Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's a story out of California about two people charged with felony torture:
The couple, Daniel Weston and Mary Ann Parmelee, and three other people are accused of luring their two victims to an office where the men were tied up, held for hours and beaten, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney said...Weston, Parmelee and the three other defendants each were charged with two counts of torture, two counts of false imprisonment by violence and two counts of second-degree robbery, according to a criminal complaint filed against them.
Here's what they face:
Each count of felony torture, defined as inflicting "great bodily injury" for the purpose of "revenge, extortion, persuasion and for a sadistic purpose," carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.
So they tie people up and beat them for a few hours and face life in prison for torture. Our government tied people up in stress positions for days at a time, subjected them to hypothermia, waterboarded some people more than a hundred times, engaged in beatings and much worse. And they face....nothing whatsoever. So much for the notion of being a nation of laws.
Politics
Comments
Didn't one of the Faux News idiots volunteer to be waterboarded to 'prove' it wasn't torture? Did that ever happen? I may have missed it but I don't think so.
Sort of proves yet again that with power and money comes a supreme lack of accountability.
And it continues; Every time Cheney speaks I feel I am in a stress position.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 28, 2009 10:04 AM
I'm sure their defense will be that they were simply asking them some innocent questions and when they didn't get the information they needed, the terrorists (a.k.a. victims) caused them to have to resort to using "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
They could call Dick Cheney as a witness for the defense!
Posted by: Audrey | October 28, 2009 10:13 AM
Obvious difference: they tortured loan modification officers and not Muslims (presumably).
Posted by: JohnV | October 28, 2009 10:15 AM
@MikeMa: that was Hannity, and he's been avoiding the topic ever since.
Posted by: Spidergrackle | October 28, 2009 10:17 AM
@Mikema,
So they tortured real terrorists. Case closed!
Posted by: Audrey | October 28, 2009 10:18 AM
If they'd been sworn and were wearing badges, the worst they'd get is a paid vacation.
Posted by: CRM-114 | October 28, 2009 10:22 AM
Obviously members in good standing of the Tony Kiritsis Liberation Front.
We must stand in solidarity with them!
fusilier
James 2:24
linkie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Kiritsis
Posted by: fusilier | October 28, 2009 10:24 AM
Do you think we can get WND to sponsor a "Waterboard Hannity" billboard. I'm only in search of the truth about torture...
Where is Farah's number? I had it here somewhere.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 28, 2009 10:27 AM
Uh... while the Obama administration has taken wrongs in regard to retaining Bush Era changes, you guys are aware that it's literally impossible to prosecute the torturers, right?
They're protected by a combination of the Constitution (Let me finish, don't get the sticks out yet) and codified laws that protected people acting under executive orders. What they did was LEGAL because of this, unfortunately. To convict the torturing jackasses, you would have to prove they weren't acting under executive orders, which would be very difficult thanks to Dick Cheney. Or maybe very easy, since as we all know, the Vice President isn't a member of the Executive Branch.
While the laws that protected those men could be nullified, that wouldn't actually make it legal to prosecute them, thanks to a constitutional ban on ex post facto prosecutions. If it was legal when you did it, you can NEVER face prosecution for your actions, in the US. This is usually a good thing, because it prevents, for instance, criminalizing something someone did 30 years ago, and punishing them under this new law. In this case, it happens to be backfiring against the citizens and to the government's advantage.
Mind, this isn't a complete excusal. Obama could be abolishing those laws. It won't let him prosecute the torturers, but it'll live up to all the accountability he promised.
Posted by: Rutee | October 28, 2009 10:31 AM
Er, he could be spending political capitol in this all dems. senate to have those laws repealed, I should say. Obama is in no better a positiont o just 'abolish' a law then Bush is, but presidents are still allowed to use influence in the senate >.>
Posted by: Rutee | October 28, 2009 10:33 AM
I agree with Audrey @2. If the defense attorneys don't at least profess that they prevented a terrorist attack, they aren't doing their jobs.
