Reposting from Charles' Blog
Banana-Eating-Jungle-Monkey Comment Shouldn’t Overshadow Non-Racial 4th Amendment Issue In “Gates-Gate”
 You have to be careful when you hit the keyboard with a passion to defend your buddies. Boston Cop Justin Barrett has been suspended and is on his way to being sacked for this email, which has some gems. (The full text of the email is at the bottom of this post.) Even for those of us who don’t eat bananas in the jungle, the Barrett Email has some lessons for how to behave when confronted by an earnest expression of police interest:
| Quote: | | Your defense of Gates while he is on the phone while being confronted [INDEED] with a police officer is assuming he has rights when considered a suspect. He is a suspect and will always be a suspect. His first priority of effort should be to get off the phone and comply with the police, for if I was the officer he verbally assulated like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance. |
There is just a lot to be learned from that comment, isn’t there? If you are a “suspect,” you have no rights, and anything other than responding to the cop’s inquiries is a form of “belligerent non-compliance.” In one way, the claims of Barrett and his lawyer that this was not a racist comment bear some additional consideration. In fact, if the “suspect” were a slightly intoxicated banker fumbling with the keys to his house, or a venerable Irish Monsignor responding to questions about pedophile activity, a different set of Boston police protocols might kick in, but for your average citizen, the failure to stand and deliver when addressed by a police officer may well ignite uncontrollable rage. And an angry cop can arrest just about anyone for no reason and let his “suspect” deal with the consequences.
The Fourth Amendment seems to be missing in action in this discussion. It guarantees our right to be free from unreasonable “searches and seizures,” and in the famous case of Payton v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the arrest of a murder suspect in his home without a warrant was unconstitutional. A person’s home is accorded special protection under our constitutional jurisprudence. Sgt. Crowley, who arrested Professor Gates, was violating the Fourth Amendment when he allowed his anger to get the better of him. Now Justin Barrett’s unintentionally honest defense of his fellow-officer has confirmed the arrogant attitude behind Sgt. Crowley’s actions.
While Obama now wants to dissolve all the tension at his “beer summit” by lifting a cold one in the company of Gates and Crowley at the White House, it seems the truth just wants to ventilate itself. And the truth is that when police get hot-headed, our rights are at risk. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are there to rein them in, and to give us relief at the courthouse when they allow their passions to trample on our rights of dignity, freedom of movement, and freedom of speech. If I could have texted Obama an answer to give the reporters who asked him about Gates’ arrest, I would have texted this:
| Quote: | | All American police officers are obligated to respect the civil rights of our citizens to remain safe in their homes from a warrantless arrest. If those rights were not respected in this case, then Prof. Gates would have a claim against Sgt. Crowley. |
This comment would have dodged accusations of reverse racism and put the shoe on the right foot. Obama is the President of all Americans, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect the rights of all Americans. And don’t you forget it.
Followup comment from the author: Upon reflection, apropos of Obama's Beer Summit with Gates and his captor, Sgt. Crowley, the style and substance seem a bit off. If we're dealing with the continuation of a three-hundred year history of slavery in modern police procedure, it'll take more than a cold Bud to cool that off, and reducing the whole thing to a man-to-man exchange falls short of meaningful policy making.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
184.82 KB |
| Viewed: |
5062 Time(s) |
|
_________________
Fight on all occasions. Fight the more for duels being forbidden, since consequently there is twice as much courage in fighting.
A. Dumas, The Three Musketeers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 988
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is this the way Obama is going to stand up for Black people? -- NOT!
Why doesn't he just invite the German Secret Police over for a Bud?
FIVE YEARS OF MY LIFE -- AN INNOCENT MAN IN GUANTANAMO, by Murat Kurnaz
http://www.naderlibrary.com/lit.5yearslifeguan.toc.htm
How about the murderers of Martin Luther King? They were nice, upstanding Military Men!
ORDERS TO KILL -- THE TRUTH BEHIND THE MURDER OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, by William F. Pepper
http://www.naderlibrary.com/martin.orderskill.toc.htm
When is Obama going to stop kissing ass to Authority?
OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY, by Stanley Milgram
http://www.naderlibrary.com/psych.obediencetoauthority.htm
SIR! NO SIR!, directed by David Zeiger
http://www.naderlibrary.com/sirnosir.toc.htm
God forbid a black man should ever have a mind of his own, and NOT be in "appease" mode.
