Sigh. As I stated earlier, fears that "legal advice" lets anyone in that administration off the hook are unfounded. Using legal advice for a mistake of law only works as a defense if the defendant actually received the advice, his reliance on the advice was reasonable, and following the advice negated intent. Reliance on legal advice doesn't meet the requirements for the defense of mistake of law if the advice is mistaken. If the advice is the Yoo memos, as cited in the DailyKos article, or any of the other advice given the administration mentioned in this thread, it is unlikely that the mistake of law defense would be successful. The statute as written would be sufficient to support convictions.
@ HJ, I listened to that on NPR with my mouth agape. I could not believe that he not only posed the hypothetical, but then could not accept it as an invalid premise once it was explained to him. Is he criminally insane or just dumb?
@ HJ, I listened to that on NPR with my mouth agape. I could not believe that he not only posed the hypothetical, but then could not accept it as an invalid premise once it was explained to him. Is he criminally insane or just dumb?
Criminally insane or just dumb? I think they're calling that "conservative" these days.
it is unlikely that the mistake of law defense would be successful.
Ahh... you admit there is a possibility. My proposal takes the possibility away. That's the whole point.
Don't just focus on the law itself. The law is part of a larger system. Watch how many people are prosecuted, and tell me whether or not the system worked. We can argue this until the cows come home, so let's just wait a few months, and see if the system was effective.
One has to wonder, if the law is so good, as you contend, why is Obama suggesting that there won't be any prosecutions? Does that make Obama an accessory after the fact?
it is unlikely that the mistake of law defense would be successful.
Ahh... you admit there is a possibility.
Jesus, that's weak. I said "unlikely" because something stupid can always happen, and one always gets burned when ones says "never". How about this: It's very, very, very, very unlikely.
One has to wonder, if the law is so good, as you contend, why is Obama suggesting that there won't be any prosecutions? Does that make Obama an accessory after the fact?
Yeah, I've seen prosecutors decide not to prosecute cases before. It's part of their job to sometimes decide not to prosecute cases. No one has ever speculated that those decisions make them accessories.
So if Obama declines to pursue prosecution, would you agree that the system in place failed?
LOL. Your desperate attempts to criticize Obama would be funny if they weren't so sad. Seriously, your credibility was at a low ebb before, but this . . . is pretty indescribable.
Say, I'm going to a reception later today for the congressional delegation from NH. I'm going to print out this thread to show people how conservatives have the sad, delusional ability to try to twist every topic into a criticism of Obama. We'll all be laughing. Good times.
You fail to understand that this is how a moderate thinks. It is blind of party affiliation. If Bush tortures... bad. If Obama can prosecute and declines to do so for political reasons... bad.
Your last response offered very little to the practical side of this debate. So please answer the question. If Obama declines to prosecute, has the system failed?
The facts are: 1) Torture happened. 2) We know who did it and/or approved it. 3) There is a law in place to hold those people accountable. 4) The incoming president, through the DOJ, can prosecute those individuals.
Do you disagree with these facts?
If you don't, and Obama fails to prosecute, would you say that the system failed? I submit that, at a minimum, it failed those individuals who were tortured. Would you disagree with that?
That's it... just answer the question. Don't make it about politics and don't get sidetracked by our own grievances.
Unfortunately, it appears that torture is not a strict liability crime. That's too bad. It makes my previous arguments all the more relevant.
At the end of the day, this is about stopping torture and holding those who do it accountable. I don't care what party you are from. If I'm such a neo-conservative, why am I expressing so much frustration that Bush and his subordinates will not be prosecuted????? You're losing sight of the forest through the trees. Put your anger aside for a second - I'm actually on your side.
This question was posted 21 hours ago. You're most recent post was 10 hours ago in another thread. Why are you still unwilling to answer the questions I set forth above?
Here were the two questions:
Do you disagree with these facts?
