DOJ: No misconduct by Woo or Bybee

[Lanyap]

Below is a report that the DOJ *did* find them guilty of misconduct. The finding was overruled, thogh, by an official still in place who worked in the Bush administration.

I've also heard Obama has not, as Presidents normally do, replaced the US Attorneys, maintainig the compromised set from Bush.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme..._releases_internal_report_on_bus.php?ref=mblt

Interesting attempt at implication. From your link.

Margolis, the most senior nonpolitical official in the Justice Department, has served for many years, including during the Bush Administration.

http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/02/19/a-timeline-of-the-opr-report/

Margolis is a career DOJ official who has held his current position for 17 years

Doesn't Margolis ultimately work for Holder in the DOJ? So Holder has the authority to overrule Margolis, right? Do you think we will see that? Probably not.


What does replacing the US Attorneys have to do with this issue? What set of US Attorneys from Bush is compromised and related to this issue? Why hasn't Obama replaced them already?

...snip
Smells to me like one administration not wanting to open that can o' worms any further. They just want to put this thing behind us and move on, which makes some sense, but I would have preferred to see these guys punished for what they did. They probably did more harm to the country than any terrorist has ever done.

That's what I was thinking. The current admin probably wants to keep it in their back pocket in case they need to use it again after a major terrorist attack.

 

[Jhhnn]

Also called "covering ass."

In lawyer-ese, it's called professional courtesy... no other lawyer could possibly have done anything wrong, ever... and if they did, it'd stay in the family...

Kinda like not ratting out your union brothers, with a lot more money involved...

 

[Corn]

Wow, black Bush continues to crush the hopes and dreams of lefties and macro-bots everywhere. Awesome.

There's always the Hague, eh Lemon law? Keep the dream alive!

 

[Craig234]

Interesting attempt at implication. From your link.



http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/02/19/a-timeline-of-the-opr-report/


Doesn't Margolis ultimately work for Holder in the DOJ? So Holder has the authority to overrule Margolis, right? Do you think we will see that? Probably not.


What does replacing the US Attorneys have to do with this issue? What set of US Attorneys from Bush is compromised and related to this issue? Why hasn't Obama replaced them already?



That's what I was thinking. The current admin probably wants to keep it in their back pocket in case they need to use it again after a major terrorist attack.

Your response isn't making a lot of sense until the last part. You are asking questions about things not said.

For example, on the US Attorneys - they were compromised as a politicized group, pressured to bring or not bring prosecutions for political reasons, with statistics about briging a lot more against Democrats than Republicans (as in 600+ versus 200+ during a period), wit several thrown out for not playing politics; liberals looked forward to their replacement, but Obama appears so uncomitted reversing Bush errors as to leave them in place. That's not 'directly' related, I didn't say it was. What it does show is a very high level of adopting Bush practices - added to when you look at his record on other detainee issues.

The point was that the people who did the review did conclude that there was wrongdoing by the two Bush people. That's notable. Then it's noted how Bush-friendly higher-ups are in the overriding.

You ask why? You might have one guess about it. Many observers said the easy, politically convenient thing for Obama to do is to not address the Bush problems - at the expense of defending the constitution.

That disappoints liberals who want the constitution defended - and some others who want it defended. People who don't want the Justice Department politicized, who are not for the 'unitary presidency'.

 

[Robor]

Sometimes you are the statue,,, somtimes you are the pigeon.

Great line!

 

[Fern]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35487219/ns/politics-white_house/


Poor judgement?



What a load of subjective baloney. Either they were legally in the wrong, or they weren't. "Poor judgement" sounds like nothing more than a political handjob to counter the fact that they couldn't find a way to legally bring charges against either man.

All we have here is one group of lawers opining about the opinions of another group of lawyers.

To find that the two groups disagree ( one group citing "poor judgement" by the others) is about as shocking as finding two groups of economist who disagree.

Had the Obama Admin lawyers determined that, in their opinion, the Bush lawyers were had acted criminally (or whatever), it would have still been nothing more than just an 'opinion'. It would be up to the courts to determine if they were actually guilty of anything.

The real significance is they they won't be a court case, at least not by the DoJ.

