Is Obama on the verge of committing impeachable offenses by not prosecuting the tyranny of Bushco?

9/11

During the run up to the Iraq war, fabrication and falsification of "evidence" of WMD's in Iraq, Saddam's supposed links to Al Qaeda, Iraq's supposed links to 9/11. All of which proved false. This false evidence led to the authorization of the Iraq War Resolution.

Torture

Gitmo and Abu Gharib

Don Siegelman

US Attorney firings

And that's just the tip of the iceberg regarding the shame known as the Bush Presidency.

Are Democrats involved in potential prosecution? Is that why Obama and Holder are dragging their feet?

We are a nation of laws no more. I'm tired of watching Pols self-regulate which enables them to live above the law. I'm not leveling that accusation at Obama, yet. But to me, it's starting to look like Obama is protecting certain Pols from prosecution. Why?

Bushco perpetrated some of the worst crimes in American history. To cover it up or fail to prosecute might be an equally offensive crime.

I still support my President and realize the gigantic shit sandwich that he inherited from Bushco. And I fully realize the complexity of investigating Bushco and that Holder CANNOT fuck this investigation up or the charges will be dropped. But the evidence against Bushco is so fucking blatant that a first grader knows that our government committed horrendous violations of federal and international law.

To cover it up or fail to prosecute is impeachable if indictments don't come down soon. To me, "soon" is by the end of this year.

that Obama would be using resources to prosecute Bush. Bush is gone. I just don't see it happening. I knew Obama would have his hands full just keeping us above water.

And I don't know how anyone would think it would be a "crime" that is absurd.

is if it's impeachable and that's a different matter. Probably not, literally, and certainly not politically.

Bush was already warned by the UN. It's the law of the United States as well. Technically, anyone who either participated as Bush did or who KNOWS about it and does nothing can be taken to the ICC.

And I was responding to the legality, not to anything else.

soldiers in Iraq, are there not? How long does this go on before he becomes culpable for that? I just don't see it happening.

the liability Obama incurs if he chooses not to investigate / prosecute torture.

I'm all for being realistic. The reality is, the president is in violation of US and international law if he doesn't move this. At least let's be honest about what is happening.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

impeach Obama? Over Idiot Bush??

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

It says nothing about the President prosecuting anyone. The only time "high crimes" is mentioned is in the context of removing the President for committing, then being convicted of them.

thought it would.

Law enforcement officials always have 'their hands full' in this country and most of them have fewer resources to prosecute criminals with than the president does.

HE doesn't have to do anything, that is the job of his DOJ. But who he chooses to run the DOJ and what he does about left-over Bush appointees and who is other appointees are/will be says a lot about what he thinks not to mention his constant repeating of the ridiculous notion that there is some kind of Statute of Limitations on war crimes, and therefore we ought to all move forward. Glad he wasn't a victim of Bush's crimes, lost a child, watched helplessly as a loved one was tortured and then refused an opportunity to get justice. Really, I am and I wish there had been no victims.

If the government has no time to prosecute crimes, then let's apply the same standards to over-worked DAs across the country. If the crime happened yesterday, let them 'move on' as their hands are full running for office where they can do more for the country, or whatever else our elected officials are so busy with.

The bottom line is that enormous criminal activity took place over the past eight years. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost + that many more changed forever. If crimes of that magnitude are not dealt with by the US, if you are saying that we are so inept that we cannot use the branches of government set up for this very purpose, then justice will have to come from outside this country. How pathetic and yet we have time to point fingers at other countries and demand that THEY find the will and the time to prosecute their criminals!

Please, that excuse is an insult to intelligent people and it is not selling, anywhere. Spain has the legal authority to prosecute some of our war criminals. The judge overseeing these cases gave the Obama administration time to do it themselves. They have already named six perpetrators for crimes violating the laws against torture.

So far, it looks like victims of US government crimes under Bush, will have to look to others to get some justice for the crimes endured by them and their families. What a disgrace that is, really.

I'd love to see Bushco prosecuted, but it isn't going to happen.

The GOP isn't going to bring charges to impeach him.
His own DOJ won't do it?
Who?

It's too bad, but Bush is history. Would I love to see them in orange suits doing a perp walk?
You betcha.