If you don't, and Obama fails to prosecute, would you say that the system failed? I submit that, at a minimum, it failed those individuals who were tortured. Would you disagree with that?
One other note...
Your desperate attempts to criticize Obama would be funny if they weren't so sad.
Obama has indicated that he will not seek to prosecute known torturers. In light of this, I will criticize him. I don't excuse such things based solely on party affiliation. I'm very proud of that. As you can see, I've criticized both parties in this thread. So I've put my money where my mouth is.
Let's see if you are willing to place human rights above party protection.
Joe... It's not "sad" to criticize someone who has indicated that he will not prosecute torturers. Would you say the same thing to the tortured person? Would you say the same thing to their family? If not, why would you treat me differently? Standards shouldn't change when you're talking about human rights.
Pelosi has suggested that we should prosecute people. Which one is wrong?
This question was posted 21 hours ago. You're most recent post was 10 hours ago in another thread. Why are you still unwilling to answer the questions I set forth above?
For someone who obviously thinks he's pretty smart, you sure have a problem with the difference between "your" and "you're".
The fact that you now appear to be tracking the time I spend here strengthens my suspicion that you are a psychotic cyberstalker. It's extremely weird and, quite frankly, it makes makes me more than a little concerned.
I don't have any idea what I've done to make you so obsessed with me, but the only thing I can imagine to do at this point is to stop feeding you and hope that you go away in one of your periodic little sanctimonious snits.
Can you please set aside the personal attacks, and just answer the questions?
Nice attempt at dodging the issues. If you can't answer those simple couple of questions, your argument is total fail.
I've been attacked by you when: 1) I pointed out xenophobia 2) asked questions; and 3) pointed out your dodging those questions. The questions were to understand why you seem to be content letting politics supersede justice for victims of torture. If calling you out on this makes me crazy, consider me proud to be crazy. Very proud.
Your debating skills are non-existent. Every time I've made a valid point, you've engaged in personal attacks after falsely accusing me of the same. At best it's hypocritical.
Yeah... I noticed that you dodged my question. That makes me a cyber-stalker? Why don't you make another claim that HMTKSteve suffers from mental illness for good measure? That seems to be your style.
Here is what I propose: just grow up and defend your position on the issues. Why does the oldest person on this board engage in the most juvenile tactics? Come on, Joe. Either debate or just go away.
I'm the one taking a harder stand against torture, and you see fit to personally attack me for it. That says much more about you than me. But that's why I'm trying to figure out just what your position is. However, your refusal to keep the discussion to the issues prevents that.
Unlike you, I'm not dodging issues and only focusing on personal attacks. (Ironically, there can be no dispute that you've engaged in more severe personal attacks than I.) I don't care. I guess my skin is thicker. The only reason I am forced to bring it up is to illustrate how you've forgotten the substantive issue. Consider this yet another request to steer this ship back into topical relevancy.
Even if I have attacked you, the best revenge is to beat me on the issues. Yet you purposely dodge the issues. On has to wonder why?
Claiming horror at personal attack in this thread when you choose to hang out here is like suing a zoo for being mauled by a tiger after jumping the fence. If we assume that it's happened, and you don't like it, take some responsibility and stay away from it.
So answer the questions. If you refuse answer valid questions raised in rebuttal to your argument, then go away.
I agree with Kilarny on this. The people responsible for the torture should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, no matter what their party affiliation. Those who have the power to take action and refuse to are, in effect, condoning their actions.
Personally, I don't think Obama condones torture. I would like him to make the less politically expedient move and do what's right.
Personally, I don't think Obama condones torture. I would like him to make the less politically expedient move and do what's right.
It's probably a better practice to wait and see if he actually decides to refrain from prosecution before we start criticizing. The best evidence of Obama's intentions so far is pretty vague:
We have not made final decisions, but my instinct is for us to focus on how to we make sure we're moving forward, we are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law that they are above the law, but my orientation is going to be moving forward.
