Barack, NOT the magic negro
In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.
It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department.
Convention Against Torture — signed by Reagan in 1988, ratified in 1994 by Senate:
Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law (Article 4) . . . . The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
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. . . . An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Geneva Conventions, Article 146:
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.
Charter of the International Tribunal at Nuremberg, Article 8:
The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.
U.S. Constitution, Article VI:
[A]ll Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.
Jesus JB, I am very impressed. You should consider international law. I am really impressed. You put all this together yourself? You’da been okay, had your hit and run made it to court. Hell, you probably would have got the case dismissed before it even made it to court.
Well thank you Tara, although I won’t claim credit for this, it was put together by an actual lawyer who specialises in constitutional affairs.
I’m just sharing with you, my dear friends. Will be interesting though, to apply the same sort of thing to our own leaders and their “pronouncements”.
Buffdaddy?
Those rules no longer apply to Zimbabwe anymore, surely. Just looking at the UNHRC, the Zimbabwean Gov was taking the piss 9 years ago. And look what happened. A whole load of NOTHING. No one’s had to show at the Hague.
But yeah, imagining if they were applied to our leaders, it would be interesting. If they actually didi the individuals prosecution, I bet Zimbabwe’s current populations would lose 25% to its shitty prison system. Bet these leaders would be kicking themselves and wishing they’d got their crap together before hand to ensure a relatively comfortable ‘retirement.’ But honestly, even if Zimbabwe decided to prosecute all these human right violators, you reckon she’d have the capacity to go ahead without succumbing to the usual pressures corruption tends to exert in such proceedings in such (developing) territories?
Thats some impressive legal digging…
But of course in typical Orwellian fashion – All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others…
Yeah, all animals are equal for sure. Imagine, the US imprisons more of its population than any other country in the world. The pettiest marijuana-related shit can get you some hard time, and clicking the wrong link gets you on a sex offender database.
Unfortunately, the system is different for high political officials who have, at once, bled the nation dry funding a war for oil, ghost reconstruction projects and corruption on an unprecedented scale.
Smoke a joint? Jail time. Order torture? Pass. Drive under the influence? Jail, unless you’re from Hollywood. Order the inhumane treatment of ‘detainees’ who haven’t been charged under any legal system known to man? Pass.
Fucked up, man.
What do you want invoking my name like that.
Nothing new their Black. The US has ratified several conventions throughout history but continues to breach them or has very selective application of them. Furthermore they do not sign things that they think will be inconvenient.
Barack Obama is the President of America and he is one in the long line that puts American interest first. Remember a country has permanent interests but fluid friends.
@JB – Too true…
The past world had Monarchies/Aristocracies and conquest and plunder in the name of the king;
Modern civilised world has republican governments and war and taxes in the name of democracy.
What is tax if not a king’s collection now enforced by a revenue department – and what is a ruling party cabinet and congress if not a 21st century royal court and aristocracy.
A corrupt government official is as unlikely to go to prison as a paedophile “noble” was; and a crackhead as certain as a Dickensian pick-pocket.
Point – same shit, just 21st century.
Buffy I was merely soliciting your opinion, down boy 🙂
So, wait, Mos Native … you’re anti-tax now? Are you also anti-social services as well? Feel like abolishing all form of government?
I will agree that I do have an anti-establishment bloodline. If we were in an ideal communist society I would probably be advocating for capitalism…(hold that smile A-CM…)…
We do not need “Government” in its current state, we need that bare part of it that is necessary for the convenience of a people. When we identify government as a grouping of people, a political party, a political ideology, with layers of bureaucracy – senators, MPS, governors, permanent secretaries, junior secretaries, director generals and their deputies, ministers and their deputies, before we get to the actual department itself, as we do now – we are in trouble – as indeed we are.
Government is convenience and only exists because of population and ease of decision making – when you lay it bare for what it is and its function you realise how little it should cost to govern a country – which it doesnt as we know it currently.
Government is not as “necessary” as the politicians would have us believe…its usefulness is terribly misunderstood, importance overblown and COST – way over-estimated.