PUDD'NHEAD WILSON, by Mark Twain
http://www.naderlibrary.com/puddnhead.twain.htm
It seems that to be black is to NEVER fight.
AMERICAN FIGHT SONGS, by Charles Carreon
http://www.naderlibrary.com/amfightsong.toc.htm
So much moral high ground -- WASTED!
Obama's message to black people: "When you have the chance, do nothing." (or "When the light is green, don't go.")
Unlike Bush and the other Republicans, who, "When the light is red, that means fun, fun, fun!"
THE OLD VETO, by Charles Carreon
http://www.naderlibrary.com/poetry.oldveto.htm
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 988
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob Herbert wrote: | August 1, 2009
Op-Ed ColumnistAnger Has Its Place By BOB HERBERT
Cambridge, Mass.
No more than five or six minutes elapsed from the time the police were alerted to the possibility of a break-in at a home in a quiet residential neighborhood and the awful clamping of handcuffs on the wrists of the distinguished Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.
If Professor Gates ranted and raved at the cop who entered his home uninvited with a badge, a gun and an attitude, he didn’t rant and rave for long. The 911 call came in at about 12:45 on the afternoon of July 16 and, as The Times has reported, Mr. Gates was arrested, cuffed and about to be led off to jail by 12:51.
The charge: angry while black.
The president of the United States has suggested that we use this flare-up as a “teachable moment,” but so far exactly the wrong lessons are being drawn from it — especially for black people. The message that has gone out to the public is that powerful African-American leaders like Mr. Gates and President Obama will be very publicly slapped down for speaking up and speaking out about police misbehavior, and that the proper response if you think you are being unfairly targeted by the police because of your race is to chill.
I have nothing but contempt for that message.
Mr. Gates is a friend, and I was selected some months ago to receive an award from an institute that he runs at Harvard. I made no attempt to speak to him while researching this column.
The very first lesson that should be drawn from the encounter between Mr. Gates and the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, is that Professor Gates did absolutely nothing wrong. He did not swear at the officer or threaten him. He was never a danger to anyone. At worst, if you believe the police report, he yelled at Sergeant Crowley. He demanded to know if he was being treated the way he was being treated because he was black.
You can yell at a cop in America. This is not Iran. And if some people don’t like what you’re saying, too bad. You can even be wrong in what you are saying. There is no law against that. It is not an offense for which you are supposed to be arrested.
That’s a lesson that should have emerged clearly from this contretemps.
It was the police officer, Sergeant Crowley, who did something wrong in this instance. He arrested a man who had already demonstrated to the officer’s satisfaction that he was in his own home and had been minding his own business, bothering no one. Sergeant Crowley arrested Professor Gates and had him paraded off to jail for no good reason, and that brings us to the most important lesson to be drawn from this case. Black people are constantly being stopped, searched, harassed, publicly humiliated, assaulted, arrested and sometimes killed by police officers in this country for no good reason.
New York City cops make upwards of a half-million stops of private citizens each year, questioning and frequently frisking these men, women and children. The overwhelming majority of those stopped are black or Latino, and the overwhelming majority are innocent of any wrongdoing. A true “teachable moment” would focus a spotlight on such outrages and the urgent need to stop them.
But this country is not interested in that.
I wrote a number of columns about the arrests of more than 30 black and Hispanic youngsters — male and female — who were doing nothing more than walking peacefully down a quiet street in Brooklyn in broad daylight in the spring of 2007. The kids had to hire lawyers and fight the case for nearly two frustrating years before the charges were dropped and a settlement for their outlandish arrests worked out.
Black people need to roar out their anger at such treatment, lift up their voices and demand change. Anyone counseling a less militant approach is counseling self-defeat. As of mid-2008, there were 4,777 black men imprisoned in America for every 100,000 black men in the population. By comparison, there were only 727 white male inmates per 100,000 white men.
While whites use illegal drugs at substantially higher percentages than blacks, black men are sent to prison on drug charges at 13 times the rate of white men.
