Skip to main content

View Diary: 74% of Americans Against Obama's War on Pot (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'd be interested to know (5+ / 0-)

    what concrete actions people think Pres. Obama could take. Not pie in the sky stuff like unilaterally declaring the war on pot to be over ( much as such a spectacle and the resulting fall out would tickle me ) but practical actions he could take without violating his oath to ensure that the laws are enforced.

    •  By executive order (24+ / 0-)

      he could reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III or IV, as provided by law in the Controlled Substance Act.

      Yes, I am a plant, smoke me~

      by triv33 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:30:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good if doable (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        triv33, Deep Texan, sebastianguy99

        but I was under the impression that the schedule was established by legislation rather than executive fiat.

        •  really? (11+ / 0-)

          You think congress voted when pepcid went OTC? No.

          Yes, I am a plant, smoke me~

          by triv33 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:55:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan, sebastianguy99

            I'd imagine that it was covered by existing law as applied by the FDA, although that is a surmise. I'd expect that marijuana is likewise governed by existing statute which is administered by a government agency.

            If this is an error I'd be glad to know what the actuality is.

            •  here ya go.. (23+ / 0-)

              ‎"The Controlled Substances Act provides a process for rescheduling controlled substances by petitioning the Drug Enforcement Administration. The first petition under this process was filed in 1972 to allow cannabis to be legally prescribed by physicians. The petition was ultimately denied after 22 years of court challenges, although a pill form of cannabis' psychoactive ingredient, THC, was rescheduled in 1985 to allow prescription under schedule II. In 1999 it was again rescheduled to allow prescription under schedule III. A second petition, based on claims related to clinical studies, was denied in 2001. The most recent rescheduling petition was filed by medical cannabis advocates in 2002 and, as of May 2010, was being reviewed by the Barack Obama administration.[1] Currently[when?] 16 states and Washington D.C. have legalized the use of medical marijuana, and hemp products are sold widely in the U.S. today.

              Advocates of marijuana legalization argue that the budgetary impact of removing cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act and legalizing its use in the United States could save billions by reducing government spending for prohibition enforcement in the criminal justice system. Additionally, they argue that billions in annual tax revenues could be generated through proposed taxation and regulation.[2]"

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              Yes, I am a plant, smoke me~

              by triv33 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:42:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks much for this (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                triv33, divineorder, science nerd

                but I don't see where it specifies that the President can direct the DEA to accept a petition by executive order. I don't know whether he can or he can't but this doesn't shed much light on the question.

                •  One administration official (11+ / 0-)

                  at the DEA can reclassify that sucker, now who do you think his boss is? That is exactly how that works. Congress doesn't enter into it.
                   In 1988 Judge Francis Young recommended that it be reclassified and one dude at the DEA overturned that ruling because guess who his boss was?

                  http://www.ccguide.org/...

                  Yes, I am a plant, smoke me~

                  by triv33 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:26:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Triv (0+ / 0-)

                    Your own citation doesn't seem to support this. It talks about process established by the Controlled Substances Act, as in act of Congress. Ergo, the governing legal authority is the will of Congress as expressed in the act. If the President has the authority you think he does it would have to be specified in the act. The fact that a bureaucrat at the DEA can discount a court's finding of fact proves nothing since the authority to do so comes from an act of Congress rather than the President.

                    •  No...the will of (3+ / 0-)

                      Congress is that the responsibility is handed off just like that.

                      Yes, I am a plant, smoke me~

                      by triv33 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:46:53 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  ps... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gooderservice, Nada Lemming

                      that's why it's set up that way~

                      Yes, I am a plant, smoke me~

                      by triv33 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:49:39 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Well you're free to think so (0+ / 0-)

                        but based on the evidence you yourself have presented I'd have to say you're wrong about that.

                        •  The president, (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          triv33, AoT

                          By executive fiat, has people killed, and stopped the prosecution of not only war criminals, but wall street thrives. Since the dea, like the doj and cia, are in the executive, your argument that the president doesn't have that power, constitutionally and practically, is laughable.

                          If you haven't earned my vote when the time comes, don't blame me when you lose.

