Americans involved in torture can be prosecuted abroad, analysts say

[NeverSure]

About the time of the USS Cole bombing I read an article in The Stars n Stripes, that spoke of the threat from within.

Now years later its coming home to roost.

If the truth be told, Uncle Sam backed the wrong horse in this race, he should have put his money on Iran.

For reasons that cant be discussed on here for fear of being branded an anti ******, Uncle Sam has made his bed and now has to lie in it.

Its a pity the truth is hidden from the American people, never mind its all about politics and getting Hilary to the White House.

That has to be one of the most confused statements I've ever read.

People who would bomb the USS Cole and take down the World Trade Center are the ones who made their beds.

There is no horse to back in this "race" and if there was Iran would be in last place. They already do everything they can to back terrorists.

BTW are you forgetting that there were more than 20 nations involved in the war in Iraq? Are you one of those who puts all of this onto the USA without understanding that the UK is still bombing Afghanistan using US drones controlled from London?????

[Anthony5]

About the time of the USS Cole bombing I read an article in The Stars n Stripes, that spoke of the threat from within.

Now years later its coming home to roost.

If the truth be told, Uncle Sam backed the wrong horse in this race, he should have put his money on Iran.

For reasons that cant be discussed on here for fear of being branded an anti ******, Uncle Sam has made his bed and now has to lie in it.

Its a pity the truth is hidden from the American people, never mind its all about politics and getting Hilary to the White House.

That has to be one of the most confused statements I've ever read.

People who would bomb the USS Cole and take down the World Trade Center are the ones who made their beds.

There is no horse to back in this "race" and if there was Iran would be in last place. They already do everything they can to back terrorists.

BTW are you forgetting that there were more than 20 nations involved in the war in Iraq? Are you one of those who puts all of this onto the USA without understanding that the UK is still bombing Afghanistan using US drones controlled from London?????

Can you remind us again what the reason was that so many Nations supported the war in Iraq?

[jesimps]

The report said about one man being water boarded 86 times and then kept inside a body sized box for 11 days.

I'm kind of speechless.

I think it's absolutely appauling what terrorists have done over the years, makes my skin crawl. Looking at the beheading activities and mass murders committed by Isil and the like makes you wonder how any human could do this sort of thing to another human.

......when I read about this US torture business, I feel numb.

Is this really 2014?......yes......humans haven't come far, barbaric vile creatures.

The US do it to try to save lives so maybe not so barbaric. I'm English by the way.

[Loptr]

Now wouldn't the if some international court grabbed a US citizen and tried to prosecute him? We're not into that European-lose-your-sovereignty-to-a-group shit.

"Ring, ring ring." "Hello USA, this is the UN." "Oh really? Get lost."

There is a reason GWB has not traveled outside the continental USA since he left office...

Former-US President George Bush Officially a War Criminal

http://www.globalresearch.ca/former-us-president-george-bush-officially-a-war-criminal/30885

It's odd that since Malaysia convicted GWB of war crimes in absentia, they have been having all kinds of problems...

[rgs2001uk]

About the time of the USS Cole bombing I read an article in The Stars n Stripes, that spoke of the threat from within.

Now years later its coming home to roost.

If the truth be told, Uncle Sam backed the wrong horse in this race, he should have put his money on Iran.

For reasons that cant be discussed on here for fear of being branded an anti ******, Uncle Sam has made his bed and now has to lie in it.

Its a pity the truth is hidden from the American people, never mind its all about politics and getting Hilary to the White House.

That has to be one of the most confused statements I've ever read.

People who would bomb the USS Cole and take down the World Trade Center are the ones who made their beds.

There is no horse to back in this "race" and if there was Iran would be in last place. They already do everything they can to back terrorists.

Are you one of those who puts all of this onto the USA without understanding that the UK is still bombing Afghanistan using US drones controlled from London?????

There is no horse to back in this "race"

Yeah for sure, its all about oil, and keeping the odious Al Sauds in power.

Iran would be in last place. They already do everything they can to back terrorists.

Matter of opinion, how much do the American tax payer pump into Israel every year?

No mention made of the American backed puppet Shah of Iran.

BTW are you forgetting that there were more than 20 nations involved in the war in Iraq?

Which one GW1 or GW2?

Are you one of those who puts all of this onto the USA without understanding that the UK is still bombing Afghanistan using US drones controlled from London?????

No I aint, I am one of those who believes we were sold a pup about WMD.