I am able to hold two emotions concurrently: one -- enraged at Bush & Co; two - engaged with the future and fixing our problems. I'm willing to live without the Republicans being in power in the near future. And that can be a LONG time out of power if we work together to fix our problems now --> education, health care, poverty, environment, transportation.... just a few.

As much as my personal feelings may be vindicated by prosecuting the basterds (sp tarrantino) ... We won't make a better world by wallowing in their s**t.

Well, regarding the war itself...

We'd all love to think that everyone wants Bush and Co to be locked up for his crimes. But the simple fact is, many MILLIONS of Americans don't think he's done anything wrong. When the trail of lies goes as deep as it does, there is always deniability.

"It wasn't me, I just trusted the reports!"

"I didn't gather that evidence, THEY did!"

"We only did what our bosses told us!"

"Those orders were dictacted by the situation!"

...and on and on and on. With no REAL nail to hammer these assholes to the wall with, there is no real reason to try and jail them in the first place. Not to mention, even if they DID try, a vast number of Americans would see it as nothing else but playing politics and being petty.

As for the other topics you brought up, the US Attorney firings ARE being looked at right now. People have already been blamed and punished for Gitmo (the wrong people, but it's pretty much a dead issue).

The avenues that can best produce results are likely being persued. I know how frustrating it is for some of us, but even if they're followed all the way to the top, Bush and Cheney will never see a day of jail time.

I know that's not what the OP is saying... but in general, if it has happened or hasn't happened, even if there are other people whose job it is to do, it's all Obama's fault.

Bush, Rumsfeld should be pursued for torture: UN rapporteur

Agence France-Presse | 01/21/2009 2:47 AM


BERLIN - The UN's special torture rapporteur called on the US Tuesday to pursue former president George W. Bush and defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld for torture and bad treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.

"Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation" to bring proceedings against Bush and Rumsfeld, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak said, in remarks to be broadcast on Germany's ZDF television Tuesday evening.

He noted Washington had ratified the UN convention on torture which required "all means, particularly penal law" to be used to bring proceedings against those violating it.

"We have all these documents that are now publicly available that prove that these methods of interrogation were intentionally ordered by Rumsfeld," against detainees at the US prison facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Nowak said.

"But obviously the highest authorities in the United States were aware of this," added Nowak, who authored a UN investigation report on the Guantanamo prison.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/01/20/09/bush-rumsfeld-should-be-pursued-torture-un-rapporteur

Free Republic is where you should join the President's die-hard fanatical enemies.

Hell would freeze over and Satan would go looking for space heaters before the Repubs ever even thought of impeaching one of their own, while 7 months into a promising presidency, we already have fools trying to axe one of our own. And we wonder how a screaming mob of 29%ers ever manages to win, could it be that we spend 2X as much energy fighting each other as we do the Right?

I suppose I could be wrong but... Is it the Presidents job to perform prosecutions? As far as I know, no.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Look... I would like nothing better then to see all of bushco indicted, charged, given a fair trial and then spend the rest of their days in a jail cell but... I think that task belongs with the DoJ... maybe Congress as well... I'm not certain.

Putting that responsibility at the feet of President Obama and calling for his impeachment if he does not do it on your timetable is... well to be blunt... it is a big old steaming pile of shit and I will not support it.

Which part of the Geneva torture convention says that President Obama is responsible for prosecutions of previous administrations crimes and that if he does not do them in a certain amount of time he should be impeached? I'll admit, I am not fully versed on it but I suspect it does not say that.

the failure to investigate immediately upon learning of an instance of torture. I've posted an article from back in January re a statement from the UN Special Rapportuer on torture -- I thinks it's #56.

There's also a more recent one -- last week, iirc -- where Nadler makes about the same argument.

Published on Friday, August 21, 2009 by Huffington Post
Nadler: Obama Violating Law By Not Investigating Bush

by Sam Stein

WASHINGTON - Even as the issue of torture appears likely to burst back onto the public agenda next week -- thanks to the much anticipated release of an internal CIA report -- one of the most progressive voices in Congress is arguing that the Obama White House has a legal obligation to investigate the Bush torture legacy.