In light of public opinion, which differs markedly from ATP&N, about the Christmas Bomber etc, I don't think the Obama admin (or Dems in general - at least those running for re-election in places other than SF etc) really wanna see our lawyers tried over this. The political sh!t storm would not be in their benefit.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not sure at all that you're qualified to assess public opinion, Fern.

And I rather suspect that the Obama Admin wants to find ways we can all work together, even if their opposition just says no, nyet, forget it. They've shown that they're willing to put some of this highly questionable reasoning behind us. I'm being generous in saying that, and I suspect the Admin is being generous as well, and not just because of the upcoming elections.

I do think that people in positions of trust, advisors to the President, have a higher obligation than pandering to the Boss's wishes, telling him what he wants to hear, and these guys didn't do that, not at all.

Freedom is not served by the tools of Tyranny. It's just that simple.

 

[Double Trouble]

All we have here is one group of lawers opining about the opinions of another group of lawyers.

To find that the two groups disagree ( one group citing "poor judgement" by the others) is about as shocking as finding two groups of economist who disagree.

Had the Obama Admin lawyers determined that, in their opinion, the Bush lawyers were had acted criminally (or whatever), it would have still been nothing more than just an 'opinion'. It would be up to the courts to determine if they were actually guilty of anything.

The real significance is they they won't be a court case, at least not by the DoJ.

In light of public opinion, which differs markedly from ATP&N, about the Christmas Bomber etc, I don't think the Obama admin (or Dems in general - at least those running for re-election in places other than SF etc) really wanna see our lawyers tried over this. The political sh!t storm would not be in their benefit.

Fern

Yeah, I understand the reasons for not really going after them hard -- I never figured any new administration would really go after the previous one hard. They know when their turn is up, they don't want the same happening to them etc. Still, what these guys did was shameful and harmful to the country, I would have loved to see some repercussions for that......

 

[Double Trouble]

And I rather suspect that the Obama Admin wants to find ways we can all work together, even if their opposition just says no, nyet, forget it.

I have yet to see any indication from the white house or the democratic leaders in congress that they want any kind of "working together", unless by "working together" the democrats mean "do it our way". They suffer from the same hubris and arrogance that the republicans did when they were in power, they have that "screw the other side, we're going to run the show now, they can join or get the hell out of the way" mentality.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

All we have here is one group of lawers opining about the opinions of another group of lawyers.

To find that the two groups disagree ( one group citing "poor judgement" by the others) is about as shocking as finding two groups of economist who disagree.

Had the Obama Admin lawyers determined that, in their opinion, the Bush lawyers were had acted criminally (or whatever), it would have still been nothing more than just an 'opinion'. It would be up to the courts to determine if they were actually guilty of anything.

The real significance is they they won't be a court case, at least not by the DoJ.

In light of public opinion, which differs markedly from ATP&N, about the Christmas Bomber etc, I don't think the Obama admin (or Dems in general - at least those running for re-election in places other than SF etc) really wanna see our lawyers tried over this. The political sh!t storm would not be in their benefit.

Fern

Are these lawyers really just opining? If any actual criminal behaviour could be proven I have little doubt that there wouldn't be any hesitation to take those guys to task on such a major subject of contention.

That's just my opinion though and, unlike some others in here, I don't consider my opinion to be immutable law.

 

[RedChief]

Because it's more complicated than crayons can deal with, and their masters didn't tell them to. When's the last time Beck or Palin took the position against these policies?

When was the last time Olbermann or Biden took positions against these policies?

 

[Jhhnn]

I have yet to see any indication from the white house or the democratic leaders in congress that they want any kind of "working together", unless by "working together" the democrats mean "do it our way". They suffer from the same hubris and arrogance that the republicans did when they were in power, they have that "screw the other side, we're going to run the show now, they can join or get the hell out of the way" mentality.

Yeh, just forget that the repubs led us off of an economic cliff, mired us in two wars of endless occupation, damaged our reputation with torture and gitmo, established huge structural deficits with tax cuts for America's wealthiest and a few other minor inconveniences for the Republic and the People.

