Round one--going after the law license of torturers

[Lemon law]

In complaints filed in Waskington DC and four other states, private non governmental
organizations are going after the law licenses of a laundry list of ex-GWB administration
officials.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...xrA2NvbXBsYWludHNlZQ--

I can somewhat understand the Obama desire to tackle the issue at a later date because his current plate is too full now, but IMHO, its an outrage that Bybee is still on the bench. And at least these lawsuits targets the worst of the worst, the morally bankrupt who only fooled themselves into thinking torture could be ever legally justified in the USA or in the modern world.

 

[Skitzer]

This will go nowhere.

 

[Genx87]

Shouldnt your title reflect what these people were? They were analysts who gave a legal opinion that said water boarding is not torture under our laws.

afaik none of these lawyers went to gitmo and engages in waterboarding.

I think this is setting a dangerous precendent and one Obama realizes and why he has backed off. Obama uses these same lawyers to render opinions on what he is doing is legal. If the politicial winds change are these lawyers going to be held responsible for providing an opinion the president acts upon by the next administration? In other words you chase these people and the president wont have this tool to go to in the future as nobody wants to stick their neck out on the line.

 

[Lemon law]

The Skitzer and GenX87 positions duly noted, these are filed in court lawsuits, and the fat is in the fire, and some entity will have to rule. Obama will not be even in the loop, or be the decider.

 

[Robor]

They're going after their law licenses because of an *interpretation* on an issue?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Don't know why they would go after John Ashcroft - he stood up to the Crime Cabal from his deathbed.

I hope they file against Addington, Feith and Haynes, too.

 

[LTC8K6]

People file lawsuits all the time, for all sorts of things. Doesn't mean much.

We have lawsuits over Barry's birth certificate, too. They don't mean much, either.

It's a bit silly to sue your lawyer for giving his opinion...

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Robor
They're going after their law licenses because of an *interpretation* on an issue?

Yes

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor
They're going after their law licenses because of an *interpretation* on an issue?

Yes

That makes no sense. 😕

They gave their opinion on the matter. If it was/is so clear cut right or wrong they wouldn't have been asked to interpret it.

 

[Lemon law]

Its also time to dispose of the analysts poor excuse cop out, partially posed by GenX87 who said, " They were analysts who gave a legal opinion that said water boarding is not torture under our laws. "

I am willing to bet you that I might get a few layers in the USA to verbally tell me that there may be ways to arguably make bank robbery legal under the laws of the USA, but I bet you you won't find a single lawyer in the USA with a law license to put it in writing.

And even if I found such a fool, I would not go rob banks because I would know the defense would not hold up in court. ( Needed only in the events I get caught. )

Now on the other hand, after the crime is committed, attorney are the most innovate SOB's on the planet in coming up with a defense argument after the fact, things like the hostess twinkie defense springs to mind.

But GenX87, must have lost the difference between a legal opinion or a defense, being not valid until affirmed by a court. And someone else can also give you an opinion you can jump off tall buildings in a single bound and fly, but when you go splat on teh sidewalk instead, a blame much also attach to those who gave the advice.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor
They're going after their law licenses because of an *interpretation* on an issue?

Yes

Not really.

Enhanced interrogation techniques and policies on rendition were formed based upon these opinions even as members of the military and intelligence community said they were not legal.

No matter how you spin it - these maneuverings were intended to present a legal justification for rendition, torture or cruel and inhumane acts that are clearly illegal under U.S. and international law.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its also time to dispose of the analysts poor excuse cop out, partially posed by GenX87 who said, " They were analysts who gave a legal opinion that said water boarding is not torture under our laws. "

I am willing to bet you that I might get a few layers in the USA to verbally tell me that there may be ways to arguably make bank robbery legal under the laws of the USA, but I bet you you won't find a single lawyer in the USA with a law license to put it in writing.

And even if I found such a fool, I would not go rob banks because I would know the defense would not hold up in court. ( Needed only in the events I get caught. )

Now on the other hand, after the crime is committed, attorney are the most innovate SOB's on the planet in coming up with a defense argument after the fact, things like the hostess twinkie defense springs to mind.

But GenX87, must have lost the difference between a legal opinion or a defense, being not valid until affirmed by a court. And someone else can also give you an opinion you can jump off tall buildings in a single bound and fly, but when you go splat on teh sidewalk instead, a blame much also attach to those who gave the advice.

You love irrelevant and stupid analogies dont you?

Robbing a bank is clearly illegal and has been on the books for how long?
Telling somebody jumping off an office building is safe goes against all common sense which the jumper should use.

Not really.

Enhanced interrogation techniques and policies on rendition were formed based upon these opinions even as members of the military and intelligence community said they were not legal.

No matter how you spin it - these maneuverings were intended to present a legal justification for rendition, torture or cruel and inhumane acts that are clearly illegal under U.S. and international law.

Everybody has an opinion. Some in the intelligence and military community most likely did object. But what does that have to do with people rendering an opinion based on our laws at the time of the opinion?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Telling somebody jumping off an office building is safe goes against all common sense....

So does legalizing torture.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Genx87

Telling somebody jumping off an office building is safe goes against all common sense....

So does legalizing torture.

If an opinion is required on a subject of enhanced techniques I am afraid it is nowhere near as cut and dry as jumping off a highrise.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Genx87

Telling somebody jumping off an office building is safe goes against all common sense....

So does legalizing torture.