Most whites do not want to hear about racial problems, and President Obama would rather walk through fire than spend his time dealing with them. We’re never going to have a serious national conversation about race. So that leaves it up to ordinary black Americans to rant and to rave, to demonstrate and to lobby, to march and confront and to sue and generally do whatever is necessary to stop a continuing and deeply racist criminal justice outrage. |
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
14.65 KB |
| Viewed: |
5030 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 988
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob Herbert wrote: | | Black people need to roar out their anger at such treatment, lift up their voices and demand change. Anyone counseling a less militant approach is counseling self-defeat. |
And "white" people.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
103.17 KB |
| Viewed: |
5020 Time(s) |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 988
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
UN torture investigator calls on Obama to charge Bush for Guantanamo abuses
[JURIST] US President Barack Obama has an obligation to bring charges against former President George W. Bush and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for ordering illegal interrogation methods at Guantanamo Bay, according to a statement made by UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Manfred Nowak in an interview Tuesday with German television program ZDF Frontal 21. Nowak said that such actions constituted a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a party. Nowak noted that although evidence is available to press charges, he does not know whether US law would recognize the interrogation techniques used as forms of torture.
Last week, the chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee released a report recommending the Obama administration undertake a criminal investigation to determine whether any laws were broken by the Bush administration. In an interview broadcast last week, Obama said that while he has not ruled out prosecuting officials for rights abuses during the Bush administration, he wanted to focus on "getting things right in the future." In late December, the US Senate Armed Services Committee alleged in a report that high-ranking Bush administration officials, including Rumsfeld, are responsible for the abuses committed by US interrogators in military detention centers.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tara Carreon
Veteran
Joined: 25 Sep 2008
Posts: 988
Location: Tucson, Arizona
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama should be prosecuted for "tolerating prohibited acts," being an "aidor and abettor", part of a "joint criminal enterprise", and "derelict in his duties" "with respect to acts of torture engaged in by subordinates when the leader (1) knew or should have known that subordinates were about to commit, were committing, or had committed international crimes; (2) the leader had an opportunity to act; and (3) the leader failed to take reasonable corrective action, such as ordering a halt to criminal activity or initiating a process for prosecution of all subordinates reasonably accused of criminal conduct." It is not his prerogative to bring charges against Bush & Company, it is his duty as our Number 1 representative. So get on it, Obama! If Bush & Co. go unpunished, and this system is not reversed, all Americans are terrorized, and our democratic activity threatened.
| Quote: | THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF TORTURE AND NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS
by Jordan J. Paust
http://www.naderlibrary.com/torture.jordanpaustabsoluteprohibition.htm
I. THE PEREMPTORY PROHIBITION
Torture is a form of treatment of human beings that is absolutely prohibited under various forms of customary and treaty-based international law in all social contexts. [1] Other forms of treatment that are absolutely prohibited and often proscribed in the same international instruments that outlaw torture include prohibitions of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. [2] Additionally, each form of ill-treatment constitutes a violation of peremptory rights and prohibitions jus cogens [3] that trumps any inconsistent portion of an international agreement and more ordinary forms of customary international law. [4] These forms of ill-treatment can never constitute lawful public acts by any state or public official. Furthermore, as customary rights and prohibitions jus cogens, each right and prohibition applies universally and without any attempted limitations in reservations with respect to a particular treaty. [5] As customary human rights prohibitions, they also apply universally and in all social contexts as part of the legal obligation of all members of the United Nations under the United Nations Charter to ensure “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights. . . .” [6]
In December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly reaffirmed nearly unanimous and consistent patterns of legal expectation or opinio juris, [7] stating that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment[;]” [8] that freedom from such unlawful treatment “is a non-derogable right that must be protected under all circumstances, including in times of international or internal armed conflict or disturbance[;]” [9] and, that “a number of international, regional and domestic courts . . . have recognized that the prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm of international law and have held that the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is customary international law[.]” [10] Stressing the absolute prohibition of torture and other outlawed forms of ill-treatment, the General Assembly condemned “all forms” of such “treatment or punishment, including . . . intimidation,” and reiterated the fundamental expectation of the international community that such forms of ill-treatment “are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever and can thus never be justified[.]” [11] One year earlier, the General Assembly had reaffirmed that “States are under the obligation to protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms of all persons[]” [12] and that “States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular[,] international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law[.]” [13]
II. CRIMES OF TORTURE AND SANCTION DUTIES
