183

[grantcart]

It is possible to make a distinction that the person who is implementing a policy that has been told that the highest legal authority in the government has analyzed the practice and found it to be legal should be able to rely on that opinion and should not be prosecuted. Some people at DU accept the distinction, some do not. Some accept it on practical grounds that no jury in the US is going to prosecute somebody that has received a clear legal opinion from the same government that now wants to prosecute him.

It is not possible to make a distinction for anybody who was in the chain of command to decide to conduct 183 waterboard sessions on a single suspect in a single month. Obviously ineffective. Obviously beyond any legal gymnastics.

Start at the bottom.

Give immunity where necessary and move up the pyramid.

Investigate

Prosecute

Convict

[chknltl]

1. Well said grantcart! 2nd KnR

[Hissyspit]

2. The Nuremberg Principles do not make any of those distinctions.

[pleah]

15. Exactly! n/t

[Hutzpa]

3. Indeed

thanks for spelling it out Grant, its a pain when some here can't see/understand the objective.

Now, here comes the Pissicrats....

[NYC_SKP]

4. Kicked. Sign the petition at firedoglake (link)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8356181&mesg_id=8356181

Both posts, this one and the other, are highly recommended.

:patriot:

[cliffordu]

5. Geat minds think alike -- I posted my filthy thoughts on this matter

RIGHT AFTER YOU!!!!!!!

k&r

[Norrin Radd]

6. Practicality? Disgusting.

[cliffordu]

7. Kicked because grantcart annoys me.

[rufus dog]

8. kicked because I think both of you have valid, well thought out posts.

So who would be annoyed?

[cliffordu]

9. Grantcart annoys me cause he never says anything about the roses I send

every other friday.

[bleever]

10. He's busy, because his true love is

Justice!!

I am inclined, with what I hope is well-informed intuition, to agree with his premise.

But if I'm let down, I'll make it known. This doesn't end here.


ed: spelling. Don't want to look like a scholiast.

[JeffR]

11. K & R

This goes a long way toward making up for all the really vapid posts I've seen on this issue. Well said. And truer than hell.

[omega minimo]

12. 2 words

John Yoo



"the person who is implementing a policy that has been told that the highest legal authority in the government has analyzed the practice and found it to be legal should be able to rely on that opinion and should not be prosecuted."

don't know what country the lameasses live in but I continue to HOPE that this is the United States of America.

[Egnever]

13. You are a fart smeller!

err a smart feller!

[vaberella]

14. Woohoo!! GC you nailed it.

And President O even said that he would give a few people immunity but he never said everyone and he clearly didn't give even those at the bottom full immunity some of them will be held accountable if it comes to that. People on this board are just impractical, unreasonable, and expect miracles in government when we had a shady one for 8 years.

[D23MIURG23]

16. Assuming a 30 day month thats about 6 times a day.

But I'm sure we prevented another 9/11 each time. :sarcasm:

Thanks for this Grantcart

[cwcwmack]

17. sigh...

might be a bit difficult to prosecute and convict for an action that was legal at the time it was done...

Kinda like retroactively prosecuting people for .05% BAC when the current legal limit is .08% BAC...

Change the laws, change the SOP... go forward.

[grantcart]

20. It is possible to make an argument that a single waterboarding was legal

Let us assume that an argument might be made for 6 waterboarding events for a single case in a single month.


That does not mean that the same arguments would then be valid for 7,000 waterboarding events for a single case in a single month on the same person.


In any case with any legal justification wherever that line exists it is way way before 183. So who ever decided the number of events was clearly beyond the memos that established a theoretical justification.


It was torture and it was illegal and if it happened in anyother country we would have condemned it and wanted the people involved punished. Somebody made the decision to torture this guy, and not for the information he had. The got all they could out of him after the 6th time (probably before the first time). After that it was torture for torture sake.

[bvar22]

18. There is no such thing as.....

There is no such thing as
Torturing "in Good Faith"
Torturers are Criminals,
even when they have a note from their lawyer.

[Fire1]

19. Over ruled.

[Orsino]

21. Even I would accept it as a mitigating factor...

...at the trial of the torturer. Even I would support reducing the torturer's sentence, were s/he to cooperate with prosecutors by naming names.

But we must prosecute.