New York Congressman Jerry Nadler, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told the Huffington Post that he believed that President Obama would be breaking the law if he decided to oppose launching investigation into the authorization of torture.

"If they follow the law they have no choice," Nadler said in an interview this past weekend.

The logic, for Nadler, is straightforward. As a signatory of the convention against torture, and as a result of the anti-torture act of 1996, the United States government is obligated to investigate accusations of torture when they occur in its jurisdiction.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/08/21-7

Oops -- the article is in #26, not 56.

The article confuses me a bit on the legal aspects. It mentions several times that the White House should investigate torture but it also says:

"New York Congressman Jerry Nadler, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told the Huffington Post that he believed that President Obama would be breaking the law if he decided to oppose launching investigation into the authorization of torture."

So... is it that the White House does the prosecution or that they just do not oppose it?

The article also talks about a special prosecuter... I do not know how they get appointed... Is it the President that does that or the DoJ.. or Congress? I don't know.

As I said to the OP when s/he replied to me:

Look... I would like nothing better then to see all of bushco indicted, charged, given a fair trial and then spend the rest of their days in a jail cell but... I think that task belongs with the DoJ... maybe Congress as well... I'm not certain.

Putting that responsibility at the feet of President Obama and calling for his impeachment if he does not do it on your timetable is... well to be blunt... it is a big old steaming pile of shit and I will not support it.

I do not oppose bushco getting exactly what they deserve for their crimes and acts of treason. I do oppose calling for impeachment if it is not done by President Obama by the end of the year.

as head of state, is obligated to order DoJ to investigate. And when we signed Geneva, it became US law, too. Obama's responsibility there is clear.

We also have domestic legislation about torture and I'm not familiar with that language. I don't know, for example, if it's written so as to make Congress jointly responsible.

Under Obama, we have the same problem we had under Bush. Is the president above the law? And the answer seems to be, yes, he is because even his opposition doesn't want to upset the flow of money and power in Washington.

But / and, the CIA torture story seems to be bubbling up again and it looks like next week, it will be in the news because Holder is supposed to announce a decision about a special prosecutor.

I think I kind of see it a bit different, not in the legal or moral sense but in the... how to get it done sense... maybe not the best wording but all I can come up with. I think if President Obama jumped right in and asked for investigations, a large number of people would have objected... Not because they are "for torture" but because the right would spin it as President Obama is "against the US". These freaking birthers/Obama is a secret Muslim douchebags would have gained ground faster and with more of an air of being right without anyone actually looking at their claims. I think it would have hampered him in a huge way. Remember, President Obama is not only fighting the semi-sane repugs but the complete batshit crazy ones as well as an almost complete right wing media... A tough battle there.

I think he has slowly been allowing the release of damning information (the torture memos) to get people used to the idea that bushco committed crimes and to slowly build up "the people" wanting investigation into it... "WE" (the US in general) have to first be brought around to the concept that "WE" committed crimes... Something the US is not very good at admitting.

Sorry... I gotta get to my bottom line here, I'm trying to do this and make dinner for four :D

Bottom line... I fucking hate it but I think the very real truth is that a lot of ground work has to be done before investigation much less prosecutions can be done but... I honestly believe that President Obama is very much working to-wards that end. I also don't think it has ever been done before in our history... very much ground breaking work. I think it will happen and when it does it will be because President Obama helped the American people come to the conclusion that "They" need to see it happen... Hope that makes sense. If not, tell me and I'll expound on it later on.

I was only speaking to the part where he is mandated to investigate. Good luck with dinner!

something else to look into for prosecuting the Bush crew.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050718/holtzman

Torture and Accountability
By Elizabeth Holtzman

This article appeared in the July 18, 2005 edition of The Nation.
June 28, 2005

<snip>

The War Crimes Act of 1996

No less a figure than Alberto Gonzales, then-White House counsel to George W. Bush and now US Attorney General, expressed deep concern about possible prosecutions under the War Crimes Act of 1996 for American mistreatment of Afghanistan war detainees.

This relatively obscure statute makes it a federal crime to violate certain provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The Act punishes any US national, military or civilian, who commits a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. A grave breach, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, includes the deliberate "killing, torture or inhuman treatment" of detainees. Violations of the War Crimes Act that result in death carry the death penalty.