Personally I believe the UK taxpayers money is and always will have been wasted to keep a corrupt drug lord in power.

How many "killing fields" of opium were wiped out?

Why not?

Afghanistan, the latest conquest of ISIS or whatever nom de plume they use these days, Pakistan already tottering into sectarian violence.

[Loptr]

About the time of the USS Cole bombing I read an article in The Stars n Stripes, that spoke of the threat from within.

Now years later its coming home to roost.

If the truth be told, Uncle Sam backed the wrong horse in this race, he should have put his money on Iran.

For reasons that cant be discussed on here for fear of being branded an anti ******, Uncle Sam has made his bed and now has to lie in it.

Its a pity the truth is hidden from the American people, never mind its all about politics and getting Hilary to the White House.

That has to be one of the most confused statements I've ever read.

People who would bomb the USS Cole and take down the World Trade Center are the ones who made their beds.

There is no horse to back in this "race" and if there was Iran would be in last place. They already do everything they can to back terrorists.

BTW are you forgetting that there were more than 20 nations involved in the war in Iraq? Are you one of those who puts all of this onto the USA without understanding that the UK is still bombing Afghanistan using US drones controlled from London?????

Can you remind us again what the reason was that so many Nations supported the war in Iraq?

Because they were told by GWB that either you are with us, or you are against us... Hard to deny the most powerful nation on the planet when they control the purse strings and can strike anywhere in the world militarily within hours...

[Loptr]

Now wouldn't the if some international court grabbed a US citizen and tried to prosecute him? We're not into that European-lose-your-sovereignty-to-a-group shit.

"Ring, ring ring." "Hello USA, this is the UN." "Oh really? Get lost."

Why would that be? It can't be because American consider themselves above international law, is it?

yes it can.....how many wars did the USA start and how many laws did they break? If you have the biggest gun you are the law.

The US didn't break any laws that it is subject to. Your "international law" is pie in the sky.

Even I am surprised by your hubris NS...

[Naam]

First one US don't ratified ICC

Second, US don't extradite his citizen.....

Third former president bush is protect by law

It will be difficult

So if I don't recognize Thai traffic laws, no policeman can give me a ticket for traffic violations?

Thanks for informing us about that.

Thailand is a sovereign nation and when you're on its soil you are subject to its laws. You don't have an equivalent there.

Who is going to go onto US soil and grab a US citizen and enforce its "laws" on the USA? Who is going to kidnap a US citizen who's abroad and subject him to some imagined "international law" if the US won't allow it? It would be an act of war.

not only were U.S. citizens kidnapped abroad but some were even decapitated, one of them as recent as three months ago albeit not based on international law.

[NeverSure]

"Are you one of those who puts all of this onto the USA without understanding that the UK is still bombing Afghanistan using US drones controlled from London?????

---------------------------------------

"No I aint, I am one of those who believes we were sold a pup about WMD.

Personally I believe the UK taxpayers money is and always will have been wasted to keep a corrupt drug lord in power."

---------------------------------------

UH, Afghanistan isn't where there was talk of WMD's.

My Question, rephrased is, If the UK is so much holier-than-thou, why the hell are they bombing Afghanistan using US drones controlled from London?

[Anthony5]

Now wouldn't the if some international court grabbed a US citizen and tried to prosecute him? We're not into that European-lose-your-sovereignty-to-a-group shit.

"Ring, ring ring." "Hello USA, this is the UN." "Oh really? Get lost."

Why would that be? It can't be because American consider themselves above international law, is it?

yes it can.....how many wars did the USA start and how many laws did they break? If you have the biggest gun you are the law.

The US didn't break any laws that it is subject to. Your "international law" is pie in the sky.

I love the smell of protagonism late at night.

[NeverSure]

not only were U.S. citizens kidnapped abroad but some were even decapitated, one of them as recent as three months ago albeit not based on international law.

So what the hell does this have to do with the topic of prosecuting Americans? We all know that terrorists do what terrorists do. That's why we kill them.

[rgs2001uk]

The report said about one man being water boarded 86 times and then kept inside a body sized box for 11 days.

I'm kind of speechless.

I think it's absolutely appauling what terrorists have done over the years, makes my skin crawl. Looking at the beheading activities and mass murders committed by Isil and the like makes you wonder how any human could do this sort of thing to another human.

......when I read about this US torture business, I feel numb.

