I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.(5 USC 3331, emphasis added). The text shows that the duty is not to any person, the duty is to the US Constitution. The oath takes into consideration that there are enemies of the constitution within the United States.
Well then, pursuant to the supreme law of our land, the US Constitution, we are to know this about any treaty we adopt:
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.(US Constitution, Article VI, emphasis added). This means that the treaty or treaties we signed that outlaw torture are our law, American law.
Thus The UN Ban on Torture and The Geneva Conventions are the law of our land.
Upon his confirmation by the US Senate, Eric Holder said:
There has to be a distance between me and the president, but I want to assure you and the American people that I will be an independent attorney general ... I will be the people's lawyer.(Voice of America). We know where he got this idea. Is it a principle found in the constitution, other laws of the United States, and his oath of office.
Does Obama now hold the same views, since he as president now says he as president will decide who will be prosecuted for heinous acts of torture? The people will not decide?
Hasn't the president publicly declared that he has decided that no one shall be prosecuted for being told to torture and then following those orders?
We can surmise that AG Holder's comments quoted above were directed at responding to the anger of the American people for Bush II regime behaviour.
Clearly the attorney general's office during the Bush II regime was a puppet tool used by Bush II and Cheney to do their will instead of the will of the people.
The people punished the republican party in the election for allowing itself to become the party of big brother and the Beavis & Butthead twins.
But why has that changed? Why is the Attorney General no longer the lawyer for the people but instead the tool for the White House?
Could it be the unthinkable again which has become the norm in these corrupt United States?
At this rate, the new saying is going to become "I am not free, I am not free at last".
UPDATE: David Shuster on MSNBC is reporting that after a meeting with The King Of Jordan reporters asked President Obama about these prosecutions and he said he did not want to prejudge whether or not prosecutions should take place. That is for the Attorney General to decide he said.
Good! That is how it should be.