Well, I said I wasn't intending to discuss legalities, but since you insist, here goes nothing.:)
Honestly, you'd be much better off stating your own opinion directly than linking to that article. The idea Yoo and Bybee were simply giving legal advice (as they should've been) is little short of absurd. The foxes were writing the chickenhouse rules. But leaving aside that, and the factual innacuracy of the article, I did enjoy this reasoning for the adoption of "enhanced interrogation techniques":
Yah, I bet being tortured by the CIA cured him of that pretty darn quick.;)
Wait, does this mean if you make the taking of an illegal legal opinion legal, then you have to jail any SC justice who writes a supporting opinion? I'm confused.
But seriously, that argument makes no more sense that claiming that if you courtmartial a soldier for obeying an officer's command (to kill civilians, say) then all the generals should resign. Or is it only the generals who expect soldiers to obey every command they make? Or is it the other way round. Ok I'm still confused.
For the record, I don't believe I cited any international law (knowing it would only annoy you:)). But I believe the point made about that was that if the US is a signatory to international law, then the law has force as US law, so it would probably be US marshall's you'd be trying to kill, not some pesky swedes.
I certainly agree that the authors of the policy are the ones who are primarily responsible. It's not so clear though who exactly they are. But the fact is that the US did adopt torture, in secret, as an executive policy, so someone, or some group, is responsible for conspiracy to torture.
I suspect that Cheney's office was the primary source of the US torture policy, and that lawyers (like Addington) played a leading role in that. I don't know how much the CIA was involved in instigating the policy (seems like they were the ones who first raised the idea of waterboarding) or simply went along with orders. I don't believe that the CIA officers who actually carried out the torture should be prosecuted if they were simply following directions from higher up (despite the "Nuremberg defence" objections). But you can be sure the primary reason the CIA destroyed the video tapes of many interrogations is because they knew very well that they would provide convincing evidence of illegal torture, whatever the memos said (and maybe because some of the interrogations took place before they had the legal cover memos). And they'd already been hung out to dry by the Bush administration on the failure to find the chemical and biological weapons that the administration pressured them for evidence of before the war.
No doubt, without the pictures, Abu Ghraib would've been dismissed by the apologists as a few harmless high-jinks of some over-exuberant guards. And speaking of accountability for the architects of the US torture policies, isn't it ironic that a few poor lower level shmucks are about the only ones to be held accountable?
Actually, I happen to disagree with torture.
So we should only prosecute poor people with bad lawyers?
Do you really think the adoption of torture by the executive branch of the US government is a horsecrap issue?
I don't.
It strikes me that Obama is the one trying to move on, and he's pressuring the AG to do the same.
Or he could cave in to the law and conclude that someone has committed a crime, because someone surely has. But, I agree entirely, if he did that he would not win, not inside this presidential term anyway.
Quote:For you and Thecla:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243020964825531.html
Honestly, you'd be much better off stating your own opinion directly than linking to that article. The idea Yoo and Bybee were simply giving legal advice (as they should've been) is little short of absurd. The foxes were writing the chickenhouse rules. But leaving aside that, and the factual innacuracy of the article, I did enjoy this reasoning for the adoption of "enhanced interrogation techniques":
Quote:When the usual interrogation methods were used, he had maintained his "unabated desire to kill Americans and Jews."
Yah, I bet being tortured by the CIA cured him of that pretty darn quick.;)
Quote:If you make taking a legal opinion illegal, you have to jail any justice who writes a dissenting opinion in the SC, since case law becomes law.
Wait, does this mean if you make the taking of an illegal legal opinion legal, then you have to jail any SC justice who writes a supporting opinion? I'm confused.
But seriously, that argument makes no more sense that claiming that if you courtmartial a soldier for obeying an officer's command (to kill civilians, say) then all the generals should resign. Or is it only the generals who expect soldiers to obey every command they make? Or is it the other way round. Ok I'm still confused.
Quote:Next, when you cite international law, by all means, come into my country and try to arrest my people.
For the record, I don't believe I cited any international law (knowing it would only annoy you:)). But I believe the point made about that was that if the US is a signatory to international law, then the law has force as US law, so it would probably be US marshall's you'd be trying to kill, not some pesky swedes.
Quote:That is why I asked about a US statute. Therein lies any possible legal case. The targets must be the authors of policy, not the legal counsel whose opinion they sought.
I certainly agree that the authors of the policy are the ones who are primarily responsible. It's not so clear though who exactly they are. But the fact is that the US did adopt torture, in secret, as an executive policy, so someone, or some group, is responsible for conspiracy to torture.
I suspect that Cheney's office was the primary source of the US torture policy, and that lawyers (like Addington) played a leading role in that. I don't know how much the CIA was involved in instigating the policy (seems like they were the ones who first raised the idea of waterboarding) or simply went along with orders. I don't believe that the CIA officers who actually carried out the torture should be prosecuted if they were simply following directions from higher up (despite the "Nuremberg defence" objections). But you can be sure the primary reason the CIA destroyed the video tapes of many interrogations is because they knew very well that they would provide convincing evidence of illegal torture, whatever the memos said (and maybe because some of the interrogations took place before they had the legal cover memos). And they'd already been hung out to dry by the Bush administration on the failure to find the chemical and biological weapons that the administration pressured them for evidence of before the war.
No doubt, without the pictures, Abu Ghraib would've been dismissed by the apologists as a few harmless high-jinks of some over-exuberant guards. And speaking of accountability for the architects of the US torture policies, isn't it ironic that a few poor lower level shmucks are about the only ones to be held accountable?
Quote:Lawyers loophole dive all the time, and do so for a variety of reasons. You just happen to disagree with this loophole dive.
Actually, I happen to disagree with torture.
Quote:Guess what. They are rich enough to hire good lawyers.
So we should only prosecute poor people with bad lawyers?
Quote:Do you really think this is anything more than a political load of horsecrap?
I don't.
Do you really think the adoption of torture by the executive branch of the US government is a horsecrap issue?
I don't.
Quote:The current Attorney General seems to me clear thinking: move on, move forward.
It strikes me that Obama is the one trying to move on, and he's pressuring the AG to do the same.
Quote:Of course, he could cave in to political pressure and convene a trial.
What are the odd he would win?
Or he could cave in to the law and conclude that someone has committed a crime, because someone surely has. But, I agree entirely, if he did that he would not win, not inside this presidential term anyway.