Is this really 2014?......yes......humans haven't come far, barbaric vile creatures.

The US do it to try to save lives so maybe not so barbaric. I'm English by the way.

The US do it to try to save lives so maybe not so barbaric. I'm English by the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Christopher_Stevens

See Hilary for details.

[Anthony5]

"Are you one of those who puts all of this onto the USA without understanding that the UK is still bombing Afghanistan using US drones controlled from London?????

---------------------------------------

"No I aint, I am one of those who believes we were sold a pup about WMD.

Personally I believe the UK taxpayers money is and always will have been wasted to keep a corrupt drug lord in power."

---------------------------------------

UH, Afghanistan isn't where there was talk of WMD's.

My Question, rephrased is, If the UK is so much holier-than-thou, why the hell are they bombing Afghanistan using US drones controlled from London?

Ever seen the movie ?

http://youtu.be/jdpMoPVH08U

[rgs2001uk]

"Are you one of those who puts all of this onto the USA without understanding that the UK is still bombing Afghanistan using US drones controlled from London?????

---------------------------------------

"No I aint, I am one of those who believes we were sold a pup about WMD.

Personally I believe the UK taxpayers money is and always will have been wasted to keep a corrupt drug lord in power."

---------------------------------------

UH, Afghanistan isn't where there was talk of WMD's.

My Question, rephrased is, If the UK is so much holier-than-thou, why the hell are they bombing Afghanistan using US drones controlled from London?

I have no idea, perhaps you best ask Queen Elizabeth or Phil The Greek.

Maybe they have been given suspect intelligence info, I honestly dont know, IMHO, rather than popping off 1 million dollars at a time Tomahawk missiles, the money would be better spent on out NHS/

BTW, <deleted> was there actually in Afghanistan that resulted in thousands of lives being wasted, trillions of $$$$ being pissed away?

Answer SFA, never mind it must have made for good reporting on good old Fox News.

Fly the flag and beat the drum, send the next lot of cannon fodder off to keep the oil flowing, lets not forget, Bubba from inner city Detroit cant afford $2 per gallon.

[RPCVguy]

"Bush has all but become a hermit who paints, while Cheney has previously canceled a speech in Toronto for security reasons - concerned that the venue would be swarmed by protestors calling for his arrest - as had happened in Vancouver. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/13/10672649-former-vice-president-dick-cheney-cancels-trip-to-canada-says-its-too-dangerous

The International law is not "imagined" but rather a treaty. While the USA has not signed onto the ICC, the USA DID sign onto the"Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" (commonly known as the United Nations Convention against Torture). That happened in 1984 under President Reagan, and the treaty became effective in 1987.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx

It would indeed be a political nightmare and many yahoo Americans would want to attack whichever nation Bush, Cheney (or others) actually served the arrest papers - but once anyone leaves US soil and the diplomatic conveyances of the various embassies, then that person is subject to the laws of the land upon which they entered. (Think about people breaking the law on foreign soil, and the most Americans in jail in any nation are in jail in Mexico, primarily near Tijuana - because of what partying excesses happen there. And as people on TV are aware, if you are arrested in Thailand, you are subject to Thai laws.) Same Same, only difference is the threat of political retaliation. The moral argument is already lost. This short satirical piece says it well -

http://www.juancole.com/2014/12/trial-richard-cheney.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

I believe that if Bush, Cheney and company were cautious before... they will be far more cautious in the future.

Oh, and the current Obama Administration is on thin ice with its drone programs and global NSA surveillance... PLUS it is in violation of the above treaty for NOT itself prosecuting those who instigated and perpetrated the acts of torture."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Wow. You are confusing "Signed," "ratified" and "went into force."

When there is a meeting, representatives of nations may "sign" it, but it has no effect unless/until the governing body of that nation ratifies it.

Even more, if a nation basically declares war if other countries try to impose their laws/treaties/conventions on that country, you hardly have a treaty.

Publicus did a very good job earlier of explaining what the US Congress said about any country arresting someone from the US right down to using military force to stop it. That was as recent as 2002.

So in essence if any country or its representative would be stupid enough to arrest Cheney or Bush, it would effectively be declaring war and the US would use military force to stop it. THAT is US law.

People are too brainwashed into thinking that there is some "international law" which overrides a nation's sovereignty without the agreement of that nation. There is not.

You could declare war and take out Saddam or Gaddafi, but who is going to declare war on The United States of America and take out selected leaders?

