If the US doesn't prosecute torturers

[The Blue Flower]

As I understand it, the international treaty that requires prosecution of torture that we signed (under Reagan?)says that, if a country does not prosecute torturers within its borders, other governments can be counted on to do so. I think our President is laying a trail with the memos, helping others make the case, while protecting his agenda at the same time. I think he's trying to move both justice and the agenda forward, without politics coming into play to block both.

[elocs]

1. I think the reality is that no matter how we try to frame this

as some kind of genius, Machiavellian plan to bring about prosecution that it will never happen. Lots of smoke, no fire. One day Obama may have to make a decision that in hindsight is questionable and no president, Liberal or Conservative, wants to see another hauled off and prosecuted for something they may have to do themselves. No matter how noble and righteous and outraged we are about this I see it being talked about but never really happening. We could wait until they die and put their corpses on trial though if that will do.

[stillcool]

2. Who is outraged? Last I read..

half of the American people not only do not want prosecutions, they're okey-dokey with torture. I agree with Senator Byrd's piece on Huffington Post that more will be revealed, and if we don't take some action the world will. The fact is that we can't move on because it will follow us. I'm sure the legal ramifications from those people that we tortured will be devastating. I'm no legal eagle but I'd love it if someone could explain to me the risks and benefits of the different avenues of investigation and prosecution.

[Echo In Light]

3. No prosecution = Precedent established