One has to really work to read any promise not to prosecute into that statement.
GWB might very well get a pass on this, but until that actually happens, criticism of Obama is premature.
Finally, it's really going to be Eric Holder's decision, and he hasn't made any predictions, so it's probabky wisest to wait and see what actually happens.
It's probably a better practice to wait and see if he actually decided to refrain from prosecution before we start criticizing.
Not after this interview. The context of the entire interview, at a minimum, shows that prosecution of torturers is not an equal priority.
When it comes to debating what should be done it makes no sense to wait and see what happens. This isn't "criticism". I agree that criticism is appropriate after the fact. The discussion here is what Obama has a moral duty to do. That is a prospective issue.
An analogy: Scientist: "Mayor, there is a 50% chance of a flood destroying our city this spring." Mayor: "Well, until we know if the flood happens, there's no point in discussing whether we should warn the public."
Joe, did you forget your second post in this thread?:
What about the fact that the U.S. has been torturing people and now the administration admits it? Should the people responsible be prosecuted or are we just going to try and forget it happened?
Why are you now asking us to cease discussion on your question? Or are you saying that there is some bizarre rule to the discussion that we shouldn't bring Obama into it?
And for the fourth time, can you answer my questions? I'm honestly not trying to be a pain. Just tell me if you won't and I'll stop asking. I'll draw conclusions, but I promise I won't beat a dead horse.
This is the most important question...
If you don't [disagree with the facts], and Obama fails to prosecute, would you say that the system failed?
At a minimum, why don't you answer your own question quoted above?
My prediction: News reports indicate that Obama's staff is asking him to prosecute. Obama is the reluctant one. I suspect that some low level people will be prosecuted. Those with political hypnosis will claim justice despite the fact that the people who should most be prosecuted will go unpunished.
And we go into day 3 of Joe avoiding my questions. Tick... tick... tick...
Check out the following quote from this Newsweek article: Despite his clear declaration during his confirmation hearing that "waterboarding" is torture, new Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has seemed reluctant to order criminal probes into alleged rough treatment of detainees during the Bush presidency. His rationale: CIA interrogators who used the simulated drowning technique believed the Justice Department had given them the green light.
I hate to say I told you so, Joe, but... err... well... I told you so.
I don't know how you failed to see this Mack truck barreling toward you.
Remember when you said this:
Sigh. As I stated earlier, fears that "legal advice" lets anyone in that administration off the hook are unfounded.
Want to rethink things? You even included a "sigh" for dramatic effect! Now who should be the one sighing?
What if this were not a governmental question? If I kidnapped the person you love most, would you as an individual break my fingers one by one until I told you where they were being held?
Seeing as how ineffective torture is as a means to acquire intelligence, I would obviously be more inclined to seek alternative methods first. However, If torture were the only way to secure the safety of my loved ones, there would be no question as to my next course of action.
However, If torture werethe only wayto secure the safety of my loved ones, there would be no question as to my next course of action.
Is it fair to frame the question in such a manner? Isn't that about the equivalent of saying, "If I had the choice of pushing a button that would result in the certain death of someone unknown to me in order to save the life of one of my family members, I'd push the button"?
Of course it's fair. There's nothing wrong with being perfectly clear about the necessary circumstances. Besides, I was only answering the posed question.
Of course it's fair. There's nothing wrong with being perfectly clear about the necessary circumstances.
The thing that concerns me is that the situation as posited is pretty far from reality. How many times are we presented with a situation in which torture is the only answer, as in the hypothetical in which torture is the only way to extract information from the kidnapper? The hypothetical's given information is that torture is the only answer. In reality, there are many ways to interrogate a defendant and there are many, many methods of investigation that do not rely on the cooperation of the defendant.
