Comments on: Five Questions For The Show Trials

By: barker13

barker13 — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:18:56 +0000

Re: Spartacus; 1:30 PM --

We're going around in circles. (Or at least you are... this is my last round before jumping off the merry-go-round.)

"...if they wrote memos (under coercion or otherwise) sanctioning the "enhanced techniques" that they knew were illegal."

The techniques WERE legal. That's WHY they were "sanctioned."

As to your ongoing conspiracy theories...

(*CHUCKLE*)

"...under coercion or otherwise..."

(*SIGH*)

Yeah. Good luck with that.

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

BILL

By:

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:30:49 +0000

barker13,

I'm amazed at how easily you seem to get lost.

The AG has taken the view that it will not investigate/prosecute the actual interrogators b/c they were relying upon the legal advice of the OLC. The AT wil, however, consider investigating the OLC lawyers and their clients in the administration to determine if they wrote memos (under coercion or otherwise) sanctioning the "enhanced techniques" that they knew were illegal.

If the OLC memos were nothing more than a sham, then investigation/prosecution may be appropriate. Based on the jurisprudence out there, it's hard to conclude that the memos weren't a sham. But, if they weren't shams and, instead, the lawyers just gave really, really bad advice, then they probably won't be prosecuted, although they may be disbarred or sanctioned some other way.

In any event, I think the matter should be investigated b/c of how bad the advice seems to have been. Having said that, I think they probably won't be prosecuted b/c it would probably be too hard to get a conviction. Of course, we won't know unless there's an investigation.

By: barker13

barker13 — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:37:43 +0000

Re: Spartacus; 4/24/2009 4:30 PM --

"barker: At 2:07 PM you referred me to your earlier post to Krove in which you cited the OLC opinions that waterboarding was not torture. Presumably, this is to convince me..."

Spartacus. It's not about "convincing," it about THE FACTS...!!!

(*SIGH*) (*SNORT*)

"What if the OLC opinions were a sham?"

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

Spartacus. The OLC opinions provide a FACTUAL, CITABLE, historical record. Period. They describe what the actual authoritative legal opinions actually WERE along a defined timeline.

(*HEADACHE*)

"What if they were developed for the purpose of creating a "get out of jail card" for the interrogators?"

What if they were...???

"What if they were developed after the administration had already approved waterboarding?"

Again... what if they were...???

"Wouldn't that suggest that a crime MAY have been committed?"

(*LAUGHING AT THE ABSURDITY OF IT ALL*)

No.

NO!!!

No! No!! NO!!!

Spartacus... the law is the law regardless of one thinks of it and regardless of the internal reasoning that went into formulating it.

One more time... (*SIGH*)... the OLC opinions that Karen cited actually made MY CASE, not hers... not yours.

You may not LIKE the fact that the OLC opinions were what they were and you may create in your own mind "plots" and "conspiracies" and all sorts of other suppositions regarding intent, but the basic fact here is that the appropriate authorities at the time oked specific enhanced interrogation techniques and so, yes... AS YOU SO HYSTERICALLY PUT IT... this gave/gives those who used the approved techniques a "get out of jail free card."

(*POUNDING HEADACHE*)

Spartacus. This horse is dead. Let's stopping beating it.

(*WINK*)

BILL

By: krove

krove — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:36:09 +0000

I would throw the whole investigation to the Red Cross. They have already done a preliminary investigation and are the impartial authority on torture. They could do the investigation and produce a report to the American people. That would take it way out of the political realm and allow the country and congress to move forward in the mean time.

By: danbmil99

danbmil99 — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:20:03 +0000

What's amazing about this discussion is that the GOP pundits are constantly bringing forth this ridiculous "24" scenario, as if that justifies anything. Are they insane? Don't they realize they are stoking the fires that will burn them alive? The argument that they thought it wasn't torture, and acted in good faith belief that they were within the law, is their only possible defense. Saying "but it saved lives!" only lends credence to the idea that they knew damn well it was torture, but just assumed they'd get a pass because they did it for "American Lives!". Which are apparently worth infinitely more than say Iraqi civilian lives, or the lives of poor schmucks unfortunate enough to be caught up in the Gitmo dragnet... but I digress.

Spartacus: as to prosecutions, I just don't think it's possible to give these folks a fair shake. Ken Starr, Pat Fitzgerald -- even these "independent" prosecutors end up acting like the inquisition. I just don't see how you can avoid at least the appearance of politicization. Isn't wrecking careers enough punishment? It is still true that most of these folks thought they were doing the right thing. It doesn't make it right, but unless you're really going to hang Cheney out to dry, it's just throwing bodies to the wolves for the mob.

And in the meantime, Congress grinds to a halt during economic armageddon.

By:

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:02:25 +0000

krove, I wasn’t aware of that, but I don’t think that would adversely affect the “legality” of the interrogations during the first few years of the Bush administration. If the interrogators are going to get a pass if (a) they relied on the memos and (b) they didn’t go beyond the limits of the memos, then I don’t think the subsequent withdrawal of those memos would put the interrogators in jeopardy.

By: krove

krove — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:39:47 +0000

All the Bush OLC memos were withdrawn at the last minute before they left office. The first order Obama made was for all agencies to disregard ANY directives from the Bush DOJ.So the point is moot.

By:

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:30:10 +0000

barker:

At 2:07 PM you referred me to your earlier post to Krove in which you cited the OLC opinions that waterboarding was not torture. Presumably, this is to convince me that AG Holder no longer needs to investigate the matter b/c DOJ had already concluded that no rules were broken. What if the OLC opinions were a sham? What if they were developed for the purpose of creating a "get out of jail card" for the interrogators? What if they were developed after the administration had already approved waterboarding? Wouldn't that suggest that a crime MAY have been committed? If so, shouldn't that be investigated and prosecuted if a crime can be proven?

I realize that Holder would probably have a very difficult time proving the OLC memos were a sham? But that should not deter him from inquiring - particularly since you can hardly find a legal scholar out there who is defending those memos.. It should also not deter him from determining whether the interrogators stayed within the limits of the "sham" OLC memos.

So again, this certainly appears to be a matter worth investigating and, possibly prosecuting. What is the argument against that?

By: krove

krove — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:29:02 +0000

The GOP spent 40 million dollars of taxpayers dollars on the Ken Starr investigation of the Clinton's Whitewater land deal

If they can do that over a civil transaction surely we can have an investigation of this terrible abuse of power.

Or are Republicans just hypocrites pure and simple. Well?

By: cb55

cb55 — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:24:19 +0000

Bulldoglover, I do not believe for a second that you are a Republican. It's not your stance on "torture". i think people on both sides of the aisle can argue on the issue. But I've seen you post elsewhere, and it is like regurgitating Keith Olberman. "Cheney should go to jail."
You're a liberal democrat posing as a Republican when posting on this site. I'm not saying Republicans dont have differing views, I am just saying it is obvious what you are doing.

But the argument you make here is based on a false premise. People differed on whether some of the interrogation techniques constitute as torture. Tthe current administration does, and that is fine, they are in charge. But to go back and consider prosecuting people who wrote legal memos on the subject is absurd. This debate has too many things going on at once. The first debate is whether it was torture or not. People disagree on that. I dont think waterboarding is torture. but regardless the idea of prosecuting people for this is purely political. The debate on whether to continue this practice or not, and whether it is torture or not- are good ones to have. Prosecuting people for their legal advice is disgusting and completely political.