As a practical matter, given that we're the United States and not, say, rump Yugoslavia, that probably doesn't much matter. No international court is going to haul an American official into a war crimes trial without American blessing; which is to say, they're not going to haul an American official into a war crimes trial.

I have long had it in my head that simple legislation couldn't trump treaties on the notion that the latter required supermajority approval.

Additionally, Article VI could be read that way: "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; [...]"

But you're right: The case law is clear on this matter. From FindLaw:

It is in respect to his contention that, when it is asked to carry a treaty into effect, Congress has the constitutional right, and indeed the duty, to determine the matter according to its own ideas of what is expedient, that Madison has been most completely vindicated by developments. This is seen in the answer which the Court has returned to the question: What happens when a treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is, that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and that therefore the one of later date will prevail leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. In short, the treaty commitments of the United States do not diminish Congress' constitutional powers. To be sure, legislative repeal of a treaty as law of the land may amount to a violation of it as an international contract in the judgment of the other party to it. In such case, as the Court has said: ''Its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war. It is obvious that with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do and can give no redress.

======

[Footnote 303] Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580, 598 -599 (1884). The repealability of treaties by act of Congress was first asserted in an opinion of the Attorney General in 1854. 6 Ops. Atty. Gen. 291. The year following the doctrine was adopted judicially in a lengthy and cogently argued opinion of Justice Curtis, speaking for a United States circuit court in Taylor v. Morton, 23 Fed. Cas. 784 (No. 13,799) (C.C.D. Mass 1855). See also The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 616 (1871); United States v. Forty-Three Gallons of Whiskey, 108 U.S. 491, 496 (1883); Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238 (1889); The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 600 (1889); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 721 (1893). ''Congress by legislation, and so far as the people and authorities of the United States are concerned, could abrogate a treaty made between this country and another country which had been negotiated by the President and approved by the Senate.'' La Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 423, 460 (1899). Cf. Reichart v. Felps, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 160, 165 -166 (1868), wherein it is stated obiter that ''Congress is bound to regard the public treaties, and it had no power . . . to nullify [Indian] titles confirmed many years before. . . .''

Interesting.

This is like letting John Gotti rewrite the RICO statute.

And the only objection I have to seeing America's torturers tried for war crimes, is seeing Rumsfeld, Haynes, and Gonzales walk.

I don’t think they’re seriously worried about high level officials being prosecuted for exercising their judgment in national security matters.

Tell that to Slobo.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/

I'm surprised this is news to you.

Plus, the Dems will have to go left or face the wrath of the nutroots in their party. Michael Moore has already threatened other Dems this morning. Karl Rove could not have scripted this better for the fall elections, with the huge assist the Lamont primary win gives Republicans.