In a memo to President Bush, dated January 25, 2002, Gonzales urged that the United States opt out of the Geneva Conventions for the Afghanistan war--despite Secretary of State Colin Powell's objections. One of the two reasons he gave the President was that opting out "substantially reduces the likelihood of prosecution under the War Crimes Act."
...

The specter of prosecution was particularly worrisome because the Conventions use broad terminology. Noting that violations may consist of "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment," Gonzales advised the President in his memo that it would be "difficult to predict with confidence" which actions would violate the War Crimes Act and which would not.

Moreover, Gonzales opined, it was "difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels" acting in the future. (The "future" could be a very long time indeed, because there would be no statute of limitations on War Crimes Act prosecutions in cases where the victim died.)

..more..

**
some say the Military Commissions Act (passed a few years ago), nullifies this.

And ultimately, I would like to see prosecutions. But (1) the Geneva Convention against torture does not require Bush et al to be prosecuted, and (2) if it does happen, it's going to take a long time.

You are making the claim. I am very familiar with the Convention and you are completely misunderstanding it.

How long do you think it was between the date that (a) Iran contra was disclosed (b) indictments were handed down and (c) convictions were gotten?

This weird mobius strip should never even get going. Bush did the crimes and should do the time. It ends there

I thought we were through with that after November 4 2008.

Here's a big unrecommend.

Then you can move on to why any Democrat on the planet Earth would want to impeach a popular President of his/her own party, and then you can justify initiating a Constitutional crisis of choice, and then you could justify bringing the entire mechanism of the US Government to a halt in the middle of the worst economic period in decades, two wars, a health care debate, environmental crisis, and many other more pressing issues just so you can have your little leftist fantasy come true.

And oh by the way, the entire exercise would of course do abolutely jack fucking shit to get the Bush team indicted or convinced of their REAL crimes.

Impeachment is an atom bomb, not a paddle. THAT's your ignorance.

It's actually worse than that, though. I don't think we'll ever be able to impeach a president again because it upsets the political elites too much and they won't allow it to happen. Bush could have eaten young children on television and no one would have moved to impeach him.

Impeachment is a fucking atomic bomb, what don't you get about that? Is the use of impeachment really a proportional response to this perceived 'violation' of his oath of office? Can you point to one President EVER that did not 'violate' that oath in some manner? Don't you realize that a 'violation' of an oath is a fundamentally subjective judgement? Is violating an oath even a crime? I don't know.

That's the lasting legacy of the Gingrich Republicans - they lowered the bar for an impeachable offense so low that it is now perceived as a mere political weapon. You've fallen for that, as have too many others. I personally hope there never IS another impeachment, because it tears at the fabric of the nation, and if it's going to be pursued, it should be because the foundation of the nation is at risk. By this criteria, Nixon's would have been one of the few viable impeachments in recent history. Bush would have been acquitted by the Senate and therefore vindicated in his transgressions.

And I've posted two links already, read them or don't read them, I think you already have this information anyway.

And at no point on this thread have I advocated impeaching the president, so no, I haven't "fallen" for anything. I've been pointing out what the law is.

I could say that the UN Convention against requires that Obama deliver a pony to each American child under 15, but saying it's so doesn't make it so.

So I suppose you would be in favor of us getting armed mobs to break up those Tea Party Morons? Maybe we ought to "indefinitely detain" the Republican and "blue dog" members of Congress until they agree to all our policy proposals.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people here are closet authoritarians. You don't want democracy, you want a dictatorship where you get to play the tyrant.

it is.