With respect to the obligation of every state to enforce such rights and prohibitions and the criminal nature of such forms of ill-treatment, the General Assembly has condemned “any action or attempt . . . to legalize, authorize or acquiesce in torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment . . . under any circumstances, including on grounds of national security or through judicial decisions[.]” [14] The General Assembly stressed that allegations that such forms of ill-treatment have occurred “must be promptly and impartially examined . . . [and with respect to nonimmunity and the duty to prosecute,] those who encourage, order, tolerate or perpetrate acts of torture must be held responsible, brought to justice . . . and severely punished, including the officials in charge of the place of detention[.]” [15] The General Assembly also emphasized that during armed conflict “acts of torture . . . are serious violations of international humanitarian law and . . . constitute war crimes[]” and that perpetrators “must be prosecuted and punished[.]” Moreover, these acts can also constitute “crimes against humanity” [16] —a point evident in the customary post-World War II charters and laws created for prosecution of customary crimes against humanity in the international criminal tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo and in numerous fora that operated in Europe under Control Council Law No. 10, which crimes expressly included torture and “other inhumane acts[.]” [17]
The General Assembly also took note of the fact that “prolonged incommunicado detention or detention in secret places can facilitate the perpetration of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and can in itself constitute a form of such treatment[.]” [18] In 2006, in response to unlawful conduct authorized by President Bush and others in his administration, [19] the Committee Against Torture, which operates under the auspices of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), [20] recognized that “secret detention . . . constitutes, per se, a violation of the Convention[]” and that “enforced disappearance [a previously widely recognized crime against humanity under customary international law] [21] . . . constitutes, per se, a violation of the Convention.” [22] The Committee Against Torture also declared that “detaining persons indefinitely without charge, constitutes per se a violation of the Convention[.]” [23]
Also in 2006, the United Nations Security Council reaffirmed “its condemnation in the strongest terms of all acts of violence or abuses committed against civilians in situations of armed conflict . . . in particular . . . torture and other prohibited treatment . . . .” [24] Additionally, the Security Council demanded that all parties to an armed conflict “comply strictly with the obligations applicable to them under international law, in particular those contained in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 . . . .” [25] The Security Council also stressed “the responsibility of States to comply with their relevant obligations to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law[,]” [26] which can include the use of torture and cruel and inhumane treatment.
Article 146 of the 1949 Geneva Civilian Convention [27] expressly and unavoidably requires that all Parties, including the United States, “search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, . . . grave breaches [of the Convention], and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts” for “effective penal sanctions” or, “if it prefers, . . . hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party . . . .” [28] The obligation is absolute and applies with respect to alleged perpetrators of any status. As a party to the Geneva Conventions, the United States must either initiate prosecution or extradite an alleged perpetrator to another state or, today, render an accused to the International Criminal Court. “Grave breaches” of the Convention include “torture or inhuman treatment[]” [29] and transfer of a non-prisoner of war from occupied territory. [30] Similarly, Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention Against Torture expressly and unavoidably requires that a party to the treaty “under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed . . . [for example, torture or ‘complicity or participation in torture,’ is found, ‘shall,’] if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.” [31] There are no other alternatives.
When 160 states met in Rome in 1998 to create the International Criminal Court (ICC), they emphasized that there is a lack of immunity for international crimes such as genocide, other crimes against humanity, and war crimes, and affirmed the universal duty to end impunity and prosecute alleged perpetrators of such crimen contra omnes in international and domestic courts. For example, the preamble to the Statute of the ICC declares emphatically “that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and . . . their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level . . . ,” expresses the determination of the community “to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes . . . ,” and recalls the fact “that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes . . . .” [32]
With respect to Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, [33] which mirrors customary human rights law and absolutely prohibits any form of torture and cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of any human being under any circumstances, [34] the Human Rights Committee that functions under the auspices of the treaty had declared as early as 1982 that “[c]omplaints about ill-treatment must be investigated . . . [and] [t]hose found guilty must be held responsible[.]” [35] Ten years later, the Committee reiterated the requirement that those who violate Article 7, “whether [acts are] committed by public officials or other persons acting on behalf of the State, or by private persons[,] ” [36] and “whether by encouraging, ordering, tolerating or perpetrating prohibited acts, must be held responsible.” [37] The Committee added that the State parties to the treaty have a duty to afford protection whether such acts are “inflicted by people acting in their official capacity, outside their official capacity[,] or in a private capacity.” [38]
A striking feature of every international criminal law treaty is that there is no recognition of any form of immunity for official elites. In fact, Article 27 of the Statute of the ICC expressly affirms that “official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility” and that “[i]mmunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction . . . .” [39]