Not to mention that Dems were declared Terrarist! Sympathizers! and worse... Sochulists! Homo-lovers! America-haters!

They *Failed* miserably and arrogantly, but they're still singin' the same old song... and have exercised their filibuster prerogative like a rubberstamp.

If the Obama Admin and Congressional Dems are guilty of anything, it's being entirely too soft on Repubs. If the former Admin and their boy Frist had acquired a 60 seat majority in the Senate, they'd have slammed it right down Dems' throats, and anybody with half a brain knows it.

 

[Craig234]

When was the last time Olbermann or Biden took positions against these policies?

Olbermann, see for example Greenwald's quotes of him in 'progressive consensus developing against Obama on detainee rights':

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/13/obama/

Now, are you the typical righty who will see your assumption proven wrong and just quietly ignore the facts and pretend you never insinuated what you did, or will you be unusual and acknowledge you were wrong?

Biden - get serious. He's the VP. His role s to support Obama, not speak out like he's the president.

 

[kage69]

Yeh, just forget that the repubs led us off of an economic cliff, mired us in two wars of endless occupation, damaged our reputation with torture and gitmo, established huge structural deficits with tax cuts for America's wealthiest and a few other minor inconveniences for the Republic and the People.

Not to mention that Dems were declared Terrarist! Sympathizers! and worse... Sochulists! Homo-lovers! America-haters!

They *Failed* miserably and arrogantly, but they're still singin' the same old song... and have exercised their filibuster prerogative like a rubberstamp.

If the Obama Admin and Congressional Dems are guilty of anything, it's being entirely too soft on Repubs. If the former Admin and their boy Frist had acquired a 60 seat majority in the Senate, they'd have slammed it right down Dems' throats, and anybody with half a brain knows it.

Pure, unadulterated win. Jhhnn, in the sea of political amnesia that is this forum, I must say it's awesome to see someone who's been paying attention lay it down so eloquently.

I'd buy you a fine malt beverage this instant if I could.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Another moral leper. If we just kill them we will be them.

Moonie...what's your solution?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yeh, just forget that the repubs led us off of an economic cliff, mired us in two wars of endless occupation, damaged our reputation with torture and gitmo, established huge structural deficits with tax cuts for America's wealthiest and a few other minor inconveniences for the Republic and the People.

Not to mention that Dems were declared Terrarist! Sympathizers! and worse... Sochulists! Homo-lovers! America-haters!

They *Failed* miserably and arrogantly, but they're still singin' the same old song... and have exercised their filibuster prerogative like a rubberstamp.

If the Obama Admin and Congressional Dems are guilty of anything, it's being entirely too soft on Repubs. If the former Admin and their boy Frist had acquired a 60 seat majority in the Senate, they'd have slammed it right down Dems' throats, and anybody with half a brain knows it.

And what about those with a complete brain? I think maybe they see it a little differently than you.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonie...what's your solution?

Personally, I would think a better question is why you have to ask. I fear that somebody so lost could comprehend my answer so I am going to make it very short and leave out any attempt to build a logical case. I'll just make a few points:

Why is the West superior to Al Quada and Wahabi Radicalism? It our superiority real or is it a lie? Does moral superiority matter? If it matters that we are superior how can we give that advantage away. What is the aim of terrorism? Is it not to turn the superior, with fear, into a bunch of quivering vicious slime like we see posting in this thread? Is it not to turn the so called superior into a bunch of similar murdering morons.

Americans have become worthless slime who pretend to believe in truth justice liberty and the rule of law until somebody goes boo and makes them vomit their lunch, the great promise of the founding fathers degenerated into a mass of quivering scum.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Personally, I would think a better question is why you have to ask. I fear that somebody so lost could comprehend my answer so I am going to make it very short and leave out any attempt to build a logical case. I'll just make a few points:

Why is the West superior to Al Quada and Wahabi Radicalism? It our superiority real or is it a lie? Does moral superiority matter? If it matters that we are superior how can we give that advantage away. What is the aim of terrorism? Is it not to turn the superior, with fear, into a bunch of quivering vicious slime like we see posting in this thread? Is it not to turn the so called superior into a bunch of similar murdering morons.