                          by Nada Lemming on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:03:19 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  What's laughable is your noisy ignorance (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nada Lemming

                            of the separation of powers. The Executive branch doesn't write the laws but it is obligated to abide by them. You seem to think that Richard Nixon was right in saying 'If the President says it's legal, then it's legal".

                            You also don't appear to know what "Executive Fiat" means.

                          •  Ha! (0+ / 0-)

                            Obligated to abide by them!  That is a knee slapper.  

                            Don't look now, but Obama codified Nixon's theory already.  

                            There is no separation of powers, unless it's convenient, as in this very case.  He just misplaced the magic wand he used to assassinate two Americans temporarily.   Hell find it again for the next drone strike or wall street protest, you can be sure.  

                            If you haven't earned my vote when the time comes, don't blame me when you lose.

                            by Nada Lemming on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:35:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You seem to have legality confused with morality (0+ / 0-)

                            They aren't the same thing you know. Or maybe you don't know that.

                          •  No, I don't have them confused (0+ / 0-)

                            But Obama does.  I'm just asking for consistency.  

                            If you haven't earned my vote when the time comes, don't blame me when you lose.

                            by Nada Lemming on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:51:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Where's the legal inconsistancy as opposed to (0+ / 0-)

                            a moral inconsistency?

                          •  Morally and legally (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            splintersawry, dRefractor

                            You can't kill a person without due process of law.  Legally, the president claims he is providing due process by authorizing said murder.  Both legally and morally, that is wrong.  

                            Morally, a person who has cancer should be able to smoke pot.  Legally, the president, as acting head of the dea, could stop Raiding legal drug dispensaries.  Morally, he should move pot from schedule iii to OTC. .   It's pretty simple, not sure why you don't get it.  

                            If you haven't earned my vote when the time comes, don't blame me when you lose.

                            by Nada Lemming on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:26:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You really have no idea how the Legal (0+ / 0-)

                            system operates do you?

                        •  Well how about the AG then? (4+ / 0-)

                          He could do it. Who do you think his boss is?
                          How's this?

                          USC › Title 21 › Chapter 13 › Subchapter I › Part B › § 811
                          PREVNEXT
                          21 USC § 811 - AUTHORITY AND CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SUBSTANCES

                          USC-prelim
                          US Code
                          Notes
                          Currency
                          Authorities (CFR)

                          This preliminary release may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version. As with other online versions of the Code, the U.S. Code Classification Tables should be consulted for the latest laws affecting the Code. Those using the USCPrelim should verify the text against the printed slip laws available from GPO (Government Printing Office), the laws as shown on THOMAS (a legislative service of the Library of Congress), and the final version of the Code when it becomes available.

                          Current through Pub. L. 112-90. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

                          (a) Rules and regulations of Attorney General; hearing
                          The Attorney General shall apply the provisions of this subchapter to the controlled substances listed in the schedules established by section 812 of this title and to any other drug or other substance added to such schedules under this subchapter. Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, the Attorney General may by rule—
                          (1) add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he—
                          (A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and
                          (B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) ofsection 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed; or
                          (2) remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule.

                          http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

                          If you honestly can't see that what I said happened did, there's more than one way to skin this particular cat. It's a matter of wanting to.

                          Yes, I am a plant, smoke me~

                          by triv33 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:25:43 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I appreciate your effort (0+ / 0-)

                            and the citation does shed light but not in the way you may think. Take note of this passage:

                            Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, the Attorney General may by rule—
                            So what is this exception? Since you didn't include it I went and hunted it up:
                            (d) International treaties, conventions, and protocols requiring control; procedures respecting changes in drug schedules of Convention on Psychotropic Substances
                            (1) If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of this section or section 812 (b) of this title and without regard to the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this section.
                            Unless I'm reading this wrong, it indicates that the AG's discretion is limited by treaty obligations. The AG's scheduling must conform with what the treaties proscribe. This would apply to the scheduling of marijuana.

                            This would mean that the AG does not, in fact, have the authority to unilaterally alter the scheduling of marijuana since such action would violate existing treaties.  

                          •  What treaty would be violated? Link? (0+ / 0-)
                          •  Most likely those pertaining to (0+ / 0-)

                            illegal drug trafficking. Marijuana smuggling, etc. The question is really beside the point since the exception would hardly have been written into the law if such treaties didn't exist. But feel free to prove me wrong.