I'm also a little concerned that people will be more likely to decide torture is appropriate if they consider these hypotheticals in which torture is the only answer to accurately depict reality. If a real torture advocate were allowed to question criminal defendants, how likely would he be to decide that torture is the only answer when the defendant is uncooperative? "Well, I've talked to this guy for ten minutes now and he hasn't spilled the beans. Torture is obviously the only way to make him talk, so I guess it's time to start torturing him."
I've seen many, many uncooperative defendants. However, police investigators get the information they need in spite of the lack of cooperation without resorting to torture. Actually, the mere possibility of incarceration is scary enough to make most defendants talk up a storm. Most defendants aren't as cool or smart under interrogation as you see on TV.
On a different note, it's interesting that some still cling to the mantra that the legal opinions of John Yoo justified torture. The defense of mistake of law requires reliance on a valid legal opinion.
"Bush interrogation policy was based on not just shoddy legal analysis, but unprofessional and potentially unethical legal analysis," he said, noting that he has not yet seen the full report.
"But the consequences of such a finding would be enormous," continued Isikoff. "Not just for those lawyers, but for the whole argument of whether there should be a 'truth commission' or continued investigations.
"Remember, the pushback against that has always been, 'Well, there were valid, legal memos from the Justice Department that justified waterboarding.' Now, if these legal memos are called into question, that changes substantially the equation."
. . .
"On his second full day in office, President Barack Obama instructed officials not to rely on any opinions on interrogation issued by the Justice Department since 2001," noted the Herald Tribune.
See, I can find some hack to write an opinion letter stating that it's okay for me to drive 100 mph the wrong way up K Street while drinking a fifth of Cutty Sark and randomly shooting my Brromhandle Mauser out the driver's side window, but if I try to use that opinion letter as a defense at my subsequent trial, I probably won't prevail, since my reliance on the letter was unreasonable. Similarly, those people who relied on Yoo are likely going to lose the defense since their reliance on Yoo's opinion was unreasonable.
A quote from the article: "It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said."
Still hold onto this opinion, Joe?:
Sigh. As I stated earlier, fears that "legal advice" lets anyone in that administration off the hook are unfounded.
I love this little gem:
As I pointed out earlier, but you seem to be ignoring, getting "your own attorney to say it's okay" won't even lead to a defense of mistake of law. It's absurd to think that this is a problem with the torture statute, because, if your "method" worked, any administration could flaunt any law simply by having "your own attorney say it's okay". That's not a problem or a loophole in the torture statute. That's a problem with your flawed understanding of the mistake of law defense.
A quote from the article: "It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said."
Still hold onto this opinion, Joe?: Sigh. As I stated earlier, fears that "legal advice" lets anyone in that administration off the hook are unfounded.
I'll accept your apology now.So basically, we're letting them off the hook because they were just following orders. Ok, that's fine.
I also happen to see a lot of news lately about some guard from a concentration camp. I think they need to let him go, because he was just following orders.
Also, if you agree the orders were criminal, and the people following them get off the hook, then you're pretty much obligated to prosecute those who gave the orders.
So basically, we're letting them off the hook because they were just following orders.
Not exactly. The idea is that the offenders shouldn't be prosecuted because they relied on legal advice. The main problem I have with this at this point is that such reliance must be reasonable. It's disappointing that the administration seems to be passing up the opportunity to prosecute when it would be easy to show that the offender's reliance on legal opinions saying it was okay to torture was not reasonable. I hope that the decision not to prosecute will be re-visited if and when the legal opinions were analyzed further.
Hypocrisy times a billion?
Hopefully not. It's easy to see how a prosecutor would want to be absolutely certain that a high profile prosecution such as this would be a slam-dunk. Further developments ensuring a good result at trial might very well change Holder's mind.
The idea is that the offenders shouldn't be prosecuted because they relied on legal advice. The main problem I have with this at this point is that such reliance must be reasonable. It's disappointing that the administration seems to be passing up the opportunity to prosecute when it would be easy to show that the offender's reliance on legal opinions saying it was okay to torture wasnotreasonable.