The actions of the previous administration were treason. To say that he is out of office so why bother stands for any crime. Why bother to arrest someone for murder or rape. The act has already been done. Prosecuting will not undue the crime right? It is a deterrence to show actions will not be tolerated.

always felt that all of these problems of impeachments and high crimes and presidential prosecutions or lack thereof can all be traced back to our "favorite" not elected president, Gerald Ford. I wanted to scream whenever I heard the talking heads offer up their platitudes and praises when he passed away, especially how he pardoned Nixon, whom Ford said had suffered enough, and wanted to put our long "national nightmare" behind us. And of course all the pundits agreed. Yes, oh poor Nixon, committed crimes against the constitution, the American people, and violated his executive authority, but he suffered long enough. We all know it was a quid pro quo, but the joke was on Ford since he didn't get reelected. And that fucking pardon set a dangerous precedent, a message to every president since that YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT. If Nixon had been prosecuted like he should have been, maybe then all other following presidents would think twice about exceeding and abusing their power, actually fearful that they might have to answer to the people one day. But no, that's not what happened, is it? Bush will die a free, old man warm in his bed, and Cheney's dark life force will move on to inhabit another vassal and to work in a future Republican administration, all their war crimes unpunished. And the tradition will continue, new president after new president will continue to watch the back, so to speak, of the previous administration, cause hey, they just might want to do some not so constitutional things themselves, and wouldn't want to break the wall of silence, don't ya know?

Yes, we would be left with another Dem but it would probably ruin any chance of winning the Presidency again while the Rethugs took control. Not very smart..avoiding another Rethug would be very prudent. However, there are no protections there for another President to come along, Dem or Rethug, and run roughshod over the Constitution. This is why prosecutions are needed to protect us from another imperial Presidency.

but the law of the land. It's not only how we feel about ourselves or what our values are but US law. All this "move on" talk from the White House is very nice but it doesn't address their mandate by law.

There is no law stating that the President has a duty to prosecute anyone. It does not exist.

I agree with that. It's another to deny Obama's liability.

And if we spend time and money on prosecutions, we'll still have the mess to deal with.

Seeing Bush and his cabal behind bars is a dream that we'd all like to see come true, but I don't want to lose a Democratic Majority in the effort, one which will likely not succeed. It makes me sad, but I choose to instead focus on the positive.

since the crime was originally their own. The dems certainly will not go that direction. However, that does not mean Obama is in the right to let the torture, illegal war, etc. go uninvestigated. The more info released the worse the crimes are proven to be. These are crimes against humanity and in direct contradiction to our laws and treaties and Constitution and as such more important than any other possible current problem except the environment and global warming (which is threatening to all life including man) and so must be investigated with vigor and skill. There is no alternative and no excuse worthy of giving. Out nation cannot go forward as Obama is fond of saying with this indelible stain on its psyche and history.

But then, I am among those that think Bush and Cheney should have been impeached.

I guess this has been pointed out, but it will simply never sink into the brains of those who for whatever reason refuse to understand.

1. The president does not prosecute anyone. That's the job of the Attorney General.

2. The Attorney General has "prosecutorial discretion" -- absolute and unreviewable power to decide whether to prosecute and how. He does not have to prosecute anyone if he decides not to, and no one, no legal authority, no court, can prosecute him for exercising prosecturial discretion.

And it's a mandate under Geneva, not a choice. Maybe you should go read the convention before you call other people ignorant.

The president doesn't order the AG to prosecute. You. Are. Wrong. Get over it.

Here's a link and I'm invoking the Diningroom Table rule:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6374404&mesg_id=6374668

/spelling

You are misreading the Convention -- assuming you've even read it.

Article 129

The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed. or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.

In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the present Convention.

Article 130

Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of the hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a prisoner of war of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention.

Article 131

No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.

* * *

Under the UN Convention, it's probably Article Six:

Article 6

1. Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
2. Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
3. Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
4. When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.

* * *

And what we're talking about here is command responsibility, as well.

This is the text at Wiki, Command Responsibility, subheading War on Terror, in plain English. You can go there for the hot links:

Shortly before the end of President Bush's second term newsmedia in other countries started opining that under the United Nations Convention Against Torture the US is obligated to hold those responsible for prisoner abuse to account under criminal law.<34> This view was corroborated when United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment -Professor Manfred Nowak- on January 20, 2008 remarked on German television that, following the inauguration of Barack Obama as new President, George W. Bush had lost his head of state immunity and under international law the U.S. would now be mandated to start criminal proceedings against all those involved in these violations of the UN Convention Against Torture.<35> Law professor Dietmar Herz explained Novak's comments by saying that under U.S. and international law former President Bush is criminally responsible for adopting torture as interrogation tool.<35>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_responsibility

No, I haven't misread anything.

prosecution.

