I don't see how proof that government officials waterboarded a prisoner 183 times leaves the attorney general any discretion at all. Here's the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, explaining the treaty that Ronald Reagan signed and championed:
If under the direct jurisdiction of the United States of America, a
government official - whether it's a high official or a low official or
a police officer or military officer, doesn't matter - whoever
practices torture shall be brought before an independent criminal court
and be held accountable. That is, the torturer, him or herself, but
also those who are ordering torture practices, or in any other way
participating in the practice of torture. This is a general obligation,
and it applies to everybody; there are no exceptions in the Convention...
If you define torture in the way as the United Nations Convention
actually is requiring, it's clear that many of those methods including
waterboarding etc. fall under the definition of torture and persons can
be prosecuted under the US Code. In addition, of course, you have other
provisions -- you have the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the US
federal constitution - I mean , the legal possibilities for bringing
perpetrators of torture to justice under domestic United States law
exists. It's just a question whether they are applied or not.
So when does the U.S. formally withdraw from the UN Convention on Torture? And why isn't the pro-torture right advocating that?
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/04/does-holder-really-have-a-choice/202633/