                          •  Cocaine is a lower Schedule than pot (0+ / 0-)

                            and it is covered by those treaties.  Unless you can show a treaty that does specifically cover pot then you really can't expect us to go through all the damn drug treaties looking for something that may or may not be there.

                            If you want I can just tell you I looked through all of them and didn't find anything ;D

                            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                            by AoT on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:25:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The point in question was whether (0+ / 0-)

                            the AG had unlimited discretion in deciding the scheduling of drugs. The law in question makes it plain that the AG does not have such discretion. That was the point I was addressing.

                            You went through all the treaties on drug trafficking and you found no reference to Marijuana? Not is even as a constituent of a criminalized class of drugs?

                            Forgive me but that's a little hard to believe. Are you sure you read every treaty and examined every classification? Because if you're right it would mean that the international trade in Marijuana is legal and that is manifestly not so.

                          •  Of course it's hard to believe, I was joking (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            Thank you for clarifying what you were referring to, I got this thread mixed up with some other threads.  Too many threads!

                            Honestly, I think the correct answer is that it isn't really clear and we wouldn't find out unless they tried to change the scheduling.

                            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                            by AoT on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:01:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Good Point N/T (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            AoT
    •  Limited resources . . . (23+ / 0-)

      all he has to say is:

       "The Justice Department has limited resources, so I have instructed my Atty. General to fully apply what resources are available to the financial crimes which have so disrupted our Nation and put minor issues (which are really State's Rights issues anyway) to the very, very, very back burner.  In the large arena of Federal law enforcement Marijuana just doesn't matter that much".
      That would do it . . . or he could say:
       "It is the Constitutional Right of every Free American to smoke whatever damned weed he wants . . ."
      That would do it too . . .

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:31:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As gratifying as these scenarios are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan, science nerd

        I'm not at all certain that the Pres. can unilaterally choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. At least not without Republicans trying to impeach him for violating his oath of office.

        •  How would reclassifying (13+ / 0-)

          it from schedule I to III or IV violate his Oath of office or ignore any laws?
           17 States have now passed laws that reflect the very real opinion of the majority of this country that the current classification is wrong.
           If there is no medical benefit to marijuana how do you explain big pharma putting the time and money behind things like Sativex?

          Yes, I am a plant, smoke me~

          by triv33 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:51:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan, science nerd

            I'm not at all clear on whether the schedule is an executive or a legislative purview. I don't think that Marijuana was criminalized by executive fiat, so I'm skeptical that it could be decriminalized by the executive. I'd be grateful for clarification on this point.

            I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana irrespective of its medical benefits.

            •  I'm in favor of (8+ / 0-)

              being a patient rather than a criminal.

              Yes, I am a plant, smoke me~

              by triv33 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:04:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The Controlled Substances Act (13+ / 0-)

              was passed in 1970 by Congress.

              The legislation created five Schedules (classifications), with varying qualifications for a substance to be included in each. Two federal agencies, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Food and Drug Administration, determine which substances are added to or removed from the various schedules, though the statute passed by Congress created the initial listing, and Congress has sometimes scheduled other substances through legislation.
              Link.

              The outlawing of teh herb began at the state level in the 1930s. Timeline of the legal treatment of marijuana here.

              "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

              by happy camper on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:33:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Obama HAS the authority (11+ / 0-)

              to reclassify it.  Opium was criminalized years ago but is available as a controlled substance due to its obvious medical benefits.  

              As for Obama and enforcing laws, he has no problem preventing any investigation of admitted war crimes, no problem preventing prosecution of institutional mortgage fraud, no problem preventing investigations of financial fraud, no problem allowing BP to pump millions of gallons of unknown chemicals into the Gulf in violation of laws, and allowing frackers to do the same into the groundwater. Not to mention ordering assassinations of American citizens and multiple other civil rights abuses.

              Obama  is arguably the activist president in his politicization of the Justice Department with respect to law enforcement.  It is OBAMA who wants medical marijuana shut down. It is OBAMA's FDA that REFUSES to acknowledge ANY medicinal benefits of marijuana.

