Tweet
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” – US Constitution, Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight (1)
President Barack Obama stands in repeated and flagrant violation of his Presidential oath of office. Specifically, he has violated the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2):
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” (2) (emphasis added)
The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was signed by President Ronald Reagan on April 18, 1988. It was ratified by the United States Senate on October 27, 1990 (4). Although there is a mechanism in the Convention to allow signatories to denounce and thereby withdraw from the convention (Part I, Article 31), the United States has not done so. Part I, Article 12 of the Convention clearly states that
“Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.”
Rather than investigating allegations of torture, however, the Obama Administration has done little to hide its deliberate attempts to hinder such investigations. Photographic evidence has been destroyed. (5) Videotaped evidence has been willfully destroyed despite judicial injunctions forbidding that destruction; although the destruction took place before President Obama assumed office, he has refused to authorize a meaningful investigation of that destruction and prosecution of the offenders. (6)
Recent revelations from Wikileaks have shown that the Obama Administration even colluded with Republican Senator Mel Martinez of Florida to intimidate the judiciary of Spain in order to suppress their investigation of alleged US acts of torture (7). This goes far beyond mere failure to investigate torture – it is, in fact, a willful act to protect torturers. There have also been many additional allegations of torture, including most recently the mistreatment of detainee Bradley Manning.
By repeatedly violating the United Nations Convention Against Torture, President Obama has violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. He is in direct violation of his oath of office. Therefore it is the Constitutional obligation of each and every member of the House of Representatives (per their own oaths of office) to begin impeachment proceedings.
That they have not and will not does not remove their legal and moral responsibility to do so. By refusing to take action, the House has declared itself and the Presidency above the law. A tacit conspiracy, intentional or not, between the legislative and executive branches, and between the Democratic and Republican Parties, has cemented into place the foundations of a tyranny far more absolute and brutal than that of King George III.
The state of the union is dire, if not terminal.
————————————–
1) Presidential Oath of Office – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States
2) Supremacy Clause – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
3) United Nations Convention Against Torture – http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_and_the_United_States
5) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/05/binyam-mohamed-guantanamo-evidence-photographs
6) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/washington/17intel.html
7) WikiLeaks: How U.S. tried to stop Spain’s torture probe – http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html
45 Comments
After listening to the SOTU, I doubt his sanity. That would also be grounds for his removal.
Not a single mention of the masssive ongoing forclosure crisis. Not even lip service.
He harps on the Interior Department regulating fresh water salmon and the Commerce Department regulating saltwater salmon. But no mention of forclosures…. he’s lost touch with reality.
We don’t need to Impeach Obama, the Cabinet can use the 25th Amendment, Section 4. Obama has lost touch with reality.
You’re correct, of course, Quasit. And we can add any number of other violations of treaty obligations to our list of Articles of Impeachment, starting with the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremberg Principles.
Sadly, America doesn’t impeach presidents for war crimes, crimes against the peace, or crimes against humanity; America *requires* its presidents to lead crusades, the very essence of which is the commission of such crimes.
We require such behavior because we like it, admire it, and have built our national character around it. Most fundamentally, we profit from it.
War Crimes Are U.S.
The general public isn’t like that. But if you are refering to establishment then I’d agree.
Name a war the American public didn’t overwhelmingly support for years.
Name one the public didn’t support entering or starting.
Name an American war crime for which the public demanded justice.
I’m sure they investigated. They just haven’t pressed charges (which the CAT doesn’t require; it requires that torture be treated like any other crime)
Name any country that has ever demanded justice for its own perpetrators of war crime.
Your missing a major point. We have complete prosecutorial discretion in this country. That means that many apparent crimes are not investigated or prosecuted.
Also, you can’t lay the failure of investigations directly at the feet of the president. The DOJ is supposed to have discretion and that puts a wall between the president and the actions of the DOJ.
Then there is the intent to commit a crime. The argument can be plausibly made that the presidents interest in looking forward not back is a political one and not a criminal one. There is no intent to commit a crime, no crime to convict him on.
As far as you went you were right but you did not include all the factors that make it impossible to impeach and convict the president on this issue.
