100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Bush attorneys who wrote terror memo face backlash | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
So you want to criminalize legal reasoning and analysis? the next time you need the advice of an attorney think how helpful he would be if he had to fear his opinion only of the law could make him potentially prosecutable.
That's nifty! Welcome to the dark ages. Was the legal reasoning in the torture memo's bad work? Perhaps. Was it done to justify a policy Bush had already decided to put into place? Maybe. Was it criminal to offer a possible interpretation of the law. NO Talk about thought police!! haha At any rate... Was Lyndie England acting under orders? That question is vital. If she or the group of individuals she worked with tortured a later order to torture issued to another individual or group does not make her actions legal. It appears Bush sought legal opinions to justify torture. While torture was authorized by the Commander in Chief at some point when did and how did this order move down the chain of command? Again another vital question in determining responsibility. Those who tortured without acting under orders certainly are criminally culpable. I don't have an issue with that. I do have issues with holding people criminally responsible for acting under a direct order. It is the superior who is responsible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So you want to criminalize legal reasoning and analysis? the next time you need the advice of an attorney think how helpful he would be if he had to fear his opinion only of the law could make him potentially prosecutable. That's nifty! Welcome to the dark ages. Was the legal reasoning in the torture memo's bad work? Perhaps. Was it done to justify a policy Bush had already decided to put into place? Maybe. Was it criminal to offer a possible interpretation of the law. NO Talk about thought police!! haha At any rate... Was Lyndie England acting under orders? That question is vital. If she or the group of individuals she worked with tortured a later order to torture issued to another individual or group does not make her actions legal. It appears Bush sought legal opinions to justify torture. While torture was authorized by the Commander in Chief at some point when did and how did this order move down the chain of command? Again another vital question in determining responsibility. Those who tortured without acting under orders certainly are criminally culpable. I don't have an issue with that. I do have issues with holding people criminally responsible for acting under a direct order. It is the superior who is responsible.  agreed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Thu 05/07/09 12:56 PM
|
|
So you want to criminalize legal reasoning and analysis? the next time you need the advice of an attorney think how helpful he would be if he had to fear his opinion only of the law could make him potentially prosecutable. That's nifty! Welcome to the dark ages. Was the legal reasoning in the torture memo's bad work? Perhaps. Was it done to justify a policy Bush had already decided to put into place? Maybe. Was it criminal to offer a possible interpretation of the law. NO Talk about thought police!! haha At any rate... Was Lyndie England acting under orders? That question is vital. If she or the group of individuals she worked with tortured a later order to torture issued to another individual or group does not make her actions legal. It appears Bush sought legal opinions to justify torture. While torture was authorized by the Commander in Chief at some point when did and how did this order move down the chain of command? Again another vital question in determining responsibility. Those who tortured without acting under orders certainly are criminally culpable. I don't have an issue with that. I do have issues with holding people criminally responsible for acting under a direct order. It is the superior who is responsible. I agree, but earlier I believe you spoke of those who "knew it was wrong and didn't take part"..... those who did take part need to be held accountable according to their role (as the 9 enlisted were). Not all should be jailed perhaps, but morals need to be expressed and penalties imposed as a case in point to such actions. They set the standard by punishing the 9, they should be held equally accountable, or the 9 completely exhonerated for they were simply following orders. I don't see them stepping up to make that happen. If you believe they weren't following orders as enlisted personnel, then how can you believe the drafters of the orders any less culpable? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
no fanta...i get what you are saying. i just wonder why BHO and his administration have said they won't want to prosecute. whether they have control over it or not....they can at least say they think they should be He did! WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama raised the possibility of prosecuting Bush administration lawyers who approved so-called enhanced interrogation techniques on terror suspects. Mr. Obama, speaking to reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office, also laid out the parameters for a bipartisan commission to examine government tactics used in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, although he was careful to say he wasn't endorsing such a panel. Together, the remarks put the president squarely in the center of a growing battle between liberals who want to hold Bush administration officials accountable for what they call torture, and conservatives who say Mr. Obama has damaged national security by revealing interrogation secrets. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124033320765839635.html |
|
|
|
|