Who?

Not confused except for the actual dates or the steps.

Reagan "transmitted" it to the senate for "advice and consent" in 1988,

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=35858

and it took until 1994 for the senate to do such - as documented at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100296.pdf

"3. The United States ratified the Convention against Torture in October 1994, and the

Convention entered into force for the United States on 20 November 1994. In its instrument of

ratification (deposited with the Secretary General of the United Nations on 21 October 1994), the

United States made a declaration pursuant to article 21, paragraph 1, recognizing the competence

of the Committee against Torture, on a reciprocal basis, to receive and consider a State party’s

claims that another State party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Convention. The

United States also conditioned its ratification on two reservations and a number of interpretive

understandings; these are included at annex I and discussed at the relevant portions of this report."

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/100296.pdf (page 4)

and later

6. Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced

as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under the

Convention constitutes a criminal offence under the law of the United States. No official of the

Government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct

anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. No

exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. United States law

contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for

example, during a “state of public emergency”) or on orders from a superior officer or public

authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject to

suspension. The United States is committed to the full and effective implementation of its

obligations under the Convention throughout its territory.

47. In 1994, Congress enacted a new federal law to implement the requirements of the

Convention against Torture relating to acts of torture committed outside United States territory.

This law, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2340 et seq., extends United States criminal

jurisdiction over any act of (or attempt to commit) torture outside the United States by a

United States national or by an alleged offender present in the United States regardless of his or

her nationality. The statute adopts the Convention’s definition of torture, consistent with the

terms of United States ratification. It permits the criminal prosecution of alleged torturers in

federal courts in specified circumstances.

65. Information about human rights treaties is freely and readily available to any interested

person in the United States. The constitutional requirement that the U.S. Senate give its advice

and consent to ratification of treaties ensures that there is a public record of its consideration,

typically on the basis of a formal transmittal by the President, a record of the Senate Foreign

Relations Committee’s public hearing and the Committee’s report to the full Senate, together

with the action of the Senate itself. Moreover, the text of any such treaty, whether or not the

United States is a party, can be readily obtained from any number of sources.

66. In the case of the Convention against Torture, the record of its consideration is set forth

in several official documents, including, inter alia, the Message from the President transmitting

the Convention to the Senate, dated 20 May 1988 (Sen. Treaty Doc. 100-20); the printed record

of the public hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 30 January 1990

(S. Hrg. 101-718); the Report and Recommendation of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,

dated 30 August 1990 (Exec. Report 101-30); and the record of consideration on the floor of the

Senate on 27 October 1990, printed at Cong. Rec. S14486 (daily ed.)

The document cited is 74 pages long. Very self rightous in its tone, yet admitting to conditions that were listed as ongoing and unofficial. The United States long has held the concept of being a moral leader in the world community. The Senate report just released on Tuesday shows that for much of eight years (and on account of drones, maybe still), the USA lost its moral compass and proceeded to do acts that were previously vehemently protested when done elsewhere to US citizens.

Whether there will be arrests and trials is hugely a political concern. Wherever attempted it would bedivisive and emotionally charged. Unless it is done, there will not be a recovery possible for the status of moral authority/ moral leader.

[Ulic]

Nothing will happen, nobody knows who was involved of who made any decisions. Nobody was prosecuted for

bombing civilians in Laos and Cambodia, CIA involvement in regime change in South and Central America. The only fallout is the US government confirming what everyone already knows. Russia, USA, various African countries, same, same, just slightly different. Every country will look after its own interests to the extent of its own abilities to get away with it. Sometimes they bite off a little more than they can chew, but in time it all quiets down.

[NeverSure]

6. Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denouncedas a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under theConvention constitutes a criminal offence under the law of the United States. No official of theGovernment, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instructanyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. Noexceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. United States lawcontains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for

example, during a “state of public emergency”) or on orders from a superior officer or public authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject tosuspension. The United States is committed to the full and effective implementation of itsobligations under the Convention throughout its territory.

47. In 1994, Congress enacted a new federal law to implement the requirements of the

Convention against Torture relating to acts of torture committed outside United States territory.This law, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2340 et seq., extends United States criminal jurisdiction over any act of (or attempt to commit) torture outside the United States by a United States national or by an alleged offender present in the United States regardless of his or her nationality. The statute adopts the Convention’s definition of torture, consistent with theterms of United States ratification. It permits the criminal prosecution of alleged torturers in federal courts in specified circumstances.

