Greenwald - differing views of the "rule of law" in Spain and the U.S.

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/14/torture/index.html

"Scott Horton reports this morning that, in Spain, "prosecutors have decided to press forward with a criminal investigation targeting former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and five top associates over their role in the torture of five Spanish citizens held at Guantánamo." Spain not only has the right under the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture to prosecute foreign officials for torturing its citizens, but it -- like the U.S. -- has the affirmative obligation to do so. (Indeed, the Bush administration itself insisted just last year that the U.S. the right to criminally prosecute foreign officials for ordering acts of torture even in the absence of an accusation that any of the victims were American).

As Hilzoy argues, however, the primary obligation for these prosecutions lies with the country whose officials authorized the war crimes -- the United States:


It is a requirement of law, the law that the Constitution requires Obama, as President, to faithfully execute. He should not outsource his Constitutional obligations to Spain.


That the U.S. has the legal obligation under the U.S. Constitution, our own laws and international treaties to commence criminal investigations is simply undeniable. That is just a fact. Yet it's hard to overstate how far away we are from fulfilling our legal obligations to impose accountability on our own torturers and war criminals...


UPDATE: In comments, Jim White highlights a fact from Horton's story that I intended but neglected to mention: the Spanish "advised the Americans that they would suspend their investigation if at any point the United States were to undertake an investigation of its own into these matters." As White points out, that is how war crimes investigations are intended to proceed under numerous treaty provisions by which the U.S. has bound itself: namely, the country whose officials commit the crimes have the primary obligation to investigate and hold the criminals accountable. But other treaty signatories are not only entitled, but required, to commence such proceedings if the violating country refuses or otherwise fails to do so..."

[MADem]

1. Well, that's why there was so much tortured (forgive the expression) paperwork during the Bush admin

That paperwork is a blizzard that screens the guilty from prosecution. It will probably be an effective screen for a very long time, like it or not. And that which isn't exculpatory was likely destroyed, and you're left with "He said, he said..."

Shooting the messenger is not cool. The first one to do so gets a "You Are a Dumb Ass" for not reading contextually. That also goes for "I'll bet you think/want/feel..." type accusations from perpetually aggrieved hotheads.

[L. Coyote]

2. I call it EVIDENCE! = CIA Has 3,000 Docs on Torture Tapes

Governments are wonderful about creating and preserving evidence!
And then destroying the evidence to add the crime of obstruction to the ones they document!

CIA Has 3,000 Docs on Torture Tapes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5303329

[MADem]

3. 3,000 documents related to the 92 destroyed videotapes

The tapes are gone. Destroyed. The interrogations are described as "harsh," not "torture." Heck, teachers in public schools are "harsh." There's nothing to clap your eyes on, to prove the case.

He said, he said. Or she said.

I am not overly hopeful. That does not mean I am a "cheerleader" for Bushco.

[slipslidingaway]

4. You're right, they needed muddy the waters with the paperwork n/t