Plus almost no country has ever seriously investigated and prosecuted torture in the generation that it occurred. Especially when it was sanctioned at the top levels of government.
Baseless assertion. Thanks for playing.
Does prove that Dearest Michele B. is not the only crazy person interested in politics.
MN-06, God have mercy on you! And on the 33% of Gallup’d Americans who said they’d vote for MB for president running against Obama.
Fools and drunks and the GOPer Base……..
Arguably, Germany in the 1948-1955 period.
A number of high profile trials of Concentration Camp management teams.
The Lutheran Church preached these issues over and over. Stood up to the SS and Gestapo thugs and took more than a few beatings and killings.
You still have Blackwater/Xi running around. That is a private army which is not under anyone’s control. Its owners are Far Right extremists.
Survival places limits on action, even for presidents. If anything is going to happen then we will see it as more Gitmo trials unfold.
BTW: military courts are even more restrictive than civilian courts on admission of evidence. Torture can be waltzed around in a civilian court, but never in a military court.
The military court can call its own witnesses.
Rather than investigating allegations of torture, however, the Obama Administration has done little to hide its deliberate attempts to hinder such investigations.
Americans don’t care about torturing alledged bad people.
Alan Shore (Boston Legal) got it right:
Alan Shore: The truth is, as Americans we love torture. We keep it to ourselves of course. But come on, when it comes to evildoers? Torture’s okay. Hollywood certainly knows that. Dirty Harry. Boom. Charles Bronson in Death Wish. Denzel Washington in Man on Fire. Heroes torturing the bad guys. In theaters all across the country we cheered. We like torture! Is there potential for abuse? Without question. The events at Abu Ghraib prison were deplorable. But do we really think they happened in a vacuum?
Alberto Gonzalez, our Attorney General, wrote a memo to the administration saying torture’s okay. Our Supreme Court just recently held that evidence gained from torture can be used in trials. Alan Dershowitz, one of the leading civil rights activists in our country, raised the idea of using torture warrants so as to at least to be more open about it. Torture warrants.
Love that torture. Shhhh. Mr. Preston talks about the witness here being an innocent man. Now come on. He wasn’t that innocent. He did harbor a fugitive. One who kidnaps and kills children. He did have information that ultimately led to the rescue of the child here. And he refused to give it up until he was… coerced. As for my client being above the law?
Well, the law in this country has always been subject to evolving community standards of humanity. So the twelve of you get to go back there, as a community, and asks yourselves “Was
this a good thing or not?” He’s happy He points to the child. He’s alive. They’re sure as hell happy He points to the child’s parents. My client saved a life! That little boy’s life.
If it were your child wouldn’t you want the police to do whatever was necessary? This officer got the job done using a method that our government, our military, our attorney general and, yes, even our Supreme Court has said is sometimes okay. Sometimes.
Depending on the situation. Whispering and with exaggerated facial expression. Torture’s okay. In a normal voice again. Just don’t tell anybody.
well, we know there is complete denial, and utter collusion. Do we walk around with our head in our hands? This country is a step away from anarchy. It will depend on who pulls the purse strings completely in regard to justice. The rules are not validated. Power is validated, money and greed. Addiction rules our house.
We need the “majority” to understand what has happened. The sooner the better. To some degree many Americans prefer denial. Serenity prayer seems particularly apropo.
What about our “missing a major point,” as though the phrase itself is a noun and not a verb? Please, for the love of all that is holy, use “you’re” when you mean to contract “you are.” It’s not difficult. Also, “then” is not the same as “than,” “it’s” is the contraction of “it is” and “it has,” and “its” is the possessive of “it.”
People need to stop being so grammatically lazy.
And Bill, Obama cannot escape complicity in refusing to order the DoJ to prosecute war criminals. As the occupant of the executive mansion, he is Constitutionally responsible for ensuring that the laws of the land are enforced. His active protection of war criminals after the fact means he is complicit after the fact for those same crimes. And that is an impeachable offense.
name me a president beginning with WW2 who wouldn’t be considered a war criminal? FDR? LBJ? JFK? Carter? Reagan? Either Bush? Clinton? We have been in almost permanent war since the 40s – and we have slaughtered millions around the globe and/or employed cold-war tactics including assassination and worse. And that’s just what we’ve done to other countries – how many presidents have used the FBI to spy on Americans? This is a useless conversation unless you include the context of the last 80 years…
While I agree that the House will not pursue impeachment, that was a large part of my point. Since there are no “unless we really don’t want to” or “but not if it’s politically inconvenient” clauses in the Constitution or the Convention Against Torture, however, that doesn’t change the fact that the entire House of Representatives is now derelict in their sworn duty.