III. TYPES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR TORTURE
At least four general types of criminal responsibility exist under international law with respect to torture and other outlawed treatment. First, it is obvious that direct perpetrators of violations of the Geneva Conventions, other laws of war, the Convention Against Torture, and crimes against humanity (such as forced disappearance of persons) have direct liability. Leaders who issue authorizations, directives, findings, and orders that instruct others to commit acts that constitute international crimes, such as former President Bush and former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, may also be prosecuted as direct perpetrators of crimes. [40]
Second, any person who aids and abets torture is liable as an aider and abettor before the fact, during the fact, or after the fact. [41] Liability exists whether or not the person knows that his or her conduct is criminal or whether or not the conduct of the direct perpetrator of torture is criminal or even constitutes torture. [42] Under customary international law, an aider and abettor need only be aware that his or her conduct (which can include inaction) would or does assist a direct perpetrator or facilitates conduct that is criminal. [43] In any case, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Especially relevant in this respect are the criminal memoranda and behavior of various German lawyers in the German Ministry of Justice, high level executive positions outside the Ministry, and the courts in the 1930s and 1940s that were addressed in informing detail in United States v. Altstoetter (The Justice Case). [44] Clearly, several memo writers and others during the Bush Administration abetted the “common, unifying” plan to use “coercive interrogation[,]” and their memos and conduct substantially facilitated its effectuation. [45] Therefore, prosecution or extradition of several members of the former Bush Administration for criminal complicity would be on firm ground.
Third, individuals can also be prosecuted for participation in a “joint criminal enterprise,” [46] which the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia has recognized can exist in at least two relevant forms: (1) where all the accused “voluntarily participated in one of the aspects of the common plan” and “intended the criminal result [whether or not they knew it was a crime], even if not physically perpetrating the crime[;]” [47] and (2) where “(i) the crime charged was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the execution of that enterprise, and (ii) the accused was aware that such a crime was a possible consequence of the execution of that enterprise, and, with that awareness participated in the enterprise.” [48]
Fourth, civilian or military leaders with de facto or de jure authority, such as former President Bush and former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, can also be liable for dereliction of duty with respect to acts of torture engaged in by subordinates when the leader (1) knew or should have known that subordinates were about to commit, were committing, or had committed international crimes; (2) the leader had an opportunity to act; and (3) the leader failed to take reasonable corrective action, such as ordering a halt to criminal activity or initiating a process for prosecution of all subordinates reasonably accused of criminal conduct. [49]
IV. THE RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION
In 2007 and 2008, the United Nations General Assembly stressed that “national legal systems must ensure that victims of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment obtain redress, are awarded fair and adequate compensation and receive appropriate social and medical rehabilitation.” [50] In 2005, the U.N. General Assembly had provided further detail concerning the right to an effective judicial remedy for victims of violations of human rights law [51] and the type of “[a]dequate, effective and prompt reparation,” compensation, rehabilitation, and “[s]atisfaction” required under international law. [52]
The mandatory duty to provide fair compensation is set forth in Article 14 of the Convention Against Torture:
Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation. [53]
Similar rights to an effective remedy, access to courts, and nonimmunity are guaranteed in Articles 2(3)(a) and 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as emphasized in General Comments of the Human Rights Committee that operates under the auspices of the Covenant. [54] They had also been reflected previously in Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, [55] which had mirrored customary patterns of expectation concerning customary roots of the right to an effective remedy in domestic courts for violations of human rights and other rights under international law. [56]
Within the United States, Justice Breyer has recognized more generally that universal jurisdiction with respect to “torture, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes[] . . . necessarily contemplates a significant degree of civil tort recovery,” [57] and a remarkable number of U.S. cases have recognized the right to civil remedies for torture and/or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. [58] Several cases have also recognized the unavoidable fact that violations of international criminal law and human rights law cannot be lawful “official” or “public” acts of the state and are not entitled to immunity. [59] As the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg recognized, acts in violation of international criminal law (such as violations of the laws of war) are ultra vires or beyond the lawful authority of any state or official:
[T]he doctrine of the sovereignty of the State . . . cannot be applied to acts which are condemned as criminal by international law. The authors of these acts cannot shelter themselves behind their official position . . . He who violates the laws of war cannot obtain immunity while acting in pursuance of the authority of the state if the state in authorizing action moves outside its competence under international law. [60]
As noted more particularly in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala with respect to torture, “the torturer has become—like the pirate and slave trader before him—hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind.” [61]
