Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I don't understand exactly what your are asking, or saying.  As I understand the conversation on the web, there are several complications that could arise relative to the charges against the CIA employees being investigated.  The primary one seems to be that they were just following orders, or instructions of a superior. While that may/has not count(ed) in some jurisdictions, apparently it can be a solid defense in the US where any charges will be filed and cases tried.  This is not to say that these complications will lead to a prosecutive failure, but they could.  Things are not always black and white, often just shades of gray. Personally, I would forget about Nurnberg unless it causes some comfort. Those particular circumstances are not likely to repeat themselves in scope or justification any time soon and if they do, the US cases being fought over these days will pale by comparison. In fact, IMHO they pale in comparison to other cases already. To us they are justifiably a big deal, but another Nurnberg trials situation, etc, is not likely to occur over this. The US problem has to be sorted out in the US according to US law using the US justice system, and it can be.

My point in referencing this piece was not so much because of the on-going investigation of CIA employees for torture (a positive though limited step) but to highlight the nature of international treaties, amendments, ratification, and the requirement in the US (and possibly most other countries) for local implementation via statute.

 

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sat Sep 19th, 2009 at 04:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series