Unless there’s some flaw in my reasoning, the Chief Executive and the House have effectively abrogated their constitutional obligations. We’re faced with a government that has effectively gone rogue. Frankly, I don’t see what remedy is available to the people of the United States at this point. It is a very grim situation!
Many Americans still consider William Calley a hero.
As Chief Executive, the ultimate responsibility for all actions of the Executive Branch lies with the President. The DOJ is neither legislative nor judicial. Am I missing something?
I am not arguing that it would be practical for the House to launch impeachment proceedings. On the contrary, I am quite sure that any Representative that attempted to do so would be committing political suicide. But that doesn’t change the facts, nor their constitutional obligations.
If politics can trump the “highest law of the land”, then we are not a nation of laws; we are an authoritarian regime.
I see no way in which deliberately destroying evidence and pressuring a foreign government not to investigate allegations of torture can be called an “investigation”.
Is anyone else sick of mindless, over educated, rude jerks?
Come on, Bill!
What is Obama’s looking-forward-not-backward doctrine if not willful and intentional obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting torture?
By associating with and protecting war criminals, Obama has become a war criminal.
And don’t forget how enthusiastically he’s added to the shameful list of U.S. war crimes by ordering and approving the willful and intentional slaughter of innocent women and children with drones.
Obama not only should be impeached, he should spend the rest of his life behind bars.
Obama is a war criminal.
Never forget it.
Ever.
Mason, c’mon, you’re an attorney, you know that there are all kinds of differences between should and do in the law. If we are talking moral issues yeah, you’re right, if we are talking practical application of the law, then not so much. Prosecutions are never “required” there is a wide latitude and that is a good thing, even it if produces results like we are seeing in the case of torture.
Thanks Dad, when will you be sending me my allowance?
“We have complete prosecutorial discretion in this country. That means that many apparent crimes are not investigated or prosecuted.”
…and of course that means that many, many non-crimes are fully prosecuted as well.
The text quoted by you attributed to Article VI states that judges “in every state” are bound by federal treaties. This implies they must use the treaty as law in cases which come before them. It does NOT give a green light to go out and look for violations of a treaty, there are no “Treaty Police”. This article addresses the judiciary and its fealty to federal laws. There is no mechanism in the constitution to punish the US for treaty violations, only world opinion.
And again, the Torture treaty says signatories are responsible for torture in their territories-this is why the bulk (but not all) of torturing done by the US was via rendition. Plausible deniability. The real violation is in the executive order which authorized these “enhanced interrogation techniques”. Though I agree that any administration continuing under that XO should not be able to claim a Nuremberg defense, just because somebody told them it was OK.
Sad but true. It is one of those things. Still I think I’d rather have the discretion than not.
I’m glad you’ve brought this up.
The is no English Equivalent of L’Academie Francaise. There is no “correct” English spelling, nor any “correct” way to punctuate.
Nor any restriction in the US in using nouns as verbs and verbs as nouns. Please do not disrespect me! (ugh).
Historically there was no spelling. There are no rules of punctuation (ask any UK Lawyer). Current practice is riddle with inconsistencies and ambiguities, and attempting to make rules without eliminating all the exception, unproductive, becuase there are more exception than rules (Cough’s now, and Plough’s on ).
English is a living language, and its rules defined by its use, not by rulemakers. It is evolving. The items you are carping about are under revision, and your demands that people follow your narrow rules are not how English has and will evolve.
Who died and left you in charge?
I agree there won’t be any prosecutions, but I am predicting there will be a revolution that will topple our government, in part, because there were no prosecutions.
bush & cheney sure tore the lid off the psycho-sexual torture found in Pandora’s box.
There’s a lot more greed and sickness to be uncovered.
