I would like to know more fully your assessment of the contradiction of what’s in the CAT vs. US Code. If you care to share, please understand IANAL (underlined, enboldened, highlighted, etc.).

Many thanx, greenharper. Harp on! i

Lanny A. Breuer was confirmed as the Criminal Division’s Assistant Attorney General on April 20, 2009.

Mr. Breuer began his career in 1985 as an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan, where he prosecuted various criminal cases, including murder, gang violence, armed robbery, child abuse, burglary, white collar crime and larceny.
In 1989, he joined Covington & Burling LLP, where he became a Partner in 1995 and served as co-chair of the White Collar Defense and Investigations practice group. At Covington, Mr. Breuer specialized in white collar criminal and complex civil litigation, internal corporate investigations, congressional investigations, antitrust cartel proceedings, and other matters involving high-profile legal, political, and public relations risks.

From 1997 to 1999, Mr. Breuer left Covington to serve as Special Counsel to President William J. Clinton.
(US DOJ website)

Eric Holder was Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration under Janet Reno from 1997-2001,after which Holder joined Covington and Burling(Wiki)

Yes, it would be safe to say that they were in the Clinton Whitehouse at the same time.

Article 14 of the CAT provides:

“1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of
an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and
adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as
possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of
torture, his dependants shall be entitled to compensation.”

The U.S. has not only failed to “ensure in its legal system etc.” but has
tried to ensure the opposite.

All, however, is not lost. Section a) of the All Writs Act, 28 U.S. Code Sec. 1651, provides:

“The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of
Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of
their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and
principles of law.”

Any reason why this isn’t worth considering?

Maybe someone should review and reconsider “ethical conflicts” concerning past cases involving current AG Eric Holder, who spent 2001-2008 at Covington and Burling, the same firm with whom Breuer is affiliated.

Michael Chertoff joined this same firm this spring,March 2009,just for the record.

I wonder if Holder and Breuer were in the Clinton Whitehouse administration together?

Breuer was NEVER demanding disclosure of Cheney conversations. He was trying–successfully–to keep his client off the stand so he didn’t have to tell his side of the “gathering information for Cheney” story.

In that, Kiriakou’s interest (keeping that process secret) and Cheney’s (keeping it secret) actually coincide nicely.

But it DOES mean that the guy making a totally bogus argument about the detrimental effect this will have for prosecutions that flies in the face of Cheney’s cooperation itself may in fact have old interests he’s representing, rather than that of a neutral observer.

You see, the argument that the government has interests in not releasing Cheney’s interview is pathetically bad. So one might ask, why are we making the argument. Why is Breuer making an argument that is laughable on its face.

That makes his past advocating for precisely the same outcome he’s now arguing relevant, if not an ethical conflict.