65. Information about human rights treaties is freely and readily available to any interested person in the United States. The constitutional requirement that the U.S. Senate give its advice and consent to ratification of treaties ensures that there is a public record of its consideration, typically on the basis of a formal transmittal by the President, a record of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s public hearing and the Committee’s report to the full Senate, together with the action of the Senate itself. Moreover, the text of any such treaty, whether or not the United States is a party, can be readily obtained from any number of sources.

66. In the case of the Convention against Torture, the record of its consideration is set forth in several official documents, including, inter alia, the Message from the President transmitting the Convention to the Senate, dated 20 May 1988 (Sen. Treaty Doc. 100-20); the printed record of the public hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 30 January 1990(S. Hrg. 101-718); the Report and Recommendation of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, dated 30 August 1990 (Exec. Report 101-30); and the record of consideration on the floor of theSenate on 27 October 1990, printed at Cong. Rec. S14486 (daily ed.)

The document cited is 74 pages long. Very self rightous in its tone, yet admitting to conditions that were listed as ongoing and unofficial. The United States long has held the concept of being a moral leader in the world community. The Senate report just released on Tuesday shows that for much of eight years (and on account of drones, maybe still), the USA lost its moral compass and proceeded to do acts that were previously vehemently protested when done elsewhere to US citizens.

Whether there will be arrests and trials is hugely a political concern. Wherever attempted it would bedivisive and emotionally charged. Unless it is done, there will not be a recovery possible for the status of moral authority/ moral leader.

"States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture."

"United States of America"

LINK

You don't understand the difference between US law and UN conventions. You are quoting what is US law with only US courts having jurisdiction.

The United States of America has never ratified the convention against torture. It is not a party to it. See the Link.

The United States of America Does Not Allow Groups of Other Countries To Exercise Power Over It.

[NeverSure]

Oh dear, there have to be rules, but WHAT IF THE ENEMY HAS NO RULES ???

FAIR QUESTION, I THINK

Fair answer, the enemy get hunted and shot for having no rules.

What about the American?

What about the British who shoot Taliban using drones controlled from London without first giving the "victims" a trial followed by a steak dinner?

I mean, as in, they are doing it today.

War is hell.

People get hurt.

People die.

Sometimes innocents die.

Terrorists are animals to hunt down and treat like animals.

Within 20 years the UK will be an Islamic state under Sharia Law due to its PC ideals.

Within 20 years there will be little to no health care available in the UK because Islamic immigrants and their children born on UK soil will have sucked up all of the money available for health care.

Within 20 years the UK will be a 3rd world country simply because it is allowing the foundation to be built.

The European UK citizens will once again beg the United States of America to come and save their butts. I hope the USA says "no."

[neverdie]

The report said about one man being water boarded 86 times and then kept inside a body sized box for 11 days.

I'm kind of speechless.

I think it's absolutely appauling what terrorists have done over the years, makes my skin crawl. Looking at the beheading activities and mass murders committed by Isil and the like makes you wonder how any human could do this sort of thing to another human.

......when I read about this US torture business, I feel numb.

Is this really 2014?......yes......humans haven't come far, barbaric vile creatures.

The US do it to try to save lives so maybe not so barbaric. I'm English by the way.

I realise that, but, using that logic we could use the same techniques around the world to improve 'driving standards'. Just look how many lives are lost to drunk, drug affected and dangerous drivers each year.

Now if we torture people, maybe we can save a few lives.

I was a criminal investigator for a couple of decades, I was t allowed to use torture as a technique to obtain information and convictions so I had to use my brain instead.

My bet is I could get you to confess to something you didn't do if you were tortured hard enough for long enough. The process is flawed.

[soundman]

Posts containing excessive profanity with the usual lame attempts at by-passing the filters removed. Please remember that this is an "all ages" forum and post in a civil manner thanks.

[Anthony5]

Oh dear, there have to be rules, but WHAT IF THE ENEMY HAS NO RULES ???

FAIR QUESTION, I THINK

Fair answer, the enemy get hunted and shot for having no rules.

What about the American?

What about the British who shoot Taliban using drones controlled from London without first giving the "victims" a trial followed by a steak dinner?

I mean, as in, they are doing it today.

War is hell.

People get hurt.

People die.

Sometimes innocents die.

Terrorists are animals to hunt down and treat like animals.

Within 20 years the UK will be an Islamic state under Sharia Law due to its PC ideals.