If an opinion is required on a subject of enhanced techniques I am afraid it is nowhere near as cut and dry as jumping off a highrise.

I don't need a lawyers "opinion" to tell me waterboarding should be illegal any more then I need his "opinion" about jumping off a building.

 

[LTC8K6]

A lawyer's opinion does not "legalize" anything.

 

[her209]

Its not torture because it only lasts for x number of seconds, not y number of seconds.

EDIT: where x < y

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Robor
They're going after their law licenses because of an *interpretation* on an issue?

Yes

That makes no sense. 😕

They gave their opinion on the matter. If it was/is so clear cut right or wrong they wouldn't have been asked to interpret it.

Well the question is, were they asked to interpret it, or were they instructed to construct memoranda legally justifying whatever actions they were told were being used to provide the admin CYA?

Further, assuming it's a good faith opinion, is it legally sound, or is it so far out of whack that it constitutes malpractice?

Just take waterboarding as an example. This is a torture practice engaged in by the Khmer Rouge, the Spanish Inquisition, and other regimes. It has always been viewed as torture. Labeling it "enhanced interrogation" doesn't negate centuries of common knowledge. So if a legal memorandum says "no, it's not torture" when it's commonly understood to be torture, one has to wonder at the competence of the legal analysis, or the motivation of the drafter.

Either way, the main defense I've seen offered is that in the months after 9/11, if someone asked you if it was ok to pour water on a guy who might be able to provide info to prevent another attack, would you say it was ok? And, the answer is probably yes, and worse. But for everyone who is worried about the precendent of holding people reacting to a crisis accountable to their actions, isn't that a good thing? Won't that make people maybe think a little, after the next crisis, that they can't use the circumstances of the moment to justify clearly illegal activity? It's understandable what was done, but it is not justified.

 

[Lemon law]

GenX87 asks, "Everybody has an opinion. Some in the intelligence and military community most likely did object. But what does that have to do with people rendering an opinion based on our laws at the time of the opinion?"

Because an opinion is not a fact, there are higher arbiters of fact than those mental midgets rendering the opinion, and GenX87
also does not understand the difference between criminal and civil law.

In civil law where it deals with the non criminal damages our actions may cause another, the standards of proof are different, namely just the preponderance of the evidence. My attorney may advise me and go ahead, build that fence even if I know the neighbor may object, but any honest lawyer will also tell me some other entity may take me to court and the court may order that fence be torn down. In short, civil law opinions are just that, opinions about how a court may rule. And as such, learned opinions but not guarantees.

Criminal law is different, even if it also deals with the wrongs we do to another, it basically deals with actions that were proscribed by law definitely illegal before the action took place. Even if the law makes distinction between premeditated murder and murder done in an emotional heat of the moment, murder in the eyes of the law is always wrong before the fact. And the standards of proof are also different, in US criminal law you must be guilty beyond the shadow of doubt.

What we have here is a group of ethically challenged attorneys getting together, and conspiring on a pre-meditated basis to rewrite existing US torture laws. Something they do not have the authority or legal standing to do. They may have an opinion, but its still the de facto opinions of a criminal until authorized by an open court proceeding THEY SO FORGOT TO USE TO LEGITIMIZE THEMSELVES. And since torture involves both US domestic and international law, both US and international courts must agree or the
opinions of those attorney who authorized torture are not worth the paper they are printed on. As these attorneys had to be smart enough to realize beforehand.

Now who will tell me, by any analysis, that those attorneys who authorized torture should be allowed to retain their law licenses?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
A lawyer's opinion does not "legalize" anything.

Obviously. Every case has at least 2 lawyers with different "opinions".

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
A lawyer's opinion does not "legalize" anything.

this is true.

the torture statute itself says what it does and afaik the people writing the memos basically laid out the statute without much else. if a murder statute requires you to have murderous intent, and you don't have murderous intent, you're not guilty of murder. it's the same with the torture statute. there is intent to do a specific thing specified in the statute, and if the guy doing the interrogation doesn't have that intent then there wasn't torture under the law as written.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
A lawyer's opinion does not "legalize" anything.

this is true.

the torture statute itself says what it does and afaik the people writing the memos basically laid out the statute without much else. if a murder statute requires you to have murderous intent, and you don't have murderous intent, you're not guilty of murder. it's the same with the torture statute. there is intent to do a specific thing specified in the statute, and if the guy doing the interrogation doesn't have that intent then there wasn't torture under the law as written.

?

They "laid out" the torture statute and then opined that none of the interrogation techniques violated it, including a technique recognized as torture for 500 years. The validity of that conclusion is what's at issue here.

The republican head of the OLC (Kmiec) under Reagan and GHWB recently said:

"The recent release of the unredacted OLC memos has opened many eyes, mine included. The legal ?analysis? in the redacted memoranda earlier released did not give graphic detail of the techniques. As a then-law school dean in Washington, DC, I became privy to Bush White House briefings encouraging all those in attendance to defend the president in public commentary. Trustingly, I did, but now greatly resent that the most pertinent details were withheld. Reading my own commentary leaves me grievously embarrassed in light of the recent disclosures. I find what I was told and then repeated absurdly indefensible. Mea culpa."

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...ves/2009/05/023570.php

I hope they call Holder, because he doesn't know...

 

[OCGuy]

I smell desperation.

 

[LTC8K6]

to this day federal torture law leaves waterboarding unmentioned.