If we needed all those levels of governance and if they required all that revenue they collect, given the state of governments, their inefficiency and their levels of corruption, if all their bureaucratic parts were as necessary as we are made to believe then every single government structure in the world would collapse from lack of funding – the world would be in ruin.
When a nation or group of people are sufficiently educated (real education, not the stuff you get in schools and colleges..) and have a unity of purpose, rigid expensive and inefficient government bureaucracies are not necessary. Think of government of a nation of people when under attack by a foreign enemy or when joined in resistance against a common oppressor, government of such is efficient and costs are a tenth of current bureaucracies.
Government and representation within it, are a public service – a personal sacrifice; The only justification any one person should have for pursuing public office should be because they, sincerely and justifiably, do not believe that anyone else can do a better job and hence for the good of the nation, they, and not the person of lesser skill, should hold office, regardless of their opinion of the public’s preferred method of governance- NOT because they just feel their opinion should overide the others.
I am FOR tax – but with proper government, not legalised bureaucratic rvevenue plunder-by-another-name, tax would be a small percentage of what it is.
And yes, I AM for social services but once again, with proper government, income tax is less, hence a reduced social service need, and, efficiency of revenue utilisation, by proper bare-minimum government, results in lesser revenue required for said services.
or maybe i just need a hug…. 🙂
… or therapy. Or a lesson in governance and international policy.
Maybe you should run for office to try and put your ideas into effect. The only way to that, though, would be initially through the low road … dictatorship.
Angry cynics have no place in party politics – once a revolutionary buddy, when they start looting and you start opposing, you will be branded an anti-revolutionary radical and be cast out to the fringes of political mediocrity in the time it takes you to say Tekere… no thanks, not going down like that.
But if you insist;
You run for office, I’ll be the strategising behind-the-scenes Solomon Mujuru to your charismatic Uncle Bob… 🙂
Ah yes, you can be the Maurice to my King Julien.
Politicians are paid to participate in popularity contests, becoming demagogues of lies and deceit…. Continually Promising promises, then promising more promises, while society and its communistic persuasions drabble in ululations at the great promises made. How many of us would willingly allow to be governed by the popular drunkard at the local watering hole? The least I can ask for is to be well protected from this nefarious character and their dubious promises of paying for the next round! The uninitiated would quickly order the most expensive cognac in the house, the naïve will order that particular drink they have always wanted to try but could not afford, the cynics will simply not order, and good corporate citizens will order what they can normally afford. But the character is not done yet, he promises to pay for the next and the next as well.
Until the bill comes and the drunkard disappears or all his cards don’t go through and worse argues he never promised to pay. What will happen next is very revealing. The uninitiated and the naïve will argue the loudest that the bill be divided equally, since we are all good friends and nothing should get in the way of friendship (communists), the cynic will argue- I told you so and refuse to pay ( Civil society-they never had money in the first place), the good citizen will argue the bill be split according to what each consumed (capitalist- never consumes on charity but according to his pocket). The disagreement becomes heated, calls for arbitration- and according to democratic tenets its put to vote and the majority wins.
The cynics ends up paying for not consuming at all, and the capitalist pays more than he had consumed, the communist pay for less than they consumed and the drunkard (politician) gets away with it. You would think we learn, but NO, next week it happens again and again, but this time the capitalist has decided to hang with new friends and he is labelled an outcast and not a true friend!
sorted…!
@A-CM – your analogies need to be cut out, framed and mounted…
Speaking of politicians…
FYI – in SA, the ANC looks set to win a 2/3 majority in the general elections – results 2b finalised within an hour.
Interestingly, the ANC is a tripartite alliance of the ANC, The Communist Party and SA Congress of Trade Unions. The big fear right now is not that we shall now have a massively popular and charismatic, yet most unethical “drunkard” as president, but that he won power by massive backing from the CP and SACTWU – and now there is fear that SA economic policy shall take a little skip to THE LEFT.
Who cares about all this stuff OH beat Sports Club, Cottco starts today and Hifa starts tomorrow.
And Liverpool won, so you must be chuffed
touche BD…! touche…