Within 20 years there will be little to no health care available in the UK because Islamic immigrants and their children born on UK soil will have sucked up all of the money available for health care.

Within 20 years the UK will be a 3rd world country simply because it is allowing the foundation to be built.

The European UK citizens will once again beg the United States of America to come and save their butts. I hope the USA says "no."

What about the British who shoot Taliban using drones controlled from London without first giving the "victims" a trial followed by a steak dinner?

I mean, as in, they are doing it today.

That are US drones, right? Missed my link to "the waterboy" which the UK is for the US for decades? Come on son, use our drones, so you get the blame for unlawful action.

[RPCVguy]

... full link at http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/783254-americans-involved-in-torture-can-be-prosecuted-abroad-analysts-say/page-3#entry8790990

66. In the case of the Convention against Torture, the record of its consideration is set forth

in several official documents, including, inter alia, the Message from the President transmitting

the Convention to the Senate, dated 20 May 1988 (Sen. Treaty Doc. 100-20); the printed record

of the public hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 30 January 1990

(S. Hrg. 101-718); the Report and Recommendation of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,

dated 30 August 1990 (Exec. Report 101-30); and the record of consideration on the floor of the

Senate on 27 October 1990, printed at Cong. Rec. S14486 (daily ed.)

The document cited is 74 pages long. Very self righteous in its tone, yet admitting to conditions that were listed as ongoing and unofficial. The United States long has held the concept of being a moral leader in the world community. The Senate report just released on Tuesday shows that for much of eight years (and on account of drones, maybe still), the USA lost its moral compass and proceeded to do acts that were previously vehemently protested when done elsewhere to US citizens.

Whether there will be arrests and trials is hugely a political concern. Wherever attempted it would be divisive and emotionally charged. Unless it is done, there will not be a recovery possible for the status of moral authority/ moral leader.

"States which have Signed but not yet Ratified the Convention Against Torture."

"United States of America" LINK

You don't understand the difference between US law and UN conventions. You are quoting what is US law with only US courts having jurisdiction.

The United States of America has never ratified the convention against torture. It is not a party to it. See the Link.

The United States of America Does Not Allow Groups of Other Countries To Exercise Power Over It.

So what the US Senate did was to confirm the intent of the UN Convention and then state repeatedly that it would do so on US Soil... and then returned this documantation to the UN.

Your assertions are correct on land under US jurisdiction. I have said that once either Bush or Cheney leaves US soil or the diplomatic properties of its embassies, they are at risk legally of being arrested. I admit that it would be a can of worms politically. So was arresting and putting on trial Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic. Starting preemptive wars as dictated by Bush Cheney is a war crime. Harder to convict that torture - which they've each already admitted to authorizing.

Canadians have already shown a clamoring for arresting Cheney. That clamor will be louder in coming years. Many nations have problems. I am sorry for Thailand that it has been drawn into the report for being among the nations that hosted such detention sites.

Linking both your comment and mine is the intent of the US Law in the document submitted to the UN. Yes, on US soil, the USA has stated categorically that it would itself prosecute torture cases - but it has not. What we are seeing instead is a continuation of a degeneration of ethics in the USA. It started at least as early as the pardon of Nixon, continued with amnesia over Reagan's Iran-Contra scandal... flipped to extreme morality and impeachment over Clinton's affair with an intern, before ceding no-bid contracts and starting preemptive wars over WMDs that didn't exist with a nation that was not involved in 9/11. Cash funds of $Billions disappear, and torture is officially endorsed and defended by both the president and vice-president.

I for one continue to hold hope that Obama (whose policies with drones and the NSA I abhor) will accept the fact that his attempts to make peace with the Republicans by not invoking the option to prosecute back in 2009 was a mistake. It has not and will never appease them or ease the path towards getting policies enacted through legislation. As a constitutional lawyer his training and commitment may yet get him to full fill the legal requirement to prosecute equally and justly all persons, rich or poor, famous or infamous alike. ON US SOIL, THIS IS WHERE THE LAW STANDS. It needs to be followed, then next prosecute the financial crimes, that bankers look to repeat - fouling even the current budget bill.