Americans have become worthless slime who pretend to believe in truth justice liberty and the rule of law until somebody goes boo and makes them vomit their lunch, the great promise of the founding fathers degenerated into a mass of quivering scum.

Disagree...the better question is the one I asked...the one you avoided answering. I don't have the answer and was hoping that you could shed some light on your opinion of what a reasonable solution might look like.

 

[Moonbeam]

Disagree...the better question is the one I asked...the one you avoided answering. I don't have the answer and was hoping that you could shed some light on your opinion of what a reasonable solution might look like.

Because you ask a question does not mean you are capable of understanding an answer. I gave you some clues, what was your reaction other than of course the avoiding response of I disagree. What do you disagree with in particular. For all intents and purposes, in fact, I did answer your question. My answer is to be found in your answers to mine.

The simple answer to every ideological war is to have the right ideology and stick to it. There is only one truth and it covers all. Every human being is born with a sense of justice. Be just and you will draw the world to your side.

But you may not have real faith so how would you know, eh?

 

[Corn]

Personally, I would think a better question is why you have to ask. I fear that somebody so lost could comprehend my answer so I am going to make it very short and leave out any attempt to build a logical case. I'll just make a few points:

Why is the West superior to Al Quada and Wahabi Radicalism? It our superiority real or is it a lie? Does moral superiority matter? If it matters that we are superior how can we give that advantage away. What is the aim of terrorism? Is it not to turn the superior, with fear, into a bunch of quivering vicious slime like we see posting in this thread? Is it not to turn the so called superior into a bunch of similar murdering morons.

Americans have become worthless slime who pretend to believe in truth justice liberty and the rule of law until somebody goes boo and makes them vomit their lunch, the great promise of the founding fathers degenerated into a mass of quivering scum.

I'd love for you to view the following thread and post your thoughts there Moonie. Don't be scared now.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2044287

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Because you ask a question does not mean you are capable of understanding an answer. I gave you some clues, what was your reaction other than of course the avoiding response of I disagree. What do you disagree with in particular. For all intents and purposes, in fact, I did answer your question. My answer is to be found in your answers to mine.

The simple answer to every ideological war is to have the right ideology and stick to it. There is only one truth and it covers all. Every human being is born with a sense of justice. Be just and you will draw the world to your side.

But you may not have real faith so how would you know, eh?

How do you personally think we should respond to an ongoing organized effort to kill innocents. Please show me what the moral 'high ground' looks like and what 'real faith' looks like…I am blinded by all the death and suffering.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'd love for you to view the following thread and post your thoughts there Moonie. Don't be scared now.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2044287

Done!

 

[Moonbeam]

How do you personally think we should respond to an ongoing organized effort to kill innocents. Please show me what the moral 'high ground' looks like and what 'real faith' looks like…I am blinded by all the death and suffering.

Show me said the self admitted blind man, right! Like I should waste my time.

But what do you think of the free speech point that is always made, that we are all for free speech until it is about us? Then we want it silenced......that the true test of whether we believe in free speech is when it's hard.

 

[Moonbeam]

What does a man say when he says he's blinded by all the death and suffering? Does he say he is suffering deeply or that he is full of rage? Do you know what you feel. Do you know the difference between grief and rage? Can you feel what's it's like to be totally helpless, to witness the death of the world, to be crucified? Do you want to kill and kill and kill, or do you call out to our father in heaven to forgive because they know not what they do? Can you stare into the meaninglessness of it all and awaken your love? Can you grab and yank the world and turn it inside out?

 

[Fern]

Are these lawyers really just opining? If any actual criminal behaviour could be proven I have little doubt that there wouldn't be any hesitation to take those guys to task on such a major subject of contention.

That's just my opinion though and, unlike some others in here, I don't consider my opinion to be immutable law.

Yes, they are opining:

1. They are opinining about whether the conduct is criminal, and

2. if in their opinion it is criminal, they will then decide (opine) whether it can be proven.

If "yes" to both they will then seek an indictment (i.e., formally charge them).

Even after all that they are still innocent until proven guilt in court.

The DoJ are prosecutors.

Fern