The Attorney General's advice is, generally speaking, seen to be reliable legal advice. Speedy Gonzalez may have been an idiot, but if his professional opinion (and he was the head of the DoJ, so it was his responsibility) was that torture was OK, it is a reasonable assumption that his opinion can be legally relied upon.
Not that I'm condoning the torture, but if they were following orders, they were following orders.
The idea is that the offenders shouldn't be prosecuted because they relied on legal advice. The main problem I have with this at this point is that such reliance must be reasonable. It's disappointing that the administration seems to be passing up the opportunity to prosecute when it would be easy to show that the offender's reliance on legal opinions saying it was okay to torture wasnotreasonable.
The Attorney General's advice is, generally speaking, seen to be reliable legal advice. Speedy Gonzalez may have been an idiot, but if his professional opinion (and he was the head of the DoJ, so it washisresponsibility) was that torture was OK, it is a reasonable assumption that his opinion can be legally relied upon.
Just because an opinion is authored by the AG does not mean that it is infallible, nor does it mean that reliance upon such an opinion is automatically reasonable. Do you have any authority to support your position that reliance on an AG opinion is per se reasonable? Which AG opinion are you talking about? Can you cite to it?
The legal opinions that the offenders are hiding behind were not promulgated by the AG, but by John Yoo and Jay Bybee. We discussed Yoo earlier in this thread. Reliance upon Yoo's opinions should be deemed unreasonable because they were obviously written with the intent of justifying torture, as opposed to being objective opinions on what could and could not be done.
You can debate the "reliance" issue all you want. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what we think.
The simple truth is that the "reliance" issue worked. It may not have worked for you personally, but it worked with the people who mattered. This was easy to predict.
Continued debate is pointless. The decision has been made. It's over. I suppose there is a very small chance that things may change, but I wouldn't lose too much sleep waiting for that to happen.
Continued debate is pointless. The decision has been made. It's over.
While that is true, it will never smother my righteous indignation at the fact that I am party to a government which has condoned and engaged in torture. If I am ever in a position to alter this outcome, I will be morally obligated to pursue it.
While that is true, it will never smother my righteous indignation at the fact that I am party to a government which has condoned and engaged in torture. If I am ever in a position to alter this outcome, I will be morally obligated to pursue it.
We should find out when one of the torturers is giving a speech somewhere, and then hold them under citizens arrest and deliver them to the world court.
Comments
LOL. Eric Holder has the right answers.
Don't just focus on the law itself. The law is part of a larger system. Watch how many people are prosecuted, and tell me whether or not the system worked. We can argue this until the cows come home, so let's just wait a few months, and see if the system was effective.
One has to wonder, if the law is so good, as you contend, why is Obama suggesting that there won't be any prosecutions? Does that make Obama an accessory after the fact?
BTW, looks like others agree with my idea to create a nonpartisan commission.
This is an example of why partisan politics often does not equate to justice.
Say, I'm going to a reception later today for the congressional delegation from NH. I'm going to print out this thread to show people how conservatives have the sad, delusional ability to try to twist every topic into a criticism of Obama. We'll all be laughing. Good times.
You fail to understand that this is how a moderate thinks. It is blind of party affiliation. If Bush tortures... bad. If Obama can prosecute and declines to do so for political reasons... bad.
Your last response offered very little to the practical side of this debate. So please answer the question. If Obama declines to prosecute, has the system failed?
The facts are:
1) Torture happened.
2) We know who did it and/or approved it.
3) There is a law in place to hold those people accountable.
4) The incoming president, through the DOJ, can prosecute those individuals.
Do you disagree with these facts?
If you don't, and Obama fails to prosecute, would you say that the system failed? I submit that, at a minimum, it failed those individuals who were tortured. Would you disagree with that?
That's it... just answer the question. Don't make it about politics and don't get sidetracked by our own grievances.