V. WHAT IS TORTURE?
The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment provides a lengthy definition of torture. Article 1, paragraph 1 of the treaty declares:
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. [62]
Article 1 also acknowledges that “[t]his article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.” [63] Therefore, there is implicit recognition that the treaty’s definition might be too limited. In fact, many recognize that human rights law also prohibiting torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment [64] is not limited to official perpetrators or to those who act at their instigation or with their consent or acquiescence and that private perpetrators can commit illegal acts of torture. [65] Most agree, however, that prohibited acts of “torture” involve (1) an intentional act, and (2) “severe” pain or suffering, whether the prohibition is found, for example, in the CAT, human rights law, or the laws of war. [66] The severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, does not have to be long lasting, damage health, or produce any identifiable bodily injury.
As noted above, a widespread recognition exists that under international law there are no exceptional circumstances that can justify the use of torture as a matter of law. Similarly, there are no temporal or geographic gaps with respect to the prohibition of torture and it applies regardless of the status of the direct victim of torture, for example, whether or not the victim is an alleged criminal, enemy, or terrorist. Article 2, paragraph 2 of the CAT is emblematic of a widely shared understanding in this regard: “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.” [67] Furthermore, Article 2, paragraph 3, affirms that “[a]n order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.” [68] It is simply beyond the question that an act of torture cannot constitute a lawful sovereign or public act of any state.
VI. UNLAWFUL TACTICS USED DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Among specific interrogation tactics used on detained persons and authorized by President Bush and/or Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Rice, Attorney General Ashcroft, and several others within the Bush Administration that manifestly and unavoidably constitute torture are water-boarding or a related inducement of suffocation, [69] use of dogs to create intense fear, [70] threatening to kill the detainee or family members, [71] and the cold cell or a related inducement of hypothermia. [72] With respect to these and other unlawful interrogation tactics authorized by the Bush Administration, the Committee Against Torture declared in 2006 that the United States
should rescind any interrogation technique, including methods involving sexual humiliation, ‘water boarding,’ ‘short shackling’ [e.g., shackling a detainee to a hook in the floor], and using dogs to induce fear, that constitute torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in all places of detention under its de facto effective control, in order to comply with its obligations under the Convention. [73]
Although the intentional use of sexual violence and rape as tactics are recognizably torture, [74] some forms of sexual humiliation that were authorized and used might not have constituted severe pain or suffering. Nonetheless, they can be manifestly inhumane or degrading and, therefore, equally unlawful. Previously, the Committee condemned the following tactics as either torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment proscribed by the Convention: (1) restraining in very painful conditions, (2) hooding under special conditions, (3) sounding of loud music for prolonged periods, (4) sleep deprivation for prolonged periods, (5) threats, including death threats, (6) violent shaking, and (7) using cold air to chill. [75]
Many of these illegal tactics, including water-boarding and the “cold cell,” were addressed and expressly and/or tacitly approved during several meetings of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee in the White House during 2002 and 2003 that were attended by Dick Cheney, his lawyer David Addington, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, John Ashcroft, and others who facilitated their approval and use, including John Yoo. [76] With a typical smug defiance, Cheney admitted that “he was directly involved in approving severe interrogation methods . . . including . . . ‘waterboarding’” and that he was “involved in helping get the process cleared.” [77] With respect to the configurative contributions of his team, President Bush was quoted as stating “yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.” [78]
During President Bush’s admitted “program” of “tough” interrogation and secret detention or forced disappearance, [79] and as part of the well-documented “common, unifying” plan to deny Geneva law protections and to use and attempt to justify serial and cascading criminality in the form of “coercive interrogation,” [80] the Administration used shifting definitions of “torture” as if the manifest illegality of its approved interrogation tactics could be defined away. The definitions did not reflect well-known definitions and criteria used in customary and treaty-based international law, [81] or, at times, those used by the U.S. Executive in its Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for a number of years and by judges in many U.S. federal and state court cases addressing the types of treatment authorized by President Bush and his entourage, [82] including several cases addressing the prohibition of “cruel” treatment and torture under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [83] These cases and Country Reports on Human Rights could have been easily discovered through use of computer-assisted research, thus demonstrating that several writers of memoranda did not attempt to provide independent, careful, and professional legal advice.