With today’s technology and real time live feeds this was like a video game with remote control torture because they didn’t show the proper respect for their torturers.
Who was in the room calling the shots in real time george, condi dick ? How many times ?
Obama’s taken that ball and is running with it, the power to randomly torture and snuff out whom he chooses.
This shit must get you higher than coke or heroin ever could.
Although I voted for him, I considered Barack Obama open to impeachment charges in his first week of office when he allowed drone attacks on civilians to continue. At that time I performed what I considered a ‘citizen’s impeachment’ (building on the concept of citizen’s arrest) by refusing to call him President, a practice I followed throughout the Bush reign as well.
Since then, sadly, the impeachable offenses have only multiplied.
It is also an applicable charge for those Supreme Court occupants who blatantly lied in the Senate ‘advise and consent’ hearings. I could go on…
I would hardly describe adhering to basic rules of grammar being equivalent to “mindless, over educated, rude jerks”. It’s difficult to know what someone is trying to communicate when his use of language is so sloppy. Simply pointing that out is not indicative of being mindless, or over-educated.
What does your allowance have to do with misuse of words?
Translation: I’m too lazy to bother with making an effective defense for why I’m too lazy to follow basic rules of spelling and grammar, so I’ll simply claim that grammar and spelling aren’t set down in rules (they are) and that because language is constantly evolving that is an excuse not to follow the aforementioned rules.
Not even a nice try.
Exactly.
Agreed. He can share a cell with George and Dick.
Proleftarian, you seem to ignore significant aspects of American history in order to shift blame away from America’s elite and onto the backs of the American public.
Establishment has had to tell whopping lies to the public in order to drum up support for most wars.
Look at what Hearst did w/regard to the sinking of the Maine/Spanish American war.
Leading up to our entry in WWI, the establishment media was publishing propaganda stories of Belgian babys dancing on German bayonets.
In 1916, American’s voted for Wilson who based his campaign on the slogan: “He kept us out of war”.
And during WWI, Woodrow Wilson rolled out draconian police state laws to crush war protestors.
Once the American public started to understand the facts w/respect to Vietnam… they stood up against it.
Why did the Bush admin need the WMD story leading up to the Iraq invasion?
Why did the American public start removing support for Republicans in 2006?
Did we vote in 2008 for the man who sang “Bomb bomb bomb Iran”… no we did not.
Why the need for all the establishment lies if the public is as bloodthirsty as you claim?
I think the American public can be accused of being stupid, gullible, asleep, etc… but it’s not fair to paint the public as being pro-war.
I agree with the Diarist. The House is in violation of its constitutional duty. There’s plenty of evidence to justify an impeachment trial.
If you have the time, I urge you to read the entire text of the Convention. There is far more to it than the excerpt which I quoted. For example:
It is hardly limited to the judicial branch only.
The Convention is simply full of relevant material – in the very next section, Article 3, we have:
Another good one is Article 12:
“State Party” is not defined solely as judges. They are the “States Parties to this Convention”, as stated from the Preamble.
The Convention is very much worth reading!
Sadly, Obama continues the gamemanship of eligibility, it’s the age old game of “Hide the Truth,” to keep power? Any person who pathologically lies to the extent Obama has and with the control over nuclear weapons maybe a danger to the entire world? Let’s stop the nice talk and start considering if our children are in danger, would we let a pervert sleep with our 3 year old boy? The power centers on the Right had better step up before something really goes bad? Think of it this way, if you trap a Rat in a corner is it going to go crazy?
As someone who violates the rules of grammar with virtually every sentence, I must say: Thanks. We need the reminder every so often.
Now I’m off to go drop some more metaphors in the Cuisinart.
I have searched carefully and must confess that I am unable to find an “everybody does it, so it’s okay” clause in either the Constitution or the Convention Against Torture.
Either our laws matter, or they do not. Unless, perhaps, you are suggesting that impeaching President Obama for violating the Supremacy Clause would somehow violate the Eighth Amendment? I agree that impeachment is rare, which I suppose means that you could call it unusual – but in that case, why does the Constitution include Article II, Section 2?
For that matter, why does the Constitution exist at all?