              When Obama portrays himself as having his hands tied and only following his constitutional duty to enforce the law he is LYING. If you accept what he says you are being played for a sucker. The people whose suffering can be alleviated by use of marijuana will suffer more and be considered criminals. Obama does not care. And the drug companies are happier.

              •  Maybe he has the authority and maybe he doesn't (0+ / 0-)

                If he does it will be specified in law. Can you cite the law?

                I don't have any idea what Pres. Obama's line is on this. I'm speaking for myself. I want to see what the law actually says. That is the pertinent issue.

                •  If he can manage to not arrest (10+ / 0-)

                  bankers for fraud then I think he can manage to not arrest medical marijuana dispensaries.

                  There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                  by AoT on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:47:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's a damn good point. Really damn good. (0+ / 0-)

                    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

                    by JTinDC on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:49:55 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Well that would seem to make sense (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AoT

                    but to quote Dickens "the law is an idiot and an ass." What seems equitable and just doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what the law allows. I think you already know this.

                    I've been frank from the beginning of this thread in saying that I don't know enough about the applicable statutes to Judge what Pres. Obama can or cannot do. I've asked repeatedly for citations that would clarify the question. So far no ones been able to produce such although some, to their credit, have tried.

                    I'm opposed to the War on Drugs period. I opposed it under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama. If I were sure that the Pres. could stop it with the stroke of a pen I'd be down with that. But this is a question of what the law is, not what it ought to be. People  who want to personalize this to a question of Presidential prerogative have an obligation to know what they are talking about, legally speaking. Appeals to sentiment or "common sense" don't satisfy this obligation.

                    •  I have never seen anything that says the (0+ / 0-)

                      president or the department of justice has an obligation to prosecute any crimes.  The fact that he outright said that he had to prosecute is clearly wrong given his refusal to do anything.  Either that or he is breaking the law in those other cases.

                      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                      by AoT on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:15:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The Presidential oath of office (0+ / 0-)

                        obligates the President to enforce all statutes, that's why the President is sometimes referred to as the Chief Magistrate.

                        •  The oath of office is as follows (0+ / 0-)

                          "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."  With "so help me god" added at the end.  I don't see anything in the constitution that obligates him to enforce all statutes.

                          If he does have that obligation then he also has the obligation to prosecute war crimes because those treaties are considered "the highest law of the land" according to the constitution.

                          Whether the president has an actual legal obligation to prosecute he has either lied about it or is shirking that obligation in both banking and torture cases.

                          There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                          by AoT on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:06:29 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  My Bad (0+ / 0-)

                            The obligation is enumerated among the duties of the President outlined in the Constitution. Hence it is covered by the affirmation to "preserve, protect and defend."

                            Yes treaties are trumps but the interpretation of the treaties is always open to debate. Is the there an obligation to prosecute a war crime if the Government doesn't agree that the act in question is a war crime?

                          •  Kind of? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            Article 2 of the constitution says that "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."  But laws are weird and that doesn't necessarily mean he has to.

                            This source  which has generally been good seems to indicate that the president can advise the DoJ on what to do but can't order them to do something and have the right to be obeyed.  So he could theoretically suggest to Holder that he doesn't want the DoJ to prosecute medical marijuana cases. or he could suggest that he wants all the resources to go to that, but he can't just say "don't prosecute this or that" once he's chosen a Attorney General.

                            Again, if he has no choice but to go after people then he is shirking that obligation in a number of ways, specifically when it comes to torture treaties and banks.

                            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                            by AoT on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:45:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I already commented on the torture and (0+ / 0-)

                            banks questions but to reiterate the second: it isn't at all clear that anything the banks did was illegal. I don't like it but there it is.

                          •  Well, some of it clearly was (0+ / 0-)

                            given that there is a settlement happening.  More than that, not investigating is part of the problem.  If they don't have an obligation to investigate banks even with the appearance of fraud then they certainly have no obligation to investigate medical marijuana.

                            And you were incorrect on torture.  Torture is covered under treaties which we have signed, treaties that are held up by the constitution as the highest law of the land.