In particular, one memorandum (often-called the “Bybee torture memo”), [84] completed in August 2002 by John Yoo and Jay Bybee, set forth what had become the Administration’s preferred but patently improper standard regarding “torture.” According to the Bybee memo, “torture” should involve far more than the widely known treaty-based and customary international legal test of “severe” physical or mental pain or suffering, and the test set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 2340(1). According to the Bybee memo, the definition of “severe” must be the “equivalent [of] the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so sever [sic] that death, organ failure, or permanent damage resulting in a loss of a significant body function will likely result[.]” [85] Because the memo was written after several of the White House meetings during which an inner circle (and John Yoo) had discussed and approved or facilitated use of specific interrogation tactics, [86] and was created expressly to deal with “the conduct of interrogations outside of the United States and possible defenses that [allegedly] would negate any claim that certain interrogation methods [already approved] violate” a particular federal statute, [87] it is obvious that the memo was not written for independent professional legal advice, but to provide possible cover for tactics already approved and to facilitate their use in the future. Moreover, because the memo writers had refused to use the widely known test with respect to torture, the Bybee memo was facially devoid of legal propriety and blatantly facilitated the use of criminal interrogation tactics. The memo had also made the patently erroneous claim that, as a matter of law, “necessity and self-defense could justify interrogation methods needed to elicit information.” [88]
Criticism of the manifestly erroneous memo grew so widespread in the U.S. and abroad that the memo was eventually withdrawn and replaced by a 2004 memo that is still classified; however, criticism continued to demonstrate that the Bush Administration’s definition of torture remained unacceptable and that unlawful tactics being used for interrogation had not been withdrawn. There was actually a second August 2002 Bybee memo prepared by John Yoo that addressed specific interrogation tactics. [89] It was not withdrawn until June 2004 [90] when the new head of OLC, Jack Goldsmith, finally decided to withdraw the opinion nearly eight months after he had learned of the secret CIA tactics for interrogation authorized in the second Bybee memo. [91] For nearly eight months, Goldsmith apparently decided that he would not oppose the use of any particular tactic addressed in the memo or otherwise known to be used by the CIA. [92]
A March 14, 2003 memo written by John Yoo for William Haynes [93] (after participation in several of the White House meetings of the Principals Committee) had, in Goldsmith’s words, “contained abstract and overbroad legal advice, but the actual techniques approved by the [defense] department were specific[.]” [94] In December 2003, Goldsmith decided to withdraw the March 2003 Yoo memo, but he told Ashcroft and Haynes that he allowed the Department of Defense “to continue to employ the twenty-four techniques.” [95]
In March 2004, a draft memo penned and “circulated” by Jack Goldsmith fit perfectly within the common, unifying plan to deny Geneva protections and engage in secret detention and coercive interrogation by claiming that persons in Iraq can be transferred “to another country to facilitate interrogation[,]” [96] despite the clear, absolute, and criminal prohibition of the transfer of any non-prisoner of war out of occupied territory under the Geneva Civilian Convention and customary international law. [97] To “facilitate interrogation,” the Goldsmith memo also made the patently erroneous claim that a detainee who was not lawfully in Iraq could be denied protections under Geneva law. [98]
In 2005, a memo penned by Steven G. Bradbury of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice and approved by then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales provided “an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency[,]” including water-boarding and use of “frigid temperatures.” [99] In July, 2006, soon after the Supreme Court ruled that detainees are entitled, at a minimum, to the rights reflected in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, [100] President Bush signed a new executive order reauthorizing unlawful interrogation tactics such as water-boarding and the “cold-cell” while furthering his program of coercive interrogation and secret detention. [101] In September 2006, President Bush admitted that a CIA program had been implemented using secret detention and “tough” forms of treatment and that the program would continue. [102]
Later in 2006, Congress enacted the Military Commission Act (MCA), [103] thereby amending the War Crimes Act. [104] The MCA was enacted to further define “torture” prohibited under Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions—a violation of which is a war crime under international law, the War Crimes Act, [105] and other federal legislation that was not amended and incorporates all of the laws of war as offenses against the laws of the United States. [106] However, the MCA’s definition does not comply with Article 1 of the CAT, for the following reasons: (1) the MCA definition applies only to torture of a person in the perpetrator’s custody or control, whereas the CAT’s definition applies to any “complicity or participation in torture[]” of any person; (2) the MCA definition has a limitation with respect to the purposes for which torture is used, whereas the CAT assures that torture for any purpose is illegal and lists purposes in a non-exclusive manner (i.e., listing purposes with the phrase “such as”); and (3) the definition of “severe mental pain or suffering” in the MCA is limited to the meaning set forth in other U.S. legislation that the Committee Against Torture has already found to be in breach of the Convention’s obligation to enact appropriate laws to cover all forms of torture as well as all forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. [107]
