Barack Obama hints that George Bush 'torture lawyers' may be prosecuted

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I haven't read these memos but from what I understand the lawyers would simply write 'Based on THIS I believe you can legally do THAT'. Someone can go to jail for misinterpreting something they read? Disbarred? Yeah... but jail? Really?

I'm actually with Cheney for once too. If you're going to release one half of the story you might as well release the other half to show just what 'good' came out of this 'bad'.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe OK OK Fingolfin269, given the fact that torture crimes have been committed, we must admit that its follows that SOMEONE is legally liable.

Now step up to the plate and tell us who should be prosecuted?

If the answer is no one, you have no argument at all.

 

[First]

Good.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Maybe OK OK Fingolfin269, given the fact that torture crimes have been committed, we must admit that its follows that SOMEONE is legally liable.

Now step up to the plate and tell us who should be prosecuted?

If the answer is no one, you have no argument at all.

You do realize, there's about a 50-50 chance the answer will be Clinton or Obama?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

I haven't read these memos but from what I understand the lawyers would simply write 'Based on THIS I believe you can legally do THAT'. Someone can go to jail for misinterpreting something they read? Disbarred? Yeah... but jail? Really?

Yes, really! As official legal authorities for the United States of America, if they intentionally concocted specious, fictitious, legalistic (not legal) justifications for criminal acts, they can be considered part of the conspiracy to commit those acts.

I'm actually with Cheney for once too. If you're going to release one half of the story you might as well release the other half to show just what 'good' came out of this 'bad'.

It's a political dance. Cheney knows he's in deep shit when the truth comes out. You're actually a sucker to believe he really wants them released.

There is no reason to believe anything KSM or any other tortured captive said while being tortured is true.

I suspect a couple things.

One is that there might be some useful info from KSM et al outside of torture, that gets conflated to be misrepresented as resulting from torture, that will help him.

Another is that this is a no-lose for Cheney. At worst, he's no worse off; any info that is released provides some case, however weak; and if not released, he can use that.

Another is that this helps shift the debate from the morality of torture, to the lesser question of 'does it work' - implying, if it works, it's justified, forget the moral problem.

There may be some 'useful info' obtained from torture. That doesn't make it ok.

 

[Lemon law]

The other point to make is that we are not talking about some private hostess twinkie defense lawyer making a junk defense argument for lack of anything better, we are talking about attorneys hired and paid by US taxpayers, and they owed both the taxpayers and GWB&co a greater measure of responsibility.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, but when those same stinking thinking is used to commit crimes, yes, those people are criminally culpable.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i wonder what they will be charged with?

Violating the relevant sections of the Geneva convention to which US is signatory and has incorporated into CFR - for one.

A lawyer drafting an opinion paper is in violation of the GC?

There are tons of crappy legal briefs, I've never heard of an attorney being prosecuted for it.

Fern

I'm thinkin' Conspiracy, and this one would have Cheney's (and Gonzo's) fingerprints all over it. It would not be uncommon for a legal brief to be drafted to support an executive directive in violation of domestic or international law. Plausible deniability FTW

Bybee and Gonzo (and Yoo) were simply tools, or Tools - kinda like Scooter. I guess it depends on what (or who) they can turn up to make all the connections.

Bybee for the most part looks to be a bootlicker who was rewarded with a Federal Appeals Court seat for his 'service'.

 

[chess9]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/

They may have already been indicted.

-Robert

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: ericlp
President Obama today left the door open to prosecuting lawyers from the Bush Administration who drafted memos authorising the use of harsh interrogation methods on terror suspects.

Well alright! One step closer to getting bush and his cronies behind bars!

Go for it. Bush is out of office anyway, and there's no real political upside. His base will be thrilled, but they'll be effectively declaring war on the Republican side of things which will end any bipartisan efforts for the rest of his term. That may not cripple Obama, but it's likely to effectively kill the chances of some of his legislative priorities.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Bush tortured lawyers? Looks like he finally got something right.

 

[XMan]

If this DOES happen it will be interesting to see what comes out in discovery. Such an action would ironically probably result in the declassification of the very reports that Cheney wants to get out.

I think it could backfire, especially if the lawyers can show proof that attacks were stopped by these actions as part of their defense.

I find it decidedly ironic that most of you guys had no zero problems with Uday and Qusay throwing people into wood chippers - or Daniel Pearl being beheaded - but if CIA interrogators waterboard KSM or use the dreaded "pink belly" (yes, it was one of the tactics) it somehow equates to Nazis making lampshades out of Jews and Gypsies.

 

[sciwizam]

Interesting read.

Dennis Blair, National Intelligence Director : Banned Techniques Yielded ?High Value Information'

President Obama?s national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists.

?High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa?ida organization that was attacking this country,? Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.

Admiral Blair?s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

?I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,? he wrote, ?but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.?

A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders.

"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,? Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. ?The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

 

[JSt0rm]

who cares what the yield was. It is the method that is against the law. Considering they lied about even doing it in the first place maybe they are lying about it working too.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
who cares what the yield was. It is the method that is against the law. Considering they lied about even doing it in the first place maybe they are lying about it working too.

