Americans involved in torture can be prosecuted abroad, analysts say

[Credo]

This is real bad news for Barry who will never be able to travel outside the United States again due to his killing hundreds or thousands of innocent women and children with his drone strikes.

I hate to tell you, but a drone strike is not torture. It might be murder, but it's not torture.

[RPCVguy]

<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.

#1) I am a US citizen, my dad, grandfather, ... and many ancestors are US veterans, some with memorials at sites they defended. My sister is a full fledged member of the DAR. And I resent what has become of the civic and community minded nation that I've seen deteriorate since Eisenhower. Kennedy messed up with his bravado in the Bay of Pigs, and then doubled down by entangling the USA in Vietnam. Since then it has gotten rapidly worse.

#2) What has unfolded and is still evident is a continuation of the Civil War - some for similar reasons, though usually cloaked in the passages of the Bible, and much of that was as a political strategy that has locked the current GOP such that the "leadership" needs kowtow the extremists they helped create. The corporations control both major parties, but of the two, the GOP /Republicans are more closely aligned with the rich - and the legacy of FDR (a relative through shared ancestors) still lingers weekly with the Democrats.

#3) While only one member of either house voted against going to war in Afghanistan, there was debate and early street protests against the authorization for use of force in Iraq. Selective Memory? I do recall that Bush wanted that vote/ sold that vote on the basis of giving him a stronger bargaining chip in demanding inspection access to sites. The Administration cooked and selectively released information pointing to WMDs, despite continued UN statements to the contrary. Colon Powell was lied to so as to get him to give the report that he gave citing the WMDs. Later, many in congress who voted for the resolution said they had been led to believe this vote was for posturing, not for action.

As for the extra 519 members of Congress? We are likely looking at different votes. The dramatic, much-debated vote on Joint Resolution 114 was taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133. In the end, 156 members of Congress from 36 states made the correct decision for our national and the world community.

#4) What is useful about the discussion is that precedent is being made openly - on the world stage - that what is declared as illegal is not going to be prosecuted. That makes all future indignation as to the use of torture anywhere far harder to make stick... which weakens the liberties of people everywhere.

[chuckd]

"As for the extra 519 members of Congress? We are likely looking at different votes. The dramatic, much-debated vote on Joint Resolution 114 was taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133. In the end, 156 members of Congress from 36 states made the correct decision for our national and the world community."

I must confess to a bit of laziness and literary license for the number of 518 (not 519 as you state).

There were 420 House members and 98 Senators that voted "aye" on the Afghanistan resolution, thus totaling a total of 518 "aye" votes.

I decided for the sake of my own personal sanity that I would simply take the total of whichever war resolution act received the largest number of "aye" votes and count that as a likely number of potential war criminals.

I could have taken on the laborious task of comparing the names and votes on an individual basis from each of the resolutions to see who voted for what and would have come up with even more numbers. I simply didn't want to do the work.

[RPCVguy]

Afghanistan had harbored OBL, and OBL was blamed for the attack of 9/11.
Iraq was the preemptive war that broke with international agreements as to when there was justification for war.

I too don't wish to belabor the issue - it is already being argued internationally and in the USA by people who may have options to change things. Those who've seen my prior posts know I believe there are bigger issues that are driving the conflicts that we are seeing. Climate, Energy, Population and Food are the challenges that will wipe us out soon enough. We need not have a nuclear war of even Ebola to do it. The huge inequality of distribution of assets / access to resources will soon enough lead the poorest / least advantaged to desperate measures.

As an observer of history and student of science, it is too me less important that Cheney (the driving force behind that administration) is punished than to not have a template for behaviors in the future that will make the conflicts ahead even nastier than they look to be.

[arjunadawn]

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.

SenateReportRedacted byCIA review.png

I suppose your post could be making some valid conclusions but there is one caveat: You juxtapose the CIA to the Senate. In your post it is presumed that the CIA is untrustworthy, lies, or otherwise mischievous, at best. This may be true but with relation to the Senate, this means nothing. The US Senate, that deliberative body designed to reign in the impulses of the populace as expressed through their local, emotional congress, has become nothing more than a proxy tool for special interests and executive fiat.

The US senate has no remaining integrity. That may change but most surely under Harry Reid the Senate has become a laboratory for social engineering both through its actions, and lack thereof. This body is not august. This body is not definitive. This report is a transparent tool to muddy waters leading up to the 2016 elections, and making parting shots to impugn the previous administration. Thus, this ridiculous report will be used to wallpaper future candidates in relation to their predecessors. This is utter nonsense and its release reveals how far the US population, as reflected through their representatives, has devolved.

Lastly, the definition of "torture" escapes agreement, or by what mechanism it would ever be permitted. "Unthinkable" trailer for food for thought.

[Publicus]

<<snip>>

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.

I believe that while someone can have reasons and he can reason well, the argument against Prez Obama is unreasonable. It is also unrealistic and in fact impossible. It is in short, academic, which I'd then say is fine because it would get its author an appointment to the (unique) TVF faculty (tea is each Sunday at 4...see you then).

I think I can say confidently that the US Supreme Court would not accept this unique and unprecedented case as presented in the post. While the ICC almost certainly would accept it (albeit at its own risk) the SCOTUS has passed on jurisdiction over the war on terrorists except to say Camp Delta detainees have the constitutional right of habeas corpus.

The fact is that the issues precipitated by Bush and his neocons come under the legal doctrine of political question as spelled out by the Supreme Court some considerable time ago, i.e., not within its institutional jurisdiction. The Court back when declared it has no jurisdiction or authority over the constitutional issues of war and peace. The Court said it yields to the executive and the congress in matters of national security. Which means it is up to the voters to decide and in a democracy that is good.

The voters in 2008 and again in 2012 punished G.W. Bush, his Dick Cheney and the Republican party, while rewarding Barack Obama and the Democratic party. The Senate is the constitutional ratifying body and it, for its part, has declined to ratify the treaty, which means the president -- any president -- has no political or constitutional authority to implement it.

The ICC treaty is not included in the law of the land. The Supreme Court won't consider any action under the ICC conventions, the Senate long ago shelved the signed treaty, the states have absolutely no interest in it; nor can the president implement it.

Prez Obama has all the same decisively closed the Bush torture chambers, he has tried both military courts and civilian courts, he's stopped rounding up suspects, has released a number of detainees and has been attempting in good will and with conviction to close Camp Delta.

A quick read of the thread helps considerably to see why Prez Obama is still fighting the Camp Delta fight and also why the ICC route is impossible. It also helps to explain why certain Americans don't get up each morning thinking about how we're going to succeed in either respect. I think the next president will have more of a propensity to crack heads to get these things done if that might be one of her priorities.

[Ulysses G.]

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

What a hypocrite.

[Emster23]

I am American and I trully hope they do arrest those POS people that did this sort of crap in my name. Can hardly wait for the "I was just following orders" excuses they may recall from Nuremburg trials. Absolute disgrace, did more harm than good (if did any good, which I doubt). No one in US has the balls to take these neo nazi types to court so hope they international community steps up and looks for some accountability and punishment for these human rights violations.

Wow an American!!

So where in America would you be from.. let me guess...Brazil? Uruguay? Paraguay? Canada? Mexico? Cuba? The United States? Argentina?

Pretty big place America.

USA. You want me to say "I am a USAninan"? I usually say "I am from USA", but most Thais don't get that. I fully understand there are many countries in the Americas. And many USAnians are as pissed off about what went down, perhaps even more so than those who are not from USA. Do you have a point to make, btw?