Posted by: Odie | October 28, 2009 10:37 AM
Well, those two victims haven't committed any acts of terrorism, so the torture must have worked, right? The torturers were really just protecting the rest of us.
"Lisa, I wanna buy your rock." - Homer Simpson
Posted by: catgirl | October 28, 2009 10:48 AM
With all due respect, you're really just a pussy. Do you think that our government should follow ALL of its own laws in the course of defending our countries?? Really? Seriously? I guess we should NEVER go to war then, since in order to really win a war you have do some pretty nasty stuff .. since the OTHER GUYS will do that stuff to you if you don't fight back.
Posted by: Dude | October 28, 2009 10:53 AM
In other news, the United States is now at war with ... mortgage loan officers?
Posted by: JohnV | October 28, 2009 11:04 AM
"and much worse"
Right, like the persons who have been "interrogated" to death.
This is from Jane Mayer's The Dark Side:
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | October 28, 2009 11:06 AM
Rutee, IANAL or historian but here's how I see it...
According to the Geneva Conventions torture is a war crime. We have signed each convention as they have been written since 1882, and Congress ratified the whole kit n'kaboodle in 1977.
Article 6 of the Constitution states explicitly that any treaties we enter into become the supreme law of the land. Article 3 Section 2 states explicitly that the judicial branch (not the executive) decides cases of treaty violation.
Now, I suppose that the President has the power to revoke our participation in the Geneva Convention. But until he does so the supreme law of the land says torture is illegal and it is the courts, not the President, that gets to decide whether people have broken that law or not. No further executive order can change that, any more than the executive branch could revoke any other standing law.
At best, what the executive branch can do is offer a different interpretation of a law (e.g. in a signing statement) and use it until the courts tell them otherwise. But the executive does not have the power to make legislatively illegal acts legal.
And, as you point out, even if the President revoked the convention(s) today, it would not change the illegality of past torture because we do not interpret our laws in an ex post facto manner.
Posted by: eric | October 28, 2009 11:14 AM
You can't always equate the consequences of civilian actions with those of government actions. Otherwise everytime someone got arrested, the police officer would be charged with kidnapping.
In this situation though, the analogy is proper, since it is illegal for our government to torture. But the argument that "citizens would get in trouble if they did it" does not hold much weight.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 28, 2009 11:15 AM
The difference isn't that it's police vs. ordinary citizens doing it; the difference is that a warrant has been issued for an arrest of a specific person. Police officers can't just arrest whoever they want for any reason, just like ordinary citizens can't do that.
Posted by: catgirl | October 28, 2009 11:29 AM
I do believe the police are able to detain "persons of interest" for some time without charging them with a crime. A regular person would not have the same ability.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 28, 2009 11:35 AM
Rutee is absolutely wrong. The UN Convention on Torture, which we not only signed but lobbied to get passed (under Ronald Reagan, no less) requires us to prosecute torture by any American and it explicitly rejects the Nuremberg defense that they were just following orders.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 28, 2009 11:36 AM
Rute: Can we get the sticks out now? It is never proper to follow an illegal order. Read the Nuremburg transcripts if you have further questions.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 28, 2009 11:41 AM
With a warrant. That makes a big difference.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 28, 2009 11:44 AM
If the police watch you commit a crime, I don't think they need a warrent to detain you.
Posted by: Drekab | October 28, 2009 12:23 PM
@eric
I'm going to check into what we signed when I'm back later, as I'm leaving in a moment. In the interim, I will point out one thing. Hypothetically, if what they did was illegal when they did it, but legal now, they are in fact protected. Ex Post Facto can not be applied to the defendant's penalty. It can be applied to the state's penalty. Speaking hypothetically again, if someone were imprisoned for gay marriage, and gay marriage became legal, that person gets out. If they got gay married when it was legal, and then it became a crime to even attempt it, they would never see court.