"For this reason, it was considered necessary to condition U.S. ratification of the Convention Against Torture upon an understanding reflecting the respective competencies of the various governmental units in regard to certain provisions of the Convention. The understanding (full text at Annex I) states that U.S. obligations under the Convention shall be implemented by the federal government to the extent of its legislative and judicial jurisdiction, and otherwise by the state and local governments. With respect to those provisions which most significantly implicate state and local authority (Articles 10-14 and 16), the federal government expressly committed itself to taking measures "appropriate to the Federal system" so that, in turn, the competent authorities of the constituent units "may take appropriate measures for the fulfillment of the Convention." The intent was to make clear that steps by the federal government that are necessary to effect compliance at the state and local level will be consistent with the federal structure of the domestic governmental arrangements.

"It is important to emphasize that the "federalism" understanding does not detract from or limit the substantive obligations of the United States under the Convention, nor does it exempt any state or local officials from the Convention's requirements regarding the prohibition, prevention and punishment of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It is also important to recognize that the fundamental constitutional protections, including in particular the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, operate as restrictions at all levels of the government; all persons in the United States, regardless of their status, receive constitutional protection, in particular the protection against cruel and unusual punishment."

Drop down to the bottom of the response for the "exclusions in section "E" and "F" to see that what we did in these instances is above and beyond what was claimed as an exception. http://www.state.gov/1997-2001-NOPDFS/global/human_rights/torture_geninfo.html

More details as to US and International legal wrangling are developed here:

http://www.cfr.org/terrorism-and-the-law/torture-united-states-laws-war/p9209

[Phil Water]

Now wouldn't the if some international court grabbed a US citizen and tried to prosecute him? We're not into that European-lose-your-sovereignty-to-a-group shit.

"Ring, ring ring." "Hello USA, this is the UN." "Oh really? Get lost."

Why would that be? It can't be because American consider themselves above international law, is it?

What is international law, and where does it get any authority over a sovereign nation?

The concept of international law resides in the minds of the brainwashed.

Hey if you are going to be quoting Putin, you should be using a reference or citation.

[NeverSure]

Fair answer, the enemy get hunted and shot for having no rules.

What about the American?

What about the British who shoot Taliban using drones controlled from London without first giving the "victims" a trial followed by a steak dinner?

I mean, as in, they are doing it today.

War is hell.

People get hurt.

People die.

Sometimes innocents die.

Terrorists are animals to hunt down and treat like animals.

Within 20 years the UK will be an Islamic state under Sharia Law due to its PC ideals.

Within 20 years there will be little to no health care available in the UK because Islamic immigrants and their children born on UK soil will have sucked up all of the money available for health care.

Within 20 years the UK will be a 3rd world country simply because it is allowing the foundation to be built.

The European UK citizens will once again beg the United States of America to come and save their butts. I hope the USA says "no."

What about the British who shoot Taliban using drones controlled from London without first giving the "victims" a trial followed by a steak dinner?

I mean, as in, they are doing it today.

That are US drones, right? Missed my link to "the waterboy" which the UK is for the US for decades? Come on son, use our drones, so you get the blame for unlawful action.

That isn't possible. The UK couldn't carry water for the USA.

But they do fly US Reaper Drones over Iraq, and shoot the shit out of ISIS but of course you blame the US for that.

"The Reaper drones have already been active in Iraq, after parliament gave its approval for Britain to take part in air strikes against Isis." LINK

They also lease US nuclear subs with Trident nuclear missiles but of course that would be the fault of the US also.

[F4UCorsair]

So I guess that those members of ISIS who behead foreigners could also be tried for torture (psychological), and murder, by foreign countries?

Let's not forget that Bin Laden was found and killed as a direct result of information secured from inmates of Guantanamo Bay, possibly through torture, so I could easily justify those incidents, if in fact it was as a result of torture

Edited December 12, 2014 by F4UCorsair

[RPCVguy]

So I guess that those members of ISIS who behead foreigners could also be tried for torture (psychological), and murder, by foreign countries?

Let's not forget that Bin Laden was found and killed as a direct result of information secured from inmates of Guantanamo Bay, possibly through torture, so I could easily justify those incidents, if in fact it was as a result of torture

Part one is obviously true.

What I put into bold font is, and has been claimed repeatedly by the perpetrators of the torture (Cheney & Co) but was again proven false in the documentation released, and included as part of the oral arguments in the Senate on Tuesday.

