Next Up in the Foreign Policy Debate: Torture

[Valin]

Legal Insurrection:

How will the Administration interpret the United Nations Convention Against Torture?

Amy Miller

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

 

A memo recently circulated amongst lawyers working for the Obama Administration and in the intelligence community has sparked debate about the future of the United Nations Convention Against Torture as it applies to enhanced interrogation techniques used by Americans overseas.

 

The Administration has a month to decide its stance on the treaty in advance of a scheduled presentation before the UN Committee Against Torture. It will have to choose between the opinion of the State Department, that of the intelligence community, or something in between:

 

From the New York Times:

 

(Snip)

 

You may remember that the Bush Administration used a constitutionally-based interpretation of the Treaty that allowed for the use of tactics covered by the treaty if they were used on non-citizens outside of the United States. The Administration took heat for the interpretation, and then-Senator Barack Obama spoke out in favor of adhering to the transnational spirit of the treaty and banning cruel treatment no matter where it may take place.

 

 

President Barack Obama, however, has never taken an official stance on the treaty; but it’s not the first time he’s waffled on important issues of foreign policy. The President is relying on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force to provide legal justification for our current intervention in northern Iraq and Syria; but just last year, he called for that Authorization to be curtailed by Congress.

 

(Snip)

 

 

________________________________________________________________________________

 

It is a very good thing I am not the sort of person given to snarky/satirical comments. Otherwise...

 

 

I might post something like this.