Remember, these things are supposed to be applied to ordinary citizens as well as government agents who are being jackasses. Also, why did you address that post to people who weren't posting?
@Ed: If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'll look it up in greater depth when I have more then 10 seconds online; However, in the brief time I ahve left, I looked over the first 12 articles or so. The convention appears to compel we, as a nation, to provide our own laws and outlaw the practice ourselves. It doesn't seem to provide any method to actually try the bastards who do it. If it did, there'd be absolutely no question. However, it instead tells us to make laws to do it, so it depends entirely on our legislation.
I think I can see the legal argument for prosecution if later in the treaty it explicitly states to try past miscreants under current law, or if one argues the executive order protection bill is unconstitutional because it violates the treaty. But unless there's some future article in the treaty that compels us to punish past wrongs, and again, I'm speculating as I haven't read past article 12 in this time (And will correct this in a few hours), but without that, it is NOT as cut and dry as we'd like.
In an unrelated sidenote, and as long as you're personally paying attention, I'd like to thank you for explaining in a past article why exactly the "anti-free-speech" platform the republicans took on hate crimes is absolutely wrong. That's been beyond enraging for me as a human being.
@21: Being ethically wrong and being illegal are different things. notice that I have pointed out I want those executive order protection laws out ASAP.
I also want it on the record that I don't think any part of the torture should EVER have happened. I also don't want to be confused with some right wing wingnut who thinks its okay or something. I'm pretty sure there's not a whole lot that can be done LEGALLY, which is a different bag of donuts from what SHOULD be done morally. We distinguish ourselves from the republicans by respecting the rule of law, even when we absolutely HATE doing so.
Posted by: Rutee | October 28, 2009 1:23 PM
Rutee:
Save yourself the time; this meme that, "it was legal back then." is bullshit, as per Ed's comment @ 20--regardless of the fact that the U.S. gummint cherrypicks which international treaties (to which it is a signatory) it will obey.
Posted by: democommie | October 28, 2009 1:59 PM
Obama could always send these "agents" to the Netherlands to check on the terrist infrastructure, of, say, the Spanish Embassy in Den Haag.
Official protocol would suggest we announce to the Spaniards that we were assisting them in this investigation.
Whatever happens next, would be interesting.
Just saying.
Posted by: SharonB | October 28, 2009 2:46 PM
I wasn't aware that it was a meme. I stumbled across the executive protection law in doing research on WHY these jackasses weren't yet thrown in jail.
On further consideration, there's at LEAST enough rationale to try the case, so throw that on the to-do list of crap Obama's got to do. I don't think it will win, but if there's at least enough of an argument to, we should try it as a matter of principle. Preferably while at the same time deleting the laws that ever gave these assholes a chance.
Posted by: Rutee | October 28, 2009 2:50 PM
Drekab raises a nice point "actually committing a crime".
How many of you readers are as incensed as I am (that's pretty incensed) when a reporter describes an actually criminal action, like shooting a shopkeeper dead, as being committed by a "suspect"?
Unless the police already suspect someone, there is no suspect. A person committing a crime is a criminal. You could call him or her the perpetrator, or even just "gunperson".
The point of distinguishing "suspect" from "criminal" is that suspects are occasionally in fact innocent of any crime. In a properly conducted investigation or murder mystery, there should be several suspects who are in fact innocent. "Suspect" is not just a quaking-liberal-euphemism for "criminal".
To say that the "suspect" committed the act which is later tried as a crime, is logically to deny the accused their rights of assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Posted by: albert rogers | October 28, 2009 2:58 PM
Rutee:Hypothetically, if what they did was illegal when they did it, but legal now, they are in fact protected.
As a hypothetical you may be right. But that hypothetical does not apply here, because in this actual case we have not withdrawn from the Geneva convention, so torture is still illegal.
The convention appears to compel we, as a nation, to provide our own laws and outlaw the practice ourselves. It doesn't seem to provide any method to actually try the bastards who do it.