Just reading the 15 pages of "findings and conclusions" is rough. the details after that rougher still. Senator Feinstein's explanation as to sharing only the 10% summary is that the full report is at least now available to the Senate as part of the record:

"The full Committee Study also provides substantially more detail than what is included in the Executive Summary on the CIA's justification and defense of its interrogation program on the basis that it was necessary and critical to the disruption of specific terrorist plots and the capture of specific terrorists. While the Executive Summary provides sufficient detail to demonstrate the inaccuracies of each of these claims, the information in the full Committee Study is far more extensive."

Here's the report:

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf

[Ulysses G.]

What I put into bold font is, and has been claimed repeatedly by the perpetrators of the torture (Cheney & Co) but was again proven false in the documentation released, and included as part of the oral arguments in the Senate on Tuesday.

NOTHING was proven by that report. They did not interview ANYONE in the CIA - past or present. It is like the bogus Rolling Stone article that condemned a fraternity for gang rape without interviewing any of them. The article turned out to be full of holes and Rolling Stone had to apologize

Edited December 12, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

<snip>

"I have said that once either Bush or Cheney leaves US soil or the diplomatic properties of its embassies, they are at risk legally of being arrested. I admit that it would be a can of worms politically. So was arresting and putting on trial Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic. Starting preemptive wars as dictated by Bush Cheney is a war crime. Harder to convict that torture - which they've each already admitted to authorizing."

<snip>

You are either a non-American or are using selective memory in your thought process.

What you are failing to realize is both the Iraq and Afghanistan military action were approved overwhelmingly by both Houses of the US Congress.

These military actions were not the result of some crazed politician striking out on his own and unleashing the military forces to defeat an enemy.

They were deliberative acts done with the full compliance of both the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government.

If some small country wants to make a headline and tries to grab any former President or Vice President for performing their constitutionally authorized and approved official acts the resultant response would not be pleasant. Financial and military action would very likely be immediately forthcoming and could prove devastating to both the economy and infrastructure of the country.

This entire discussion is ridiculous.

PS: In the obvious zeal of some members of this forum to "get" Bush and Cheney, you might consider adding all those members of both the US House and US Senate that prior approved the military action. That would give you an additional 518 Americans to add to your war crimes tribunal.

[chuckd]

So I guess that those members of ISIS who behead foreigners could also be tried for torture (psychological), and murder, by foreign countries?

Let's not forget that Bin Laden was found and killed as a direct result of information secured from inmates of Guantanamo Bay, possibly through torture, so I could easily justify those incidents, if in fact it was as a result of torture

Part one is obviously true.

What I put into bold font is, and has been claimed repeatedly by the perpetrators of the torture (Cheney & Co) but was again proven false in the documentation released, and included as part of the oral arguments in the Senate on Tuesday.

Just reading the 15 pages of "findings and conclusions" is rough. the details after that rougher still. Senator Feinstein's explanation as to sharing only the 10% summary is that the full report is at least now available to the Senate as part of the record:

"The full Committee Study also provides substantially more detail than what is included in the Executive Summary on the CIA's justification and defense of its interrogation program on the basis that it was necessary and critical to the disruption of specific terrorist plots and the capture of specific terrorists. While the Executive Summary provides sufficient detail to demonstrate the inaccuracies of each of these claims, the information in the full Committee Study is far more extensive."

Here's the report:

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf

This Senate Intelligence (oxymoron?) Committee report is flawed. Period, end of story.

It is a strictly Democratic party partisan report put out with no input from the opposing Republicans and with not one vote of approval from across the aisle. It is party politics and nothing else.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) claims her aides were targeted by the CIA during the past year, and they were, and this is payback.

The release also attempts to blame everything on Bush and get the heat off the scandals and policy failures of this administration.

And just for the record, Senator Feinstein voted FOR both the Iraq and Afghanistan resolutions.

[RPCVguy]

No need to interview people who are trained to lie... have been caught lying to Congress - the report is based upon the CIA's internal documents.

The Senate Intelligence Committee is charged with the responsibility of overseeing the activities of the CIA. Read the report. They started that investigation in 2009 after the CIA was caught destroying the video evidence. During the years since, the CIA was charged with deleting files they had shown to the investigation, caught spying on the committee that is required to supervise them, and the CIA admitted hacking the Senate computers. The battle for got so heated that the CIA and Senate committee each filed charges against the other with the justice department.

The senate report was based on internal CIA documents, reviewed by, was edited for redactions and released NINE MONTHS after its completion by the senate as it was finally cycled back through the executive branch.

Many pages still look this marked up - and still telling the damning story of torture that was done. again, read the report.