Unfortunately, it appears that torture is not a strict liability crime. That's too bad. It makes my previous arguments all the more relevant.
At the end of the day, this is about stopping torture and holding those who do it accountable. I don't care what party you are from. If I'm such a neo-conservative, why am I expressing so much frustration that Bush and his subordinates will not be prosecuted????? You're losing sight of the forest through the trees. Put your anger aside for a second - I'm actually on your side.
This question was posted 21 hours ago. You're most recent post was 10 hours ago in another thread. Why are you still unwilling to answer the questions I set forth above?
Here were the two questions: One other note... Obama has indicated that he will not seek to prosecute known torturers. In light of this, I will criticize him. I don't excuse such things based solely on party affiliation. I'm very proud of that. As you can see, I've criticized both parties in this thread. So I've put my money where my mouth is.
Let's see if you are willing to place human rights above party protection.
Joe... It's not "sad" to criticize someone who has indicated that he will not prosecute torturers. Would you say the same thing to the tortured person? Would you say the same thing to their family? If not, why would you treat me differently? Standards shouldn't change when you're talking about human rights.
Pelosi has suggested that we should prosecute people. Which one is wrong?
The fact that you now appear to be tracking the time I spend here strengthens my suspicion that you are a psychotic cyberstalker. It's extremely weird and, quite frankly, it makes makes me more than a little concerned.
I don't have any idea what I've done to make you so obsessed with me, but the only thing I can imagine to do at this point is to stop feeding you and hope that you go away in one of your periodic little sanctimonious snits.
Can you please set aside the personal attacks, and just answer the questions?
Nice attempt at dodging the issues. If you can't answer those simple couple of questions, your argument is total fail.
I've been attacked by you when:
1) I pointed out xenophobia
2) asked questions; and
3) pointed out your dodging those questions.
The questions were to understand why you seem to be content letting politics supersede justice for victims of torture. If calling you out on this makes me crazy, consider me proud to be crazy. Very proud.
Your debating skills are non-existent. Every time I've made a valid point, you've engaged in personal attacks after falsely accusing me of the same. At best it's hypocritical.
Yeah... I noticed that you dodged my question. That makes me a cyber-stalker? Why don't you make another claim that HMTKSteve suffers from mental illness for good measure? That seems to be your style.
Here is what I propose: just grow up and defend your position on the issues. Why does the oldest person on this board engage in the most juvenile tactics? Come on, Joe. Either debate or just go away.
I'm the one taking a harder stand against torture, and you see fit to personally attack me for it. That says much more about you than me. But that's why I'm trying to figure out just what your position is. However, your refusal to keep the discussion to the issues prevents that.
Unlike you, I'm not dodging issues and only focusing on personal attacks. (Ironically, there can be no dispute that you've engaged in more severe personal attacks than I.) I don't care. I guess my skin is thicker. The only reason I am forced to bring it up is to illustrate how you've forgotten the substantive issue. Consider this yet another request to steer this ship back into topical relevancy.
Even if I have attacked you, the best revenge is to beat me on the issues. Yet you purposely dodge the issues. On has to wonder why?
Claiming horror at personal attack in this thread when you choose to hang out here is like suing a zoo for being mauled by a tiger after jumping the fence. If we assume that it's happened, and you don't like it, take some responsibility and stay away from it.
So answer the questions. If you refuse answer valid questions raised in rebuttal to your argument, then go away.
Personally, I don't think Obama condones torture. I would like him to make the less politically expedient move and do what's right.
GWB might very well get a pass on this, but until that actually happens, criticism of Obama is premature.
Finally, it's really going to be Eric Holder's decision, and he hasn't made any predictions, so it's probabky wisest to wait and see what actually happens.
When it comes to debating what should be done it makes no sense to wait and see what happens. This isn't "criticism". I agree that criticism is appropriate after the fact. The discussion here is what Obama has a moral duty to do. That is a prospective issue.