It is time for new legislation regarding torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to reach all forms of such unlawful treatment in order to comply with the CAT, human rights law (customary and treaty-based), the laws of war (customary and treaty-based), and, more generally, to comply with what the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly have recognized as the duty of all states to end any form of impunity for and to prosecute international crime. [108] Full coverage would also allow the United States to exercise a greater flexibility to request extradition of U.S. and foreign nationals for prosecution in the United States. Otherwise, U.S. extradition requests for the return of U.S. nationals and for the custody of foreign nationals can be denied because of a lack of dual criminality where an alleged offense is not a crime prosecutable under the laws of the foreign country as the requested state and the U.S. as the requesting state. [109] In such a circumstance, U.S. nationals will be prosecuted in foreign courts using foreign procedures [110] or rendered to the International Criminal Court (“ICC”). [111] Moreover, the principle of complementarity set forth in Article 17 of the Statute of the ICC, which requires suspension of ICC prosecution when the United States is able to and “genuinely” proceeds with prosecution in good faith, [112] will not be applicable where U.S. legislation does not cover crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC or for any other reason the U.S. cannot or will not initiate prosecution of those who are reasonably accused. One set of federal statutes allows prosecution of any war crime in the federal district courts, [113] but presently there is no federal legislation allowing prosecution of crimes against humanity as such. Nonetheless, some crimes against humanity committed during an armed conflict, such as torture and secret detention or forced disappearance of individuals, are also war crimes and can be prosecuted as war crimes. [114]
It is also time for the United States to withdraw its attempted reservation to the CAT which had declared erroneously that the U.S.
considers itself bound by the obligation under Article 16 to prevent ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,’ only insofar as the term ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. [115]
The Committee Against Torture under the auspices of the CAT has recognized that, if operative, the putative reservation (which technically is phrased merely as a unilateral understanding that happens to be in plain error and could be withdrawn) would result in a failure to cover all violations of the Convention and that, therefore, the attempted reservation is “in violation of the Convention[.]” [116] As in the case of any attempted reservation that is inconsistent with the object and purpose of a treaty, the attempted reservation is void ab initio as a matter of law and has no legal effect. [117] Thus, it cannot protect the United States or any U.S. national but, as is the case with other void attempted reservations to human rights treaties, it communicates a lack of meaningful commitment to human rights. President Obama can act now to notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations (as the depository for the treaty) that the United States formally withdraws its attempted reservation because it is void as a matter of law. Such an act by the President would help to end an embarrassment for the United States and restore U.S. integrity and respect as a country committed to human dignity and human rights. Concomitantly, President Obama can notify the Secretary-General of the U.S. withdrawal of the same type of putative, but void, reservation to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [118]
VII. CONCLUSION
It is time for real change in America. It is time to restore the rule of law; to bring an end to seven years of impunity that must be effectuated through Executive prosecution or extradition of all who are reasonably accused; and to restore American honor, integrity, and respect within the international community. [119] At this defining moment in our history, none of these critically needed outcomes can be accomplished by new commission or committee reports. [120] Ultimately, they can only be accomplished by adherence to the express and unavoidable constitutional duty of the President of the United States faithfully to execute the laws, [121] including customary and treaty-based international law that requires prosecution or extradition of those who authorized, ordered, abetted, or engaged in torture and other forms of illegal treatment of human beings. Never in the long history of the United States has there been such widespread serial criminality authorized and abetted at the highest levels of our government. Never in the history of our country has any other President been known to have authorized war crimes and crimes against humanity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Home
Search
Log in
naderlibrary.com