We don't need the convention to give us a method, ours is very clear. Article 3 Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority." [My bold.] You break the Geneva convention, you get tried by the courts, just like if you break any other law.
Posted by: eric | October 28, 2009 3:02 PM
Article 6 of the Constitution states explicitly that any treaties we enter into become the supreme law of the land.
Treaties are still subordinate to the Constitution itself, they are just higher than State laws. In a conflict between a treaty and the Constitution, the Constitution wins.
Posted by: Joe | October 28, 2009 3:17 PM
Am I the only one who sees this as a catch-22? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Constitution (may) state that treaties are the supreme law of the land.
Posted by: Jordan G | October 28, 2009 3:29 PM
Joe: In a conflict between a treaty and the Constitution, the Constitution wins.
Fair enough Joe...so what conflict do you see here? What's in the Constitution that conflicts with the Geneva convention?
Posted by: eric | October 28, 2009 3:42 PM
Albert Rogers: Your whole comment has me puzzling over what is meant, but I'll start with:
Like most lawyers who work in criminal defense, I have had many clients who did whatever action they were charged with but did not consider themselves "criminals." One client wa tried for murder and freely admitted he shot the decedant: But he did it in his own home after the decedant had cut him several times and was still treatening our client with a large knife. Held: Self-defense.
This is not uncommon. There is a reason for going to trials. Despite the overwhelming advantages the government gets, it still must prove every element of the crime charged, including the intent. This isn't always easy.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 28, 2009 3:43 PM
"So they tie people up and beat them for a few hours and face life in prison for torture. Our government tied people up in stress positions for days at a time, subjected them to hypothermia, waterboarded some people more than a hundred times, engaged in beatings and much worse. And they face....nothing whatsoever. So much for the notion of being a nation of laws."
Indeed! But look at the wording of the law - here's the catch (emphasis mine):
"Each count of felony torture, defined as inflicting "great bodily injury" for the purpose of "revenge, extortion, persuasion AND FOR A SADISTIC PURPOSE," carries a maximum penalty of life in prison."
(Keyword = AND) Since the US Government doesn't class it as 'for a sadistic purpose', they're 'innocent'.
Posted by: Fruckl | October 28, 2009 4:04 PM
(N.B. Not classed as a sadistic purpose because information extraction from terrorists was the goal...disgraceful.)
Posted by: Fruckl | October 28, 2009 4:08 PM
To Albert Rogers and Kehrsam:
I go with Albert on this as a longtime newspaperman. We usually run first reports of a crime, before the police have a suspect. It's much stronger to say the police are after killers, robbers, gunmen or what have you instead of suspects. We don't say that we suspect someone was killed, we're certain it happened. When someone is arrested, that's when suspect comes in.
Too many reporters and their editors (most of whom are former reporters) don't understand the difference, and the police use "suspect" all the time as well, compounding the problem. So do television programs such as "CSI."
Posted by: Slaughter | October 28, 2009 4:54 PM
Am I the only one who sees this as a catch-22?
Yes, you are the only one who does.
Posted by: joe | October 28, 2009 5:25 PM
so what conflict do you see here?
That would be for a Court to decide.
I've just seen people get their panties all in a wad because they read the "supreme law" part and think that treaties trump the Constitution. They don't.
Posted by: Joe | October 28, 2009 5:30 PM
Re Slaughter
Actually, law enforcement now uses the term "person of interest" instead of suspect.
Re Albert Rogers
In order to avoid possible libel actions later on if a suspect is acquitted or exonerated, news media always preface a reference to a suspect or arraigned miscreant with the word alleged or something similer.
Posted by: SLC | October 28, 2009 6:32 PM
joe@37 & Joe@38:
I think some folks might have been away for a bit. You may get some argument when they come back.
kehrsam:
Is there such a thing as "misdemeanor torture"? If so I could prolly charge several ex-girlfriends with it!
Posted by: democommie | October 28, 2009 8:24 PM
Posted by: Nick Gardner | October 29, 2009 10:31 AM