In other words, this sub-thread is irrelevant to the OP's question.

The answer to that question is yes, he is and he does incur liability if he fails to do that. The question of impeachment is subsequent to establishing that point.

But I disagree that whether Obama is mandated to investigate is necessary for impeachment. The House could impeach him for being male.

:)

:shrug:

:)

But thanks for providing the text, because right off the bat, it shows why you and the OP are wrong.

Let's start with the super easy stuff.

Who has the obligation under this treaty? How is the obligated party described?

It is described as the "High Contracting Party." In this case, that means the United States.

So first super easy question: where does it say, "the head of state of the High Contracting Party shall" do anything?

So number one: you are wrong that Obama has to do anything under this treaty. The treaty is about the obligations of states. Please point out the provision that says the head of state of a High Contracting Party" has to order any investigation or prosecution.

Once you answer this basic question, we will continue with your lessons in reading international treaties.

That's because the treaty does not put the obligation on the head of state. Each state is organized differently, so the obligation is on the state overall. It would be foolish for an international treaty to try to specify the criminal or civil procedure of a contracting state.

So you and the OP are wrong.

Here's a follow up question: Under the Geneva Convention or the UN Convention against Torture, what is the actual penalty or sanction for a state not meeting its obligations?

Please show us any provision that says that the sanction is impeachment or prosecution of the head of state.

Hint: It doesn't exist!

In reading some of these posts, as well as others on DU, you'd think that Obama was the God of All, and only he can make laws, prosecute, etc.

Obama must pursue known torturers

David Akerson, Former Prosecutor, Rwanda and Yugoslavia International Tribunals Visiting Scholar, Korbel School of International Studies
Published January 30, 2009 at 6 p.m.

Paul Campos argues in his op-ed “Obama’s tough moral choice” that Obama has a moral duty to prosecute torturers in the Bush Administration. Actually, Obama is criminally liable if he doesn’t prosecute them.

A military commander has a duty to punish subordinates he knows have committed crimes under US military law and international customary law. If the commander fails to do so, he is criminally liable and subject to prosecution himself.

High level politicians have been prosecuted at the Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone International Tribunals (Slobodan Milosevic among them) under a superior criminal responsibility theory of liability — with the blessing and financial backing of the United States. There is a good argument that this applies to Obama as our Commander-in- Chief who inherits subordinates known to have committed crimes under a previous commander. One court at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia stated that: “The duty to punish naturally arises after a crime has been committed. Persons who assume command after the commission are under the same duty to punish. This duty includes at least an obligation to investigate the crimes to establish the facts and to report them to the competent authorities, if the superior does not have the power to sanction himself.” Kordic Trial Chamber, para. 446.

This comports with United States military policy. The U.S. Army field manual No. 27-10, para. 501 provides that: commander is also responsible if he has actual knowledge, or should have knowledge, through reports received by him or through other means, that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed a war crime and he fails to take the necessary and reasonable steps to insure compliance with the law of war or to punish violators thereof.

Torture is a war crime. Legally, Obama must pursue known torturers

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/30/obama-must-pursue-known-torturers/

Are you saying that the leaders of Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone were prosecuted for failing to prosecute war crimes -- or for actually committing war crimes?

Take your time, answer carefully, and provide evidence to back up your answer.

And please save your silly bluster for someone you can impress. :)

Putting aside the looney idea that a letter to the editor is an authoritative statement of the law, let's at least look at what he actually wrote:

"This duty includes at least an obligation to investigate the crimes to establish the facts and to report them to the competent authorities, if the superior does not have the power to sanction himself.”

Since every state has different legal processes, this line from one case uses the vague term, "investigate," not a duty to prosecute.

So why does the CIA's Inspector General investigation into torture not satisfy the duty to investigate torture?

They are talking about this right now on Democracy Now. The CIA Inspector General's office and the Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility have both investigated these issues extensively and the CIA IG Report is about to be released.

So even if the obligation to "investigate" were a state-party obligation, that obligation has now been met.

QED

The House handles impeachments.

President's don't "prosecute" anyone, unless we elect Sarah Palin and she can get her dept of law to do her bidding.