Yes, being effective might not make it legal. If you read the article, at the end

The assessment by Admiral Blair represents a shift for him since he took office. When he was nominated for the position and appeared before the Senate intelligence committee on Jan. 22, he said: ?I believe strongly that torture is not moral, legal or effective.? But he declined to assess whether the interrogation program under Mr. Bush had worked.

?Do you believe the C.I.A.?s interrogation detention program has been effective?? Senator Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, asked him.

?I?ll have to look into that more closely before I can give you a good answer on that one,? Admiral Blair answered.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The other point to make is that we are not talking about some private hostess twinkie defense lawyer making a junk defense argument for lack of anything better, we are talking about attorneys hired and paid by US taxpayers, and they owed both the taxpayers and GWB&co a greater measure of responsibility.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, but when those same stinking thinking is used to commit crimes, yes, those people are criminally culpable.

But isn't it still up to the President himself to weigh the various 'opinions', as you say, and then make a decision? This appears to be a case where someone is out for blood and any scapegoat will do just fine. If laws were broken I'm okay with people being punished. I just want to be sure the right person/people are punished and not just the ones we can get our hands on and then feel all warm and fuzzy about it.

 

[sandorski]

Jewish Crime dropped to 0 and Reichstag fires ceased. Hitler was right and justified?

 

[her209]

Does the President have unlimited powers when it comes to the safety of the country?

EDIT: Also, are Executive Orders considered as good as laws?

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: her209
Does the President have unlimited powers when it comes to the safety of the country?

EDIT: Also, are Executive Orders considered as good as laws?

no

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: her209
EDIT: Also, are Executive Orders considered as good as laws?

They are a level below laws, just as laws are a level below the constitution.

They are binding on the executive branch as if they were laws - but must conform to laws.

This is why, for example, the Freedom of Information Act - a law - is unchanged under Bush and Obama, but its effect is drastically different.

Bush did not issue an executive order, but he had the Attorney issue a memo, instructing every agency to comply to the absolute minimum possible with the law.

That's in contrast to the memo from the Clinton Attorney General - and now the executive order from Obama - to comply as fully as possible, limited only by clear security issues.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: chess9
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/

They may have already been indicted.

-Robert

Europeans usually try to do that stuff with poorer countries that they think they can colonize with brutal methods. It would be especially ridiculous for Spain to do it considering what they do in their own country to migrants and separatists. If it goes forward, hopefully Obama would retaliate against any European aggression.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...ves/2009/04/023382.php

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...ves/2009/04/023380.php

 

[HomerJS]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I haven't read these memos but from what I understand the lawyers would simply write 'Based on THIS I believe you can legally do THAT'. Someone can go to jail for misinterpreting something they read? Disbarred? Yeah... but jail? Really?

I'm actually with Cheney for once too. If you're going to release one half of the story you might as well release the other half to show just what 'good' came out of this 'bad'.

Dick is full of shit. If these memos existed he would have declassified them and made copies before leaving office.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Gee, all the Bush officials that eagerly endorsed and supported this, all the way about to Cheney himself, are now saying how good torture was. Why does anyone believe these people? They are the ones that could be liable for criminal charges. Do you really expect them to say anything else?

I mean, when someone gets arrested, and they say how they are innocent, do you believe those people? It's like Michael Vick announcing he didn't do anything wrong before he did a 180 and pleaded guilty.

Cheney and others have a vested interest in saying this stuff, to try and get gullible people to believe them, so they won't have to face criminal charges.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: SirStev0

Why would they be charged? They were under orders.

Who was "under orders?" At Nuremburg, nazi war criminals were found guilty despite pleading that the were only "following orders" to commit their heinous crimes.

And who gave those orders? If you're talking about John Yoo, Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, the attorneys who wrote the opinions, or their boss, Alberto Gonzales who oversaw their work, the only legal orders their bosses, Bush and Cheney, could issue would be a request for their professional opinions about the legality of the proposed treatment of prisoners. They could not legally be ordered to contort reality to construct a fiction purporting to support such legality.

If that is the attorneys' defense, they are guilty as hell, as are Bush and Cheney for ordering them to do it. Their only alternative defense would that they're intellectually incompetent, and Bush and Cheney are still guilty for approving blatant acts of torture.

Originally posted by: OCguy

LOL! Get those memo drafters.

If they deny drafting the memos, and Bush and Cheney deny ordering them to do so, would that make them all memo draft dodgers?

First, you need to establish the orders were illegal, and then if you've proven then, why waste your time with the little guys, go straight for whoever gave the orders.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: SirStev0
Why would they be charged? They were under orders. The problem with this country is we have no problem beating up on the people doing their jobs, yet the people making the orders are old asshole buddies so we can't touch them.

not that I don't disagree with you, but unfortunately, with the precedent set by the Nuremburg trials, just "following orders" is no longer an acceptable excuse.

In a system like the military, those who follow orders should not be prosecuted. Those who gave immoral or illegal orders should. That's how I've always felt, from the members of the SS to the Abu Ghaib prison scandal.