The Highest Law of the Land “Requires” the Government to Prosecute Those Who Authorized Torture

[n2doc]

By Washington's Blog

Preface: This is not a partisan issue. As shown below, Democrats are complicit in high crimes as well.

The Government Is Breaking the Law By Failing to Prosecute Torture

President Ronald Reagan signed a treaty legally requiring the U.S. to prosecute everyone who authorizes torture.

Specifically, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (signed by the U.S. under Ronald Reagan) provides:

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.

2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. . . .

Article 4

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.

more

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-highest-law-of-the-land-requires-the-government-to-prosecute/5394838

[Warpy]

1. Yes, and the official admission that it occurred is the first step

Let's hope the rest of the steps don't take so damned long. I want to see Cheney and the rest of them in prison orange.

[PoliticAverse]

4. Sorry, but prosecution would fall under getting "too sanctimonious" on the issue. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

2. We used to prosecute people that waterboarded, yes even Americans...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170_2.html

[jberryhill]

3. Where does it require prosecution of every case

Can you point to the operative language "requiring the U.S. to prosecute everyone who authorizes torture".

[GeorgeGist]

5. Obviously they left loopholes ...

for the PTB.

[n2doc]

6. It is called the rule of law

If you do not enforce a law across the board, or without clearly established legal guidelines, then it is ignored and literally one becomes lawless.

And yes, we do this in the US. If that is the sort of justice you want, well, there it is. it is why a child molesting duPont heir is still walking the streets today. It is why insider trading hedge fund managers get high government posts instead of jail. And it is why people who ordered torture, and their justifiers/protectors still roam around getting huge speaking fees, and being called Patriots. Only the bottom rank soldiers ever got prosecuted.

[jberryhill]

7. There is no law that says "prosecute every case"

None.

Prosecutors decline to prosecute cases all of the time.

Are you going to say that plea bargains are also illegal?

That duPont heir, incidentally, is mentally disabled, which would have caused issues in moving forward with prosecution.

The OP suggests there is a treaty that requires prosecution of every suspect, or some other mandatory prosecution. The text does not support that concluson.

Aside from which, the president has the power to pardon anyone in the first place. I can't really remember mass lawlessness breaking out when Carter mass-pardoned draft evaders. Did you want all them to go to jail or stay in Canada?

[cheapdate]

8. The "rule of law" means what?

All undocumented immigrants must be deported. All marijuana users must be arrested and jailed, every cock-fight broken up, and every prostitute and her pimp brought charged and before a judge. Every Wall Street dealer who every lied to investors, along with every welfare applicant who ever gave false information on an application for assistance must all be brought to justice before the law.

Else we literally become lawless.

[BainsBane]

9. None of that actually happens you know

Every criminal is not prosecuted, not here or in any country. The power of the state is not absolute. That is not to say that torture shouldn't be prosecuted, but the argument that there is a legal basis requiring prosecution is false. The OP may have provided a legal basis that enables prosecution, however.

[cheapdate]

10. Yes, I'm aware.

I was replying to an earlier post, but not the OP.

I've seen the phrase "rule of law" invoked lately several times here. I think that argument ("rule of law&quot runs out of steam pretty quick. There are stronger arguments that can be made. Let's talk about justice first, law second.

[BainsBane]

11. Okay, I looked to see if you meant it facetiously

but I couldn't tell. Thanks for clarifying.

[blkmusclmachine]

12. You're either FOR or AGAINST torture. The shills for torture have provided NO convincing evidence

to change my mind on this subject. NONE.

[cheapdate]

13. Well, if you put it like that,

most Americans are FOR torture.

"The poll showed that 68 percent think there are some circumstances when the government is justified in using torture, including 16 percent who think it's always justified, 33 percent who think it's sometimes justified, and 19 percent who think it's rarely justified. Only 22 percent of Americans think torture is never justified." - HuffPo/YouGov Survey. 1,000 US Adults. April 18, 2014.

I oppose the use of torture by the state. I oppose the death-penalty and judicial execution. I oppose the criminalization of abortion (I guess that makes me FOR abortion in your way of looking at things.)

People disagree over these things. We can line up on opposite sides and shout at each other, or we can talk about it.