Holder is in charge of this and the idea that his character is less than stellar is just bullshit.

edit to cut out snark....

which the claims being made in this thread are based on.

I've seen opinions, and links to opinions, and links to quotes from UN personnel, but no one has yet posted the specific words from whatever document the claims on this thread are being based on.

We have Geneva, the UN Torture Convention and also, our 1996 War Crimes Act.

And I don't think the SCOTUS would attempt to take that field because of the political nature of the whole process.

In other words:

Article 2, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The case against Bush has to be proven before the failure to investigate Bush can be drawn up as an article of impeachment against President Obama. Which House members will draw up the articles? Dems against their own President? Reps for NOT prosecuting THEIR president? Never will happen!

Those are the facts. Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional and ignorant about the law.

is not wise at all.

'rule of law' are completely ignorant about the law.

is entirely up to the House.

Not prosecuting does not mean not guilty.

The problem is not with my definition, it's with the lack of any definition. The House could impeach Obama for being black and it would be valid (although, hopefully the SCOTUS would decide to step in at that point).

Oooh...which brings up a great point. As with the Treaty provision, I bet the Impeachment provision is limited by the Constitution itself. That would be interesting. Hell I almost want Obama to be impeached for being black now just to see the case law (kidding God).

John Dean: 'Serious consequences' if Obama doesn't prosecute torture

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/John_Dean_Serious_consequences_for_not_1219.html

that he's a convicted criminal himself.

ETA: I'm just going to chalk you up as one of those nutjobs you were talking about that knows nothing about the law. And that's probably a generous estimation.

That is the number of times someone has faced criminal charges for a failure to prosecute. That crank letter to the editor did not refer to any US statute or examples to support his Birther-style wankery. He is also intellectually dishonest where he claims that you can prosecute someone for what their subordinates have done before they were that person's subordinates. That is false. It would extend to the commanding officer or official AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME ITSELF.

the UN Special Repporteur, Nadler and Turley and not you. :)

Holder released the first set of memoranda and his Justice Department publicly suggested that it would release both the related report and the CIA inspector general’s report—often viewed as the Rosetta Stone of the torture controversy. As he read through the latter two documents, my sources said, Holder came to realize the focal and instrumental role that Department of Justice lawyers had played in constructing the torture regime and in pushing it through when career lawyers raised objection. He also took note of how the entire process was orchestrated from within the Bush White House—so that more-senior lawyers in Justice, sometimes even the attorney general, did not know what was being done. And he noted the fact that the United Nations Convention Against Torture, to which the United States is a party, requires that a criminal inquiry be undertaken whenever credible allegations of torture are presented.

Snipped from this article:
Sunday, July 12th, 2009
Torture Prosecution Turnaround? ...by Scott Horton

The attorney general is leaning toward appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Bush-era torture policy, sources tell Scott Horton. Inside the logic driving Eric Holder’s possible conversion.


http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php?id=1266

not be applicable. Prosecution of the President is given to the House. And no treaty can amend the Constitution.

I've yet to hear any legal expert say that Obama is not obliged to investigate the Bush/Cheney torture crimes. Does that rise to an impeachable offense? I have no idea and don't even want to consider that possibility.

But while I certainly don't want our president to be impeached, I do want to see him respect not only treaties but international law, not to mention, US law.

Imo, we will get some news out of DoJ this week. I hope Mr. Holder does his job.

Seriously. Unless our judicial branch deals with a problem, it won't get solved.

And, again, it rises to an impeachable offense if X number of Representatives say it does.

First of all the requirement to investigate is in a section about extradition. (Let's put aside that you seem to keep confusing the Geneva Convention with the UN Convention Against Torture.)

The UN Convention simply says that every state-party agrees to make torture an offense and that the offense must be punishable. It does not say that every offense must in fact be punished. It could not do that because that would be dictating criminal processes in various countries' very different legal contexts.

The next several articles were based on the assumption that once a state-party made torture a criminal offense, there was a likelihood that torturers would flee the countries where they engaged in torture. So these sections say that other state-parties should try to get jurisdiction over a torturer and investigate as part of an extradition back to where the torture was committed. In other words, the section you are citing would apply if an American torturer was in France; France would have to "investigate" to determine whether to send him back to the US.