                            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                            by AoT on Thu May 17, 2012 at 04:14:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do the treaties in question (0+ / 0-)

                            obligate the US government to accept the authority of a foreign entity in the determination of whether a war crime has, in fact, been committed? Or does the US government retain the power to determine whether or not a particular act is subject to the treaty? If the US Government disputes the validity of the charge, does that constitute a violation as defined by the treaty? The issue isn't as straight forward as some imagine.

                            Is the settlement you're referring to civil or criminal? A settlement doesn't, in and of itself, imply criminality.  

                          •  Robo-signing is a criminal act (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            specifically fraud.  The fact of the matter is that there have been a huge number of examples where people have shown some amount of proof that they or others were defrauded by large firms and there was no investigation.  Some may throw up their hand and declare that it's all so complicated that we may never know if they committed crimes, but that doesn't seem like it should be acceptable.

                            More over, the president specifically stated while running that he would not pursue medical marijuana dispensaries if they operated under state laws.  Explicitly.  More than once.

                            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                            by AoT on Thu May 17, 2012 at 04:39:55 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i agree that it shouldn't be acceptable (0+ / 0-)

                            but I have to point out that the robosigning was a result of the crash, not a cause.

                            I also agree that the Pres. should be called to account for any campaign pledge that he hasn't kept.

                          •  No, it was one of the causes, as far as I (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            WB Reeves

                            have read.  It is what allowed the banks to put all of the loans into the shitty bonds and CDOs or whatever they are called.  Without robosigning the huge amount of betting would never have happened.  The banks wouldn't have been able to slice up a bunch of shitty loans then rebundle them as a good investment.  That was what what caused such financial devastation once housing prices stopped rising and the shitty loans started defaulting.

                            There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                            by AoT on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:58:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

                            Apparently, I've misunderstood the train of events. I thought the robosigning was part of the foreclosure process issuing from the housing market collapse. I wasn't aware that it had anything to do with the practice of bundling mortgages since the mortgagee has no say over what the mortgage holder does with the mortgage. Looks like I have some reading up to do!

              •  Not to mention overruling the FDA (5+ / 0-)

                regarding morning-after pill Plan B.

        •  Every day (10+ / 0-)

          the President "unilaterally choose[s] which laws to enforce".  As does any DA or any Police Chief deciding where to assign his department's resources.  And Obama said as much with his "looking forward" statement.

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:17:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's easy to say (0+ / 0-)

            but can you cite a specific instance where the Executive has asserted the power to refuse to enforce a statute for this reason?

            •  speaking for President Obama . . . (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gooderservice

              regarding the enforcing of the Endangered Soecies Act . . .

              Tom Strickland, assistant Interior secretary for fish, wildlife and parks, acknowledged the growing backlog, but compared it to a list of schools that need repair.

              "We know what we need to do. We don't have the resources to do it all at once," he said.

              http://www.radicalhippie.com/...

              Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

              by Deward Hastings on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:16:46 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Not investigating alleged torture? (5+ / 0-)

              Since the Convention against Torture was ratified by Congress, it´s law. And an obligation to investigate alleged acts of torture is part of the Convention.

              "Looking forward, not backward" however isn´t a part of the Convention.

              •  I'm no expert on the laws governing treaties (0+ / 0-)

                but I do know that they don't have much to do with domestic criminal statutes.

                •  Torture is illegal under American law (6+ / 0-)

                  So if you are right then he would be required to prosecute.  Ditto with the bankers fraud.

                  There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                  by AoT on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:49:43 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Uh no. (0+ / 0-)

                    If the torture were carried out outside the US under military authority, military law would have jurisdiction. If the crime were committed in the US by military personel on military property, military law would still have jurisdiction.

                    My point was that there are differing governing legal authorities for treaties and domestic crime. In general treaty obligations, like Federal statutes, are usually trumps. But treaties are the product of diplomacy and diplomacy is all about maintaining the prerogatives of the state regimes involved. That's why they constantly argue over what their obligations are.

                    As for the question of fraud, it isn't clear to me that the actions that led to the economic collapse were actually illegal. I think they ought to have been but it appears that this was a case where the shenanigans of the corporados got way ahead of the existing law. Credit default swaps, for example, were perfectly legal. Completely insane from any view other than that of the profiteers but completely legal nonetheless.

                    All of which simply points up the dysfunctional character of the current system.    

                       

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site