An analogy:
Scientist: "Mayor, there is a 50% chance of a flood destroying our city this spring."
Mayor: "Well, until we know if the flood happens, there's no point in discussing whether we should warn the public."
Joe, did you forget your second post in this thread?: Why are you now asking us to cease discussion on your question? Or are you saying that there is some bizarre rule to the discussion that we shouldn't bring Obama into it?
And for the fourth time, can you answer my questions? I'm honestly not trying to be a pain. Just tell me if you won't and I'll stop asking. I'll draw conclusions, but I promise I won't beat a dead horse.
This is the most important question... At a minimum, why don't you answer your own question quoted above?
My prediction:
News reports indicate that Obama's staff is asking him to prosecute. Obama is the reluctant one.
I suspect that some low level people will be prosecuted. Those with political hypnosis will claim justice despite the fact that the people who should most be prosecuted will go unpunished.
And we go into day 3 of Joe avoiding my questions. Tick... tick... tick...
Despite his clear declaration during his confirmation hearing that "waterboarding" is torture, new Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has seemed reluctant to order criminal probes into alleged rough treatment of detainees during the Bush presidency. His rationale: CIA interrogators who used the simulated drowning technique believed the Justice Department had given them the green light.
I hate to say I told you so, Joe, but... err... well... I told you so.
I don't know how you failed to see this Mack truck barreling toward you.
Remember when you said this: Want to rethink things? You even included a "sigh" for dramatic effect! Now who should be the one sighing?
I'm also a little concerned that people will be more likely to decide torture is appropriate if they consider these hypotheticals in which torture is the only answer to accurately depict reality. If a real torture advocate were allowed to question criminal defendants, how likely would he be to decide that torture is the only answer when the defendant is uncooperative? "Well, I've talked to this guy for ten minutes now and he hasn't spilled the beans. Torture is obviously the only way to make him talk, so I guess it's time to start torturing him."
I've seen many, many uncooperative defendants. However, police investigators get the information they need in spite of the lack of cooperation without resorting to torture. Actually, the mere possibility of incarceration is scary enough to make most defendants talk up a storm. Most defendants aren't as cool or smart under interrogation as you see on TV.
On a different note, it's interesting that some still cling to the mantra that the legal opinions of John Yoo justified torture. The defense of mistake of law requires reliance on a valid legal opinion. Source.
See, I can find some hack to write an opinion letter stating that it's okay for me to drive 100 mph the wrong way up K Street while drinking a fifth of Cutty Sark and randomly shooting my Brromhandle Mauser out the driver's side window, but if I try to use that opinion letter as a defense at my subsequent trial, I probably won't prevail, since my reliance on the letter was unreasonable. Similarly, those people who relied on Yoo are likely going to lose the defense since their reliance on Yoo's opinion was unreasonable.
A quote from the article:
"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said."
Still hold onto this opinion, Joe?: I love this little gem: I'll accept your apology now.
I also happen to see a lot of news lately about some guard from a concentration camp. I think they need to let him go, because he was just following orders.
Also, if you agree the orders were criminal, and the people following them get off the hook, then you're pretty much obligated to prosecute those who gave the orders.
Hypocrisy times a billion?
Not that I'm condoning the torture, but if they were following orders, they were following orders.
The legal opinions that the offenders are hiding behind were not promulgated by the AG, but by John Yoo and Jay Bybee. We discussed Yoo earlier in this thread. Reliance upon Yoo's opinions should be deemed unreasonable because they were obviously written with the intent of justifying torture, as opposed to being objective opinions on what could and could not be done.
The simple truth is that the "reliance" issue worked. It may not have worked for you personally, but it worked with the people who mattered. This was easy to predict.
Continued debate is pointless. The decision has been made. It's over. I suppose there is a very small chance that things may change, but I wouldn't lose too much sleep waiting for that to happen.