But even if you wanted to misread that section and believe it means the US must US investigate torturers, it does not say "prosecute," because every state-party has different legal processes. By the standard of "investigate," the AG's looking into it and deciding not to prosecute (if that's what he decides) would satisfy the UN Convention.

The main goal of the UN Convention was to get state-parties to put anti-torture statutes on their books, which the US once again has, and to get state-parties to assist each other by returning torturers to their home countries for prosecution.

So the UN Convention's main goal in this case would be to have these cases handed under US law.

Is the torturer the one that did the actual torturing? That person's immediate supervisor?

What if someone has already been held accountable for the crime? Can you still pursue it further? ...and if everyone is just pointing fingers in a circle and the person that started this chain of events remains unclear, who do you do go after? All of them? None of them? Do we have any proof at all that Bush or Cheney personally authorized or condoned these activities?

I know we all believe it in our HEARTS but do we have any rock solid proof? ...and if we don't even have a hard lead to follow, is there a reason to risk looking like a petty sore winner to the rest of the nation when there is no chance at all that anything will come of it?

I'm all for pursuing this if there is some sort of evidence that will link those at the top to these crimes, but if there isn't it will all just amount to sound and fury signifying nothing.

that put Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush right in the crosshairs, let alone their whores in the Bush DoJ, let alone, the CIA. That's why that judge in Spain was trying to move the case. He's the same one that got Pinochet.

Do you have any evidence that the President is hindering or obstructing the Justice Department's work?

Better to just constantly point out that upholding the rule of law, INCLUDES responsibility for punishing governmental wrongdoing, and to point out that Obama is treating this as though he has a choice, when in reality, according to the duties of his office, there is no choice. Better to keep pointing out that concern over his political agenda is unfortunatey irrelevant to the issue of whether or not to uphold the law.

...and leave the implications of what happens if Obama does not do this alone.

failing to prosecute Bush? Obama's party or a future congress run by Bush's party?

Give me a fucking break.

as much as meant to register how hard it seems to get the government to work the way it's supposed to work.

Look for this story in the coming week. The long suppressed CIA Inspector General's report is being released and Holder is fixing to make a statement about appointing a Special Prosecutor re the CIA abuses.

(DU always responds to these bubbling up stories before they break the surface, too, for that matter.)

Whoever wins is right.

Nothing like a collective voice of obstructionists toward enforcing the law, abolishing corruption, and demanding justice.

http://www.squidoo.com/ObamaComplicity

When you aggregate the No vote (at this point in time), it's:

No 62
Yes 55

Considering that 48% of poll participants see impeachable offenses as far as our current president, but the derecs have more than cancelled out the recs and such status has been sustained below zero for a long while, something else becomes evident. It shows that there's a huge segment of DU'ers who don't hold the Constitution, justice, and a movement to abolish executive branch corruption as much of a priority. IMO, it's quite low of commenters who vote "no" in the poll to as well derec the thread. I wouldn't expect them to rec it, but I think that derec'ing it shows a great bit of immaturity.

I'll stick with learned and qualified opinions from experts such as Jonathan Turley, Bruce Fein, and Marjorie Cohn over the obstructionist opinions and the reflective post-rating influence among the DU community. It's those people who will be scratching their heads wondering why our military begins invading and slaughtering more innocent people and why our country starts falling apart again when the next tyrannical president takes office.

It wouldn't surprise me if this reply even gets censored.

investigations and prosecutions...

The real "bad apples" are at the top of the tree.

--

Sorta like Republicans supporting Nader.

:eyes:

Are you a shit-stirrer who gets their jollies out of posting flamebait?

Bush's impeachable offenses? Um.. we didn't impeach Bush for committing those crimes and now you want to impeach Obama for not investigating them? While I have been a huge proponent of investigations and arrests, this has to be the stupidest thing I have read here in a long time.

to continue to rant incoherently that Obama is a war criminal who needs to be impeached:

AG Holder to appoint special prosecutor, breaking on m$nbc!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6380859&mesg_id=6380859

Come on, I know you still have one in ya!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: